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.

      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.

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.