Evolution versus Intelligent Design

Ash 1

Table of ContentsIntro........................................................................................................................................4 First Counter Argument .........................................................................................................4 - 5 Second Counter Argument.....................................................................................................5 - 6 Third Counter Argument........................................................................................................6 First Piece of Evidence ..........................................................................................................7 Second Piece of Evidence......................................................................................................7 - 8 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................8 - 9 References..............................................................................................................................10 - 11

Ash 2

Outline:

I. Introduction II. First Counter Argument A. Eubacteria Flagellum B. TTSS III. Second Counter Argument A. No real evidence B. Factor XII IV. Third Counter Argument A. Cambrian Explosion B. Fossil Evidence V. First Proof A. Fossil Evidence B. Evolution Lines

VI. Second Proof A. Homologous Similarities B. Pentadactyl VII. Conclusion VIII. References

Ash 3

Matthew Ash Ms. Macdonald Science 1st Period 6/4/11 Evolution versus Intelligent Design Intro: The establishment of life on Earth is a debate that has lasted for several decades, with both sides having enough evidence to support a hypothesis but too little to prove it as truth or fact. The two positions being taken in this research paper are evolution and intelligent design. Evolution is the theory formed by Charles Darwin that all living things descended from a common ancestor. Intelligent design is the theory that an intelligent designer created all living organisms, based off how complex organisms are. The side this paper shall be taking is the giving and testing of evidence that proves evolution is the more likely theory behind the creation of life. First Counter Argument: The first counter-argument that shall be brought up is the eubacteria flagellum. The main basis of the argument is that the flagellum is too complex to have been brought about by natural selection and that, if natural selection could have begun forming it, the flagellum would have been scrapped instead. Because of the flagellums complexity, it is considered an irreducibly complex system. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is defined nonfunctional. Since natural selection can only choose

Ash 4 systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. (Behe 1996b) This means that the flagellum could only have been formed through an intelligent designer, and that nature is unable to produce it piece-by-piece. However, recent advancements in the scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum have proven that the flagellum is actually not irreducibly complex. This comes in the form of the type III secretory system, or TTSS, which is a specialized protein secretory system. It allows gramnegative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell. Studies into the TTSS have revealed that their proteins are directly homologous to the proteins found in the basal portion of the flagellum. This shows, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum make up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS. In essence, this means that the TTSS can function perfectly while only using some of the proteins found in the flagellum. If the flagellum were to be irreducibly complex, then just removing one part would render it nonfunctional. However, this is disproved by the fact that the TTSS is perfectly functional, despite missing most of the parts found in the flagellum. Its existence demonstrates that only a small part of the flagellum can carry out an important biological function. This proves that the contention that the flagellum must be fully assembled before any of its component parts is wrong, meaning its argument for intelligent design has failed. Second Counter Argument: The second counter argument will be based on the main idea behind most Intelligent Design arguments. This is the fact that most of its arguments are based on gaps in the evolution theory, basically failings in evolution. However, despite pointing out such holes, Intelligent Design has no real evidence that supports its theories due to the fact that its theories are based off

Ash 5 the thought that because it seems too complex to have been formed by natural selection, it must have been designed. This however, is being completely based off what is already known in science and is not including possible new discoveries in the future. It has been proven repeatedly and an example is that of the intricate cascade of proteins involved in the clotting of vertebrae blood, which requires a Factor XII that starts the cascade. Because each part had a specific job, it was considered irreducibly complex. However, research has proven that dolphins do not have the Factor XII and yet their blood still clots. This means that it is not irreducibly complex because of evidence showing that despite missing one or more parts, it can still function. As stated before, the greatest issue about intelligent design is that it is only based on present knowledge and never takes into account the advancements made in science. As such, intelligent design cannot be proven due to the fact that it cannot provide evidence for itself except in the forms of defects in evolution, which could possibly be undiscovered. Third Counter Argument: The third counter argument that will be brought up is on the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian explosion is a sudden occurrence during the Cambrian Era that resulted in a large number of the current priori suddenly appearing in a short period of time. Because it happened in such a small period of time, supporters of intelligent design state that such a quick event could only be possible with the intervention of an intelligent designer and that evolution could not have produced so many varied species so quickly. The Cambrian age is generally accepted to have begun around 520 million years ago and the Cambrian explosion is said to have occurred in a time zone of 20 million to 50 million years. However, recent discoveries of fossils have found fossils that date back to roughly 635 million years ago. This proves that life was most likely

Ash 6 complex before the Cambrian Era and puts a lot of doubt over whether the priori suddenly appeared or that they could have been evolving over a period of time before the Cambrian age. First Piece of Evidence: Now that the counter arguments against intelligent design have been stated, the evidence supporting evolution shall now be brought up, with the first piece being on fossil evidence. One of the most key pieces of evidence for evolution are the fossils of a transitional form; meaning from one kind to another, an example being from a fish to an amphibian. In essence, there has to be some kind of bridge organism that is in between the two. One such line of descent is the whale and its evolution line. The first starting form of the whale is the Pakicetus, which was about 50 pounds, had long dog-like ears, a long tail and a narrow snout. The anatomy of its inner ears matches very closely with that of modern whales, which is the main reason why the Pakicetus is at the base of whale evolution. The next along the line was Ambulocetus, which possessed a long, slender body, had webbed and padded feet and a narrow snout. It also most likely spent significant time in the water. Rodhocetus, the next in line was genuinely amphibious, crawling onto land only to forage for food and even possibly give birth. The most telling feature for its categorization is the structure of its hipbones, which werent fused together and as such allowed greater flexibility when swimming. But the most telling ancient whale is the Basilosaurus, which was completely suited for life in water. Other transitional forms include the Tiktaalik, which is the transitional from between fish and amphibians. Then there is also the Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, which is also the transitional form between reptiles, specifically dinosaurs, and birds. Second Piece of Evidence:

Ash 7 The next piece of evidence given shall be homologous similarities in living things. This is not to say that the limbs have the same function, but that the internal structure is essentially the same. The most classic example is the pentadactyl, or five-digit limb. This is the relation between very distant animal priori that all have the same five-digit limb in at least a stage of development. Another example is the homology between bat and bird wings. Both have the same initial structure but then diverge as each species begins development. The birds wing becomes more wing-like and less like a leg and a number of the bones fuse together. In the bat, all the bones are kept and are not fused, although they are elongated. The close similarities between their wing bones at their initial stages show them to be homologous. Another possible support is vestigial organs. An example of this is some snakes still have remnants of a pelvis and legs and even humans have a tailbone that is completely inside the body now. These vestigial organs are usually found to be functioning in other species such as for the tailbone in humans; it is actively used in other primates. Molecular homology also aids in showing homologous structures. A species leaves behind signs of its DNA and the proteins that DNA codes for. Two species that share a DNA base sequence can be inferred to have a common ancestor. The number of mutations, which would have split apart the species, can show how closely related the two species as well as an indication of how long ago they separated. Conclusion: In conclusion, evolution is the most likely theory due to the huge amount of evidence present for it. Not only has the flagellum of the eubacteria been proven to not be irreducibly complex and even has the possibility to have been formed through evolution, but also intelligent design offers no new insight and does not act on future discoveries but on present and past ones and as such can only make its evidence from the holes left in the theory of evolution. Also, the

Ash 8 Cambrian Explosion has been shown to possibly not be the start of complex life on Earth. Also, fossil evidence that shows transitional forms between species and even has possible evolution lines of descent. Also, the homologous structures among living things such as the pentadactyl or the similarities in DNA also prove evolution as well. In conclusion, evolution is the most likely theory because of the evidence stated above and because intelligent design just seems to be more of an excuse to fix the holes in evolution. As such, evolution is most likely to be considered true, as this has hopefully been proven in this paper.

Ash 9

References Internet: "Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service, 2001. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html>.

"Evolutionary Genetics." Zoology Website. Zoology. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/Overheads.html>

"Homology." Faculty of Science & Engineering - The University of Waikato. University at Waikato. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Homology.shtml>.

Love, Gordon D., Emmanuelle Grosjean, Charlotte Stalvies, David A. Fike, John P. Grotzinger, Alexander S. Bradley, Amy E. Kelly, Maya Bhatia, William Meredith, Colin E. Snape, Samuel A. Bowring, Daniel J. Condon, and Roger E. Summons. "Access : Fossil Steroids Record the Appearance of Demospongiae during the Cryogenian Period : Nature." Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. Nature Publishing

Ash 10 Group, 27 Nov. 2008. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7230/full/nature07673.html>.

Miller, Ken R. "Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design." Welcome to the Web Site of the Dragonfly Book. Brown University. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html>.

"NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Fossil Evidence | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service, 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-nf.html>.