Evolution's Five Fundamental Assumptions--Are They Scientific or Philosophical? Part Four (cont.)

Assumption Four, Part Two:  "Irreducible Complexity"  *

In assumption two, “Order Evolved from Disorder,” I pointed out that the entire universe is “fine-tuned” with incredible precision to support life on earth (the Anthropic Principle). This is demonstrated by the fact that there are several dozen fundamental constants—precise physical parameters—in place throughout the cosmos, including our solar system, that are essential to sustain life on earth. If any of these constants differed even minutely, life would be impossible. This remarkable phenomenon is powerful evidence for creation by intentional design (teleology).

Since the development of the electron microscope in the late 1930s, research into the structure of the cell has progressively revealed that the same incredible design observed throughout the universe is also found in the smallest particles of living matter. Even at a molecular level, single-celled organisms are comprised of numerous complex, precisely constructed, interacting parts, which biochemist Michael Behe calls molecular machines. These tiny protein “machines” are structures within a cell that have no evolutionary pathway and, therefore, could not have evolved through natural, random processes (chance). Behe refers to this evolutionary black box as “irreducible complexity.” 

In order to see why there is no evolutionary pathway for these molecular machines, it’s necessary to understand how natural selection works. According to the evolutionary paradigm, all the individual parts of a cell (or of an entire organism, for that matter) are a product of natural selection, which works by making tiny, random improvements in function. Natural selection itself has no power to create new structures from scratch; it only acts on existing designs already built into a system.  In the case of a cell, this means natural selection can’t begin to operate until at least a minimum number of molecular machines are already operational and thus have function. The challenge for evolutionists is demonstrate how these preexisting machines originated. They cannot be products of evolution because natural selection can’t kick in until after the integrated parts comprising a molecular machine are fully developed and operating as a unit. If any part is missing or had no function, there would be nothing on which natural selection could act. This is irreducibly complexity.

Behe illustrates this concept by comparing it to a mousetrap, which is comprised of five parts (base, spring, hammer, holding bar, and trigger). If any one of these parts is missing, or not fully formed and functioning, the mouse trap wouldn’t work. A part spring or part trigger would have no function, so it couldn’t “evolve" to become a more improved part spring or part trigger. Only a fully formed mousetrap would have function.

Behe and other researchers provide a variety of examples of irreducible complexity. They point out, for example, that some bacteria cells have a microscopic protrusion (a molecular machine) called a flagellum, which allows the cell to move about—something like an outboard motor. This protein machine is composed of numerous interacting parts, which must all be in place and fully functioning before the flagellum can operate. The bacteria flagellum is irreducibly complex. The individual parts could not have evolved bit-by-bit because each stage would have no function on which natural selection could operate. In other words, if any one of the individual parts comprising the flagellum was not fully formed and working at the very beginning, there could be no flagellum. Thus, like a mousetrap, only after the flagellum is fully operational would it have function and natural selection could begin—but of course (like the mouse trap) the flagellum is already complete and there is nothing to evolve. I never heard anyone claim bacteria flagellum evolved into something else.

The inability of natural selection to create molecular machines because of a lack of function in precursor parts may be easier to understand if considered on a larger scale. Think of a reptile leg evolving into a bird wing.  A part leg/part wing at any stage of development would not benefit either a reptile or an evolving bird. It would have no survival value (or function) to permit natural selection. Try to imagine a lizard successfully chasing insects with legs slowly developing feathers and feet designed for perching rather than running. It would hinder the lizard, not help it catch prey. Furthermore, the leg-to-wing scenario is only one of countless other features that would have to evolve simultaneously during the whole evolutionary process of a reptile changing into a bird. Along with wings and feathers and perching feet, an evolving bird would also have to slowly, over eons of time, develop hollow bones, a unique and entirely different respiratory system, and change from being cold-blooded (like reptiles) to warm-blooded. None of these intermediate stages would have any function in terms of survival value. Again: no function, no survival value, no evolution. (By the way, there is no fossil evidence of intermediate stages between reptiles and birds—as you’ll see in a future blog article.)

A typical cell contains many thousands of different kinds of proteins, and the human body has around a100 trillion cells—all of them working in harmony to maintain our bodies. Since evolution cannot account for irreducibly complex protein machines like the flagellum—let alone a lizard leg evolving into a bird wing—the only other option for their origins is a designer who created them. Irreducible complexity provides additional compelling evidence, especially at a cellular level, that naturalistic evolution is a philosophical assumption—not demonstrable science.  This will become even more obvious in my next blog article, which will explore a relatively new evidence for creation by design called “Information theory”—which demonstrates the inability of material properties to create information.  

 *  This and the other blog articles in this series are copyrighted material and may not be reproduced electronically or in print. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, blog, or Facebook. I explore irreducible complexity (and other Intelligent Design evidences) more fully in my book The Christian Combat Manual (AMG Publishers), and my sources are documented there.

Evolution's Five Fundamental Assumptions--Are They Scientific or Philosophical? Part Four

Assumption Four, Part one:  Complex Life Evolved from an Ancestral Single-Celled Organism*

During the last few decades, research in microbiology, biochemistry, and related fields has provided an incredible amount of new insight into the function of the cell. Scientists engaged in intelligent design (ID) studies have demonstrated that this new data is powerful evidence for creation by design—and largely inexplicable in a materialistic evolutionary model.  In this and the next two blog articles, I’ll summarize the three ID evidences that I believe are the most significant: (1) the inability random mutations to fuel naturalistic evolution, (2) the “irreducible complexity” of a cell, and (3) information science—the inability of material properties to create information.

Mutations and Natural Section

The total absence of concrete evidence demonstrating how a single-celled organism could have emerged from non-living matter, that is, chemical evolution (assumption three), is only part of the problem facing the evolutionary model of origins. In order to launch biological evolution, these tiny life forms would then have to evolve into increasingly complex, multi-celled organisms, eventually resulting in all the multiple millions of plants and animals that inhabit the earth.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that by some extraordinary means a single-celled organism did accidentally self-assembled and emerged from non-living chemicals and was able to replicate itself. The question is would naturalistic evolution, via natural selection, seamlessly follow? Could mindless, accidental, random process ultimately account for all subsequent life on earth? Can evolution demonstrate scientifically that this occurred—or is it yet another philosophical statement about evolution? There are several scientific reasons why this scenario would have been impossible.

Harmful Mutations

The driving force behind naturalistic evolution (in theory) is natural selection working through beneficial genetic mutations. Evolutionists assert that this is the mechanism by which one species evolves into an entirely different species, as well as into entirely different kinds of animals (e.g. amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals, etc.). Simplified, the idea goes something like this.

DNA molecules carry hereditary information. When a random mutation in the DNA occurs, the new genetic material gives a particular creature survival advantages over others of the same species. This gives it a better chance to propagate and pass this new trait on to its offspring, providing them the same survival advantages. Eventually, after millions of years, thousands of other beneficial mutations, and countless generations, an entirely new, genetically distinct species of animal emerges. Thus, evolution teaches that accidental mutations plus long time spans plus natural selection (“survival of the fittest”) results in the continual emergence of new species of plants and animals—and the extinction of their predecessors.

What’s wrong with the naturalistic scenario? Many things, but two in particular. First, in practically every know case, mutations are not beneficial to an organism but harmful, usually killing it. A deformity lessens the survival potential of an animal—it does not strengthen it. And even if there are “good” mutations, the tremendous number of bad mutations would overwhelm the fewer number of good mutations. What one would expect to see, if mutations were passed along to future generations, is a tendency for a species to degenerate and eventually become extinct, not evolve upward to new or better species.

 For example, for many decades scientists have artificially manipulated the genes of fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) in order to produce a new species of fly. It never happened. All that resulted were birth defects: grossly deformed fruit flies with extra wings (which prevented flying), missing organs, sterility, and so on. What researchers didn’t get was a genetically new species of fly. After hundreds of generations, fruit flies were still just (weird) fruit flies. There has never been an observable or laboratory case of mutations creating a new species.

Not enough time

The second flaw in the mutation theory is that the time needed for a primitive animal to evolve into a higher animal through random mutational changes doesn’t exist. Before big bang cosmology demonstrated that the universe is finite, evolutionists could argue that an infinite universe provided all the time needed for random process to produce new kinds of animals from ancestral species. This argument is no longer tenable. Modern “super computers” have been able to simulate the trial-and-error process of natural selection through random processes. The outcome showed that the probability of evolution by chance is essentially zero—regardless of the time scale.  Astrophysicist Hugh Ross provides the necessary figures to illustrate this:

The problems of primordial soups are big, but bigger yet is the infeasibility of generating, without supernatural input, an enormous increase in complexity . . . . Years ago, molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated . . .that if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^{100,000,000,000}. Most of us cannot even begin to picture a speck of chance so remote. With odds as remote as 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000} the time scale issue becomes completely irrelevant. What does it matter if the Earth has been around for ten seconds, ten thousand years, or ten billion years? The size of the universe is of no consequence either. If all the matter in the visible universe were converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe, then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000} they would be 1 in 10^{99,999,999,916} . 

 (The Creator and the Cosmos, 139-140).  

The problem lies in the fact that a new trait doesn’t evolve in one generation. There must be a series of both related mutations and subsequent mutations that evolve simultaneously and are complementary to one another. For a mammal to evolve greater speed requires not only that it slowly, over countless generations, develop more powerful legs, but also that corresponding mutations in other areas of its body must also be taking place. To run faster, a more efficient heart, lungs, circulation system, and so on are needed.  And these changes are minuscule in terms of what it would take for, say, a land mammal to evolve into a whale (as evolutionists claim).

.

Biologist Gary Parker explains that the chance of getting just three related mutations in a row is one in a billion trillion (10²¹). To illustrate the odds of this, he states that “the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.” And if one tried to find four related mutations, now the “earth itself isn’t big enough to hold enough organism to make that very likely. . . . [and] four mutations doesn’t even make a start toward real evolution.” This is why, he concludes, “some evolutions have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.” (What Is Creation Science? 63). 

Not only have some evolutionists given up on the classic idea of evolution, increasing numbers have come to be "more sympathetic to design." A great article on this is in the newest edition of the Christian Research Journal, "Are There Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design?" by Casey Luskin. The article highlights several well-known "non-religious scientists and scholars who doubt modern Darwinian theory" (Vol. 36/ no. 02). This is a great resource.

Dan Story

www.danstory.net

*   This and the other blog articles in this series are copyrighted material and may not be reproduced electronically or in print. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, blog, or Facebook. I have also developed these arguments more fully in my book The Christian Combat Manual  (AMG Publishers), and my sources are documented there.