Creation vs Evolution (Part 7)

Hey everyone! Here's part 7 of the creation vs evolution series. Hope you enjoy!!

The Debate About Molecular Machines

Living things contain natural molecular machines that are made of many tiny proteins. These machines have parts that are similar to parts in man-made machines and that form a complex system. A bacterial motor is an example of a molecular machine. It has 10 protein parts for the sensor, 10 protein parts for the control circuitry, and 10 protein parts to construct the motor. These proteins form parts such as rotors, stators, drive shafts, O-rings, and bushings. All of these proteins form a complex system that has multiple, separate, well-matched parts that work together for a special function. A bacterial motor is also irreducibly complex, which means each piece must be present and fully functional in order for the system to work. 

 

Opponents of evolution claim that the presence of molecular machines contradicts the idea of natural selection through mutation. The characteristics of natural selection and the characteristics of molecular machines are very different. Natural selection makes gradual changes, but molecular machines must be fully formed in order to work. Also, natural selection preserves small advantageous changes, but a small piece of a molecular machine would not provide an advantage, and therefore would not be preserved. 
 

The evolutionists attempt to explain molecular machines with an idea that they call co-option, which involves the use of previously existing parts to build a new machine. Those parts must be chosen, collected, recombined, and reassembled. The evolutionists claim that natural selection could build a complex structure by co-opting pieces of simpler machines. They point out that the cellular pump includes 10 proteins that are also found in the bacterial motor, and that protein parts can have multiple uses. Evolutionists conclude that since protein parts have multiple uses, natural selection could assemble a more complex machine from parts of simpler machines. 

 

Opponents of evolution point out 3 problems with the theory of co-option. The first problem is that the random process of natural selection has limits. There is no known way for a random process to co-opt pieces without breaking the vital, previously existing system. There is also no known way for a random process to guarantee that the randomly chosen pieces will fit together well enough to work properly. 

 

The second problem is with the pump-to-motor example. The motor proteins seem to be older than the pump, which means that the motor proteins could not have been taken from the pump. Also, the motor has 20 proteins that are not similar to any proteins in the pump or proteins in anything else, which means that those 20 proteins could not have been co-opted from something else. 

 

The final problem is with the requirements for assembling proteins. The bacteria would not only have to have genes to make the protein parts of the motor, but would also need information to tell how to put the proteins together. Another requirement is an irreducibly complex machine to assemble the proteins. In trying to explain where one complex machine came from, the evolutionists need to introduce another complex machine. However, explaining the origin of one machine with another does not sufficiently explain the origin of machines. Looking at all of the evidence against the evolutionists' theory of co-option, opponents conclude that it does not sufficiently explain how molecular machines can be developed through natural selection.