Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Evolution Designed?
A couple days ago during class Ms I mentioned something about the blog responses being poor, because some of us were saying things that implied evolution occurs on a needs basis. For example, "birds needed to be able to find prey more quickly, so they evolved with better eyesight." According to natural selection, this is clearly wrong, but evolution is still only a theory, right? Through studying biology, it almost seems that organisms are perfectly designed to be the most suitable for their environment. Chapter 6 talks about evolutionary convergence among species that are genetically and geographically unrelated. Although this is used as evidence for evolution, could this also point to a designer? How could this evidence be used to support theory of intelligent design? Is there other biological evidence that could imply a design, thus a designer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theoretically evolutionary convergence among genetically and geographically unrelated species could point to a designer who wishes for one trait to occur frequently in nature. The rationale would connect to the idea that there are universally ideal traits; a point which completely contradicts natural selection. Other evidence for intelligent design stems.
ReplyDeleteHowever it is worth noting that if one does belief that convergence proves intelligent design, one is basing his/ her choice on personal principles. Since both evolution and intelligent design explain how and why convergence arises, the decision comes down to which theory is more credible. With the myriad experimental and mathematical test corroborating evolution’s processes, for one unhindered by personal principle the answer should be clear: natural selection.
More biological evidence for intelligent design comes from the highly efficient flagellum. The flagellum is composed of parts that were originally used for different functions but evolutionists say that they co-opted to form the flagellum. However co-optation is not well documented in nature; mainly see co-optation in engineering. Without well documented evolutionary causes, the existence of the seemingly too efficient flagellum would easily be explained by intelligent design.
Before I start, I would just like to make clear that I'm not denouncing anyone's religion or beliefs; I myself believe in a higher power, but I also believe in evolution. My response is merely a logical analysis of the facts.
ReplyDeleteThough I can see where you're coming from, I think that there are some serious holes in your deductions. You say that "organisms are perfectly designed to be the most suitable for their environment" yet there are many instances when organisms develop traits that are rather counter-productive. Ms. I mentioned earlier this year during our biochemistry unit that some piping in our bodies deposits fats near our heart. As a result, it doesn't take much excess fat consumption to take a toll on our hearts.
As far as convergent evolution, I still feel like this points more strongly to evolution than intelligent design. Organisms in similar environments or similar ecological positions have similar traits. Granted, while this could be the result of intelligent design, you have to consider the connection of DNA. Whether you believe in evolution or not, it is undeniable that DNA is the genetic material and codes for proteins and therefore traits. Since DNA is the genetic material and is heritable, it follows that DNA can be used as an index of relatedness. If we analyze DNA, we find that many species have closer relatives in distant environments than those within the same environment, regardless of trait possession. That is to say, some organisms are more related by DNA than superficial traits would lead one to believe. Thus we can deduce that traits are dependent upon habitat and niche, not relatedness. This is evidence for convergence via evolution versus design.
Now, I think it IS interesting to consider that Darwin was a firm believer in a higher power. Thus I don't think that evolution and religion are inherently at odds with one another, despite what people these days tend to think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe in intelligent design. I believe that an intelligent designer magically develops common traits among species. I believe that an intelligent designer performed a miracle and brought about convergent evolution.
ReplyDeleteDecades ago, my answer to Paul's question would end here, but the age of scientific study has leaped so far that we now understand the stuff of magic, the stuff of our designer's miracles. These miracles are explained through our findings of DNA and phenotypic expression, however, this does not make the actions of our intelligent designer any less miraculous. I simply stand awed and humbled by the genius of our designer.
Let us observe a case of convergent evolution, the thickness of the organism's outer layer as the trait involved. The Australian feral camel and the Bactrian camel are both of the same genus: Camelus. The Australian feral camel is native to the fiery deserts of inland Australia, while the Bactrian camel is native to the relatively cooler steppes of Northeastern Asia. The Bactrian camel possess a much thicker outer coat than the Australian feral camel. In a similar case, the California Ground Squirrel and the Yellow-bellied Marmot are both members of the same family: Sciuridae. The California Ground Squirrel lives in the lower elevated, warmers regions of California, while the yellow-bellied marmot lives generally in the relatively cooler Rockey Mountains and the Sierra Nevada. The yellow-bellied marmot possesses a much thicker outer coat than the California ground squirrel. Squirrels and camels are remotely related, however both organisms displayed an increased thickness of their outer coat in the presence of colder weather. The process by which this specific change of trait came about is called natural selection. Organisms that DID NOT have thicker outer coats in cold climates perished, and offspring bearing mutations causing thicker coating survived. The presence of the trait was amplified by the continued existence of thicker coated organisms, so much so that the thick outer coat became the norm, became a common trait. Natural selection is thus explained and supported.
Our understanding of DNA and its relationship with physical traits, as well as our understanding of genetic mutations, provide us with the discovery of the tools of our intelligent designer, tools that our designer used to bring about this world of fascinating life forms.
Understand that the day will never come that we uncover the full workings of our intelligent designer's system, for we are still infinitely stupid creatures compared to our designer. And if that day came, when we find out all of God's secrets, we would cease to exist thereafter, for our knowledge would spell our doom.
Substitute the phrase "intelligent designer" with "God". I believe in God. I believe that God created natural selection. As Eric stated, Darwin was a firm believer in a higher power. I think I know why.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-bellied_Marmot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ground_squirrel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_feral_camel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactrian_camel
I really like this question, although I am an atheist, simply because it really points at an important point that Carroll does bring up in one of his "after-dinner discussions." He writes about how Reverend Richard Harris, the Bishop of Oxford beleives that God "made a world that makes itself," a statement that implies that evolution is a divine invention.
ReplyDeleteI beleive that the mere fact that all organisms do not coexist peacefully and without harmful effects on each other is contrary to the notion of a loving Abrahamic God. Ecosystems are dangerous places, where death and life are locked constantly in an eternal circle. Think energy cycles, how in order to cycle energy and macromolecules, some organisms need to die in order for others to gain the necessary nutrition and physical space.
Playing devil's advocate, one can make the argument that such a beautiful, efficient, and simple mechanism is evidence of the celestial elegance of God.