(25 Minute Read)
In The Beginning:
Did a man that observed adaptation on the Galápagos islands discover the origin of life? Darwin's theory of evolution is now considered a fact to most of the public, which they blindly believe. Even I fell for this theory years ago listening to Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist. I started to lose faith, because if complex life can develop entirely on it's own then that takes God out of the occasion to a certain extent. You start to wonder, if there's a natural way life got here then maybe we aren't special.
Upon becoming fascinated with Darwin's theory, I started to blindly believe that these popularized scientist/biologist had all of the answers. Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, and others made me believe that there possibly wasn't a God. Then, I actually researched life and discovered it is amazingly complex. Let's discuss why I believe, why I'm sure.. Darwin's theory of evolution is false.
What is Darwinian Evolution?
Darwin's theory of Evolution states that different species of life formed from genetic mutations that were guided by natural selection based on the animals environment. He came to this conclusion from observing adaptation, which caused the appearance of finches to change based on their environment over generations. To be clear, humans did not come from monkeys according to the theory of evolution. Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor, when this ancestor split into different groups and environments evolution took its place.
The Complexity of the Cell
Please watch the two short videos below so you get a better understanding of how extremely complex the cell, and the parts that make it up are.
The next video shows the probability of a single protein forming by chance.
In the 19th century, scientist envisioned the cell to be a simple blob of protoplasm. This left Darwin with a huge head start to the origin of life and species problem as the cell to him was nothing too complex.
Not too complex? He was wrong. The Bacterial Flagella is a appendage that protrudes from the body of a cell. It's primary functions are locomotion and sensory. It is essentially a rotary motor for the cell that allows it to move in a liquid like substance. The Bacterial Flagella has many parts, made up of over 40 proteins. If any of these proteins are removed, or if they are assembled in the wrong order the flagella will not work to its full potential (meaning it will not function as a flagella). Some say that this is an example of irreducible complexity, and that it couldn't have proven to be a beneficial mutation slowly working it's way up in the correct order. Others say that at each stage of it's evolution it had a purpose and served to be beneficial to the cell as some type of security guard for the membrane. The truth is that no conclusive answer has been found regarding this topic, as there is much debate over the evolution of the flagella. However, the evidence seems to suggest that the flagella came before what some have previously thought to be it's transitional form (type three secretion system). Due to its mutational density being more shallow it means that it is a newer structure. The evidence seems to suggest that Darwin is evolving backwards as the flagella motor was reused instead of evolving before. The flagella motor can reach speeds of up to 50,000-100,000 RPM, and operates at near 100% efficiency of energy conversion from ion transit to motor torque. (source)
- "Based on patchy taxonomic distribution of the T3SS compared to that of the flagellum, widespread in bacterial phyla, previous phylogenetic analyses proposed that T3SS derived from a flagellar ancestor and spread through lateral gene transfers.” - Sophie S. Abby and Eduardo P.C. Rocha, “An Evolutionary Analysis of the Type III Secretion System” (2012).
- "One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. “The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later" - Biochemist Howard Ochman at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
"Finding a subsystem of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor of a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the [blender] motor evolved into the motorcycle. Perhaps, but not without intelligent design. Indeed, multipart, tightly integrated functional systems almost invariably contain multipart subsystems that serve some different function. At best the TTSS [Type III Secretory System] represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn’t constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What’s needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we’ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that." - William A. Dembski, Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses.
We included this just so you can form your own opinion, and understand how amazing chemistry and biology are at the micro level. How can someone look at a rotary motor and say it wasn't designed? Is random nature really smarter than us, or is there something else behind it? Can a rotary motor really come about from Darwinian evolution? If you have a free hour, you can dive into the history of what we just discussed below. The cell is extremely complex, and DNA has actual information, so join us as we dive deeper.
How a Cell Knows What to Become
Cells contain the complete DNA code to generate a living organism. When cells divide they give each other chemical indications of their positioning. From there, they "turn on" or "turn off" specific genes. This allows them to know what type of cell to become. For example, if the "eye tissue" gene is turned on they will form eye tissue in the correct place to form an eye. Furthermore, these "eye cells" will only be able to form other "eye cells". Cells are not all the same, and they become what DNA tells them to in the beginning stages of life. This "chemical communication" process that allows cells to communicate based on their positioning is still not fully understood, as it is very complex. There appears to be multiple cues or "rulers" such as diffusing molecules, motor proteins, bioelectric indicators, and more that help cells know what to become.
What is DNA/RNA made of?
Both DNA and RNA are made of nucleotides (molecules) which are fixed together via a weak hydrogen bond. Nucleotides are organic molecules that contain carbon which has the ability to catenate or in other terms bond atoms in a chain. DNA is basically an ordered chain of the nucleobases A, C, G, and T which stand for adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. The order of these bases come together to form detailed instructions on how to build protein, and other parts of a cell. This is why carbon based life is thought to be the only form of life that can exist, because DNA could not exist without it. Amino acids form proteins, proteins form cells, cells form tissue, tissue forms organs, and organs come together to form a body. So the foundation of life is based on chemicals right?
Dr. James Tour
Meet Dr. James Tour, he is one of the world’s top synthetic organic chemists. His rewards include:
"Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. He was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014. Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013. Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012. Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009. That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989. In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society. Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012." - Wiki
Impressed? Well, let's spend some time on him. To put his achievements into perspective he has made molecular nanomachines with the purpose of "drilling" into cancer cells to kill them. Read more by clicking..
So, what does one of the world's top organic chemist have to say on the issue of evolution? Well Dr. Tour is an organic chemist, and it just so happens that organic molecules (carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids) are needed to start life so he should know more details regarding the origin of life than almost anyone. When talking about the cell, Dr. Tour calls it a factory. He speaks of the lipid bilayer (a thin polar membrane made of two layers of lipid molecules) which is extraordinarily selective to let certain things in and out, and not other things. Furthermore, inside the cell microtubules (small tunnel-like structures made of tubulin protein) are formed to transport material. After, they are deconstructed and formed again in another place to avoid the shape of the cell changing or becoming ridged. He states clearly "...if you have been taught simple forms of life had been made, that is a lie." Regarding the topic of origins of life, he makes it clear that molecules don't care about life.
"Organisms care about life. Chemistry, on the contrary, is utterly indifferent to life. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." -2019 Dallas Science and Faith Conference at Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas, TX
You have to have an ordered system featuring uncommon assembly of molecules for life. He says "We know from computer science that we have to have non-regular patterns in order to have complexity for living systems." There has never been a natural example showing that molecules have moved towards life on their own according to Dr. Tour.
As you see above (a powerpoint slide from Dr. Tour) he makes fun of Darwin's evolution.. in a pretty true way. In a Inference Review article he describes how even if the world's best had everything needed to synthesise a cell, they couldn't:
(We have added definitions to simplify what he is saying, your welcome.)
On his website (jmtour.com) he further states:
"Therefore, I do not understand the mechanisms needed to change body plans or the mechanisms along the descent pathway between the australopithecine brain and modern human brains if we were indeed commonly descended as predicted by the theory of universal common descent. Nobody else understands the mechanisms either. Nobody. But I am saying it publicly, hence the arousal of some toward my open comments of skepticism. Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs over time, and the theory of universal common descent. But the mechanisms are unknown and the theory of universal common descent is confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene (orphan genes are genes that are present in only one species, or a group of closely related species) research. And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating."
This is very interesting, because it's true. Mutations do occur, yes. They account for evolution or adaptation in the way of small or micro(evolution) changes. Mutations have limits based on their types which can include point mutations, frame-shift mutations, non-sense mutations, missense mutations, etc. Please review the types that Wiki shows:
When DNA is copied mistakes are sometimes made – these are called mutations. There are four main types of mutations:
- Deletion, where one or more DNA bases are left out.
- Insertion, where one or more extra base is put in.
- Substitution, where one or more bases are changed for another base in the sequence.
- Duplication, where whole genes are copied.
- Deletion: a piece of chromosome is lost, together with any genes which may be on it.
- Duplication: part of a chromosome is repeated
- Inversion: part of a chromosome is reversed end to end
- Insertion: a smaller chromosome is added into a longer chromosome
- Translocation: part of a chromosome gets moved onto another chromosome.
Do you see a type that can add new genetic information? No, because mutations can't. By "new" we mean the body plans for complex wings or arms when a fish was evolving. We understand it's supposed to happen slowly, but what advantage would a fish have with little shoulder bones sticking out for millions of years until it could form the elbow, then finally a hand? Mutations have to work with what the genetic information gives them. Yes, bases can get mixed up, DNA can get copied and put in a wrong section, etc. This does not mean that new genetic information is being added to eventually form a new species. Chromosome mutations usually have very small "body-plan" benefits such as a change in eye color, or resistance to malaria. While the disadvantages can be linked to disorders like down syndrome. Take the average dog for example (yes dogs and wolves are the same kind as they can interbreed) , humans have been breeding this species for a long time (some estimates are at 15,000 years) and we still have dogs (which should honestly look more like wolves). If anything has been shown, it is that the dogs have lost genetic information instead of gaining any. Take the pug for example, our cross breeding led to numerous ailments in the dog, including high blood pressure, heart problems, low oxygenation, difficulty breathing, overheating, dentition problems and skin fold dermatitis. And its curled tail is actually a genetic defect that can likely cause paralysis. This is just one type of dog, we have messed up many others. Genetic mutations have never, and I mean never have been shown to produce a new species or "kind" as the bible puts it. The amount of difficulties (or impossibilities) evolution would have to surpass would be insane. Complex cells would have to evolve into complex tissue, and organs, and creatures. These creatures would need to generate body plans so they can sexually reproduce biologically (which sexual (two gender) reproduction is incredibly complex on it's own - asexual (one gender) reproduction is much more simple why not just stay with that?), digest food, grow limbs, a brain that pairs with the entire body, lungs that take in oxygen, generate veins to support blood flow, a heart that is reliable to pump, liver, etc. We are more complex than you can imagine, I have a very hard time believing that evolution can explain the issue of "new information" forming multiple times for different species to evolve. Think of it this way.. with a computer program if you go into the code and replace a string of code in a random spot the mathematical probability of you messing up the program is much more probable than you making it better. So, how could genetic mutations do so to produce complex organs? They can't.
In 1997, in an interview Richard Dawkins was asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome". He then paused in silence for about 11 seconds before asking the filmmakers to turn off the camera. He later stated that he did so not because he didn't know the answer but because he was mad at the fact that he was tricked into doing an interview with a creationist. In a article he typed he wrote:
"The answer in practice is complicated and controversial, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. I don’t think anybody would deny that, by any method of measuring – whether bodily information content, total information capacity of genome, capacity of genome actually used, or true (“Stuffit compressed”) information content of genome – there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors. People might disagree, however, over two important questions: first, whether such a trend is to be found in all, or a majority of evolutionary lineages (for example parasite evolution often shows a trend towards decreasing bodily complexity, because parasites are better off being simple); second, whether, even in lineages where there is a clear overall trend over the very long term, it is bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals in the shorter term as to undermine the very idea of progress. This is not the place to resolve this interesting controversy. There are distinguished biologists with good arguments on both sides."
The argument he tries to make is flawed. He dodges the real question of how new genetic information that can form countless body plans can come about from mutations. In his paper he speaks heavily about duplications, which does not and cannot transform one species to another. He speaks of "total memory storage" saying there can be an increase of the total amount of information in a system. This also ignores the real question as insertion mutations can occur (total amount of information does increase), causing the production of a non-functional protein. Just because the genetic information in a system increases, does not imply that the information is useful or beneficial in any way. Even in an extremely rare case that a miracle happens and it is beneficial, the species will not change. For example in the famous scientific journal "Nature" here is a quote by Suzanne Clancy (Ph.D.)
"Although the haploid human genome consists of 3 billion nucleotides, changes in even a single base pair can result in dramatic physiological malfunctions. For example, sickle-cell anemia is a disease caused by the smallest of genetic changes. Here, the alteration of a single nucleotide in the gene for the beta chain of the hemoglobin protein (the oxygen-carrying protein that makes blood red) is all it takes to turn a normal hemoglobin gene into a sickle-cell hemoglobin gene. This single nucleotide change alters only one amino acid in the protein chain, but the results are devastating." Furthermore stating: "Molecules of sickle-cell hemoglobin stick to one another, forming rigid rods. These rods cause a person's red blood cells to take on a deformed, sickle-like shape, thus giving the disease its name. The rigid, misshapen blood cells do not carry oxygen well, and they also tend to clog capillaries, causing an affected person's blood supply to be cut off to various tissues, including the brain and the heart. Therefore, when an afflicted individual exerts himself or herself even slightly, he or she often experiences terrible pain, and he or she might even undergo heart attack or stroke—all because of a single nucleotide mutation."
Still think mutations can produce new body plans?
It is important to note that there are some programed "good" mutations such as apoptosis (the death of cells which occurs as a normal and controlled part of an organism's growth or development). These are not random though, the genetic information for this to happen exist. In fact, there are at least one million molecular lesions per cell per day that have to be corrected by nucleotide excision repair. This is the process in which enzymes remove incorrect bases with the aid of DNA polymerase (enzyme) and the DNA template. That is correct, during replication the original DNA strand serves as a template for enzymes to make sure the replication was successful. These mutations (if not corrected) can become highly dangerous. DNA repair is vital for living organisms to survive.
"DNA damage repair and protection does influence the rate of accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code expanding, inheritable mutations, and slows down the evolutionary mechanism for expansion of the genome of organisms with new functionalities. The tension between evolvability and mutation repair and protection needs further investigation." - Wiki
What the above statement is saying is that mutations are supposed to be evolutions best friend, but not many mutations can get past our body's natural repair mechanism. Thus, evolution needs more time as the process is very, very slow. When there is a mutation in the mutation repair system (xeroderma pigmentosum), is it not good.
"Xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) is a genetic disorder (autosomal recessive) in which there is a decreased ability to repair DNA damage such as that caused by ultraviolet (UV) light. Symptoms may include a severe sunburn after only a few minutes in the sun, freckling in sun exposed areas, dry skin, and changes in skin pigmentation" -Wiki
We would show you pictures, but it is not pretty at all. So, was this amazing repair process with all living life from the beginning or did it evolve after all living organisms got xeroderma pigmentosum or worse? This repair system is vital. Even the light that's hitting your skin right now is causing mutations that are being repaired as you read this.