Eduardo
> ID theory, parallel interventions, and marsupials
>
> Loren Haarsma (lhaarsma@retina.anatomy.upenn.edu)
> Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:12:00 -0500 (EST)
> (I'm posting this to several groups which might be interested in the
> discussion. Apologies to those who receive it multiple times.)
>
> In this thread, I hope to explore a consequence of Intelligent Design
> theory which is seldom discussed: parallel interventions.
>
> ----
>
> Last year on the evolution@calvin mailing list I posted the following
> questions (slightly modified):
>
> Suppose we are examining a complex biological feature which we
> suspect could not have evolved, but required intelligent
> intervention. Now suppose this feature is found in multiple groups
> or organisms whose common ancestors go back well before the first
> appearance of that feature (e.g. bat wings and bird wings). Should
> we hypothesize that, historically, multiple instances of intervention
> took place to achieve similar features in each group? Does this seem
> less elegant than a single (historical) intervention? Should we
> hypothesize a single intervention with a very long dormancy? Or
> would this pattern suggest to us that, perhaps, that *particular*
> feature probably arose through natural mechanisms? If so, why?
>
> In particular, consider the marsupials. The isolation of marsupials
> to Australia (and nearby islands) --- combined with fossils which
> record a divergence between marsupials from other mammals at the
> same time as Australia became separated from the continent --- strongly
> suggest that the creator used *some* degree of genealogical
> continuity to create modern marsupials. There are many different
> species of marsupials, covering a wide variety of climates, ecological
> niches, and survival strategies. Their distribution into these niches
> parallels, on a smaller scale, the distribution of non-marsupial mammals
> on other continents.
>
> Here, then, is the nub of my question for intelligent design theorists:
> Do you think the wide variety of marsupials could have evolved, or do
> you think that such a wide variety of anatomies and adaptations is
> beyond evolution's capabilities?
>
> If your conclusion is that the wide variety of anatomies and adaptations
> found in marsupials could not have evolved, then it seems to follow that
> there must have been separate and parallel interventions in the
> marsupial and non-marsupial mammal populations, in order to achieve very
> similar adaptations in each population.
>
> No doubt this pattern is repeated in many different places, in many
> different groups of plants and animals: A complex adaptation to a
> particular environment or ecological niche is found in isolated
> populations whose common ancestors predate the development of those
> adaptations. (e.g. bat wings and bird wings) So the hypothesis that a
> particular biological feature is too complex to evolve necessarily entails,
> in many cases, the hypothesis of multiple, parallel interventions in
> isolated populations (to achieve essentially the same biological effect).
> This poses, at a minimum, an aesthetic challenge ID theory. I would
> appreciate others' thoughts on this topic.
>
> Loren Haarsma