This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
II Peter 3:3-53 Knowing this first, that there shall come in
the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
What Does “Evolution” Mean?What Does “Evolution” Mean? “Evolution” has at least three (3) distinct meanings: The fact of evolution - Organisms were different in the past than they are
today– Fossil record
– Biblical record - God’s curse on Adam Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat the herb of
the field:
The theory of evolution - Natural selection– At least partially supported by population genetics accounting for changes in
allelic frequencies within populations
The doctrine of evolution - All that we see can be accounted for by natural random events and thus a Designer is not necessary.
Arguments for a DesignerArguments for a Designer Organisms look designed for at least three (3) reasons: Redundancy - A Designer can engineer redundancy into a system, but
chance is unlikely to do this. An example of this is the presence of degeneracy in the genetic code and other features that minimize or negate the effects of many point mutations.
Excess potential - Organisms have potential that may never be used. For example, Wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, pointed out that primitive people have the capacity to do calculus when trained. Natural selection is unlikely to select for capacity that is not used.
Complexity - Life is so complex that it is improbable it came about by chance.
The Likely and the UnlikelyThe Likely and the Unlikely In general arguments for a designer are arguments against the alternative. This
does not mean these are just arguments against evolutionary theory. All arguments, by definition, are characterized by taking one side while arguing against another side.
Arguments against a theory are about eliminating possible explanations. There is nothing inferior about this, in fact, it is deductive reasoning which is used by scientists all the time in their quest for truth.
Arguments for a Designer generally revolve around probability. Meaningful complexity is unlikely to result from random events. Organisms are meaningfully complex. Some claim that natural selection overcomes much of this problem as, while change may be random, selection is not.
Science is about predicting what is likely and what is unlikely. Everyone is in agreement that the events leading to production of living organisms are unlikely.
What This Talk What This Talk Is Actually AboutIs Actually About
In this talk we will look at the mechanisms proposed for the origin of living systems in the absence of a designer.
We will then look at one of the many biochemical systems that must be in place in all organisms.
Finally we will compare the information we have on organisms at the molecular level, and see whether it is best explained as the result of natural selection or design.
In a Long Time In a Long Time and Big Universeand Big Universe
It has been argued that given massive lengths of time and a universe to work in, the unlikely becomes likely:
Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible. The large numbers proverbially furnished by astronomy, and the large time spans characteristic of geology, combine to turn topsy-turvy our everyday estimates of what is expected and what is miraculous.Richard Dawkins (1989) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the
evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. W. W. Norton and Co. New York. p139.
Little or Big Changes?Little or Big Changes? Not all changes improve fitness, they may:
– Improve the fitness of an organism (very unlikely)– Be neutral, having no effect on fitness– Be detrimental, decreasing an organisms fitness (most likely)
The bigger the change the more likely it is to be significantly detrimental Darwin argued that evolution is the accumulation of many small changes
that improve fitness, big changes are unlikely to result in improved fitness. “Many large groups of facts are intelligible only on the principle that
species have been evolved by very small steps.”– The Origin of Species Chapter VII under “Reasons for disbelieving in great and abrupt
Behe’s InsightBehe’s Insight Michael Behe contends that when we look at the protein
machines that run cells, there is a point at which no parts can be removed and still have a functioning machine. He called these machines “irreducibly complex.”
We encounter irreducibly complex devices in everyday life. A simple mouse trap is an example of an irreducibly complex device:
Irreducibly Complex Protein Irreducibly Complex Protein MachinesMachines
Cells are full of irreducibly complex devices - Little protein machines that will only work if all the parts (proteins) are present and arranged together correctly.
Natural selection does not provide a plausible mechanism to get from nothing to the collection of parts necessary to run a number of irreducibly complex protein machines needed to have a living cell
Evolution of these protein machines must occur in single steps, not gradually, as to be selected a protein must be functional in some way. Each protein machine is fairly complex, thus evolution in a single step seems unlikely.
The monomers that make up polymers in living cells are reduced carbon compounds
Can’t happen in modern world due to oxidizing atmosphere 1920s A. I. Oparin (Russia) and J. B. S. Haldane (Great
Britain) postulated that as spontaneous synthesis of reduced organic molecules is impossible in an oxidizing environment, the earth must have had a reducing atmosphere
1953 Miller and Urey designed a device to test the hypothesis that given the right conditions, organic monomers could be produced
JBS HaldaneJBS Haldane While Haldane was one of the founders of population genetics,
it is worth mentioning that he was a screwball of the first order:– Just before the 1925 signing of the Geneva protocol banning
chemical weapons, Haldane came out as an advocate of chemical warfare
– He was a racist who believed blacks were immune to chemical weapons and thus should be used as the frontline troops in wars (with white officers to lead them of course)
– As England had access to black troops from the colonies, this would give them an advantage over Germany in future chemical wars
Products of Products of Miller and Urey’s DeviceMiller and Urey’s Device
After several days of operation, the Miller-Urey device produced a brown organic substance in which, either in this experiment or subsequent variations, was found many of the basic building blocks of:– Proteins (amino acids)– Nucleic acids (ribose, purines and pyrimidines)– Polysaccharides (sugars)– Fats (fatty acids and glycerol)
Note that it was the building blocks that were found, not the actual macromolecules
Along with these building blocks, there were many other molecules not found in organisms
It has been postulated that the monomer building blocks produced under conditions resembling those in the Miller-Urey experiment were joined together to make polymers
Experiments have been done that demonstrate this is possible in the absence of living cells or cell products like enzymes
The sequence in which monomers are joined together to make polymers is vital to the function of polymers like DNA and proteins.
No mechanism has been proposed for joining monomers in meaningful sequences, thus abiotically synthesized organic polymers are assumed to have been random in sequence.
Is this a Fair Estimate of Is this a Fair Estimate of Probability?Probability?
No! There are a number of ways in which this phrase can have the
same meaning:– God, in the beginning– In the beginning was the Word– Before everything God
The same is true for proteins, in some areas of most proteins, there can be a small amount of variability, in other areas, there can be no change in the sequence of amino acid monomers
Why Random Production of Why Random Production of Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate Dehydrogenase is ImprobableDehydrogenase is Improbable
There are 337 amino acids strung together to make the Mycoplasma genitalium G-3-P dehydrogenase protein
At each position in the string there could be any one of 20 amino acids
Probability of making this protein using random synthesis is (1/20)337 = 3.5 x 10-439 or 1 chance in 2.9 x 10-438
Even if there are a trillion trillion ways of making G-3-P dehydrogenase, that only lowers the probability of making a functional protein to 3.5 x 10-415
Where G-3-P Dehdrogenase Where G-3-P Dehdrogenase Fits Into the Scheme of LifeFits Into the Scheme of Life
All cells contain a biochemical pathway that converts sugar to energy
The first part of this pathway is called the glycolytic (sugar splitting) pathway
Sugar is taken in at the start of the pathway and the products are energy in the form of ATP, a chemical called pyruvate and another chemical called NADH.
Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehdrogenase is one of the enzymes in the glycolytic pathway.
What Actually Happens At What Actually Happens At Step 6Step 6
By the time step 6 is reached, the 6 carbon sugar molecule has been split into two three carbon molecules called glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate
In step 6 of glycolysis, glyceraldehyde-3-phospate is converted to 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate and oxidized nicotinomide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NAD+) is reduced
What Does This Mean?What Does This Mean? The glycolytic pathway is central to life The components needed for step 6 are unlikely to have all come about via
chemical evolution (random processes) particularly glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase
Natural selection could not work on the enzyme glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase in the absence of the other enzymes in the glycolytic pathway as this reaction is pointless without the subsequent reactions
Chemical evolution combined with natural selection does not provide a convincing mechanism for the production of components needed for step 6 in the glycolytic pathway
The same could be said for the other 9 steps in the glycolytic pathway
Yes, It Is Unlikely . . . ButYes, It Is Unlikely . . . But The argument is not that the origin of life was an unlikely event, but
that given sufficient time and resources chance events could produce the first organism that could then be acted on by the guiding hand of natural selection
So what are the resources available for the production of the first/simplest organism? Is it really the universe?
“The Monera (for instance, chromacea and bacteria), which consist only of this primitive protoplasm, and which arise by spontaneous generation from these inorganic nitrocarbonates, may thus have entered upon the same course of evolution on many other planets . . .” – The Riddle of the Universe at the close of the Nineteenth Century by Haeckel.
When Was The Earth Sterile?When Was The Earth Sterile?Recent explorations of the oldest known rocks of marine sedimentary
origin from the southwestern coast of Greenland suggest that they preserve a biogeochemical record of early life. On the basis of the age of these rocks, the emergence of the biosphere appears to overlap with a period of intense global bombardment. This finding could also be consistent with evidence from molecular biology that places the ancestry of primitive bacteria living in extreme thermal environments near the last common ancestor of all known life.
Stephen J. Mojzsis, T. Mark Harrison. Vestiges of a Beginning: Clues to the Emergent Biosphere Recorded in the Oldest Known Sedimentary Rocks. GSA Today, April 2000, 10(4), 1-??
Newer IdeasNewer Ideas Mars may have served as life’s incubator as it cooled before earth
and had a moist environment. Life, in the form of bacteria or bluegreen algae, was transferred to
earth when chunks of Mars knocked off by collisions with comets etc. fell to earth.
This general idea is not new. Francis Crick called it “panspermia” in Life Itself where he says the earth was seeded with life from space (Hoyle may also have published something similar)
None of this makes explanations simpler, just more complex (should Ockham’s Razor be invoked?)
But There’s MoreBut There’s MoreA Lot MoreA Lot More The organism Mycoplasma genitalium from which the G-3-P dehydrogenase we
looked at came from is the simplest known “free living” organism (although it is a parasite)
M. genitalium has a genome of 580,070 bp (humans have about 3,000,000,000) The calculated number of proteins (genes) in this the simplest known organism, is 470 The average size of M. genitalium proteins is about 350 amino acids (in the ball park
of G-3-P dehydrogenase) Even if enough time and space existed to generate a minimally functional G-3-P
dehydrogenase, this is just the tip of the ice burg M. genitalium has to be close to irreducibly complex.
Conditions under which a less complex organism could exist are just about as improbable as generating the organism in the first place and present a host of other problems
ConclusionsConclusions Life is far more complicated than was anticipated by the originators and
early defenders of natural selection as a mechanism for life’s origin independent of a Creator
Natural selection does not provide a convincing mechanism for the origin of biochemical pathways and other molecular machines basic to life
Claims that almost infinite amounts of time and space could account for the improbable origin of life seem less convincing in light of current exploration of space and understanding of the fossil record
Creationists can accept change over time and natural selection as a mechanism for small changes, but, in light of current knowledge faith in a Creator of life remains well founded
Psalms 8:3-63 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without L [the mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination."
Evolution . . . So 20Evolution . . . So 20thth Century Century"In the realm of science, scholars such as William
Dembski and Michael Behe have been demonstrating how the order in the universe is evidence that it has been intelligently designed. 'No!' say the Darwinists. 'Everything has to be random!' But the evolutionists are the ones who sound so outdated, so 20th century.”
Veith, Gene E. Reality makes a comeback. World Magazine Feb. 12, 2000 Volume 15 Number 6
RNA WorldRNA WorldThe 'RNA world' scenario hinges on some rather far-fetched
assumptions about the catalytic ability of RNA. For example, RNA polymerase ribozymes must have been responsible for replicating the ribozymes of the RNA world, including themselves (via their complementary sequences). RNA replication is a very challenging set of reactions -- far more challenging than those yet known to be catalyzed by RNA.
David P. Bartel and Peter J. Unrau, "Constructing an RNA World." Trends in Biochemical Sciences 24 (1999):M9-M13.