Creatures that defy coevolution are shortchanged by DVD series

The first DVD of a three-DVD series

====================================

The American Family Association is selling a series of three DVD's titled "Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution". These DVD's neglect some of the best examples of "incredible creatures that defy evolution": creatures that defy coevolution.

Coevolution is generally defined as adaptation to other kinds of organisms, as opposed to adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment (e.g., air, water, and land in its various forms). Because of the prefix "co," which means mutual or together, coevolution is sometimes more narrowly and more properly defined as the evolution of obligate mutualism, e.g., the relationship between bees and flowers, but the definition is often extended to include interspecies relationships where the adaptation might be on only one side, e.g., some predator-prey and parasite-host relationships. Sometimes organic features of an environment -- e.g., the trees of forests -- may for the purpose of evolutionary analysis be treated the same as purely physical fixed features of the environment, e.g., air and water.

As I have pointed out many times, the problems of coevolution present some of the biggest barriers to Darwinian evolution. However, none of the following examples given on the homepage of these DVD's website concerns coevolution -- with the exception of the bird that can kill a lion with a single kick (not an example of obligate mutualism):
.

- Are there really creatures that produce fire to defend themselves?

- How does a giraffe get a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?

- How can Geckos walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

- How can birds navigate over thousands of miles of ocean and never get lost?

- How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?

- How do great whales dive to the bottom of the ocean without the pressure causing them to implode?

- What creature was the inspiration for the helicopter?

- How can some creatures be cut in half and still regenerate themselves? Some can even grow a new head!

- What kind of bird can kill a lion with a single kick?

- How can some dogs know that a storm is coming before it appears, or can sense when their masters are about to experience a seizure?

- Which creature perlexes scientists because of its amazing ability to heal itself, even when it sustains horrendous injuries?

- How do Emperor Penguins go two and a half months without eating or drinking?

Animals featured in each of the three DVD's are listed below. Of these animals, I recognize only the hummingbird and the melipona (misspelled "milopina") bee as having an interspecies relationship (both are pollinators), though there may be other such animals in the lists.

The first DVD features,

Bombardier Beetle
Giraffe
Woodpecker
Australian Incubator Bird
The Chicken Egg
Platypus
Black & Yellow Garden Spider
Gecko & Chuckwalla Lizards
Human Eye & Ear Drum

The second DVD features,

Whales
The Pacific Golden Plover
Dragonflies
Hippopotamus
Glowworms and Fireflies
Bears
Earthworms
Elephants
Education Dishonesty section
Sparrow

The third DVD features,

Lampsylis Mussel
Horses
Ostrich(e)s
Hummingbirds
Vestigial Organs
Dogs
Manatees
Elephants
Butterflies
A section on designs and designers
Cuttle Fish
Penguins
Milopina Bee and vanilla (correct spelling is "melipona")

Coevolution defies evolution in the following ways:

(1) Obligate mutualism: In the coevolution of corresponding co-dependent traits in obligate mutualism, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, there might be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other kind of organism is likely to be locally absent.

(2) Complex specific adaptations to other organisms: Examples of such adaptations are: orchids' mimicry of female wasps' sex pheromones, some very complex parasitisms

(3) Multi-host parasitisms: These parasitisms may require the simultaneous evolution of two or more parasitic adaptations and it may be difficult to imagine a pathway for such evolution.

Buzz pollination[1] , orchids' mimicry of female wasps' sex pheromones [2], and extremely complex and/or multi-host parasitic relationships [3] [4] would all make good additions to these DVD's.

Here is an example of an extremely complex parasitism, from "The Loom" blog of Carl Zimmer --

As an adult, Ampulex compressa seems like your normal wasp, buzzing about and mating. But things get weird when it's time for a female to lay an egg. She finds a cockroach to make her egg's host, and proceeds to deliver two precise stings. The first she delivers to the roach's mid-section, causing its front legs buckle. The brief paralysis caused by the first sting gives the wasp the luxury of time to deliver a more precise sting to the head.

The wasp slips her stinger through the roach's exoskeleton and directly into its brain. She apparently uses sensors along the sides of the stinger to guide it through the brain, a bit like a surgeon snaking his way to an appendix with a laparoscope. She continues to probe the roach's brain until she reaches one particular spot that appears to control the escape reflex. She injects a second venom that influences these neurons in such a way that the escape reflex disappears.

From the outside, the effect is surreal. The wasp does not paralyze the cockroach. In fact, the roach is able to lift up its front legs again and walk. But now it cannot move of its own accord. The wasp takes hold of one of the roach's antennae and leads it -- in the words of Israeli scientists who study Ampulex -- like a dog on a leash.

The zombie roach crawls where its master leads, which turns out to be the wasp's burrow. The roach creeps obediently into the burrow and sits there quietly, while the wasp plugs up the burrow with pebbles. Now the wasp turns to the roach once more and lays an egg on its underside. The roach does not resist. The egg hatches, and the larva chews a hole in the side of the roach. In it goes.

The larva grows inside the roach, devouring the organs of its host, for about eight days. It is then ready to weave itself a cocoon -- which it makes within the roach as well. After four more weeks, the wasp grows to an adult. It breaks out of its cocoon, and out of the roach as well . . . .

. . . . [the adult wasp] is too small to drag a big paralyzed roach into its burrow. So instead it just delicately retools the roach's neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third. The Israeli researchers found that they could also drop oxygen consumption in cockroaches by injecting paralyzing drugs or by removing the neurons that the wasps disable with their sting. But they can manage only a crude imitation; the manipulated cockroaches quickly dehydrated and were dead within six days. The wasp venom somehow puts the roaches into suspended animation while keeping them in good health, even as a wasp larva is devouring it from the inside . . .

Scientists don't yet understand how Ampulex manages either of these feats. Part of the reason for their ignorance is the fact that scientists have much left to learn about nervous systems and metabolism. But millions of years of natural selection has allowed Ampulex to reverse engineer its host. We would do well to follow its lead, and gain the wisdom of parasites . . .

Yet Carl Zimmer dismisses this "reverse engineering" as merely "an evolutionary transition":

I find this wasp fascinating for a lot of reasons. For one thing, it represents an evolutionary transition.

A summary of my thoughts about coevolution is here.
.

READ MORE

Summary of thoughts about co-evolution

I just happened to write this summary recently and I decided I might as well post it here. Co-evolution is covered in articles in the "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" and "Non-ID criticisms of evolution (new #1)" post-label groups on this blog (these post-label groups are also listed in the sidebar of the homepage -- the reason for the two groups is that the blog software limits me to a maximum of 20 articles per post label). These articles elaborate on many of my points below.

I first became interested in co-evolution about three years ago. IMO of particular concern are (1) the co-evolution of obligate mutualism -- i.e., total co-dependence between two different kinds of organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants -- and (2) the co-evolution of extremely complex parasitic relationships. In the co-evolution of obligate mutualism, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical and quasi-physical (e.g., forests) features of the environment, e.g., air, land in its different forms (e.g., forests, plains, mountains, deserts), and water in its different forms (fresh, salt, and brackish), there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. A mutant pig with wings that suddenly appears anywhere in the world can fly immediately, but bees appearing in the absence of flowers or flowers appearing in the absence of bees -- or other pollinators -- will die immediately.

The following factors are important:
.
(1) The co-evolution of obligate mutualism presents a particular problem because this kind of co-evolution may require simultaneous changes in both kinds of organisms in the same geographical location, because the co-dependent traits in both kinds of organisms may be immediately fatal in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent traits in the other kind of organism. In contrast, in the evolution of parasitism and commensalism, for example, change may be required -- or immediately required -- in only one of the organisms.

(2) Co-evolution is more difficult where the required change is one of kind rather than degree. For example, in buzz pollination, where the pollen is shaken loose by resonance from special vibrations of insects' wings, the pollen is contained in tubes -- it is not just a matter of the pollen adhering more strongly to the plant.

(3) Often the two co-dependent organisms can interact only in large numbers, requiring that large numbers of both kinds of organisms suddenly appear in the same place at the same time.

(4) Co-evolution is more difficult where the adaptations must be very complex and exact -- e.g., orchids' mimicry of female wasps' sex pheromones. One particular species of orchid is pollinated by only one species of wasp.

(5) Even where the co-evolution of obligate mutualism can be gradual, the gradual changes must exist in both kinds of organisms at the same time and place in order to be mutually reinforcing.

(6) Extremely complex parasitic relationships -- including multiple-host relationships -- are also a big problem for co-evolution. In some parasitic relationships, the parasite invades the nervous system of the host and produces drastic changes in the host's behavior.

(7) Co-evolution, unlike Intelligent Design, is a problem for natural selection. It has been assumed that all that is necessary for evolution to occur is to have beneficial mutations and then natural selection will assure that the best beneficial mutations will survive. However, in co-evolution, if the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other kind of organism is absent, natural selection will not occur. Also, co-evolution is a problem for "front-loaded" (pre-programmed) evolution as well as Darwinian evolution, because it may be necessary to trigger the front-loaded mutations in both co-dependent organisms at the exact same time and place.

(8) The problem of co-evolution is what I call a "non-ID" criticism of evolution -- i.e., arguments against co-evolution do not necessarily depend on any of the traits involved being irreducibly complex. However, ID can be used in arguments against co-evolution -- for example, whole sets of co-dependent traits may be irreducibly complex. For example, bees must not only be able to digest nectar, but must also be able to find the flowers. Bees are able to detect the ultraviolet light from flowers and perform a special "dance" which informs other bees where flowers are located.
.

READ MORE

Why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics should be taught as a criticism of evolution

Sleazy PZ Myers [1] [2] (identical posts) and Jason Rosenhouse [3] [4] are only proving my point that studies of criticisms of evolution theory -- even pseudoscientific criticisms -- are worthwhile educational experiences for students. Indeed, their discussion of the relation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to evolution shows that even many professional scientists and engineers are unaware of or ignore some of the best reasons why the SLoT is not a valid criticism of evolution (the engineers who get the most training in thermodynamics are mechanical and chemical engineers -- aeronautical engineering is really a branch of mechanical engineering and an "aerospace engineer" is any engineer who works for an aerospace company).

Here are two reasons why the SloT is not a valid criticism of evolution:
.
(1) There are many different ways of defining or describing the SLoT, but many of these ways have nothing to do with biology. Probably the most popular statement of the SLoT is as follows: "It is impossible to construct an engine which, operating in a cycle, does nothing but absorb heat from a single reservoir and perform an equivalent amount of work." This principle is illustrated by the Carnot cycle. The work performed by a Carnot engine operating in a Carnot cycle (see the above diagram) is represented by the enclosed area inside the pressure-volume diagram of the cycle. It is evident that to have both (1) a positive enclosed area and (2) a return of the cycle to its starting point, there must be a stage where the engine rejects heat to a reservoir -- the Carnot engine cannot return to the starting point by a purely adiabatic process. The rejected heat represents the inefficiency of the Carnot engine. However, this statement of the SLoT does not introduce the concept of entropy, and SLoT arguments against evolution theory are often based on the concept of entropy.

(2) The SLoT's entropy property is quantified only for homogeneous substances and mixtures of homogeneous substances (e.g., water and steam) -- for example, entropy values are given in steam tables and Mollier charts. However, living things are generally not homogeneous, even at the microscopic, submicroscopic, and even molecular levels -- for example, a DNA molecule is not homogeneous. Yet both PZ Myers and Jason Rosenhouse present arguments that attempt to quantify the entropy of living things.

Also, Jason Rosenhouse insists that SLoT criticisms of evolution be quantified, but SLoT arguments cannot always be quantified -- for example, my above SLoT arguments are not quantified. Jason says,

Knowledgeable people will not show any respect for Sewell's argument, because he has produced virtually no argument at all. He describes it as his opinion that evolution violates the second law. This is not the sort of thing about which scientists are supposed to have opinions. We have ample evidence that evolution happened and that natural selection was the driving force of it. Biologists find evolutionary thinking to be very helpful in their research. If Sewell believes that it runs afoul of the second law nevertheless, then he needs to carry out the calculations that show that to be case. Otherwise he has only an opinion based on nothing.

Anyway, as the Darwinists point out, even if the entropy of the biosphere could be calculated, the biosphere is not a closed system and hence a decrease in the entropy of the biosphere could be compensated by an increase in entropy elsewhere, and hence the SLoT would not be violated.

I previously discussed the SLoT here and here.
.

READ MORE

How could these parasites' life cycles evolve?

Click on picture to enlarge

This and the following illustrations are from the website of Prof. Matthew Bolek of the Dept. of Zoology at Oklahoma State Univ.

===============================================================

How could the complex life cycle of the above parasite evolve by means of a random process when it is impossible to even imagine a process for such evolution?

Other extremely complex parasitic relationships and life cycles of parasites are described in another post. Parasitologists should be among the leading Darwin doubters, but we have not heard much if any Darwin-doubting from them.

The following text accompanies the above picture:
.

Trematodes have some of the most complex life cycles in the animal world and usually include three hosts. Our current studies concentrate on trying to understand the evolutionary avenues for and constraints on the transmission of these parasites to their amphibian hosts. Currently we are investigating two aspects of amphibian trematode life cycle evolution: 1) we are comparing the differences in life cycle strategies among closely related congeners and mapping those similarities and differences on current phylogenetic hypotheses, and 2) we are examining the role of anuran tadpoles in the truncation of trematode life cycles from three to two hosts.

We work on the avenues for and constraints on transmission of frog lung flukes (Haematoloechus spp.) and the role of second intermediate hosts in these life cycles. Most frog lung fluke life cycles have been shown to use odonates as second intermedite (sic) hosts. However our studies in Nebraska indicate that there is a lot of variation in the use of second intermediate hosts among congeners of frog lung flukes. See frog lung flukes.(shown and discussed below)

Click on picture to enlarge

Four representative frog lung flukes. Haematoloechus coloradensis and H. complexus are second intermediate host specialists where the cercaria can attach to any body region of aquatic arthropods. Haematoloechus parviplexus is a second intermediate host specialist and can only infect dragonfly by passively entering the rectal breathing apparatus, whereas H. longiplexus is intermediate in its host specificity and can infect dragonflies as well as damselflie.(sic)

.

READ MORE

2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution, again

"By viewing evolution as the motion of energy flows toward a stationary state (entropy), evolution can be explained by the second law of thermodynamics, a law which conventionally describes physical systems. In this view, a cheetah serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow the animal to transfer more energy within its environment, helping even out the energy." Image credit: Rob Qld. -- from PhysOrg.com.

==========================================

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been used to argue both for and against evolution theory. In this article, the SLoT is used to argue for evolution theory:
.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Often, physics and biology appear as different worlds, from a scientist’s point of view. Each discipline has its own language and concepts, and physicists and biologists tend to look at the world in different ways – not least being from inanimate and animate perspectives.

But at the core of these two sciences is the concept of motion. As a biological ecosystem evolves by the process of natural selection, it disperses energy, increases entropy, and moves toward a stationary state with respect to its surroundings. Similarly, as energy flows in various physical phenomena, they too cause biological systems to move toward stationary states with respect to their surroundings, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Whether an object is animate or inanimate, science does not seem to make a distinction. In both cases, energy flows toward a stationary state, or a state of equilibrium, in the absence of a high-energy external source.

In this way, explain Ville Kaila and Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki, the second law of thermodynamics can be written as an equation of motion to describe evolution, and, in doing so, connect biology with physics. Their study, “Natural selection for least action,” is published in the Proceedings of The Royal Society A.

BTW, to see all the visitors' comments below the article, either turn off the "Rank Filter" at the top of the comment list or set it at 1.

The SLoT really has nothing to do with evolution. The SLoT mainly concerns physical properties that are uniformly distributed in homogeneous substances and the transfer of heat and work between those substances and their surroundings. Probably the most popular statements of the SLoT are the following:

Kelvin statement: It is impossible to construct an engine, operating in a cycle, whose sole effect is receiving heat from a single reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work.

Clausius statement: It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-temperature reservoir.

I previously discussed the SLoT in this article.
.

READ MORE

Bizarre parasitisms a challenge to evolution

A caterpillar of the geometrid moth Thyrinteina leucocerae with pupae of the Braconid parasitoid wasp Glyptapanteles sp.

Full-grown larvae of the parasitoid egress from the caterpillar and spin cocoons close by their host. The host remains alive, stops feeding and moving, spins silk over the pupae, and responds to disturbance with violent head-swings. The caterpillar dies soon after the adult parasitoids emerge from the pupae. Photograph by Prof. José Lino-Neto. Picture courtesy of Universiteit van Amsterdam

================================================================

Previously my arguments about co-evolution were restricted to the evolution of obligate mutualism (i.e., total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms) because I thought that only co-evolution of obligate mutualism could require that a mutation in one kind of organism be immediately answered by a corresponding mutation in another kind of organism at the same geographical location in order to produce a benefit or even just for survival. I didn't see parasitism per se as a problem for evolution because I assumed that mutations involving parasitism do not require an immediate corresponding mutation in the other organism. However, I have just discovered literature about bizarre parasitisms that may require changes in the traits of the host and so also may be a problem for evolution.

The abstract of a scientific article titled "Parasitoid Increases Survival of Its Pupae by Inducing Hosts to Fight Predators" says,

Abstract
Many true parasites and parasitoids modify the behaviour of their host, and these changes are thought to be to the benefit of the parasites. However, field tests of this hypothesis are scarce, and it is often unclear whether the host or the parasite profits from the behavioural changes, or even if parasitism is a cause or consequence of the behaviour. We show that braconid parasitoids (Glyptapanteles sp.) induce their caterpillar host (Thyrinteina leucocerae) to behave as a bodyguard of the parasitoid pupae. After parasitoid larvae exit from the host to pupate, the host stops feeding, remains close to the pupae, knocks off predators with violent head-swings, and dies before reaching adulthood. Unparasitized caterpillars do not show these behaviours. In the field, the presence of bodyguard hosts resulted in a two-fold reduction in mortality of parasitoid pupae. Hence, the behaviour appears to be parasitoid-induced and confers benefits exclusively to the parasitoid.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "parasitoid" as "an insect and especially a wasp that completes its larval development within the body of another insect eventually killing it and is free-living as an adult."

Here are some excerpts from the article (the numbers are reference numbers) --
.

Diseases, parasites and parasitoids can induce spectacular changes in the behaviour of their host [1]–[11]. Some of these changes, such as behavioural fevering [12] and exposure to cold temperatures [13], are thought to benefit the host, but others have been suggested to result in increased transmission of parasites [1], [3], [4], [14]–[17] or increased survival of parasitoids [18]–[22]. One of the most famous examples is the parasitic trematode Dicrocoelium dendriticum, which induces its intermediate host, ants, to move up onto blades of grass during the night and early morning, and firmly attach themselves to the substrate with their mandibles [3]. This is believed to enhance parasite transmission due to increased ingestion of infected ants by grazing sheep, the final host [23]. In contrast, uninfected ants return to their nests during the night and the cooler parts of the day. Other examples of such spectacular behavioural changes include parasitoid larvae (Hymenoepimecis sp.) that induce their spider host (Plesiometa argyra) to construct a special cocoon web in which the larvae pupate [7], rodents infected by Toxoplasma that lose their innate aversion to odours of cats, the parasite's final host [9], and hairworms that induce their terrestrial arthropod hosts to commit suicide by jumping into water, after which the hairworms desert the host to spend their adult stage in their natural habitat. [6], [8]

Regarding the caterpillar and wasp,

Parasitoid larvae are known to interfere with host endocrine functions, causing the host to stop feeding before parasitoid larvae egress [10], [28], [31]–[35]. Levels of juvenile hormone, ecdysteroids and neurotransmitters (e.g. octopamine) have been found to increase shortly before parasitoid egression [33]–[35]. However, it is not clear whether parasitoid larvae produce these substances in sufficient quantity to change host behaviour [10], [34]. Moreover, the most important behavioural changes in the present study occur only after the parasitoids have egressed. The egression usually takes about 1 hour, and the caterpillars do not respond strongly to disturbance during egression, but only 1–2 hours after the event. This casts doubt on the role of the parasitoid larvae in the behavioural changes. However, when we dissected caterpillars from which parasitoids had egressed 3–4 days before, we found 1–2 active parasitoid larvae that had remained behind in the host, as has been found in another system [36]. We hypothesise that these parasitoid larvae are responsible for the changes in host behaviour. A similar mechanism has been described for the trematode D. dendriticum [37] and the liver fluke Brachylecithum mosquensis [23], which both use ants as an intermediate host. One or two of the parasites migrate to the ant's brain, where they encyst and are believed to affect the ant's behaviour. These so-called brainworms are not transmitted, and appear to be sacrificed to enable transmission of their kin [38]. If the parasitoid larvae of the system described here also stay behind to manipulate the host and do not pupate later, this would represent a cost of host manipulation: some offspring are sacrificed for higher survival of their kin [39]. This hypothesis needs further investigation.

Amazing.

The paper is discussed in ScienceDaily.

Another bizarre example of parasitism is described on the blog of science writer Carl Zimmer. To him, it's all just a simple matter of evolution:

Scientists don't yet understand how Ampulex manages either of these feats. Part of the reason for their ignorance is the fact that scientists have much left to learn about nervous systems and metabolism. But millions of years of natural selection has allowed Ampulex to reverse engineer its host. We would do well to follow its lead, and gain the wisdom of parasites.

READ MORE

Unintelligible high-falutin gobbledygook about co-evolution

An article titled "Intelligent Design Exposed," linked to Panda's Thumb, has what are probably the most unintelligible scientific discussions that I have ever seen. The following abstract is an example:

Evolution of mixed strategies

In this study we present a simple optimization model for the evolution of defensive strategies (tolerance and resistance) of plants against their natural enemies. The model specifically evaluates the consequences of introducing variable costs and benefits of tolerance and resistance and nonlinear cost-and-benefit functions for tolerance and resistance. Incorporating these assumptions, the present model of plant defense predicts different evolutionary scenarios, not expected by previous work. Basically, the presence of an adaptive peak corresponding to intermediate levels of allocation to tolerance and resistance can arise when the shape parameter of the cost function is higher than the corresponding of the benefit function. The presence of two alternatives peaks of maximum tolerance and maximum resistance occurs only when benefits of tolerance and resistance interact less than additive. Finally, the presence of one peak of maximum resistance or maximum tolerance depends on the relative values of the magnitude of costs for tolerance and resistance. An important outcome of our model is that under a plausible set of conditions, variable costs of tolerance and resistance can represent an important aspect involved in the maintenance of intermediate levels of tolerance and resistance, and in favoring adaptive divergence in plant defensive strategies among populations. The model offers a framework for future theoretical and empirical work toward understanding spatial variation in levels of allocation to different defensive strategies.

EVOLUTION OF MIXED STRATEGIES OF PLANT DEFENSE ALLOCATION AGAINST NATURAL ENEMIES, Evolution, Volume 58, Issue 8 (August 2004)

Perfectly clear.

READ MORE

Scientific method used in studies of co-evolution

Believe it or not, I actually used the scientific method in my studies of co-evolution. First I stated a theorem of co-evolution. Then I theorized that co-evolution would be much more difficult in interspecies relationships where: (1) there is totally co-dependent mutualism as opposed to other kinds of interspecies relationships, e.g., predator-prey, parasite-host; (2) the required changes in both organisms are of kind and not just degree, i.e., the changes cannot be completely gradual; and (3) the traits are totally dependent (i.e., fatal or very harmful in the absence of the corresponding trait in the other organism) in both or at least one of the organisms. I then searched for such interspecies relationships and I think that I found a fairly good example in buzz pollination.

One scenario in which the evolution of buzz pollination might occur is that some flowers with regular exposed pollen developed tube-contained pollen while retaining the exposed pollen and that the exposed pollen feature then disappeared after buzz-pollinating insects appeared. But this is a very complicated evolutionary pathway for unguided evolution.

Also, as I said, a basic problem for co-evolution of co-dependent mutualism is that in order to have a benefit, corresponding changes in both organisms must co-exist at the same time and the same place, and that is unlikely when changes are rare (and is especially unlikely when the changes are fatal or very harmful in the absence of corresponding changes in the other organism). This is a problem even for gradual changes.

READ MORE

"Theorem" is better term for ID than "theory"

What is truth?
-- Pontius Pilate

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary's definition of the scientific meaning of the word "theory" is:

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (emphasis added)

The use of the word "theory" to describe Intelligent Design has always irked me because a scientific theory is supposed to explain something whereas ID does not explain anything -- it is just a criticism of evolution theory.

On the other hand, one of Merriam-Webster's definitions of "theorem" is:

an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : PROPOSITION (emphasis added)

The term "demonstrable truth" might cause a problem for some people because it may be impossible to prove the truth of ID with certainty. However, an acceptable level of truth is sometimes not certainty -- for example, courts accept positive DNA test results even though DNA testing labs say that there is one chance in a few billion that two DNA samples that appear to come from the same person actually come from two unrelated people.

So from now on, whenever appropriate, I am going to use the name "theorem of Intelligent Design." I have already started to apply the word "theorem" to criticism of co-evolution theory (e.g., "Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence of Two Organisms").

READ MORE

Is "buzz" pollination co-evolvable?

I have previously presented "buzz" pollination as an argument against co-evolution because of the high degrees of exclusive mutual specializations required in both the insects and the flowers and the improbability that both of those exclusive mutual specializations would appear at the same times in the same places. Now it appears that the degrees of those specializations are much higher than I realized. Previously I thought that buzz pollination only involved normal use of the insect's wings, but in buzz pollination the insect uses its wings in a special way that may even involve specialized muscles. An article says,
.

I'm Jim Metzner and this is the Pulse of the Planet, presented by the American Museum of Natural History . . . .

. . . . In most plants, the pollen in the anther is accessible, but in certain plants (such as the eggplant) it's relatively inaccessible, because the anthers are tubular with an opening on only one end . . . .

. . . ."There's the flight of the bee that's sort of a (SOUND OF BUZZING) but then when it lands on the flower and vibrates it, it goes (SOUND OF BUZZING, DIFFERENT PATTERN) that's the more intense sound is the buzzing of the bee. It's not flying. It's not moving its wings. The wings are pointed over its back, but it's moving those indirect flight muscles to vibrate, and thereby dislodge the pollen that's stuck in the anther area of the plant."

Buzz pollination is also discussed here.

For other articles about co-evolution, click on the post label "Non-ID criticisms of evolution."
.

READ MORE

Co-evolution theory censored by Florida Citizens for Science!

Yes, folks, it's hard to believe but it's true. I'm not making this up -- the theory of co-evolution [1] [2] [3] is being censored on the blog of the so-called Florida Citizens for Science. A comment by FCS blogger Brandon Haught(y) says,
.

Larry Fafarman,

I’m tired of your unsupported claims that co-evolution somehow isn’t legitimate or somehow refutes evolution.

As such, I have a homework assignment for you. First, contact the following:
University of California Museum of Paleontology
The National Science Foundation
Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Have them take down the page they did/funded on co-evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_33

Also, contact Dr. John Thompson and tell him to pack his bags and find a “real” job. Because, co-evolution is a crock and his life’s work is a sham.
http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/thompson/

Once you have done the above, come on back with proof that you have done so and I will let you post about co-evolution again. In the meantime, every time you spout off about it, I am deleting your post.

I consider myself fairly tolerant and I have allowed “free speech” here on the blog to an extent many other blogs don’t. But there is a limit to my patience. This is not a government site, so I have no mandate to allow free speech. So, I will exercise my right to delete your unsupported assertions. You have your own site; post your nonsense there. If you decide to throw a hissy fit over my exercising my right, then I will ban you.

You have some work to do, Larry. You better get to it.

Brandon Haughty is censoring my arguments about co-evolution precisely because he finds them to be too persuasive. He would not be bothered by my arguments if they were absurd, e.g., Second Law of Thermodynamics arguments.

Thought for the day: If design can be an illusion, then maybe evolution can also be an illusion.
.

READ MORE

The Scientific Theory of Co-evolution

The Darwinists charge that criticisms of Darwinism are not scientific. OK, I will try to make my theory of co-evolution sound more scientific:

Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence of Two Organisms:

In co-evolution of a co-dependent trait -- unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air -- there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be locally absent.

First Corollary:
.

Co-evolution by means of random mutation is virtually impossible where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are fatal in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism.

Second Corollary:

Even a co-dependent trait that is not fatal or harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait provides no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent.

Third Corollary:

Two totally co-dependent organisms may have irreducibly complex sets of pairs of co-dependent traits involving multiple organ systems in one or both organisms -- for example, a bee must be able to both digest nectar and find flowers.

Fourth Corollary:

The Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence may be a barrier to evolution even where irreducible complexity is not.

=============================================

Evolutions of predator-prey and parasite-host relationships are often presented as false proof of co-evolution. Evolution in these relationships does not require simultaneous mutations in the other organisms, and often it is better for the first organism if there is no corresponding defensive change in the other organism.

Actually, though, if "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for some observed phenomenon, then these principles of co-evolution do not constitute a "theory" -- they are just criticisms of evolution theory. The same goes for Intelligent Design. However, there is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be criticized without presenting a plausible alternative theory at the same time.
.

READ MORE

Another dilemma for evolution: isolated groups of freshwater species

I have been thinking about another non-ID dilemma for evolution: isolated groups of the same species of freshwater organisms -- e.g., species of freshwater fish and freshwater aquatic plants -- naturally occurring in different lakes, rivers, and streams that were never connected to each other. Is this an extreme example of convergent evolution?

Other non-ID criticisms of evolution may be found by clicking on the post label.
.

READ MORE

X-rated orchid

.




Photo is courtesy of
National Geographic News

An article in National Geographic News says of the above photo,

July 17, 2007 — It may look enticing, but this "female wasp" (left) is all stalk.

That's because this temptress is actually a recently discovered hammer orchid, a flower that has evolved to resemble the body of a female wasp. Hapless male wasps are lured to land on — and thus pollinate — the flower.

The orchid is one of six new species found in the biologically rich region of southwestern Australia.

Other orchid species have evolved to use similar cunning to attract male wasps, such as emitting an airborne chemical that mimics a female's pheromone.

One thing that is especially interesting about at least one of these wasp-orchid relationships is that the female wasps emerge a week later than the male wasps so that the orchids do not have to compete with real female wasps in attracting horny male wasps. Another interesting thing is that these relationships confer no benefit on the wasps except free porn. One reference says,
.

The reward offered is not always food. There is a tropical orchid with flowers that look and smell like females of a certain species of wasp. Males of this species emerge a week before the females. A male who smells a flower of this orchid, think it’s a female wasp, gets closer and the flower looks like a female, lands on it and it feels like a female, tries to copulate, gives up in frustration, and goes on to the next thing that smells like a female, and ends up transferring pollen.

I wonder how the Darwinists can explain that one. The above wasp-orchid relationship is supposedly an example of co-evolution, where two different kinds of organisms exert “mutual evolutionary pressure” on each other. My blog discusses co-evolution here and here.

My thanks to Denyse O'Leary on Uncommon Descent for bringing the National Geographic article to my attention.
.

READ MORE

Honeybee die-off's threat to agriculture shows importance of co-evolution

Darwinists and critics of Darwinism have largely been ignoring co-evolution, treating it as an unimportant sideshow of the main event, isolated evolution. In my research for this blog's articles about co-evolution, it was very difficult to find any literature on the subject. Now a honeybee die-off's threat to agriculture is showing the great importance of co-dependence (often called mutualism -- related terms are commensalism, amensalism, and parasitism) and co-evolution. An AOL news article says,
.

Unless someone or something stops it soon, the mysterious killer that is wiping out many of the nation's honeybees could have a devastating effect on America's dinner plate, perhaps even reducing us to a glorified bread-and-water diet . . . .

. . . . In fact, about one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Even cattle, which feed on alfalfa, depend on bees. So if the collapse worsens, we could end up being "stuck with grains and water," said Kevin Hackett, the national program leader for USDA's bee and pollination program.

.

READ MORE

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution

I thought that critics of Darwinism long ago gave up arguments based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but such arguments were recently posted on Answers in Genesis:

The principles of thermodynamics, even in open systems, do not allow a new functional biological structure to be achieved without new machinery already being in place.

Let’s put a bit more detail in here. The laws of thermodynamics have one law in particular—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—which says that in a closed system the amount of energy that is no longer available for useful work is increasing. This is energy “lost” to the system per unit degree of temperature, and it is called the entropy of the system. The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added.

Energy is defined as the ability or capacity to do work. Energy can be added to an open system without regard to the availability of a machine to convert that energy into useful work.

Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming of such machinery will not happen.

The conversion of a car factory to produce Boeing 777's concerns a purposeful macroscopic arrangement of parts, whereas the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not concern such an arrangement of parts. In the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, energy in a substance is uniformly distributed at the atomic or molecular level, as in the kinetic energy in the atoms or molecules of gases.

. . . .unlike macro machines, chemical machinery at the molecular level involves setting up proteins of hundreds and usually thousands of polypeptide bonds linking a string of amino acids. And each of these bonds is in a raised energy state such that, left to itself, it would break down and not stay in that state. To suggest, as some are saying, that the raised energy state would be maintained while natural selection favored, over many generations, single random mutations, one by one, to finally bring together the full complement of necessary amino acids is, frankly, thermodynamically absurd. This is never observed and is contrary to all thermodynamic principles of energy transfer.

DNA is generally stable and shows no particular tendency to spontaneously decay.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is often stated in ways that have nothing to do with biology, e.g.,

Kelvin statement: It is impossible to construct an engine, operating in a cycle, whose sole effect is receiving heat from a single reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work.

Clausius statement: It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-temperature reservoir

I think that a good illustration of the effect of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a closed system with two finite reservoirs at different temperatures plus an engine -- say, a Carnot engine -- that performs work by operating in a cycle in which heat is received from the hot reservoir in one stage of the cycle and heat is transferred to the cold reservoir in another stage. As the work is performed, the hot reservoir becomes cooler and the cold reservoir becomes warmer, and as a result of these temperature changes the engine becomes increasingly less efficient (in a Carnot engine with an ideal gas as the working substance, the efficiency is defined as the ratio of (1) the temperature difference of the reservoirs to (2) the absolute temperature of the hot reservoir). Eventually a point is reached where the temperature difference between the two reservoirs is so small that practically no work can be performed at all. However, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, the total internal energy of the closed system is the same as it was at the beginning. What has changed is that this energy is no longer capable of performing work inside the system because that energy is now uniformly scattered in the form of a uniform temperature throughout the system whereas a difference in reservoir temperatures is required to perform work. The system has changed from an ordered system -- where higher-energy gas particles in the hotter reservoir are separated from lower-energy gas particles in the colder reservoir -- to a disordered system where the gas-particle energy is uniformly distributed throughout the system. This increase in disorder is represented by an increase in the total entropy of the system.

Wikipedia discusses efforts to use the "Gibbs free energy" concept to relate living things to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

In recent years, the thermodynamic interpretation of evolution in relation to entropy has begun to utilize the concept of the Gibbs free energy, rather than entropy. This is because biological processes on earth take place at roughly constant temperature and pressure, a situation in which the Gibbs free energy is an especially useful way to express the second law of thermodynamics. . . .

. . . .In the popular textbook 1982 textbook Principles of Biochemistry by noted American biochemist Albert Lehninger, it is argued that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division . . . .

In 1998, noted Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev, in his book Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings, argues that evolution of living beings is governed by the tendency for quasi-equilibrium, semi-closed, hierarchical living systems to evolve in the direction that tends to minimize the Gibbs free energy of formation of each structure. Variations of the Gibbs function of formation of a thermodynamic system at any stage of the evolution, for instance ontogenesis and phylogenesis, such as a social system, according to Gladyshev, "can be calculated by means of thermodynamic methods." Gladyshev calls this a form of sociological thermodynamics.

Similarly, according to the chemist John Avery, from his recent 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution, we find a presentation in which the phenomenon of life, including its origin and evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its basis in the background of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. The (apparent) paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems, according to Avery, has its resolution "in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources."

So some scientists have turned the tables by using thermodynamics to argue in favor of evolution, and it looks like some of their arguments are really bad -- for example, Gibbs free energy has no "information content." Personally, I don't feel that thermodynamics can be a good argument either for or against evolution.

Anyway, thermodynamics is a very abstruse subject. Thermodynamics is a very important subject in mechanical engineering but though I am a mechanical engineer I admit that I feel that I never completely understood it.

READ MORE

Co-evolution redux

With all the hoopla about intelligent design, non-ID criticisms of evolution are often ignored. The overemphasis on ID has gotten so bad that there seems to be a "contrived dualism" where the only alternatives are Darwinism and ID, so many Darwinists figure that all they have to do is discredit ID and they're in like Flint.

Non-ID criticisms of evolution have a big advantage. With no design, there is no supernatural designer. With no supernatural designer, there is no religion. With no religion, there can be no violation of the establishment clause in public schools. Beautiful.

Sometimes I wonder -- would Darwinists emphasize the religious aspect of ID so much if they were not trying so hard to keep ID out of the public schools? I think that otherwise they would focus more on the scientific issues.

One example of a non-ID criticism of evolution is criticism concerning co-evolution. Co-evolution is defined as the mutual evolutionary influence between two kinds of organisms that become dependent on each other -- e.g., flowers and bees. Criticism concerning co-evolution is my favorite criticism of Darwinism, and one of the reasons is the simplicity of this criticism -- for example, criticism concerning the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction requires a good knowledge of genetics. It has been several months since I last discussed co-evolution and I think that it is time to revisit it. Co-evolution presents the following problems:

(1) Unlike the kind of evolution which is adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air, in co-evolution there is often nothing to adapt to because the co-dependent trait is likely to be initially absent in the other organism.

(2) Where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are harmful in the absence of the corresponding traits in the other organism, co-evolution is virtually impossible. Even where the traits are not harmful when the corresponding traits are absent, there is no selective advantage when the corresponding traits are absent.

(3) Often, co-dependent organisms can interact only in large numbers -- e.g., a bee visits many flowers and a flower is visited by many bees. Hence, it may be necessary for large numbers of both kinds of organisms to simultaneously appear in the same place at the same time.

(4) Often a co-dependent relationship consists of an "irreducibly complex" combination of pairs of traits rather than a single pair of traits -- e.g., a flower must both produce nectar and have colors and/or scents that attract pollinators, and the pollinators must be able to both consume the nectar and have the ability to detect the colors and/or scents. This compounds the problems presented by co-evolution and irreducible complexity. In some cases, the irreducible complexity involved in co-evolution could involve multiple organs, e.g., bees' digestive systems that process nectar and bees' sensory organs for seeing and/or smelling the flowers.

(5) Even if the problems of co-evolution and irreducible complexity or a combination of the two do not prevent evolution from occurring, they might slow it down. This slowdown could be a problem because some major evolutionary changes have at most just a few million years to take place.

The mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are natural genetic variation and natural selection. Intelligent design primarily raises questions about natural genetic variation whereas criticism of co-evolution primarily raises questions about natural selection.

Darwinists just talk in vague, nebulous terms like "mutual evolutionary pressure" instead of looking at the nitty-gritty details of co-evolution.

Co-evolution is a very important part of evolution and IMO has not gotten the attention it deserves.

Here are some references on co-evolution, from my first post on the subject:

One kind of pollination by insects is so specialized that the resonant vibration of the insect's wingbeating shakes loose the pollen -- this is called "sonication pollination" or "buzz pollination." See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_pollination

The following reference describes -- among other things -- what I can only call "masturbatory pollination" -- a male wasp mistakes a flower for a female wasp:

The reward offered is not always food. There is a tropical orchid with flowers that look and smell like females of a certain species of wasp. Males of this species emerge a week before the females. A male who smells a flower of this orchid, think it’s a female wasp, gets closer and the flower looks like a female, lands on it and it feels like a female, tries to copulate, gives up in frustration, and goes on to the next thing that smells like a female, and ends up transferring pollen. -- from http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio303/coevolution.htm

The following reference describes co-dependence between deep flowers and long-nosed insects:

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0305/0305_feature.html

READ MORE

Chromosome counts and evolution

It seems that people are so busy debating about intelligent design that they do not have time to consider other scientific challenges to evolution theory, if they are even aware that other scientific challenges exist. It seems that all I see in the news is ID, ID, and more ID. The Darwinists have created a "contrived dualism" of their own -- they are saying that if ID is false, then Darwinism must be true. Two non-ID challenges to evolution theory that have already been discussed in this blog concern co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.

Another non-ID challenge to evolution theory are the questions concerning the mechanisms and genetic effects of the evolution of different chromosome counts in different species and varieties of species. The Talkorigins website tries to give some answers to these questions, but these answers are not adequate. Talkorigins says that chromosome counts can change by the breakup or joining of individual chromosomes or by the phenomenon called "polyploidy" where multiple copies of all the chromosomes are created, but this does not seem to be a good explanation for the great variation in chromosome counts (Talkorigins gives examples as low as 5 and as high as 512). Also, these means of changing the chromosome count could not contribute much to evolution because no new genetic material is created -- in particular, organisms created by polyploidy are similar to their parents. Also, polyploidal organisms are often sterile, and in any case polyploidy would initially be a barrier to sexual reproduction. Furthermore, polyploidy would create great problems in future evolution because there is not just one set of genes but multiple sets of genes that must evolve through genetic variation, and the issue of dominant and recessive genes would arise in such future evolution.

READ MORE

Propagability of beneficial mutations -- another little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism

Sometimes when a challenge to something is making little or no progress, it is time to try another challenge. Critics of Darwinism have begun to realize that they have put too many eggs in the intelligent-design basket and are looking for other challenges to Darwinism. For example, the challenge based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been revived, but this is a very poor challenge to Darwinism and should be avoided.

There are some non-ID challenges to Darwinism that have hardly been touched upon in the evolution debate. I have already presented one little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism -- what I called the "co-evolutionary paradox." Another little-known non-ID challenge to Darwinism is the difficulty of propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction. This difficulty is discussed in an article titled, "Sexual Reproduction: A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists." This article presents a lot of good points but unfortunately does not discuss the very important topic of dominant and recessive genes. Nonetheless, this article gives some background in a much-neglected subject. This article obviously has a religious ax to grind, but that does not make the scientific arguments any less valid. The article has a good list of references to articles in prestigious scientific journals.

Also, there is a propaganda campaign to mislead and confuse the public about what ID really is. Falsely equating ID with creationism is only part of this campaign. This campaign also tries to give the false impression that all challenges to Darwinism that are presented in scientific terms are parts of "ID." Nothing could be further from the truth -- as shown in this blog, there are such challenges to Darwinism that have little or nothing to do with ID. This campaign to mislead and confuse the public has intensified as a result of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, where ID was the only such challenge that was banned by name (though other such challenges were implicitly banned by the prohibition against "disparaging" or "denigrating" evolution theory).

READ MORE

The Co-evolutionary Paradox

All the hoopla over intelligent design has created the widespread false impression that it is the only actual or possible scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution theory -- there are others. For example, criticism can be based on co-evolution, but this criticism has hardly been touched upon.

One of the main arguments used against irreducible complexity -- the main scientific concept of ID -- is "exaptation," the idea that parts of an irreducibly complex system had other functions before becoming part of the system, e.g., jawbones supposedly evolved into middle-ear bones. However, "exaptation" does not change the fact that all the parts of the system must simultaneously come together in their final forms to create the irreducible system, and that is unlikely. Also, parts that previously had essential functions would not be available to help create the irreducible system unless duplicates or modified duplicates could be created. Nonetheless, despite these problems, opponents of ID claim that ID has been completely refuted by the principle of exaptation and for other reasons. However, the following arguments against natural co-evolution may be harder to counter than ID.

Co-evolution is defined as the mutual evolutionary influence of two kinds of organisms -- e.g., bees and flowering plants -- that become dependent on each other. The big problem with co-evolution is that often there is nothing to adapt to because the corresponding feature is likely to be initially absent in the other organism. In contrast, the fixed physical features of the environment — e.g., water, land, air, and climate -- are always there to offer an immediate advantage to individual organisms that adapt to them.Suppose that a bee and a flowering plant just by some great coincidence happen to have mutations creating corresponding features that would give a mutual advantage in co-evolution. But if the bee and the flowering plant are separated by many miles and/or many years in time, as is likely, the mutations would do neither of them any good because the bee and the flower would never meet, and the mutations might actually be detrimental to the bee and/or the flower. Actually, what would be necessary is that large numbers of the bees and flowers possessing the corresponding beneficial mutations would miraculously have to simultaneously appear in the same place, because a single bee visits many flowers, and each flower is visited by many bees.

One kind of pollination by insects is so specialized that the resonant vibration of the insect's wingbeating shakes loose the pollen -- this is called "sonication pollination" or "buzz pollination." See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_pollination
Some other examples of extremely specialized mutual dependence (this mutual dependence is called "mutualism") are in http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0305/0305_feature.html
-- and --
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio303/coevolution.htm

READ MORE