Evolutionary Convergence - The Teleological Argument Approached Again
24 August 2008 by KA
I was reading about this over at PZ Myers’ blog about how some claim that similarities in evolutionary pathways indicates some sort of designer’s manipulation. Convergent evolution.
And here I will say it: there was a designer, there still is a designer, and the design is ongoing, a work in progress.
The designer that I speak of is the process of evolution. It has no face: no direction: no ‘grand purpose’ in mind. It just is, and it just does what it does and all the vocabulary and spin and sugar-coating and politics and rhetoric cannot alter that.
The creationist George McReady, spun it thusly:
For instance, we have the shark, the ichthyosaur (an extinct kind of fish-shaped reptile), and the dolphin (a true warmblooded mammal, and not a fish at all), all of which greatly resemble each other in external shape and general appearance. Each has the same long, sharp snout, the same powerful tail, the same general fishlike shape. And yet the first of these is a true fish, the second was just as true a reptile, while the third is a mammal, bringing forth its young alive and feeding them by milk, just as does a cow or a horse, though it lives in the sea.
Here the evolutionists have to say that this peculiar shape and general form has been evolved separately and independently in each of these three instances. Indeed, Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, declares that a very similar shape and form has been independently evolved “at least twenty-four times.”—”Encyc. Brit.,” Vol. XX, p. 578…
From this large group of facts we become convinced that these many similar or identical structures, which must have been evolved quite independently (if evolved at all), make too great a draft on our credulity. At least, these hundreds of examples of “parallel evolution” greatly weaken our confidence in homology, or similarity of parts and organs, as a proof of blood relationship.
Well, no, to be honest, it certainly doesn’t stretch my credulity: it’s a far leap from the premise ‘Look at all the similarities inherent among species’ (given that we share a large percentile of DNA with a banana) to ‘there’s a divine hand behind it all’. If anything, these items reinforce the concept of natural selection. Certain forms work better in the water: other forms work better on the land. We should be surprised to see marine species using flippers instead of four legs, when they swim? It would be more interesting to see a gilled mammal. A literal ’sea-cow’, that was gilled, grazed underwater, had four legs and horns, etc.
So we have evolutionary relay, convergent evolution, and parallel evolution as constructs. No doubt some IDiot will use these as being contradictory to one another, when all three can be used as the situation fits.
As an aside, it amuses me to see how the hereafterians sputter in horror at the concept of a universe lacking a guiding hand. As if left to our own devices, we somehow become a psychopathic bunch of nerve endings unable to restrain our baser impulses.
Till the next post, then.
24 August 2008, on 11:14 am
Good post, KA as always.
In a recent exchange with an IDer, I asked how exactly god would zap things into existence. Magic wand? Magic words? They have no answers, they just keep saying they don’t know but they definitely KNOW that god made everything without a doubt. The ones who are really frustrating are the ones who believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. No amount of evidence, no amount of scientific data and information can make them change their minds. They are certain they are right just because they KNOW. When asked how they know they say they go by their Bible. I then ask where in the Bible does it talk about dinosaurs being created. They then change the subject. Fundies are excellent at making shit up and pulling crap out of their rear ends. They choose to remain ignorant about science, and particularly evolution. They just refuse to understand and accept the reality.
24 August 2008, on 11:40 am
Here the evolutionists have to say that this peculiar shape and general form has been evolved separately and independently in each of these three instances.
Good grief. This guy just gave us evidence for evolution. The shape obviously has an advantage and its not surprising that it keeps popping up in aquatic animals. Arguing with creationists is futile.
24 August 2008, on 4:05 pm
Richard Dawkins on purpose, design, and teleology
24 August 2008, on 8:09 pm
For instance, we have the shark, the ichthyosaur (an extinct kind of fish-shaped reptile), and the dolphin (a true warmblooded mammal, and not a fish at allglad he cleared that up…we’d of been confused!), all of which greatly resemble each other in external shape and general appearance
(bold face type my own)
What bullshit! Why not include the tuna’s and billfish? Hell, baracudas for that matter. Same basic body plan. Fast in the water and adept predators too.
I wonder…I wonder, could it be the constraints of natural selection on the most efficient hyrodynamic body form? I mean, why aren’t they all brick shaped? Food for thought.
Let’s not ignore the fact that this designer failed to give dolphins (and icthyosaurs) gills (*sigh*…they drown), electroreception, and chemoreception (that’s right, dolphins can’t smell and considering their breath, lucky them). But sharks got ALL of those. God showing favoritism?…perish the thought.
Oh, and sharks didn’t get echolocation abilities, unlike the dolphins (whale family), who oddly have a well established fossil record of terrestrial ancestory showing the evolution of an aquatic ( whale) ear. That’s right! Hear that! Eat it sharks!…so to speak.
God goes on benders I guess. Forgets what he’s done.
Most of us would call that a “lost weekend”.
I think God needs an intervention.
24 August 2008, on 10:45 pm
Interesting Dawkins video, Stardust.
Speaking of the “Why” question…I couldn’t help thinking whilst listening…
WHY the totally unnecessary, even somewhat distracting…’music’ portion of the soundtrack?
Maybe it’s just me, being a musician, that I can’t help notice things like that; especially when the music has really nothing to add to what Dawkins is trying to get across.
Yeah, I know…picky-picky!
In other words…I would have said: “ixnay to the usicmay”!
Otherwise…
As usual, great insight into an old, common, human habit…asking why where it’s totally inappropriate.
I’ve never understood that criticism of Dawkins; that he’s strident or somehow ‘nasty’ in his criticisms. Quite the opposite, I think; he’s eminently thoughtful, even gentle, and always highly literate and nuanced in whatever he offers as relevantly insightful.
Too bad we hear so little from this amazing man. It’s almost becoming a new ‘mantra’, I would say to preface a Dawkins related discovery with:
“You know, if it wasn’t for the Internet….yada, yada!”
25 August 2008, on 12:46 am
Spyrula; “we’d of been confused!” Surely you mean ‘We’d have been confused’? If you can’t do grade 1 grammar you can’t shout down the IDiots for failing high school biology.
Semantics aside, a useful metaphore for convergent evolution would be invention. Often a couple of people will invent the same thing at about the same time because it provides a needed service and is based on components already avaliable, a phenomenon known as ’steam engine time’.
25 August 2008, on 6:31 am
KA:
“As if left to our own devices, we somehow become a psychopathic bunch of nerve endings unable to restrain our baser impulses.”
Based on history I’d say that the opposite is true. KKKrisitans and other religioholics have a long, well documented history of slaying those with whom they disagree.
25 August 2008, on 8:07 am
Pyrette:
A. You misspelled his handle,
B. Grammar’s about language, so that’s a non-sequitor, (’we’d of’ is acceptable, who cares anyways?) &
C. The steam engine wasn’t invented by several people: it was invented by 1 guy, & improved on by others. Hero of Alexandria, to be exact.
The ‘parallel invention’ thing is a myth, case you didn’t know. (Oh, oops! I forgot to say ‘in case’! Therefore rendering my sentence incorrect, thereby invalidating anything I said!)
DC:
True dat.
25 August 2008, on 9:23 am
I’ll never understand why a normal process stretches people’s credulity and so they conclude that it must be magic. The same person that is willing to believe a guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago and flew up into the sky is not willing to believe man man landed on the moon, which is a well-documented event from our own era… I mean, think about it long enough and you’ll either laugh or cry. Why is the believeability of so many events reversed in so many people? Many ocean-going creatures are fish shaped, big deal… so what about jellyfish and lobsters and octopi? Not fish-shaped. What did this Great Designer have in mind there?
25 August 2008, on 9:37 am
Hmmm, KA…Another anal retentive Monday, perhaps?
[In honor of the opening of the Democratic Convention, no doubt!]
Oh, what the hey!…
I ‘believe’ (ala Faith-based spelling?)…it’s metaphor, Pyrette…i.e…
No final e.
[ChuckA, continuing right along...]:
1) Carefully twists and jiggles standard #5 lead pencil in ass…eraser end, of course!
2) Quickly removes it…and then…?…
3) Examines closely….and ponders smelling it?
25 August 2008, on 12:48 pm
Each has the same long, sharp snout, the same powerful tail, the same general fishlike shape.
But fish and aquatic mammals do not have the same tail. Fish (including sharks) have vertical tails while aquatic mammals like whales and dolphins have horizontal tails.
26 August 2008, on 12:34 am
This would be the same “designer” that placed the median nerve in the same cramped anatomical tunnel along with nine flexor tendons, so that 6000 years down the road, anyone working at a computer all day could experience the joys of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Where, again, is the brilliance in that “design?”
IDiots, indeed.
26 August 2008, on 11:51 am
fritzy
Don’t you know that computers are the tools of the Debbil? Hell, one kind is even called “Apple”! That carpal tunnel pain is a warning to get thee hither and read thine buybull, toot sweet. And remember, Gob only hurts you cos he loves you.
27 August 2008, on 6:57 pm
Sshh, Tommykey, doG doesn’t like to overburden his creations’ fragile minds with too many details…
31 October 2008, on 5:34 am
[...] public links >> argument August 15 (August 5, o.s.) Saved by tlivian on Thu 30-10-2008 Evolutionary Convergence - The Teleological Argument Approached Again Saved by LouiseLuvsPandas on Thu 30-10-2008 NA: SMART to sue over opposition ballot argument [...]