Transcript Problems with Evolution

Problems with NeoDarwinian Evolution
Can chemical evolution create the
first living cell?
Can Neo-Darwinian evolution
explain all the organisms we see
today?
Biological Origins:
The Controversy
“It is absolutely safe to say that if
you meet somebody who claims
not to believe in evolution, that
person is ignorant, stupid, or
insane (or wicked, but I’d rather
not consider that).”
Richard Dawkins (Professor of Zoology
at Oxford University), New York Times,
1989.
Review of Biochemistry
Atoms--the building blocks of matter
(hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and others)
Molecules--combination of atoms bound together by electrical
forces (water, sugar, salt, amino acids, and many others)
Amino Acids--molecules that are the building blocks of proteins
Proteins--folded chains of amino acids that form the structural
building blocks and machinery in cells
Cells--the building blocks of living organisms
DNA--a long, ladder-like molecule, found in a cell’s nucleus, that
stores the information (code or directions) for building proteins,
cells, and organisms (deoxyribonucleic acid)
Mutation--an error in the DNA code
The Chemical Evolution Hypothesis
Chemicals
Water
Hydrogen
Methane
Carbon
monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Ammonia
Nitrogen
No Oxygen
Basic
Molecules
Fatty acids
Membranes
Amino Acids
Proteins
Sugars
Purines
Pyrimidines
RNA & DNA
Protocells
Living
Cells
Darwinian Evolution Starts With a Living
Organism
Charles Darwin believed that observed small changes in
organisms (micro-evolution) were due to variation acted upon by
natural selection.
Micro
Evolution
He reasoned that if small changes occur over a short time, change
in basic form (macro-evolution), due to accumulated small steps
are possible over a long time.
Macro
Evolution
Beware of Definitions for Evolution
A. Evolution--Change over time; or a heritable change in the
characteristics within a population from one generation to the next.
B. Darwinian Evolution--The common descent of
all organisms from single celled organisms by the
mechanism of variation operated on by natural selection.
C. Neo-Darwinian Evolution--Darwinian Evolution with random
genetic mutation as the variation mechanism.
D. Micro-Evolution--Small changes in organisms due to random
mutations, genetic variability, and natural selection.
E. Macro-Evolution--Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution.
F. Chemical Evolution--Chemicals forming the molecules of life
then organizing to form the first cells by random, natural processes.
A or D being true do not imply that B, C, E, or F are true.
How Does Neo-Darwinian Evolution Work?
1. Chemicals combine to form DNA,
proteins, and the first
living, reproducing cell.
6. Accumulated
innovations
produce new
body plans.
2. Genes in DNA duplicate,
making them free to mutate
without destroying original
function.
7. The fossil record shows
intermediate body
plans and common
descent.
5. Advantageous innovations
spread throughout a
population by natural selection.
3. Random mutation
creates new genes, and
new genes code for
new proteins.
4. New proteins and interactions
among new proteins
provide innovations.
Can Chemical
Evolution
Create the
First Living
Cell?
Life’s Basic Molecules Have Been Formed,
But Chemical Evolution Stops There
The Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 and others synthesized
amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), and
heterocyclic bases (the building blocks of DNA)
from the gases assumed to compose the “early atmosphere.”
But there are serious problems:
1. Oxygen in the early atmosphere.
2. Contaminants.
3. Chirality: both left and right “handed”
amino acids are formed.
4. Amino acids and bases have never
assembled naturally into proteins and
DNA outside the cell.
Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen; The Mystery of Life’s Origin; Philosophical Library, NY, 1984.
Wells; Icons of Evolution; Regnery, 2000.
Proteins are a String of Amino Acids
Amino acids are molecules.
There are 20 different amino acids
used in proteins.
There are hundreds to thousands of
amino acids in a protein string.
Proteins use only “left handed” amino
acids.
In 19 of the 20 amino acids, both “left
and right handed” are “naturally”
formed in equal numbers.
From Darwin’s Black Box
Phenylalanine
Histidine
Leucine
Glutamine
Isoleucine
Asparagine
Methionine
Lysine
Valine
Aspartic acid
Serine
Glutamic acid
Proline
Cysteine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Alanine
Arginine
Thyrosine
Glycine
Randomly Assembling a Protein is
Extremely Improbable
A reproducing cell requires at least 100 proteins with a median length of
400 amino acids.
If a “right handed” amino acid is included in the amino acid chain, the
chain cannot function as a protein.
Randomly synthesizing a chain of 400 left-handed amino acids
with 1080 tries (number of atoms in the universe)
every micro-second since the beginning of time (15 billion years)
is less likely than 1 in 10 billion.
There are not enough atoms and time in the universe to randomly
assemble 400 left-handed amino acids into a chain.
In addition, the right type of bond between amino acids is required.
Even with proper bonds and chirality, very few amino acid strings will
fold into functioning proteins.
And, there is no known natural means of assembling amino acids into
strings outside the cell.
Grasping at Straws: The RNA World
Since the assembly of DNA and proteins are both highly improbable,
perhaps life started with a self-replicating RNA molecule.
Some RNA molecules (ribozymes) have catalytic capabilities like
proteins and store information like DNA.
Response:
Their catalytic properties are insufficient for the integrated,
coordinated function required for reproduction.
To date, no sugar, phosphate, and base molecules have self-assembled
under natural conditions outside the cell.
RNA has the same chirality problem as proteins.
Without reproduction, RNAs cannot advance to a reproductive
system.
Crick (co-discovered DNA structure in
1953), Life Itself, 1988: “An honest
man, armed with all the knowledge
available to us now, could only state
that in some sense, the origin of life
appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions
which would have had to have been
satisfied to get it going.”
How Does Neo-Darwinian Evolution Work?
X
1. Chemicals combine to form DNA,
proteins, and the first
living, reproducing cell.
6. Accumulated
innovations
produce new
body plans.
2. Genes in DNA duplicate,
making them free to mutate
without destroying original
function.
7. The fossil record shows
intermediate body
plans and common
descent.
5. Advantageous innovations
spread throughout a
population by natural selection.
3. Random mutation
creates new genes, and
new genes code for
new proteins.
4. New proteins and interactions
among new proteins
provide innovations.
Can Genes
Duplicate in
DNA?
The Evidence for Gene Duplication is Declining
There is some evidence for gene duplication:
Polyploids (extra chromosomes) in some plants,
Pseudogenes thought to be damaged duplicates.
Gene duplication was thought to be the source of “junk” DNA, 9798% of human DNA.
The ENCODE project is showing that at least 90% of
“junk” DNA is not junk.
Current research is showing at least some pseudogenes
have function.
If there are no “junk” DNA or pseudogenes, there is
no “duplicated” DNA to support neo-Darwinian
evolution.
How Does Neo-Darwinian Evolution Work?
X
1. Chemicals combine to form DNA,
proteins, and the first
living, reproducing cell.
6. Accumulated
innovations
produce new
body plans.
X
2. Genes in DNA duplicate,
making them free to mutate
without destroying original
function.
7. The fossil record shows
intermediate body
plans and common
descent.
5. Advantageous innovations
spread throughout a
population by natural selection.
3. Random mutation
creates new genes, and
new genes code for
new proteins.
4. New proteins and interactions
among new proteins
provide innovations.
Can NeoDarwinian
Evolution
Design
Innovations?
A Mutation is a Copy Error in the
DNA Base Pair Sequence
A point mutation gets a single base pair wrong.
There are also deletions, insertions,
transpositions, and etc.
Mutations are infrequent but real.
Most mutations destroy protein function
and are detrimental.
Some mutations are neutral.
A very few may be beneficial to the organism
under some conditions and spread throughout
a population in future generations.
Human sickle-cell anemia--resistance to malaria.
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria.
A new variety of bacteria that eats oil or plastic.
Point Mutation
Evolution From a Single Cell to Modern
Organisms Requires Thousands of Innovations:
Sight
Nervous systems
Respiratory systems
Circulatory systems
Skeletal systems
Immune systems
Molecular machines
Bacterial Flagellum
Innovations require new proteins with binding sites (shapes and
charges) that allow new inter-protein interactions.
Proteins work in multi-protein complexes, usually 6 or more.
The Bacterial Flagellum is an Innovation
Requiring 40 Interacting Proteins
For a simple bacterium to develop a flagellum, roughly 40 new
proteins that fit together must be produced by mutations.
The flagellum, like other innovations, is irreducibly complex, which
means the flagellum is useless unless all proteins are present.*
Useless protein interactions and associated mutations do not spread
in a population, and even die out because of their energy cost.
All 40 interacting proteins would have to be present at the same time
to give an advantage, which is improbable.
*combination lock analogy
New Binding Sites For More than Three Proteins
are Out of Reach for Neo-Darwinian Processes
According to Michael Behe:
No new “advantageous” inter-protein binding sites have been seen in
1020 malaria, 1020 HIV, and 1013 E. Coli cells.
Generously, assume that one new binding site
between two proteins is possible in 1020 cells.
We might expect to see two coordinated
binding sites among three proteins in 1040 cells.*
Only 1040 bacterial cells have lived since life began; therefore,
interactions among more than three proteins are out of reach.
Michael Behe; The Edge of Evolution; Free Press, 2007.
*combination lock analogy
Evolutionists Argue:
There is a stepwise evolutionary path to every innovation where each
step, requiring new proteins and binding sites, is beneficial-significantly increasing innovation probability. (combination lock analogy)
Response:
Since the bacterial flagellum needs all 40 proteins, each protein had
to serve some other beneficial function until all were present.
If so, we would expect to find each protein used in another beneficial
function in the cell, but we don’t.
We would also expect to find proteins for
assembly, repair, regulation, and control
that came together, but we don’t.
Such a pathway has never been demonstrated
for any innovation.
And, each step may be implausible.
Can a Functional Protein Develop a New
Function Through Mutation?
Doug Axe & Ann Gauger experimented with proteins that have the
most similar structures but have different functions.
They found that at least 7, and probably more coordinated mutations
are required to change the function from one to the other.
Using a population-genetics model, they found that such a change
would require far longer than 15 billion years.
The Neo-Darwinian mechanism (mutation & natural selection) for
developing new functions is not plausible.
Gauger & Axe; The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
Orphan Genes
Orphan genes code for proteins that have a unique sequence and
structure.
All organisms have a significant number of orphan genes.
They are so different from other genes that they are unexplainable by
a neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection.
How Does Neo-Darwinian Evolution Work?
X
1. Chemicals combine to form DNA,
proteins, and the first
living, reproducing cell.
6. Accumulated
innovations
produce new
body plans.
X
2. Genes in DNA duplicate,
making them free to mutate
without destroying original
function.
7. The fossil record shows
intermediate body
plans and common
descent.
5. Advantageous innovations
spread throughout a
population by natural selection.
X
X
3. Random mutation
creates new genes, and
new genes code for
new proteins.
4. New proteins and interactions
among new proteins
provide innovations.
Can NeoDarwinian
Evolution
Design New
Body Plans?
DNA Does Not Determine Body Plans; Thus,
Mutations Cannot Lead to New Body Plans
Recent research indicates that DNA does not determine an
organism’s architecture (body plan)1,2.
Something in the egg besides DNA (centrosomes and membrane
patterns) is involved with determining architecture.
This is called epigenetic information.
Embryos develop according to the egg species’ plan (until death)
when its DNA is replaced by that from another species.3
1. See the Epilogue of Stephen Myer’s Signature in the Cell.
2. See Chapter 14 of Myer’s Darwin’s Doubt.
3. Jonathan Wells; lecture given in Albuquerque, NM on January 20th, 2009; “DNA Does Not Control Embryo Development.”
How Does Neo-Darwinian Evolution Work?
X
X
1. Chemicals combine to form DNA,
proteins, and the first
living, reproducing cell.
6. Accumulated
innovations
produce new
body plans.
X
2. Genes in DNA duplicate,
making them free to mutate
without destroying original
function.
7. The fossil record shows
intermediate body
plans and common
descent.
5. Advantageous innovations
spread throughout a
population by natural selection.
X
X
3. Random mutation
creates new genes, and
new genes code for
new proteins.
4. New proteins and interactions
among new proteins
provide innovations.
What About
Common
Descent?
Does The Fossil Record Show Common Descent?
The fossil record shows a progression from single celled organisms
to complex multi-celled organisms over time.
Organism
Asserted Age
Blue-green algae in the oceans
Blue-green algae and bacteria on land
Single celled animals
Complex, multi-celled animals*
Higher plants on land
Fish, amphibians, forests, insects
Reptiles
Dinosaurs, flowering plants
Mammals, birds
Man
3.5 to 1 billion
1.2 billion to 800 million
1 billion
530-520 million
425-400 million
400-345 million
345-280 million
225-65 million
65 million
1 million?
It also shows major animal classes and phyla appearing abruptly,
fully formed, and living unchanged for millions of years. During the
Cambrian Explosion*, most phyla (main groups) appeared without
intermediate forms over a few million years.
Cambrian Explosion Video
Famous “Intermediates”
The fossil record contains few if any intermediate links, and all are
controversial. Are they intermediate or independent with intermediate
characteristics?
Archaeopteryx— “Paleontologists now agree that
Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of modern birds1.”
Whales—A 2001 National Geographic article cited
evidence that Hippos are the closest land dwelling relatives of whales.
A 2007 Nature article cited evidence that Indohyus, a small, deerlike
animal is the whale’s closest land relative.
Tiktaalik—A 2006 article in Nature calls this fish with limb-like
front fins the intermediate between fish and amphibians. A 2010
Nature article tells of finding tetrapod footprints, with toes, dated at
20 million years before Tiktaalik.
1. Wells, Icons of Evolution
Are We Related to Chimpanzees?
mtDNA estimates a chimpanzee-human common ancestor about 10
Mypb, but this is based on assumptions:
common descent,
mutation rates are known, and
all differences in DNA are due to mutations.
Base pair sequences of protein coding genes for chimps and man
may be 98-99% the same, but total DNA may be only 70-76%* the
same.
Humans and chimpanzees have the same “broken copy” of a
vitamin C gene that may indicate a common ancestor.
Similar “pseudo-genes” are found to have an important function,
implying that common descent may not be the only explanation.
*Richard Buggs as quoted by Casey Luskin; Critically Analyzing the Argument from
Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity; evolutionnews.org, 9/2011.
Is there an Evolutionary Tree?
Contradictory trees are
derived from different
protein and gene sequence
comparisons.
Contradictory trees are
derived from embryonic
development patterns.
These imply that the tree
model is wrong.
See Myer’s; Chapter 6, Darwin’s Doubt.
How Does Neo-Darwinian Evolution Work?
X
X
1. Chemicals combine to form DNA,
proteins, and the first
living, reproducing cell.
6. Accumulated
innovations
produce new
body plans.
X
2. Genes in DNA duplicate,
making them free to mutate
without destroying original
function.
7. The fossil record shows
intermediate body
plans and common
descent.
5. Advantageous innovations
spread throughout a
population by natural selection.
X
X
3. Random mutation
creates new genes, and
new genes code for
new proteins.
4. New proteins and interactions
among new proteins
provide innovations.
Conclusion
The Neo-Darwinian
mechanism of
mutation and natural
selection is a theory
in crisis.
Evidence for common
descent is declining.
Genesis 1: In the beginning, God
created the heavens and the earth
and every living thing according to
its kind.
How Do The Darwinists Respond?
All critiques of Darwinian evolution are religiously motivated.
Intelligent Design Creationism is creationism in disguise, not science.
Darwinian evolution is a fact and is the best supported of all scientific
theories.
Nearly all biologists believe in Darwinian evolution.
People who doubt Darwinian Evolution just don’t understand.
Imperfections in biological designs demonstrate that the designs were
not created by an intelligent cause.
Substantive responses are infrequent.
Reading
The Mystery of Life’s Origin; Thaxton, Bradley, Olson, 1984
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Michael Denton, 1986
Darwin on Trial; Phillip Johnson, 1993
Darwin’s Black Box; Michael Behe, 1996
Nature’s Destiny; Michael Denton, 1998
Intelligent Design; William Dembski, 1999
Icons of Evolution; Jonathan Wells, 2000
The Edge of Evolution; Michael Behe, 2007
Signature in the Cell; Stephen C. Meyer, 2009
The Myth of Junk DNA; Jonathan Wells, 2011
Darwin’s Doubt; Stephen Meyer, 2013
Internet
Discovery.org
IntelligentDesignNetwork.org
NMIDnet.org
ARN.org
Probability of Randomly Assembling a Protein-1
Consider an average protein that is 400 amino acids long.
19 of 20 amino acids are naturally produced in both left and right
handed molecules
Assume amino acids are randomly attached into a string (polymer).
The probability of getting a polymer made of all “left handed” amino
acids is 1/2380 = 4 x 10-115.
Assume that we get 1080 tries (very generous) at building this protein
every micro-second since the beginning of time (very generous).
1080 is roughly the number of atoms in the universe.
The number of micro-seconds since the beginning of time is:
15x109 yr x 8760 hr/yr x 3600 sec/hr x 106 micro-sec/sec
= 4.7 x 1023 micro-seconds
We get 1080 x 4.7 x 1023 = 4.7 x 10103 tries.
Probability of Randomly Assembling a Protein-2
The probability of getting one success over all these tries is,
4.7 x 10103 x 4 x 10-115 = 1.9 x 10-11
which is less than 1 in 10 billion.
This is almost impossible odds, and we have been very generous.
A reproducing cell requires at least 100 proteins.
The probability of getting the right bond is ½ for each amino acid.
Other kinds of amino acids will poison the process.
Very few left-handed amino acid polymers will fold into functional
proteins. An estimate is 1 in 1077 for 150 amino acids.
There is no known natural mechanism for assembling amino acids
into polymers outside the cell.