A couple of weeks ago I was staying with some Iranian friends. After supper we watched an Iranian film, A Separation, which is being nominated for two 2012 Academy Awards – Best Foreign Language Film and Best Original Screenplay. It is a gripping tale of an upper-middle class couple in Tehran divorcing because the wife wants to leave Iran to provide a better life for their young daughter while the husband wants to remain and care for his father who has severe Alzheimer’s. Continue reading
In the second video of Session 1 I documented immense confusion in attempts to try to identify a natural process which can be observed to increase the information and/or functional content in biological organisms. And given the confident (but mistaken) claims of its detection and operation it is obvious that naturalists (in the sense of those who believe natural processes can explain life through an evolutionary process) expect it to be observable, i.e. the implicit prediction is that this process should be detected. I surveyed the stickleback fish case study – written about in many university textbooks and popular books on evolution – and showed from what they themselves say this was simply a loss process – a slide down, not a gain up. Then we saw that though birds can lose wings, and mutations can cause Apert’s Syndrome, these are not examples of gain-of-function processes – even though they are touted as such in the textbooks. Natural selection, though observed, is also not a gain-of-function process. They all decrease the information – that is – these processes of nature slide genomes downwards, not push them upwards to more functionality.
In our previous post we saw the cell function at the microscopic level, a point-of-view that convinced long-time atheist Antony Flew to change his mind for Intelligent Design. But what rebuttals are given in university texts? Let’s take a look at a prominent one: The Evolution of the Soapberry Bug.
The Soapberry Bug: A Case Study in Evolution
It took me some time (and a lot of reading) to arrive at this conclusion. And if this is a new thought for you I am sure that likewise this will require more consideration. But I am not just maliciously picking on some ‘mistaken’ examples in a sea of correct ones. The examples I covered in the video are endemic across the literature. But how can this be? Analyzing another case study, taken from Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and JC Herron, can help us better understand how it occurs.
In this study, soapberry bugs in Florida had traditionally fed on the Balloon vine fruit as shown in this figure taken from the text.
But in 1926 a new host plant for this bug was introduced and almost immediately biologists noticed a change in the beak length. Our text concludes that:
the soapberry bug population evolved …the characteristics of soapberry bugs … have changed substantially (pg 41)
So again, an example of observed evolution is claimed. A graph of beak lengths over time is presented from the text to support this conclusion. I added the green vertical 1926 line which is the point at which beak lengths changed. So what can we conclude? As you can see, before 1926 soapberry beak lengths ranged from 9 to 5.5 millimeters – a 3.5 mm range. After 1926, when this new tree was introduced the beak size range was reduced from 7.5 to 5.5 millmeters – a 2 mm range. The title for the graph (which I circled) states this as ‘evolutionary change in soapberry bugs’. But was anything new gained or developed? Were even new beak lengths, not previously seen, observed? No! Not at all! All that happened was that after the new tree was introduced, beak sizes from 7.5 to 9 millimeters disappeared. Information was lost! A certain allele that produced long beaks was selected against in the new environment and was now gone. Change –Yes! Natural Selection – Yes! Evolution – definitely not! Their own data refutes it!
Evolution: Not just any Kind of Change
But how can this case study, which simply documents a loss (of longer beak lengths), be touted as an example of evolution? It is simple. The authors have equated ‘evolution’ with ‘change’. But that is erroneous at best and misleading at worst. Evolutionary naturalism as the establishment’s answer to Design is a claim to account for the origin and development of all life, and is supposed to be a process that over long time produces new information, genes and structures that were not previously there. That is not just any kind of change, but a certain kind of change – one that increases genetic information and function. To reason like these authors is like saying that increasing company profits is simply a change in the balance sheet, and thus if one can show any balance sheet change – such as a corporate loss – this would demonstrate increased profits since a change has occurred in the balance sheet??!! This is such a basic logical error – called the fallacy of equivocation – whereby the definition of a key term is subtly modified during the reasoning process (in this case ‘evolution’ is modified from ‘change with new function and information’ to ‘any change’) that I found it breathtaking to see it not just once, but again and again in so many university textbooks and books promoting naturalism and evolution.
Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics: A Case of Evolution?
And this is also true of the cases of Superbugs, perhaps the strongest cases in the public mind of observed evolution. We have all heard of bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics, having thus ‘evolved’, and now threatening humans with an epidemic. What is happening in these situations? Are new enzymes, processes, or organelles that were not previously there being developed by these bacteria? That is what I had originally thought. If so that would be an example of an innovative evolutionary process.
Natural Selection on Pre-Existing Traits: Not Evolution
But if we examine the literature we find this is not the case. Consider the following:
‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of an existing genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess
In other words in most cases, there were bacteria prior to the introduction of the antibiotic that already had the resistance. The other bacteria were selected away by the antibiotic and we are left with the resistant bacteria. For example, there was a 1988 University of Alberta study of bacteria on the bodies of Arctic explorers frozen in 1845. Investigators discovered that some of the bacterial strains were resistant to antibiotics. The study, which evaluated six strains of Clostridium on three men who had been buried in permafrost, found the bacteria were particularly resistance to clindamycin and cefoxitin, both antibiotics that were developed over a century after the men died.
Conjugation: Not a Gain of New Information
Bacteria can also physically transfer DNA from one organism to another – a process called conjugation. In 1990 “a strain that was resistant to cadmium, penicillin, kanamycin, neomycin, streptomycin, tetracycline, and trimethoprim. … could resist, to varying degrees, some thirtyone different drugs. … The most common mode of passage was conjugation: one bacterium simply stretched out its cytoplasm and passed plasmids to its partner.” This is similar to how we transfer information from one computer to another by using a USB stick. But transferring information from one organism to another (or one computer to another) is not a process that is making or developing new information. It is simply copying existing information.
Mutation in Streptomycin: Degradation not Evolution
Certain antibiotic resistances do occur from mutation. But again these mutations do not develop new enzymes, processes or organelles. They in fact damage existing enzymes and degrade the function of the bacteria.
Perhaps the best known example of this is resistance to the antibiotic streptomycin. The figure on the left shows how this works. Mycin antibiotics attack bacteria by having the right ‘fit’ to attach to a specific receptor site on the bacteria’s ribosomes, and thereby interfering with their protein-manufacturing process. As a result, the proteins that the bacteria produce are non-functional – and they die. Mammalian ribosomes do not contain the specific site where myosin drugs can attach, and for this reason the drug does not interfere with their ribosomes. Therefore, mycin drugs adversely affect bacterial growth without harming the host (us).
With resistant bacteria, mutations cause the bacteria to become resistant to streptomycin if the ribosome site where the streptomycin attaches is damaged by the mutation. As a result, the streptomycin no longer can bind, and therefore does not interfere as well with the ribosome function. This is shown in the next figure.
Streptomycin-resistant bacteria actually are weaker in the wild for several reasons. The major reason is the ribosome’s specific shape is degraded in bacteria that become resistant to streptomycin, and as a result the ribosomes’ ability to translate certain RNA transcripts into protein is less effective. Thus the mutations that confer resistance decrease the fitness of bacteria in environments without antibiotics. As a result they do not reproduce as quickly as non-resistant bacteria. Evidence discovered so far indicates that these mutations render bacteria less fit in the wild because the mutant strain is less able to compete with the wild type.
No Observed Gain-of-Function
The mutations causing resistance to mycin is a case similar to birds on remote islands losing wings – it may be an advantage since there are no predators on those islands – but it is not an example of gain-of-function. In the specific antibiotic environment, having a misshapen ribosome prevents the antibiotic from readily attaching and there is thus resistance. But the ribosome does not function as well as non-mutant ribosomes and thus these bacteria are selected out (eliminated) in the wild.
Bacteria: No Evolution Observed
French biologist Pierre Grasse remarked on the irony of using bacteria as a showcase to try to observe evolution. He stated:
Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants . . . bacteria, despite their great production of intra-specific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Echerichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago.
Resistance to Insecticide: No Evolution
These same processes also explain insect resistance to DDT and other insecticides. Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala reports that:
Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then the resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.
Fruit Fly Mutations: No Observed Evolution
The fruit fly is another small insect from which investigators have tried to ‘observe’ evolution. Rifkin writes about this
The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X-rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to “catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution.” Even with this tremendous speed-up of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.
The ability to observe this alleged process has eluded scientists since Darwin so eloquently argued for it. However, instead of coming clean about this, textbooks and news articles confuse us in a slippery way by equivocating evolution with ‘change’. And this is always presented as a scientific (ie observed) answer to Design. But Soapberry bugs to SuperBugs simply attest, along with all other observed changes, that Nature is simply on a slide downwards. To-date there is no observed alternative to Design.
 Palumbi, S.R., Evolution—humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force, Science 293:1786–1790, 2001; p. 1787
 McGuire, R., Eerie: human arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria, Medical Tribune, 29 December, 1988, pp. 1, 23
 Garrett, L., The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York, 1994. P 413
 Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms. New York, Academic Press, 1977 p.87
 Francisco Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution” Scientific American Vol 239 September 1978. p 63
 Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny 1983 p.1983
This site is about the gospel. Yet Session 1 and several of my posts deal with origins, dissecting university textbooks and other books on evolution. Why bothering getting into this confusing and sometimes touchy subject?
It is a good question and someone challenged me on it a little while ago. After all, it can be such a polarizing topic – why go there? I thought I would address it with a five page pdf article which I have attached with this post. In it I show how what we think about our origins is foundational to everything we understand about ourselves. It affects all areas of human inquiry. This includes our understanding of ethics, as we will see in Session 2.
I hope you take the 5-10 minutes you will need to read this article. I do not argue for the correctness of any belief of system – evolutionary or otherwise. I only show that it is an important question. And important questions demand informed answers, not politically correct silence. As the article says, it is well worth the fuss.
When I was a university student, Antony Flew was considered to be one of the outstanding philosophers alive at the time. He was also a prominent – world famous even – atheist. In fact one of his contributions in the early 1970’s was an essay arguing that the very concept of God was meaningless since it was not testable in any rational way.
Antony Flew was born in the early 1920’s, and by the late 1930’s had concluded that there was no God. But in 2007 he co-authored a rather remarkable book entitled There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. So what caused this man to change his mind? In a 2005 interview he explained:
It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.
Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
In his 2007 book Antony Flew stated that “the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it”. He stated the issue succinctly in his book:
The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem.
In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach intelligent design in the state schools.
I am not generally swayed solely by opinions of leading people. But I rarely ignore them. I want to know the reasons which these people base their opinions on. So what was it that Antony Flew learned about the cell that was not known in the 1930’s when he first decided that there was no God? Take a look at some of the following videos that have been made recently to teach students how parts of the cell work. As you watch them ask yourself these questions. How could this cellular machinery put itself together to start cellular life? Can this work if only half the components are present ‘waiting’ for the other half (and remember these are basic cells functions that are essential for life)? Could this be assembled by chance (one cannot invoke natural selection since there is no reproduction until these processes work)? Follow Flew’s lead and Consider Design at the cellular level.
Intelligent Design: ATP Synthase
This one shows ATP Synthase – the enzyme that makes ATP, the molecule used for energy in all cellular functions. Without this energy there could be no life. Each cell in all bodies has many mitochondria organelles where the ATP Synthase is lodged in its membrane. While you watch this video you will have generated trillions of ATP.
Intelligent Design: RNA Transcription
This one shows how information in DNA is transcribed to RNA. Without this capability life could not make proteins – the building blocks of cells. Notice that it requires ATP to do this while the ATP Synthase requires DNA-RNA transcription. A decidedly chicken-and-egg problem.
Intelligent Design: Photosynthesis
This one shows how photosynthesis works. This process is found in cyanobacteria, the simplest cells, and is the prerequisite function to convert solar energy into chemical energy, without which life could not function. Notice again how ATP Synthase is required here.
I encourage you to watch the many fascinating educational videos on how the cell works. You can find them (Virtual Cell) at http://vcell.ndsu.edu/animations/home.htm
Certainly at an intuitive level, these cellular functions look like machines, and machines are made by intelligent agents. So what is the naturalistic evolutionary rebuttal? When I understood that is was a more-or-less blind appeal to ‘natural selection’, showcased at the university textbook level with examples like the evolution of the Soapberry bug, it was not hard to spot that this was simply a case of loss of functional information, not a gain of anything new.
When I also understood that the evolutionary argument from homology could just as easily be interpreted as evidence from a common designer I changed my mind.
I can also see why Antony Flew changed his mind.
 My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an exclusive interview with former British atheist Professor Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005
 Antony Flew: There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” New York: Harper One, 2007, p124.
I have noticed that it is often the very things that surround us all the time that escape our notice. Or at least we seem to easily miss the significance of that which is everywhere – the ubiquitous. It is fish who are likely to fail to notice the water that they swim in – precisely because it is all around them, all the time.
The same is true of our Design Inference. It is so innate to us that we can miss it even when it confronts us directly. This realization snuck up on me last week when I was staying with a friend of mine.
This friend is wrestling deeply with questions pertaining to the Gospel. Is there a God? Has He revealed himself? Or have people made him up? If He has revealed himself, how should one separate his ‘fingerprints’ from those of people? Is the historical Jesus accessible to us? As we shared our thoughts, insights and doubts about these and other similar questions our friendship grew because it is often the sharing of these questions, rather than having similar answers that can spark fellowship. As part of his search he was exploring naturalistic answers, and given that I believe the gospel assertion that we are made by a Creator, he invited me and another to view the NOVA series Becoming Human. It is a documentary on naturalistic human evolution. We watched the third episode entitled Last Human Standing.
I predicted that the general trend would be that as more information is gathered one would see that the supposedly intermediate ‘ape-men’ would be either human or ape. This was based on my experience in discovering in the literature that there is marked absence of transitional fossils across the fossil record (see Session 1b video for more on that). The documentary did show, through DNA sequencing comparisons that Neanderthals were fully human. Their DNA is the same as ours. I showed my friend how other data presented in the documentary fit readily within a Biblical framework. One needed just to look at the data slightly differently.
But it was the inferences and reasoning logic of the anthropologists interviewed in the documentary that made me take note. They were excited because they had discovered rocks in Africa that had etchings scratched on them. They had also discovered shells with patterned holes in them. Their conclusion was that this was the first instance ever of information being stored outside a human brain. And given the presence of these artefacts, hominids at this point must have evolved sufficiently to have minds capable of symbolic thought. And it was then that the irony struck me.
Why did these anthropologists very naturally, and without hesitation, deduce that hominids at this ‘stage’ of evolution must have developed the capability of symbolic thought? Because we know from universal experience – it is ubiquitous – that information and design only comes from an intelligent agent. These anthropologists did not stop to wonder if the holes in the shells and the etchings on the rocks were produced by time, chance and natural processes. They used the design inference to deduce that they were made by hominids and that these hominids must therefore have been ‘intelligent’. And we the viewers did not even question their reasoning. Without batting an eye we accepted it as self-evidently logical and reasonable. The inference to an intelligent agent when confronted by design is ubiquitous.
Yet in the same interview these same anthropologists surmised that these etchings and shell holes were the first instance ever of information stored outside the brain. Really? The information stored universally in the biological world in DNA, from which kidneys, wings, lungs, feathers – and yes even brains – are built is astronomically more complex and functional than any etchings on rocks or holes in shells.
Is it really a stretch to deduce an Intelligent Designer when we are confronted with information in DNA that is far more complex than anything man has ever developed when we at the same time so naturally deduce ‘Intelligent Hominids’ when confronted by information that is far less impressive? That is the question we take up in Session 1 – The Case for God: Considering Design. The videos in this session are high definition and they are partitioned into chapters so you can stop and then re-start viewing in marked spots.