Disprove the Theory of Evolution

I accept in playing devil’s advocate. Before I begin my case against evolution, I would like to say that it is a privilege to debate a member on DDO as eminent as Romanii. I also would like to say that I am, in reality, going to disagree with everything that I am going to argue below, but, in my opinion, playing devil’s advocate is a good way to improve debating skills. Against Evolution I am going to start by clarifying what I mean by ‘evolution.’ The traditional definition of evolution goes something like this: “Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time.” [1] However, I am not arguing against this. No semi-reasonable person advocating any form of creationism, or intelligent design denies that natural selection can result in changes in genetic material of a population. Instead, I am going to argue against the current, well accepted, paradigm of Neo-Darwinism (I will refer to it as evolution), which claims that natural selection, acting on random, unguided mutations, adequately explains the unity and diversity of life. [2] I am going to take the (extreme, unpopular) position that modern biology disproves evolution. I will give three case that support my case: irreducible complexity, Junk DNA, and the Cambrian Explosion. Note that not all my following arguments need to succeed in order to disprove evolution; only one needs to. But, let’s begin! The Problem of Irreducible Complexity The first argument that I am going to put forward against evolution is from the existence of irreducible complex biological structures. Michael Behe, the founder of such a thesis defines an irreducible complex structure as: “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic, function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease working.” [3] My argument can be articulated in such a following syllogism: 1) If irreducibly complex biological structures exist, then evolution is false 2)Irreducibly complex biological structures exist 3)Therefore, evolution is false Premise 1 is by no means a controversial premise. If irreducible complex biological structures exist, then, obviously, evolution is false, as it posits that small, successive, incremental changes can explain complex biological structures. Unless my opponent wants to argue against this, Premise 1 shall be laid at rest. Premise 2, however, is the controversial premise. If I was to show that this is true, then obviously, I have to give an example. The example I am going to give is the bacterial flagellum motor. Evolution News and Views writes, when regarding to the flagellum motor that: “its mechanistic basis of flagella assembly is so breathtakingly elegant and mesmerizing that the sheer engineering brilliance of the flagella motor and, indeed, the magnitude of the challenge it brings to evolution cannot be properly appreciated.” My opponent may argue that the Type Three Secretory System (T3SS) is a viable precursor towards the flagellum motor, but this is not true. The T3SS, in terms of proteins, only composes ¼ of the flagellum motor. This is extremely problematic, as Casey Luskin explains: “[this] does not help one account for how the fundamental function of the flagellum – its propulsion system- evolved.” [4] Mathematician William Dembski uses a humorous analogy to support this: “What’s needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis on the way. To claim otherwise, is like saying we can set foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we’ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands” [5] Luskin further elucidates why the view claiming exaptation plus the T3SS can account for the flagellum, as advocated by people like Ken Miller, is false. He writes that: “[Miller] wrongly characterizes irreducible complexity as focusing on the non-functionality of sub-parts. In contrast, Behe properly tests irreducible complexity by assessing the plausibility of the entire functional system to assemble in a step-wise fashion… Miller misconstrued the proper way of testing irreducible complexity, and his argument amounts to this: ‘if my laptop cord can also be used to power my toaster, then my laptop is no longer irreducibly complex.” [6] In conclusion, unless my opponent can provide a viable, reasonable way of demonstrating how the flagella motor evolved, irreducible complex structures exist, leading to the inevitable conclusion of evolution being false. Junk DNA The second argument that I am going to raise will an argument from recent developments from molecular biology, and in particular, research on the functionality of DNA, especially Junk DNA, which is essentially a part of a genome sequence not encoding protein sequences. If evolution was true, then we would expect a large amount of the human genome to be filled with Junk DNA, through various processes such as copying errors. [7] As a matter of fact, evolutionary biologists and anti-creationists thought this was true, and acted as strong evidence against design. Rachel Nowak, for instance, writes in 1994: “The protein-coding portions of the genes account for only 3% of the DNA in the human genome; the other 97% encodes no proteins.” [8] Or according to Richard Dawkins: “Leaving pseudo genes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the human genome may as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.” [9] The Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) research project, launched by the National Human Genome Research Institute, however, shows that the prediction that large amounts of the human genome to be Junk DNA to be erroneous. ENCODE is a meticulous research programme, as Ewan Birney describes: “The Encode consortium’s 442 researchers, situated in 32 institutes around the world, used 300 years of computer time and five years in the lab to get their results.” And what were the results? 80% of the human genome was functional. According to researcher Tom Gingeras, “…It’s not ‘junk’…..’Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more.” [10] However, it gets even worse for evolution. Lead researcher Ewan Birney explains that the ‘80%’ figure may increase: “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent. We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful. [11] Such a result is devastating towards evolution, for this leaves no room for evidence for evolution such as from pseudo genes, copying errors, and Junk DNA itself. As a matter of fact, it completely falsifies and destroys a prediction of evolution, which in turn demonstrates that it is untrue. In conclusion, in this round, I have provided two compelling reasons for why evolution is false. In the next round, I shall clarify my arguments, respond to my opponent’s rebuttals, and if space allows, bring up the Cambrian Explosion. [1] http://www.nature.com... [2] http://www.intelligentdesign.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.evolutionnews.org... [5] http://www.designinference.com... [6] http://www.evolutionnews.org... [8] http://www.creationbc.org... [9] http://egnorance.blogspot.com.au... [10] http://www.evolutionnews.org... [11] http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au...