Archive for March 14, 2013

Apologetics: Short Write Up on Evolution

Was asked to write an argument against evolution for a friend.
Apparently, he wanted to enter into a discussion with an evolutionist.
Well, a short write up on this issue will do, I guess.
After all, discussion like this requires much preparation, which I can’t do at the moment.
So, here is the write up Smile

————————————————————————————————————-

The subject of evolution is a hot debate, in particular on the comparison between creation and evolution: Were humans descended from animals or were humans created by a Creator out there? Even though it may seem to be just a scientific question, the social implication is significant. One example of social implication of evolution is the tragedy of Holocaust. What many modern readers did not know was that Hitler was a committed believer of evolution. He absolutely believed that German race was at the highest peak of evolution whereas other race like Jews was of lesser race. Hence, he absolutely believed he was doing mother-nature a favor by exterminating the Jews.

As with any debate, it is always good to start off with the definition. So, what is evolution and what is not evolution? Some define evolution as simply change over time. However, this definition is not accurate. We should further ask: change in which direction? Is it horizontal, downhill or uphill change? There is significant difference to this.

a.) Change in horizontal or downhill direction.
Whenever biologists report “I see evolution of bacteria/virus in my lab”, this report falls under this category. Basically, it is change from animal to animal or from bacteria to bacteria or from virus to virus. In all this change, no new genetic information is added [horizontal direction]. In fact, most of the time, there is loss in genetic information [downhill direction]. Again in all this chance, they never observe animals becoming human, bacteria becoming bacteriologist, or virus becoming virologist. In short, from molecule to man. Change in horizontal/downhill direction is also called mutation and it is scientific and observable. [Please note that number of genes does not equate with the amount of genetic information. This statement is another set of discussion by itself]

b.) Change in uphill direction
Whenever we talk about animals becoming humans, bacteria becoming bacteriologist, or virus becoming virologist, we are talking about a change in uphill direction [increase in genetic information]. Bacteria have far lesser genetic information as compared to bacteriologist, for example, in term of body size. This change has never been observed and is not scientific. Basically, it is a change ‘from goo to you via the zoo’. Or simply speaking, it is a concept whereby humans are descended from ape-like creatures.

This writing has no objection with the first definition. However, this writing will address the second definition.

Broadly speaking, the discussion of evolution will touch many topics in different fields other than Biology, for example:
– Physics: was universe created? Was Big Bang the true cause of the universe? Is the universe billions and billions of years old?
– Geology: is dating method accurate? Is the earth billions years old or is it just a few thousands years old? Is dinosaur fossil millions of years old or is it just thousands of years old?
– Chemistry: can life really come from a pool of blind chemicals?

Since it is not possible to discuss evolution in each field due to time constraint, this writing will give 2 examples of why evolution from animals to humans never happens. The first example is from biology field, stickleback fish [Gasterosteus spp.] whereas the second example is from chemistry field, formation of peptide bonds.

Stickleback fish undergo obvious change in its life cycle as they move from ocean to freshwater. In the ocean, they have pelvic spines whereas in the freshwater, they have no pelvic spines. This difference in body shape brings advantage to the fish: pelvic spines will protect them oceanic predator whereas absence of pelvic bones will prevent dragonfly larvae in freshwater to prey on them. While this is clearly loss of information (pelvic bones disappear), evolutionists still call them ‘Evolutionary gems’ and ‘Darwin’s finches’.

This example highlights typical strategy employed by evolutionists: giving the example of change in horizontal/downhill direction to prove a change in uphill direction. Clearly, if the fish have lost their pelvic bones, how can this be used to prove the fish will develop new organs like lungs in order to become fishermen?

Second example is from chemical evolution field. Evolutionists propose a chemical soup model in which random collision and random energy source will produce RNA, DNA, enzyme and others. While this does not make sense in terms of thermodynamics, we know this model is non-scientific from a simple reasoning.

Consider an enzyme which is largely a polypeptide. Any polypeptide requires the formation of peptide/amide bond according to the following equation.

R-COOH + H2N-R clip_image002[4] R-CO-HN-R +H2O (equilibrium reaction)

What evolutionists ignore is the formation of water. This reaction is an equilibrium reaction. In order to form amide bond, water has to be removed. However, the chemical soup model already provides abundance of water, enough to shift the equilibrium back to the left hand side. Since it is impossible to form amide bond, there won’t be any polypeptide. If there is no polypeptide, there won’t be enzyme. If there is no enzyme, there won’t be any living being.

(Addendum 17, August, 2014: shifting equilibrium to the left hand side is due to hydrolysis of amide bond by water)

So, under evolutionists’ framework, it is really impossible to prove that living being came from chemical soup. In that case, why are we still here? Simple reasoning to prove evolutionists are wrong.

According to evolutionist Professor Paul Davies, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “We don’t really know how life originated on this planet.”

So, why are evolutionists  so committed to evolution? Richard Lewontin, another evolutionist wrote:

“‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (emphasis added)

An alternative to evolution is a creation, specifically creation as depicted in Christian Bible. This can be a subject of further discussion.

Further reference on this topic:
1.) Hitler and the Holocaust: http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust
2
.) Stickleback fish: http://creation.com/stickleback-evolution#endRef2
3
.) Polypeptide: http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-polymerization-problem
4.) Paul Davies and Andrew Knoll: http://creation.com/15-questions
5.) Richard Lewontin: Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

Posted March 14, 2013 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Thought

Tagged with ,