The Theory of Evolution Cannot Explain All Organisms.

<<< REBUTTAL AGAINST PRO >>> 1. Rebuttal to :: Irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved Using my opponent’s definition, an irreducibly complex system is a “biological system consisting of several unique, interlocking parts working in correlation to serve a greater function. Upon removal of such parts, the system effectively ceases usefulness.” This brings us to the first question – can irreducibly complex systems evolve? There are several logical ways that an irreducibly complex system could evolve. I will explain by using a hypothetical example that employs evolutionary principles. Imagine that we have a complex system within a cell that is made of three parts [part ONE, part TWO, and part THREE], that has evolved to perform function ‘X.’ Also, imagine that parts ONE, TWO, and THREE can perform separate, individual functions by themselves. This is a reducible system because we can remove parts and the remaining parts will still perform other functions. Now, let us imagine that performing function ‘X’ becomes essential to survival. The cells that perform this function better than others are more likely to survive. Random mutation and natural selection will select for variations of this system, made of parts ONE, TWO and THREE, that are more efficient at performing function ‘X’. As these individual parts gradually change to become better at performing ‘X’ together, they may begin to lose their ability to perform their separate, individual functions. After some period of evolution, we will have a highly specialized system of parts ONE, TWO, and THREE that are more efficient at performing function ‘X’, but in changing to become more efficient at function ‘X’, these parts have lost their ability to perform their separate, individual functions. We have now evolved an irreducibly complex system. If we remove one part from this system, none of the remaining parts will perform any useful functions. This is not the only way that an irreducibly complex system could evolve, but it is enough to illustrate that an irreducible system could evolve. Thus, even if the flagella were irreducible, that irreducibility is still consistent with evolutionary theory. 2. Rebuttal to :: The flagella is an irreducibly complex system The next question before us is whether the flagella is an irreducibly complex system. I demonstrated in the previous section that, even if it were, that would still be consistent with evolutionary theory, but I will also present an argument that the flagellum is not irreducible. So, what parts make up the bacterial flagellum? There are thousands of flagellar variants documented throughout the bacterial world. This should be suggestive that considerable evolutionary changes to a flagellum can be made without destroying the function. The most researched flagellum comes from the bacteria E. coli. It’s composed of over 40 different proteins.[1] Half of these proteins share a strong structural and sequence similarity to other proteins that carry out cellular functions outside of the flagellum. And, several of these flagellar proteins are capable of performing functions even when removed from the flagella. This alone demonstrates that the flagella is not irreducibly complex, as individual parts of the flagella can still perform important functions after the flagellar structure is taken apart. While the flagellum is not technically irreducibly complex, there is still considerable debate as to exact evolutionary process that led to its development. Some researchers have suggested that it is an evolutionary modification of a protein export system called the Type III secretion system [though others speculate it may be the other way around].[2][3] Alternatively, others have provided evidence suggesting that “the core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through successive duplication and modification of a few … precursor gene[s].”[4] In any case, the fact that researchers do not know exactly how the flagella evolved is not evidence against evolution. Molecular research is, in many regards, still in its infancy. To say that we don’t yet know the specific evolutionary pathway of the flagellum does not demonstrate that evolution is false. We may know in 10 years, or we may never know how this process actually occurred. The fact that we cannot yet discern what evolutionary events took place billions of years ago does not mean that they did not occur. 3. Rebuttal to :: Evolution is mathematically impossible My opponent argues that odds of evolution occurring are so low that it is a mathematical impossibility. In support of his assertion, he states that Dr. Harold Morowitz hypothesized that “the odds of even the simplest organism forming by chance is 1 in 10^340,000,000” and that Dr. Carl Sagan “calculated that the odds were in fact 1 in 10^2,000,000,000.” The creation of life – also known as abiogenesis – is not evolution and so is not relevant to whether evolution is correct. But, let’s look at the source of these claims anyway. Some quick research leads us to Dr. Morowitz book Energy Flow in Biology, in which Morowitz makes some interesting calculations. However, the specific probability calculation that my opponent refers to is not the probability “of even the simplest organism forming by chance.” Instead, it is the probability that chemical bond formation would occur in the absence thermal input, an equilibrium state in chemistry that has NEVER existed in the history of the earth. My opponent has taken a quirky calculation and used it to mislead the audience. We are left with Carl Sagan’s calculation. This calculation comes from a book edited by Dr. Sagan entitled Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. In this book is a paper presented by Dr. Sagan at a SETI conference in which Sagan states that the odds of a specific human genome being assembled by chance is 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. This calculation has nothing to do with whether simple life could have evolved. Further, evolution does not claim that a human genome could have assembled by chance. This calculation is wholly irrelevant to the probability of life and was used by Dr. Sagan to illustrate the power of the non-random selective process of natural selection. 4. Rebuttal to :: The human brain is too complex to have evolved My opponent argues that the human brain is too complex to have evolved. In support of his contention, he states that the brain has 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections, too many to have formed by random coincidence – per his playing card analogy. There are multiple levels on which this misunderstands evolution and probability. Evolution does not claim the brain formed by randomly arranging neurons like playing cards. The brain, like every other biological aspect of a living creature, has formed and changed gradually over millions of years through non-random natural selection. The human brain did not materialize into existence through the arrangement of neurons, as my opponent claims, and is therefore not subject to any of the probability issues that he presented. <<< CON ARGUMENTS >>> Addressing my opponent’s arguments has unfortunately left me with little remaining space, so I will hope that I sufficiently prevented him from achieving his burden of proof for this round. <<< CONCLUSION >>> I have shown that evolution predicts the existence of irreducibly complex systems and thus, even if the flagellum was irreducibly complex, it is still within the purview of evolution; I have also provided evidence that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. My opponent's probabilistic arguments are wholly irrelevant, and I have said as much. [1] http://www.newscientist.com... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.plosgenetics.org... [4] http://www.pnas.org...