>> The fundamental problem with this argument is that it requires
>> a super-human level of understanding. If God were supposed to
>> create each creature for "maximum survivability", then it is true
>> that "imperfections" would show the truth of evolution. But what if
>> God created each creature to serve purposes other than mere survival?
Thank you, you've stumbled on one of the strongest pieces of evidence
for natural selection. From chapters 6 and 7 of "The Origin of
Species":
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one
species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it
would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced
through natural selection.
Again as in the case of corporeal structure, and conformably with my
theory, the instinct of each species is good for itself, but has
never, as far as we can judge, been produced for the exclusive good of
others.
If God designed species to form a harmonious ecology, one might well
expect species to be designed to help one another. But, as far as we
know, they aren't.
>> In a PBS special entitled, "In the Beginning" a gentleman
>> consulted as an evolutionary expert (Leonard Kristalka) cited the
>> rabbit's digestive system as an example of imperfection in nature.
>> The rabbit's digestive system, evidently, is so bad that rabbits are
>> sometimes forced to eat their own feces. The question is, could
>> there be a reason for such an imperfection?
>> One reason for the poor quality of the rabbit's digestive
>> system might be that a creature with a bad digestive system will
>> leave nutrient rich feces. If other creatures in an ecosystem use
>> rabbit feces as fertilizer (plants) or as a breeding ground (certain
>> insects), then rabbit feces might serve a role in the ecology.
That would certainly make sense in a designed ecology. However as
Krishtalka noted, rabbits *don't* altruistically leave nutrient-rich
feces around so other animals can get the benefit, they eat them again
so that they get the benefit.
>> Some evolutionists will argue that effects of this kind are
>> too small to be significant. How ironic that it was Darwin himself
>> that proved small effects accumulated over a long period of time
>> could have a significant effect. ....
It's very kind of you to tell me what arguments I'm going to make, and
then point out how contradictory they are. But aren't you jumping the
gun a bit? I didn't make the above argument, and never would, because
I'm well aware that natural selection relies on small effects
accumulated over time. Ditto, I'm sure, for most other evolutionists.
>> They want to argue that small effects accumulated over sufficiently
>> long periods of time can create the most spectacularly complex
>> mechanisms known to man, but they also want to argue that small
>> ecological effects accumulating over time cannot be the reason for
>> the imperfections of design.
And now you go on and write as if I actually *had* made the arguments
that previously you were only predicting I would make. Tut, tut. (and
look up 'strawman' in the dictionary)
>> A second reason for the rabbit's digestive system might be the
>> fact that rabbits with a bad digestive system will have to eat more
>> food than rabbits with a good digestive system. More food at the
>> same rate of intake means more time spent foraging for food.
Just so story. You could equally well argue that he would design them
with efficient digestive systems, so that more of them could be
supported in the ecosystem, and so provide more food for other animals.
>> If the rabbit's digestive system does have the effect of
>> increasing the amount of time rabbits are exposed to predators, then
>> evolutionists have a problem.
As Krishtalka pointed out, rabbits don't compensate for their poor
digestive system by spending more time foraging. And the recycling of
pellets is presumably done in their burrows or very nearby, so I doubt
that it increases their vulnerability much.
>> How is it that rabbits have such a poor digestive system when they
>> are one of the most preyed upon mammals on earth? If evolution by
>> natural selection can produce efficient digestive systems, then it
>> certainly should have done so in the case of the rabbit.
Animals are sometimes stuck with poor designs because natural selection
has to work with incremental improvements on the materials at hand. To
use a car analogy, it can't rip out the engine and replace it with a new
model from the factory; it is limited to continual tinkering with the
engine it already has.
>> Conclusion:
>> Is it humanly possible to explain the use of every organ in
>> every creature that God created? Obviously not. The fact that the
>> human understanding of individual organisms and entire ecosystems is
>> extremely limited, however, makes the argument from imperfection
>> extremely unconvincing.
One example I found convincing: there is a species of whale (minke?) in
which about 25% of the individuals have vestigial leg bones (I think
they're fully internal, and invisible externally). What conceivable use
could they have? If they do have a use, shouldn't all members of the
species have them?
>> P.S. Does anyone Know Leonard Kristalka's credentials?
Professor of Paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder