_______________
In a series of essays titled “The Deniable Darwin”, David Berlinski has an imaginary conversation with Jorge Luis Borges an Argentinian writer of short stories. In this conversation, Borges recounts the fantastic series of events in which all literary novels, in fact owe their existence and are descended from one ancestor novel “the Quixote”, the novel written by Miguel de Cervantes.
Borges recalls to Berlinski over a cup of coffee, “As you know,” he continues, “the original handwritten text of “the Quixote” was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576.”
The Cistercians were given the charge of making copies of the manuscript of “the Quixote”, but were not adept in the Spanish language and made many errors in their copying. Over the years, the singular errors made during the coping finally culminated in the first edition of Fernando Lor’s “Los Hombres d’Estado” in the year 1585. Then in 1654, still by singular coping errors Juan Luis Samorza’s novel “Por Favor” was created. The errors eventually lead to language changes from Spanish to French and then from French to English and throughout the years new novels that would become the literary masterpieces of the world were created. This chain of remarkable errors finally culminates in the novel “Ulysses”.
Borges then proclaims, “Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the “Quixote.” [1]
Evolution’s growing issues
_______________
As fantastic as this made-up discussion of the transformation of the novel Don Quixote into the novel Ulysses, it pales in comparison to the evolution that was created by Charles Darwin. One that implies that singular mutations can over time develop highly specialized structures in organisms and even new species. The mutations are completely random and when they are subjected to the harsh reality of their environment, they are tested by what evolution calls natural selection. The good mutations are passed down to future generations and the bad mutations ones, that are of no benefit or are detrimental to the organism, are killed off. This process was coined the ‘survival of the fittest’.
At the time of Darwin, DNA, and the magnificently complicated structure of the cell were not yet discovered. Mutations were thought to be a simpler process that did not involve the encoded information contained in DNA. What evolutionists in Darwin’s day thought of as a single mutation would have contained thousands or millions of individual DNA mutations. An example would be the bud of a primeval leg forming on an organism. Then, the bud would have been thought as single mutation, but over a hundred years later it is known to be a vastly more complex situation. Mutations are disqualifying themselves as a driver of evolutionary change as time progresses, and more is known about DNA and the complexity of life.
Evolutionary Paradoxes
_______________
Evolution relies on random mutations and natural selection to be a viable theory for the diversity of life. However, there are issues with mutations causing changes in organisms. We can call these issues, evolutionary paradoxes. When the paradoxes are fully examined, they unveil the absurdity of evolutionary theory. Below are a few of the examples of evolutionary paradoxes.
DNA — Protein Paradox: DNA is the information carrier for the construction of proteins that are in turn the building blocks of cells. Without DNA, the only way to build a protein would be the chance assembly from a primeval goo. So, for life to exist and to replicate in an environment you must have the blueprint of a protein’s assembly that is contained in DNA. However, DNA is itself made of proteins and assembled in cells. DNA and proteins rely on the other for their assembly. This establishes a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” situation. It is inconceivable that one component can assemble itself spontaneously enough to form the other. The creation of a protein is extremely complicated and further complicated by the proper folding of the protein. The protein folds are what allows it to function properly. According to Cyrus Levinthal, there are 10³⁰⁰ different ways that a protein can fold after a peptide chain is produced [2]. Only one of the folds is the correct one for the function of the protein. This is just one of numerous issues that either the protein or DNA would have to survive in order to spontaneously create.
The Butterfly Paradox: As children, most of us become familiar with the life cycle of the butterfly. We learn that the butterfly starts out life as an egg laid by an adult. The egg hatches and a larval caterpillar is born. The caterpillar feeds and grows until it sheds its skin and starts the pupal stage of its life. In this stage the larva undergoes radical changes to its body. The legs, wings, and the body of an adult butterfly are formed and after a certain amount of time it emerges. Here is the paradox, the life cycle of the butterfly is only perpetuated by the adult mating and then laying its eggs. Consequently, the larva is not the same body configuration as the adult and cannot reproduce. It is separated from the reproductive phase of its life by a massive rearranging of its body in the pupal stage.
How does this rearranging of major body parts happen in an evolutionary paradigm, where changes happen with individual random mutations in DNA?
For the life cycle of the butterfly to exist in evolutionary terms the first larva of the species must make the transition to adult in one clean mutational jump. The pupal stage requires the DNA information to be clear and contain the many changes to form into an adult… to then reproduce. If this process was due to a series of singular random mutations, a vast amount would be detrimental to the larva and would kill it.
How does this change happen via singular random mutations of DNA? This seems to be an all or nothing conundrum.
The Male-Female Paradox: This is one of the greatest problems for the evolutionist, how did sexual reproduction evolve from single DNA mutations? This suffers from the same basic problem as the Butterfly Paradox. Mainly, a great leap in single mutational changes required to have the correct body types needed with the mechanism for successful procreation of the species at the end of the process. You could say this paradox even complicates the butterfly paradox further by adding another layer of complication to that issue. Evolutionists will say that organisms evolved into sexual reproduction as it is vastly more complicated than asexual reproduction. Basically, going from simple one celled organism that reproduces asexually and mutating into a more complicated multicell organism that reproduces sexually.
So, how did that happen?
To make the jump you must go from an asexual organism to a fully functioning male and female organism. Moreover, the process to procreate must work the first time or the species will not survive as either the male or female cannot asexually procreate on their own. This again is an all or nothing process that must happen successfully the first time via the process of random mutation and natural selection, otherwise the species dies out.
In Darwin’s day, the paradoxes may have been easier to envision working out, but what we now know about DNA and cellular biology it vastly complicates the random mutations that are required. It is much like adding random errors to a computer’s operating system and expecting to get a revolutionary new computer at the end, it does not happen that way. Errors in turn cause more errors, much like the entropy in a thermodynamic system. To expect otherwise is frankly wishful thinking.
Irreducible Complexity Points to Design
_______________
Engineers know the importance of design. One needs to know how the individual parts of a machine interact together. Great care must be taken with the design, material selection, and manufacturing for even the simplest machine to operate well. If one part is not in the design that is crucial for the overall function, then the machine is junk. Would you fly in an airplane that does not have one of its engines? How about no fuel nozzles in the engine? Or missing just one of the compressor blades? The answer is most likely a resounding “No!” Because in each scenario the engine is not functional or won’t be in very short order.
Life is very much the same as the aircraft engine. There are structures in organisms that must have all their parts intact or the structure ceases to function. This is known as irreducible complexity. The engine must have all its major parts intact or it does not function, it is irreducibly complex. There are many irreducibly complex structures in life a few of which are the circulatory system, the eye, blood clotting, or the ear.
The bacterial flagellum is one of many irreducibly complex structures in biology. It is truly a remarkable organelle that provides propulsion for certain types of bacteria. The flagellum is a complex molecular motor made of proteins that runs on the flow of hydrogen ions. The flagellum has the same classical parts as an electrical motor such as the rotor, stator, and bushings, and can operate at thousands of rotations per minute. The motor then turns a whip like structure called the filament. This is what gives propulsion to the bacteria much like a propeller. It is a beautifully engineered nano-machine that is remarkably efficient. Its structure is much like the engine referenced above; it is irreducibly complex. If you remove any of the major components, the flagellum will not work and is useless.
So, the question is how does this kind of complex machine evolve by singular DNA mutations?
When the loss of a major component renders the flagellum useless and fodder for the evolutionary scrap yard via natural selection. A bacterium is at a disadvantage with a useless motor hanging off its backside for a million or so years waiting on the improbable molecular rotor to mutate into existence. Wouldn’t the useless appendage just disappear like the legs of the “primeval” whale that is hanging out on the water’s edge waiting for flippers? I’m just asking.
One of the explanations for the evolution of the flagellum is given by the similarity in structure to the Type Three Secretion System (TTSS) in bacterium. They both share similar shape and proteins as each other. However, their functions are completely different, the TTSS is used to export proteins across the cell envelope not as a mode of propulsion. Just because there is a similarity of shape does not imply evolutionary lineage. Even if they were linked in evolution, there is very little attention given to the “nuts and bolts” of the coding changes needed in the DNA and the not so trivial statistical challenges of the creation of the winning design.
Evolutionists must adhere to their own theory’s guidelines when discussing the complicated matters of “chance” design and those guidelines have only become more stringent with the discovery of DNA. The code for changing life is contained within the mutations made in DNA; and with that the chance miraculous coding for all the proteins and the design of the flagellum runs afoul. This mathematical challenge is not addressed in evolutionary theory.
The explanation for the evolution of the TTSS into the flagellum is oversimplified into the rearrangement of the proteins thru the “right” mutations and natural selection and… voila! You have a sophisticated propulsion system. You don’t need to explain the real challenges. Engineers wish redesign was that easy because their job would be less stressful. If you don’t manage every single detail in a new product design, it will run off the rails fast. We should, expect life to be a little more complicated than man made items.
Design implies a designer, and life has many designs that are improbable given the limitations of evolution. There are the singular mutation and natural selection limitations that are self-imposed in evolutionary theory. But there are the materialistic limitations that are arbitrarily placed on it as well. With random mutation and natural selection as the driving factor behind evolution, the metaphysical is vehemently avoided and along with it any mention of design.
The concept of design in life is avoided as nonscientific. But why?
There is clear evidence of design in every aspect of life. I don’t look at the airplane engine and say, “Look what natural selection and wind erosion has brought me!” That would be foolish and unscientific. It would be scientific of me to use the evidence that I observe from the engine and imply an intelligent designer that ushered that design from imagination to reality. The designs that we see in life are no different and harder to avoid implying a designer because of the exponential complexity over the engine.
Science cannot be held hostage by dogma, a dogma that was birthed with Darwin and limits exploration of life only to the materialistic realm. That would have been sufficient for some in that era, but we now have the language of DNA and sophisticated instruments that have revealed the complex world of cellular biology. With those two things we can observe the blueprints of life along with the overwhelmingly complex design itself.
In viewing this design, it implies that there is a Designer… some might call God.
_______________
End Notes
[1] David Berlinski June 1, 1994 Intelligent Design. “The Deniable Darwin.” Discovery Institute, 14 July 2020.
[2] Levinthal, Cyrus (1969). “How to Fold Graciously”. Mossbauer Spectroscopy in Biological Systems: Proceedings of a Meeting Held at Allerton House, Monticello, Illinois: 22–24.
#grownostr #apologetics #philosophy #God #science #naturallaw #evolution
