Evolution and "Irreducible Complexity"

Lesson 5

• What do you think of when you hear the word “evolution”?

Scientifically speaking, we can really discuss two different types of evolution:  micro-evolution, also known as adaptation of a species, and macro-evolution which would be large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution.

Adaptation, also called “natural selection”, is change in certain traits over time, within a group of organisms,  giving that group an advantage in a specific environment.  This is observable and testable. No one argues that this is consistently occurring in many species across the globe.  For example, a bird with a longer beak can reach insects deeper within the tree bark and is able to eat more.  The study of changes within a species of finches helped Darwin formulate his theory of evolution.  A desired trait is more likely to be passed on to the next generation than one that is not beneficial to the organism.  However, when “natural selection” selects a specific trait to pass on from a parent to its offspring, it is only selecting from traits that already exist.  There is no additional information added to the genetic code, or DNA.  In natural selection, there is always loss of information.  The genetic information becomes more specific and less generalized.  The selected trait is better for that exact environment.  If the environment changes, a less specific, more generally flexible organism may be better off and produce more offspring.  Adaptation is helpful in the short-term but not long term.  It is not better for the species to have less available information and fewer genetic options, but may help a specific population have an advantage in a specific environment.

 • Do you think natural selection is consistent with creation?

Macro-evolution is the belief that one kind of organism “evolves” into another kind of organism.  This has never been observed.  There is no indication in the fossil record showing any organisms that are partly one type and partly something else.  You can have large dogs, small dogs, curly-haired dogs, straight-haired dogs, but dogs are dogs.  They never turn into something else.

You may have heard that some “missing links” have been found.  So far, all of the Ape/Human examples have been proven to be hoaxes or fully human or fully ape.  The poster child for evolution, the Archeopteryx, which is supposed to be the missing link between birds and reptiles, has been proven to be fully bird.  The feathers are fully developed.  It has no scales.  The bones are hollow, not solid like a reptile's bones.

Michael Behe, in his book, “Darwin's Black Box,” describes what he calls “irreducible complexity,” to refute the idea of organisms evolving from one kind to another1.  An irreducibly complex system is something that needs to be complete and fully functional to work and could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion.  Most of life falls into this category.

Examples:

The human blood system:  Comprised of red and white blood cells, platelets, plasma.
*Red blood cells carry oxygen to all the cells of the body using a special protein, hemoglobin, which binds oxygen just tightly enough to carry it in transport, but loosely enough to release it to the cells that need it. *White blood cells: several types of cells that work together to fight infection. *Platelets:  cells that stop up breaks in the blood vessels, forming clots to keep the blood from leaking out.
*Plasma:  the liquid that transports nutrients and cells within the circulatory system.

Too many red blood cells is called polycythemia.  This causes disease as the abundant blood cells pack together and can't pass through the small vessels, causing blood clots and rupture of the vessels.  If there are too few red blood cells, they can't carry enough oxygen to meet the body's needs, leading to anemia and hypoxia.Too many white blood cells is called Leukemia.  This crowds out the red blood cells, causing anemia, and platelets, causing hemorrhage; and many of the cells are immature and incapable of performing their duty of fighting infection.  Too few white blood cells leads to rampant infection. (AIDS is an attack on the T-cell, a form of white blood cell).  Too many platelets cause clotting, which cuts of vital blood flow to the organs, causing heart attacks and strokes.  Too few platelets cause risk for bleeding and hemorrhage.  We need the right combination of each of these blood cell types, and the subtypes within each type to maintain life.  Our blood system is irreducibly complex.

• What other examples of irreducible complexity can you think of?  (Behe used flagella, the eye, and the immune system).  *What about entire ecosystems?

The Bible states that God created each “kind” of animal “after its kind”. See Genesis chapter 1.  Scientists have used many different methods to classify organisms, but they are not consistent, and they frequently change.  One thing is interesting:  there seems to be a boundary beyond which an organism cannot breed.  For example, you can breed many kinds of horses.  You can breed a horse with a donkey, and you get a mule.  A mule is an example of a hybrid.  It is sterile.  Scientists are playing around with these boundaries and breeding tigers and lions, and getting tigons and ligers.  They can breed these with more tigers or lions, but they cannot breed beyond these boundaries, which is consistent with “kinds” being separated by God. Dogs of any breed are still dogs.  Cats are still cats, bears are still bears.

 • What other hybrids can you name?  How does that fit with what the Bible teaches? • If macro-evolution was the normal process, wouldn't all life be able to interbreed and continuously change?

Scientists have changed bacteria and bio-engineered plants and microbes to have certain traits, but they have not changed kinds and they have not added new information; they just took what was already there and spliced it or selected through reproducing.

Another supposed “proof” of evolution is what scientists call vestigal organs.  At one time,  > 150 human organs were thought to be vestiges (leftover parts from evolutionary processes).  Some of these included:
*Tonsils:  now known to be an important part of immune function
*Yolk sack in embryos:  makes blood cells until the embryo is able to make its own blood supply inside the bone marrow
*Gill slits in embryos:  these are not gills at all.  They don't make any of the structures or blood supply for gills.  They are actually pouches that become important glands and structures, such as the ear canals, parathyroid gland, thymus gland, tonsils; they only become gills in fish.

• Could this be that the same creator used “tubes” as a blueprint to form both sets of structures instead of “evolving”?

*Tail bone: not leftovers from an evolutionary tail, but an important part of the spine.2

Even though these structures may resemble structures in other life forms, they are obviously not. Humans can't make gills or a tail, because we don't have the right DNA.  Just because something looks a certain way on the outside, doesn’t mean they are the same on the inside. If every animal embryo looked the same at a certain stage, this still wouldn't prove evolution, because, as they develop and differentiate, they follow the DNA instructions to become exactly what the blueprint designs for.

Micro-evolution simply does not lead to macro-evolution.  This is a bait-and-switch tactic.  You can prove adaptation within a species, which the evolution camp uses to prove animals to man evolution, though they are clearly not the same.

Scientists are working hard to try to create new processes, using gene therapy and other techniques,  to create new species and show that evolution could happen.  Even if they are successful in doing this in a lab, we still could not prove that it happened in the past or that it could or did happen naturally.

Darwin's research showed adaptation within a species.  This does not disprove an original designer.  It doesn't prove origins, only adaptations.  It explains “survival of the fittest” but not the “arrival” of the fittest!

Discussion:  How does the evolution/creation debate impact your belief in a creator-God?

The "Simple Cell"

Lesson 4:

All cells are surrounded by a plasma membrane, which separates the cell from its environment.  Some cells, such as plant cells, have an additional cell wall to provide structure and support.  The cell membrane is comprised of a 50:50 mix of proteins and lipids, fit together in a mosaic.  The proteins serve various functions:  some of the proteins have pores, through which substances can flow into and out of the cell; some serve as receptors that identify and attach to a specific molecule, such as a hormone or nutrient that is important for cell function.  Some are identity markers, such as the ABO blood types.  Some are enzymes.  Some are receptors that change the function of the cell, such as opening or closing channels,  Some are anchors that hold fibers within the cell to keep its shape.  The plasma membrane is a complex structure, not just a film around the cell.

Inside the cell are the organelles:

Deep inside the cell is the nucleus, or in the case of bacteria, the nucleoid.  This is where the DNA and corresponding RNA (which is similar to a mirror copy of the DNA) resides and is reproduced. 
Next to the nucleus are the ribosomes.  The proteins that are used inside the cell are created in the ribosomes.  It takes about 50 proteins to make a ribosome, and ribosomes are the factories for making proteins.

All cells but bacterial cells have an endoplasmic reticulum.  This is where proteins are created for use outside of the cell or for the cell membrane.  It also provides the surface area needed for chemical reactions within the cell.  It transports products from one part of the cell to another, adds sugars to proteins, creates fatty acids, phospholipids, and steroids.  Enzymes are chemicals that break bonds in molecules to break the molecule apart or attach them in different ways.  Enzymes in the endoplasmic reticulum also can detoxify chemicals such as alcohol, pesticides, and carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals).

In the Golgi apparatus, proteins are repackaged, modified, and excreted out of the cell.  It's like the shipping department.

There are also Lysosomes within the cell, which are membrane-enclosed vesicles of enzymes needed for recycling materials or digesting bacteria.  Amazingly, their membranes are impermeable to their own enzymes, to keep them from digesting themselves.

Mitochondria are the metabolism of the cell.  They are surrounded by a double membrane:  a smooth outer layer, and an inner layer with a series of folds.  This increases the surface area for chemical reactions involved in producing energy for the cell.  Mitochondria are self replicating.  If the cell needs more energy, the mitochondria divide and reproduce themselves by the DNA that is part of the mitochondrial structure.

Finally, there is the cytoskeleton.  This is a network of filaments (proteins) that produce movement of the cell and movement of the organelles and chemicals within the cell.

All cells but bacterial cells have these components.  Bacterial cells have only the nucleoid, which is less defined than the nucleus of other types of cells and ribosomes.  They usually only have one chromosome (double strand of DNA) instead of multiple pairs of chromosomes.  One might conclude that the simple bacterial cell developed into the more complex cells via evolution, but there is no progression in the record.  There is either the bacterial cell structure (prokaryotic) or the other (eukaryotic).  The other organelles are all or nothing.  No cell has only some of them.

For life to move beyond the single bacterial cell to any other organism, all of the other structures must be in place for the organism to survive.  There is no organelle that could be removed and have the organism survive.

Science has yet to create a gene for even one new protein, create DNA or RNA in a lab.

• So, given the complexity of DNA and cell structure, what makes more sense:  purposeful design by our creator, or random chance? • Can you think of any way that DNA or cells in general, could have evolved?

Many scientists understand that this complexity is an insurmountable barrier to their evolutionary belief system.  Since they recognize that life could not have evolved on earth, even if given infinite time and chance, they turn to “panspermia” – the idea that life on earth was transported from other planets.  They do this hoping that somehow conditions somewhere else could have allowed life to evolve, under some unknown and unseen circumstances.

  • Does this help support their evolutionary beliefs?  No, this just kicks the ball down the road.

The Bible clearly tells us how life came to be.  Our efforts to find alternative origin theories do not stand up to scrutiny.  It takes more faith not to believe the Bible than it does to believe!

DNA

Lesson 3:

DNA is the process by which all life creates the proteins needed for the organism to survive.

DNA is comprised of only 4 amino acids, Adenine (A), thiamine (T), cytosine ( C) , and guanine (G).
(A) only pairs with (T), and (C) only pairs with (G).

A set of 3 paired amino acids in a DNA chain is a codon.  This is the instruction for placing one amino acid into a protein chain.

Most proteins are about 300 amino acids long.  300 amino acids x 3 codons = 900 pairs of amino acids in the DNA chain to produce a single protein.

Within the DNA strand, the codon that codes the amino acid in the protein is also preceded and followed by codes to turn the gene on and off .

A very “simple” single cell organism needs at least 20 proteins to survive, which would be 20 x 900 = 18,000 amino acid pairs in the DNA strand (not including the codes for turning that amino acid on or off) to function for a single celled organism to exist.1

Problems for evolutionists:

First there is the origin problem:  The process of replication requires proteins to copy and translate the information of DNA into proteins.   It takes proteins to complete the process of replicating DNA. Where did the proteins come from to replicate the DNA needed to start the replication process?  Also, proteins, DNA and it's counterpart, RNA, break apart in water.  The prevailing evolutionary theory is that proteins, and eventually DNA, came about from a primordial soup of amino acids (in water)!

Next, there is the length problem:  Scientists have observed DNA forming spontaneously in a lab under special circumstances, but chains longer than 20 pairs break apart.  They have yet to find a way to formulate, (even with much control and input and manipulation of the chemicals) the long strands required to make one protein (900 amino pairs, not 20).

Third, there is the order problem:  DNA is a code or language.  It means something.  Random letters would not convey meaning.  Even if strands 18,000 pairs long could occur naturally, they have to come together in the right sequence.  The odds of 18,000 letters of DNA assembling in a specific order spontaneously:  the odds of any particular letter occurring in 1 position is 1:4, in 2 positions is ¼ x ¼. In 3 positions is ¼ x ¼ x ¼.  So for 18,000 positions it would be ¼ to the 18,000 power.  Not statistically possible.2

Then there is the shape problem:  The 20 letter strands formed in the lab are deformed.  They connect at the wrong points and don't spiral.  Non-spiraling DNA does not compact and is not able to be protected within the nucleus of the cell.3

Functional DNA has never been created in a lab.  Scientists have been able to alter bacterial DNA by adding genes from other organisms to produce proteins.  This is called recombinant DNA technology. They use this in vaccines and other applications.  Altering existing DNA is not the same as creating DNA.

• Why is DNA similar between life forms?  Creationists say it is because we have a common creator. Evolutionists say it is because we have a common ancestor. Which makes more sense?

Proteins:

Not only have scientists never created a strand of DNA, they cannot create proteins, either.  They have never been observed forming naturally, apart from cell synthesis from DNA.  The molecules do not just fall together.  And, again, for life to exist, the proteins must be put together via chains of amino acids in the correct sequence.  If even one amino acid is substituted in a single protein, the result is devastating. Sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis are all diseases caused by substitution of a single amino acid in a protein chain.

To create a simple single-celled organism by evolution, 20 proteins x 300 amino acids in each one = 6000 amino acids that would need to line up and bond together in order, by chance.  The odds of this occurring spontaneously would be 1/1500 followed by 13,006 zeros.

The chance of 100 (not 300) amino acids combining correctly = 1/10 to the 130 power.  There are better odds of winning the Powerball lottery every day for a year (1/4244 followed by 2881 zeros).3
According to M. Strickberger, in his book “Evolution”:  If an entire universe 10 billion light years in diameter were densely packed with randomly produced polypeptides the number of such molecules 10 to the 105 power would not = 1/10 to the 130 power possibility.”  there would not be enough room in the universe to form 1 specific protein naturally, let alone 20 proteins for a simple, single-celled organism.4

Add to those astronomical odds this fact:  only left-handed amino acids are valuable for life.  Righthanded amino acids are non-functional and do not make proteins.  Randomly produced amino acids would be equally right- and left-handed, so only 50% would be useful.  Conversely, all sugars in DNA are right-handed.  Left-handed sugars cannot fold into the double helix shape that is needed.
Now, let's assume that somehow DNA and proteins were able to somehow spontaneously generate without being designed and created by God.  Evolutionists teach that life started with a simple, single-celled organism, then evolved into all of the more “complex” life forms we see today.

“Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained.  This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained).  For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards.  Now let's suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it.  Such a message would be poly-functional and polyconstrained.  We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible.  However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved.  It can only degenerate.  Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information.  Any change will diminish total information with absolute certainty.”5

This would all be very unlikely to have occurred by evolution!

1Werner, C. (2007).  Evolution:  the Grand Experiment.  New Leaf Press.  p. 195.
2Werner, C. (2007).  Evolution:  the Grand Experiment.  New Leaf Press.  p. 196-197.
3Western, C. (2007).  Evolution:  the Grand Experiment.  New Leaf Press.  p. 208.
4Strickberger, M. (1996).  Evolution (2nd Edition).   Jones and Bartlett publishers. p. 115.
5Sanford, J., (2008).  Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, 3rd edition, FMS Publications p. 131-133

Apologetics

I am teaching a new class on apologetics.  Here is the first lesson:

PURPOSE

Someone recently said that the church spends a great deal of time and resources teaching our members what to believe, but we do a terrible job of explaining why we believe.  Understanding why we believe is more important now than ever.  There is a pervasive sense in the world today that the Bible is an outdated book of fairy tales.  Not only that, but institutes of higher learning teach that there is a conflict between the Bible and science, and many go as far as to say that science has disproven the Bible. Anyone attending a secular college or university that openly professes belief in the Bible as the word of God is likely to be laughed at, or worse.

 • Have you experienced this kind of thinking?  How did you respond or feel?

To top it off, we have more access and more rapid access to information, thought, and opinion than ever could have been previously imagined.  We are inundated with ideas right and left that contradict each other.  How are we supposed to know the truth?  There is even a prevailing idea that there is no such thing as truth; that everything is relative; that what's true for you is not necessarily true for me.
The Christian community is no different.  While there is no shortage of data to support our Christian worldview, that God is real and that the Bible is true, and that our lives matter to God and to each other, many of our attempts to get the message across seem weak at best.  For example, the movie “God's Not Dead,” was a great hit with Christians worldwide, but the great “evidence” for our faith was not presented in the movie.  Instead, it was based on a personal conversion experience and a life-change based on these beliefs.  Belief in God does change lives, but is it proof that God is real?

Recently there was a well-publicized debate between Ken Ham (founder of the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis) and TV science guru, Bill Nye “the Science Guy.” Ken Ham has amazing books and videos and a whole team of scholars working for him that could present the best evidence we have available to explain why Christians believe what we believe.  But the debate was a joke.  Bill Nye presented his side with “You have the Bible, and I have science.”  Ken Ham did nothing to dispute this statement, but went on to debate the scientist with “the Bible says.”  If the science camp rules out the Bible as a valid source, then Christians shouldn't use the Bible as their only source in the debate.  We need to first establish the validity of the Bible before presenting it as evidence.

 • Have you been led to question your beliefs based on some “evidence” presented to you that seemed to go against the Bible?

What we would like to do in this course is to use the same evidence that the science camp uses to defend their arguments against God and the Bible to show that the Bible can be true in light of all of the scientific evidence that is available to all of us.  You see, the science is not the problem; it is the beliefs associated with the science that causes the difference.  We can use the same evidence (science) and show that the differences between our beliefs do not lie in the evidences or data, but in the interpretation.  We can show how the same evidence, when seen through an evolutionary bias can have a different outcome than if seen through a creationist bias, for example.  This is the only valid way to open people's minds to the possibility of an alternative but possible view.

QUESTIONING

For a long time in many churches, it has been almost taboo to question the teachings of the church.  But that was not so in the beginning.  I have heard it said, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  That kind of thinking will not convince anyone of truth or bring conviction to beliefs.  It is great to have that kind of faith, but you have to start with being able to trust that what God says is trustworthy, and that the Bible is actually the word of God before you can expect to have any faith at all.  This is like when your mother says, “Because I said so, that's why.”  How many of us really learned anything from that kind of answer?

 • Have you ever felt unsafe to question beliefs in church?

Believing something just because you are supposed to is called “blind faith.”  In many circles, this is encouraged.  But, it may surprise you that blind faith is not the attitude that the Bible itself teaches: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”  1 Peter 3:15.  And Acts 17:11 tells us, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

It is important to be able to understand not just what we believe, but why we believe, so we can show the world who God really is.  Scientific data actually supports a Biblical worldview.  We are not somehow less than intelligent if we profess belief in the Bible or the God of the Bible.  It is not “the Bible versus science.”  It is good science versus bad science.

It is also truth versus opinion.  A lot of opinion is sold out there as truth.  More than that, a lot of truth is passed off as opinion, and there is a real push in some circles to try to convince people that truth doesn't even exist at all.   But no matter how you try to get around it, truth is truth, whether you believe it or not.  You can't make something true simply by believing it, nor can you make it not true by refusing to believe it.  Truth must be true for all people, at all times, in all situations, independent of our knowledge of it, or it is not truth at all.   That's what makes it true.  So, either the Bible is true or it is not.  God is either real, or he is not.  That's what we would like to discuss in this class.

APOLOGETICS

So, let's start with the definition of what we are doing here.  The study of why we believe what we believe is called “apologetics”.  While this may sound like we are saying we are sorry, it is really Greek for “speaking in defense.”  That's where we get our word “apology”.  When we apologize, we are giving our reasons, our defense, for our actions.  And as Christians, we should be able to defend our beliefs, if they are true.  Over the next several lessons, we will be looking at some of the bad science out there and discussing ways to examine the data rationally, to call into question the assumptions that are being made that don't follow the scientific method, that lead people to incorrect conclusions.  At the end of this class, you will be better able to answer the hard questions you may face or may be presented with.  You should have a deeper assurance that faith in God is based on real, rational explanations, not blind faith, and you will be able to assist others in understanding why we rely on the Bible as a guide for our lives.

We will encourage you along the way to ask questions.  Don't just take our word for it.  Be like the Bereans.  Make your faith your own by finding out the answers to your own questions.  Seek, search, and find.  Believe what is true, then be prepared to share with others.

Discussion:  Do you think the churches should be doing more of this kind of teaching? Why or why not?  What would you like to learn more about in this class?