Another Darwinist proves me wrong

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the appearance of internal fertilization in reptiles, and argued that the logical impossibility of the simultaneous and mutually complimentary random mutations that would have to occur in a female and male proto-reptile in order for this to happen was a definitive disproof of the Darwinian theory of evolution. I then learned that, while the overwhelming majority of amphibians have external fertilization, there are some amphibians who have internal fertilization. As I pointed out, however, pushing the first appearance of internal fertilization back to the amphibian stage does not get rid of the essential challenge to Darwinism that is posed by the evolution of internal fertilization whenever it may occur, namely the need for simultaneous and mutually complimentary random accidental mutations occurring in a male and female of the same species in the same generation and in the same pond. Now another Darwin defender corrects me. He thinks he has dug me into a hole, but doesn’t realize he’s dug Darwinism into a hole.

Gregory H. writes:

Your original comment about internal fertilization is even more wrong than you thought. There are species of fish with internal fertilization, and the scientific view based on genetic analysis is that it has evolved there more than once, separately:

Here is the webpage with the abstract that Gregory H. referenced. I quote it in part:

Cyprinodontiforms are a diverse group of approximately 900 pantropical and temperate fishes, mostly found in freshwater. Whereas the vast majority of fishes lay eggs (i.e. are oviparous), this group is unusual in that four groups of cyprinodont fishes give birth to living young (i.e. are viviparous)…. The molecular phylogeny was used to reconstruct the evolution of major life-history traits such as internal fertilization, copulatory organs, livebearing and placentas. Internal fertilization, modifications of the male’s anal fin to form a copulatory organ, and viviparity probably evolved independently three times in cyprinodontiform fishes: in the subfamilies Goodeinae, Anablepinae and Poeciliinae (sensu Parenti 1981). [Italics added.]…. Advanced forms of viviparity, in which the mother provides additional nourishment to the embryos through placenta-like structures, apparently evolved at least three times from egg-laying ancestors: in the subfamilies Goodeinae, Anablepinae, and more than once in the Poeciliinae.

LA replies to Gregory H.:

Yes, someone else also mentioned to me recently that there are fish species that have internal fertilization. But that does not change the problem, since Darwinian evolution still has to account for the simultaneous mutually complimentary mutations in a male and female member of the same species.

Further, you say that these evolutions have occurred numerous times. Don’t you see that that makes the Darwinian idea of evolution by random mutation not less unlikely, but MORE unlikely? Not only did this amazing event of simultaneous mutually complimentary mutations in two members of the opposite sexes in the same species occur once in one species, but it occurred numerous times, independently, in numerous species. Does that sound like something that would happen by chance? Or does it sound like something that is designed to happen, something built into the very nature of life?

Gregory H. replied:

No.

Females always have openings from which the eggs come.

The closer the male gets his sperm to the eggs, the more likely he is to be the father and the more of his sperm will find eggs.

As a result, there is a strong selective advantage to getting the sperm closer and closer to the eggs. For example, most fish simply spawn near each other, but some have physical maneuvers by the males to enhance the chance that it’s his sperm that succeed, and amphibians, once equipped with hands and feet, have evolved amplexus. Chance mutations could easily result in some small protuberance near where the sperm are ejected. Natural selection would in certain circumstances favor those with the protuberance if it enhanced directional control of the sperm. Chance mutations would then result in a slightly larger protuberance, etc. These could add up over time to something that could be inserted without any need yet for any mutation in the female. Once the male had developed a copulatory organ, which would require a certain enhanced fitness to grow and maintain, selection could then favor females who could more easily accept it, since her young would inherit the enhanced fitness. Once you’ve got internal fertilization, it is easy to see how an amniote egg would be favored by natural selection. Etc.

Also, I don’t consider evolution inconsistent with there being a direction to it all, instigated in the overall design of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, and I consider the genius of the instigation more than adequate to avoid any necessity for miraculous intervention once the process was let loose.

LA replies:

Ok, your scenario is a reasonable attempt to explain how this could have happened by chance random mutations. But here’s where I think you go wrong:

“These could add up over time to something that could be inserted without any need yet for any mutation in the female.”

This is not true, because the female would have to have the behavior and the internal functions (which she had never had before) to receive the male organ and to have her eggs be internally fertilized. So my challenge to the Darwinian scenario remains: there would have to be simultaneous mutually complimentary mutations in two members of the opposite sex.

By the way, don’t you see how unlikely it is that something as fundamental to existence as sexual congress appeared in the world by accident?

But now, having said that, I see to my surprise that you are inadvertently making the same observation. You write:

“Also, I don’t consider evolution inconsistent with there being a direction to it all, instigated in the overall design of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, and I consider the genius of the instigation more than adequate to avoid any necessity for miraculous intervention once the process was let loose.”

LOL. You’re saying that there is an inherent structure and direction in the universe, a teleology that is built into existence, and that biological evolution is an expression of that. But that is of course a total departure from Darwinism, which says there is no inherent direction in life, there is no reason for there to be sexual reproduction, there is no reason for there to be trilobites and fishes and birds. These beings only came into existence because certain chance random mutations happened to help their possessors have more offspring, and repeated chance random mutations over eons of time happened to lead in directions that ultimately resulted in trilobites, fishes, and birds.

Gregory H. replies:

If you’ve already got a female accepting of something like amplexus, given the nature of males and females, initial insertion could be either by force or even by accident. It’s a common observation that, to human eyes, mating between many tetrapod vertebrates resembles nothing so much as rape.

Darwinism says there’s no inherent direction in life because of a lack of consilience with physics and mathematics. Those two fields ultimately teach that mathematics is a description of the underlying design/nature of the universe. After all, randomness is a mathematical construct, so Darwinism just needs to follow the math all the way to the ultimate conclusion about the larger context of the larger universe in which evolution is taking place. Put another way, randomness is part of the “teleology” of the universe so randomness does not equal a lack of “teleology” in the subset of the universe that is biological evolution on earth.

As for the other issue, I guess it depends on how much you mean by the term “teleology”. My sense of things is more like the clockmaker hypothesis, although that would be a gross oversimplification. There has been enough time and enough chance random mutations in a world of a certain nature that we have what we have today. Understanding the “teleology” requires accepting facts like the enormous numbers of hominin women and children who died during childbirth as part of the evolution of the larger human brain, which is probably part and parcel of the same plan that has sent millions to their death from plagues and earthquakes and volcanoes. Clearly, there are aspects of the “teleology” that are at odds with many people’s sense of the nature of the clockmaker or however you want to characterize the source of the teleology.

LA replies:

You write:

“If you’ve already got a female accepting of something like amplexus, given the nature of males and females, initial insertion could be either by force or even by accident. It’s a common observation that, to human eyes, mating between many tetrapod vertebrates resembles nothing so much as rape.”

But amplexus appears in amphibians. We’re talking about fish.

Again, just by the by, do you see the oddness of saying that something as basic as sexual intercourse appeared in the universe by “rape” or accident?

You write:

“Darwinism says there’s no inherent direction in life because of a lack of consilience with physics and mathematics. Those two fields ultimately teach that mathematics is a description of the underlying design/nature of the universe. After all, randomness is a mathematical construct, so Darwinism just needs to follow the math all the way to the ultimate conclusion about the larger context of the larger universe in which evolution is taking place. Put another way, randomness is part of the ‘teleology’ of the universe so randomness does not equal a lack of ‘teleology’ in the subset of the universe that is biological evolution on earth.”

Thank you for this incomprehensible abstract language telling me that a phenomenon can be both A and not-A at the same time, destroying the principle of identity which is the very basis of reason. Now I stand corrected and enlightened.

As for the brutality of biological and human history and whether that is compatible with the existence of God, that’s another question for another time. I did discuss the problem of unjust suffering and the existence of God at the time of the Asian Tsunami.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 15, 2008 02:38 PM | Send