Today’s society is dominated by a glorification of genetic enhancements through mutations. We see things like the “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”, the “X-men”, “Godzilla”, and “The Fantastic 4” who gain unusual strength and power through mutation. This depiction of how mutations work may sell comic books or Hollywood movies, but could not be farther from the actual truth. Mutations in real life cause terrible effects upon the breeding success and system functionality of life. Some mutations are fairly common and unnoticeable while other mutations (some changing only one base in the DNA) can result in awful diseases such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, or in many cases premature death or abortion.  

The mechanism for evolution requires mutations to be accumulated through generations. (This is assuming that we have some form of Abiogenesis, discussed previously, that allows for reproduction, metabolization, etc.) However, for natural selection to work these mutations must satisfy two important criteria. 1) The mutations must provide a selective advantage. (Something like increased foraging success or increased breeding capability.) And 2) the mutation must be inheritable. (Most of the mutations that occur in our body are not inheritable. Inheritable mutations must occur in germ line cells.) The first criteria we will discuss in the remainder of this post and the second will be discussed in part two of this discussion.

To meet criteria number one were are looking for the ever elusive “beneficial mutation”; one that could give a selective advantage to the organism. Some studies that are commonly quoted are those of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and resistance to malaria by changing the shape of hemoglobin. Antibiotic resistance clearly occurs, however, in all studies, when the original bacteria are reintroduced they quickly out compete their resistant counterparts for resources. This indicates that there is a cost involved in such a mutation. The same is true with malaria resistance. Caused by a single point mutation, hemoglobin can change to a “sickle cell” conformation and block the possibility of contracting malaria. However, individuals with this mutation also incur a cost of “Sickle Cell Anemia”, which can be unbearable and typically leads to an early death. After reviewing the symptoms for both malaria and sickle cell anemia decide for yourself if this is an example of a beneficial mutation.

Consider what it would take to evolve a novel tissue type. Not even the entire organ and it ability to function, just the tissue that it requires. If we have faith in evolution then we must believe that this has occurred. Yet, in-depth study of developmental biology and the differentiation of tissues lead me to believe that this is entirely impossible.  For one to evolve a new tissue not only would there be a need for genetic mutation, but also immediate development of several signaling molecules, transcription factors and signal transduction pathways. As complicated as any circuit board I am unsure of how this could evolve through mutation. Even then all we have evolved is a tissue that provides no selective advantages.

Lastly, note that cells have over 300 molecular machines patrolling the DNA strand to check for errors (mutations). If mutation is the process by which we evolve; why would we evolve a system to prevent further evolution?

Details of the inheritability of these mutations will follow in part two of this discussion.

I am really glad that everyone is still reading and excited about this topic. I have read all of the comments and am very anxious to respond to a few. Unfortunately, I will be in New York for the next two weeks doing research in one of the museums there. This work will result in my first peer reviewed publication in a world wide scientific journal so I am very excited about the research. Also you may notice I have two speaking engagements listed for my New York trip, so I hope any of you who might be in the area can stop by and say hello. I will not return until July 17th, but when I do return look for some new posts as I am ready and prepared to tackle some of the questions that have been tossed my way. 

Wow! I am amazed at the amount and content of all these comments! Allow me to take a moment to respond to a few (especially plunge from the Irreducible Complexity post) before moving on.  It appears that many are getting very technical in their assessment of the debate. That is entirely fine. I have tried to keep my posts easy to read for everyone, but in this one instance we need to combat science with REAL science. So, be fore warned, you asked for it!

First and foremost, many people have underestimated the power of evolution, and many people assume I make the same underestimation. For anyone reading, evolution (natural selection) most certainly occurs. We can clearly see that in the divergence of reproductively isolated species in all major taxa. My major question has always been, and continues to be, to wonder if this type of evolutionary change can account for the divergence of all life on planet Earth? Furthermore, how did this original life come into existence in the first place? It was certainly not by an evolutionary mechanism because this is outside the realm of evolution. (See post on Abiogenesis)

Now to respond to a few pointed comments.

Writer “Trav-ling”, jumped to the mutation question before I could post and stated that Floyd Romesberg indicated that E. coli can promote a mutation in protein LexA to initiate antibiotic resistance. This is partially true. We see many organisms (insects, the flu, bacteria) who seem to develop some form of resistance to toxins. However, what you failed to mention is that this resistance typically comes at a high price. When the “wild type” (biology term for naturally occurring organism) is reintroduced into the population they rapidly out-compete the mutants and kill them off. As for your specific example the reason LexA comes with this fitness cost is because it specifically inhibits transcription of lexA and recA (40bp and 20bp respectively). These genes are critical to inducing the cells pleiotropic response (typically called the “SOS” response). This is damaging because the SOS response is a cells last ditch effort to save itself after considerable DNA damage. (Need a reference: Little et al. PNAS 81) So you are only partially correct in your statement. Many assert that sickle cells are a beneficial mutation as well, because they inhibit malaria. Excuse me, but I would rather take the malaria any day before the sickle cell anemia. (If you are not sure why look up the symptoms of sickle cell anemia.)

Another writer “Geoff Coupe” stated “One might almost believe that you've never followed the discussions over at The Panda's Thumb”. Come on now Geoff. I have been doing this for six years. I am well aquatinted with Gould’s argument about the Panda’s thumb. Few quick comments. Does that prove that a single celled organism can evolve into anything but a single cell. No. Furthermore, this looks more like the action of Natural selection reducing any over complicated system more than creating an entirely new one. Natural selection tends to get rid of things that are excessive or unnecessary. (It does this much more than it creates new systems. Look up Runaway Selection.) The panda’s thumb seems to me to be the simplification of a preexisting structure, more than a novel feature.

Lastly to the very vocal “Plunge”. You stated that Behe retorted his argument. Not true. When I spoke with him a few years ago he seemed more convinced of it than ever before. Check out his latest publication and I think you will be quite convinced. Secondly you questioned why modern cells had to spring into existence all at once. Let me ask you, exactly which major system of the cell would you remove first? “Modern” cells are not very different than proposed primitive cells in their basic design. I urge you to re-read the post on abiogenesis and consider the simple fact that all of the cells major systems to fulfill the seven keys to life have to be in place for even the first life to arise. Then to my statement that we have numerous examples of systems which cannot be derived by numerous slight modifications you said: Prove it. Think about the fact that amino acids (proteins) have to be constructed through use of an enzyme, which amazingly enough, is also a protein! Furthermore, aminoacytly-tRNA synthase is required to attach the amino acid to the tRNA. Without these systems you cannot construct proteins. How can the whole ribosome system be reduced? Show me. Want another? How about DNA replication? Imagine a world without DNA polymerase and the various molecular machines (like the helicase & primase) that help preserve the integrity of DNA. Furthermore, DNA replication is required for reproduction. What good is a cell that cannot reproduce? Prove to me how replication and transcription evolved and you will make major strides in convincing me that we might have a naturalistic origin. (You won’t find one by the way. I have been looking for years.) Also, I am glad you mentioned the Kreb Cycle and Blood Clotting evolution. Give me your references, because all the work I have ever seen about these systems never proposes to demonstrate the mechanism of evolution. Once I have those I will be happy to address them publicly.

In conclusion, I want to thank all of you for your comments. I have been trying to keep up with all the statements and have had a lot of fun reading them. Keep up the good discussion. Don’t forget Scientific Integrity is what this site is all about.

Many people have heard of this concept of Irreducible Complexity, however, few really understand what it means. The concept has a long history in the debate, but was most eloquently depicted by Dr. Behe. (See Book List) The basic idea is that if a system can be observed which cannot come into existence through numerous gradual steps than it cannot be “evolved”. Dr. Behe, whom I have personally met, uses the example of a mouse trap. If you take away any piece of a simple mouse trap the entire system fails and is useless. Behe’s real life example was championed by the bacterial flagellum motor.

This idea of Irreducible Complexity is wide spread. In a previous post we discussed abiogenesis. How could the first living cells come into existence? They need so many complex systems to be in operation simultaneously. Are they Irreducibly Complex? I would say so. Charles Darwin stated in his Origin of Species that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Chapter 6) Darwin went on to say that he knew of no such system. However, in his time the inner workings of the cell were entirely unknown. We now have many examples of systems which cannot be formed by numerous slight modifications. In addition, many of these systems require very precise machinery. Evolution is very good at tinkering with things that already exist (commonly known as adaptation) but it has never been demonstrated that evolutionary process can lead the derivation of entirely unique systems. This leads us to wonder exactly how such systems might come into existence through an evolutionary mechanism. Is it even possible? Through my study and research I have not found anything to lead me to believe that it is.  

Furthermore, things through evolution happen through chance mutation. What is the nature of mutations? Is there such a thing as a beneficial mutation? This will the topic of our next discussion.

I just wanted to drop a quick note to say thank you to MSN for featuring the space. It is great to hear all the different perspectives and views. This site had over 3000 hits in the first 48 hours.

Secondly, thank you to all who wrote comments. I assure you that I have read all of them! I wish I could respond to each one individually, but unfortunately time and space do not allow. I love the active discussion about this important topic. Look for another post soon and I hope you keep checking back to keep the excitement going.

      It is a common response of many that we simply evolved. This response, however, is a gross over simplification of the concept of evolution. Let us take a quick look at the very beginnings of life and see if we can answer the question of "how we got here."
       So how does evolution work? Well it works through random mutation or recombination of DNA. Then we assume that genetically superior individuals will have a greater ability to survive and reproduce, thereby passing their genes to future generations in greater abundance then "weaker" individuals. But notice where we are starting; we already have this incredible molecule of DNA. The real question is: where did the DNA come from? We cannot "evolve" DNA because the mechanism of evolution utilized pre-existing DNA. So whatever happened at the very begging of life was a process completely apart from traditional evolution.
      The leading theory at this point, but certainly one still in great controversy, is that and RNA world preceded a DNA dominated world. Why; mainly because one strand of RNA has been found to have catalitic (enzyme like) ability, and the possibility of self-replication under highly controlled conditions. Here is the problem, the catalytic ability of this RNA molecule is only one of thousands of enzymatic catalysts that are needed for life. Furthermore, the self replication is a dead end. If it can only replicate itself, then the possibilities for evolution are extremely limited if not impossible. Furthermore, nucleotides (Building blocks of RNA and DNA) have never been produced under normal Prebiotic conditions. (More information regarding the "RNA World" can be provided upon request.)
       What do we need to get life?  Well there are 7 keys to life that must be achieved. All life must be: made up of cells, be able to grow, differentiate, metabolize, move, respond to stimuli, and most importantly, reproduce. (Alberts et al. 2004) All of these systems are highly complex processes and have to be derived simultaneously to produce life. All of these processes must be present in the very first living cell. If you want an idea of the complexity involved pick up any science textbook and look at the process of mitosis. And that is only one of the seven keys. All of these keys to life involve multi-step processes and they need to all come about at one time in one place for life. As a biologist I cannot accept the assumption that this has ever occurred. It does not make since with what we know about Organic Chemistry and Biology. What ever happened to begin life was certainly outside the realm of evolution, and from my research it seems outside the realm of naturalistic explanation as well.

        In conclusion, the first life on Earth did not have the ability to evolve. No matter what we believe about what happened afterward, scientists are still wondering how life first began. It appears to me that the cell is to complex to be random, and too specific to be produced in what we think of as the early earth. It leads me to think that there certainly was some form of Intelligent Designer, although I do not propose to who this designer is.

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Alberts et. al. 2004. Essential Cell Biology. 2nd Ed. Garland Science New York, NY.

 The debate over high school curriculum is once again raging in Kansas. The media and evolution supporters state that this is yet another movement by creationists to get their beliefs into the school curriculum. One evolution critic admitted that she had never actually read the newly proposed curriculum stating that “I’m not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information.” This is written for high school students; what "technical information" is she talking about? Another critic of classroom evolution was asked “In your opinion, the intelligent designer is God, is it not?” He replied: “Well, yeah, I would agree with that.”

We must be very careful when we are talking about what we are going to teach in the classroom. As someone who leans heavily toward intelligent design, the idea of completely removing evolution from a biology curriculum is preposterous. Animals evolve, change, adapt. They may not evolve from a single cell to a human being or from a dinosaur to a bird, but things do change. Removing evolution from the course all together would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Why would we want to promote ignorance among our students? Furthermore, any attempt to assert that God is the creator of the universe is strictly outside the realm of science and is a breach of our separation of church and state.

What we should be fighting for is an honest look at the theory of evolution. Examine the theories strengths and weaknesses in a fair and scientific manner. Ignorance can come not only from eliminating evolution, but also from viewing it as unfailing. I have heard many say that high school students should not be exposed to this type of information, implying that they are not yet ready to comprehend all of its detail. I say that they are not only capable but might actually benefit from it. Enter a bit of controversy in the classroom and they might pay attention in class! Teach an honest class, fully examining the theory of evolution, and allow the students to adopt their own world philosophy outside of class.

     In science one of the very cornerstones of our mindset is to be skeptical of all processes and theories provided. However, in some respects many people are no longer skeptical, and therefore blindly accept, some of the themes of science such as evolution. I absolutely agree that new species have "evolved". But can this evidence be extrapolated to indicate that entirely novel features and organisms have evolved? I am profoundly skeptical only because of the evidence I have seen leads me to wonder how these processes could come into existence through small gradual changes. Even more so, how these changes could precipitate through random mutation in the first place. Now, however, I am getting ahead of myself. We shall discuss the finer detail at a later date.

     Skepticism to me seems to be foundational to our understanding of science. We must be skeptical and test all the "chinks in the armor" before we can accept anything. Many will tell me that evolution has been tested over and over again and been proved, for all intents and purposes, true. I, however, am yet to be convinced. What do we as scientists have to fear by taking yet another look? That is what this site is all about: taking another skeptical look at this phenomenon called evolution.   

This blog will mainly be used to describe interesting features found in science that directly relates to the debate over origins. (Creation / Evolution debate) I welcome comments and discussion over all the postings and look forward to seeing various view points. Before we begin let me first give you an idea of my ideology and view on science.

• Scientific Integrity - Above all else I am interested in the real science. Many so called "Creation Scientists" today are only interested in selling half-truths and propaganda. I am not interested in that at all. Conversely, many evolutionists hold so steadfast to their belief in slow gradual changes (or punctuated equilibrium) that they don't take the time to step back and look at the actual mechanisms of their theory. Whatever we do we must be ready and whiling to follow the scientific evidence where ever it leads.
• Non-apologetic - I am not interested in defending the Bible. If the Bible is true then it shall stand the test of science. If we approach a scientific debate with the mindset of seeing how it "agrees" with the Bible then we have already biased ourselves and it is not worth perusing biased science.
• Non-religious - While I hold some religious beliefs of my own, I am not interested in pushing a religious agenda. I am interested in science and its implications on our origins.

This blog will be an open discussion about findings in science that relate to our origins and all viewpoints and opinions expressed shall be respected. I hope anyone who chooses to read along will find it as enlightening as I am sure I will. 

Talk to you again soon.