|
Seeing through evolution
See-through living things give us a marvelous window for seeing through evolution. Evolution theory tells us that every creature arose from another creature through a slow process of accumulation; when a chance "blip" (mutation) of the genetic material in the sex cells of any creature produces offspring with some feature that makes them at least as well adapted to their environment as mom and dad, the slightly-different younguns will survive. As the mutations stack up over millions of years in generation after generation, we are told, wondrous new creatures are produced. Baloney.
Evolution theory simply doesn't make the grade. As soon as you ask the question, "How did this marvelous structure or set of features actually evolve from some alleged previous structure?", evolutionists are struck dumb. I have yet to see any serious attempt made to outline in detail the cumulative steps that must have been taken to produce some innovation, particularly when you are talking about an all-or-nothing feature.
What do I mean by all-or-nothing? Consider the widespread phenomenon of transparency in animals. In some cases, transparency is restricted to one organ or tissue. Shubunkin goldfish, for instance, differ from their red-colored kin by dint of having transparent scales. Strip the scales away from a typical goldfish and you would see similar blotchiness underneath. Only one mutation is required. But in other creatures, for the transparency to "work", a number of innovations must work in concert. Some hawk moths have diaphanous wings, a stunt that involves at least two innovations: the loss of scales and the acquiring of "a highly ordered array of nanosized protuberances in its surface".1 Both innovations are required for transparency to "work". Since absence of scales in moths is "a rare case", and certainly is not found in any potential ancestors of hawk moths, evolutionists must conclude that the multiple mutations required to both produce scalelessness and to create ordered arrays of protuberances all occurred simultaneously in the sex cells of some individual. No survival benefit would be conferred upon any offspring of a parent that experienced only one of the [possibly numerous] necessary mutations. It's all or nothing. Evolutionists imbued with evolutionary faith may retort that scaleless hawk moths evolved first and that nanosized protuberances came later. Trouble is, the only scaleless hawk moths known are the transparent-winged ones.
Evolution's problems multiply many times over when you consider other cases of transparency. Remember last week's blog about Macropinna and its transparent head capsule? Stop and think; the ability of Macropinna's
|
bizarre eyes to see potential food is totally dependent on being able to see through tissues that stand between them and the outside world. Once again, all-or-nothing comes into play. First, the fluid in which the eyes are embedded has to be perfectly translucent. Keep score; at least one (and possibly more) genes are involved in producing the see-through fluid. Second, the skin surrounding the fluid like the glass around a pilot's cockpit must also be transparent. At least one (and possibly more) genes would be involved in producing see-through skin. Furthermore, the eyes of Macropinna are protected at the side by "transparent subocular bones".2 Got that? Transparent bones, presumably endowing the fish with a degree of peripheral vision! How many more mutations would have been needed to make the bones transparent? It's all or nothing. All the mutations had to occur simultaneously or the whole system would break down. Small wonder Robinson and Reisenblichler said,
Macropinna has obviously invested a considerable amount of evolutionary currency to develop its remarkably structured head and the tubular eyes it contains.
Clever little fish. Sorry; all hail the wonders of evolution. Ah, the faith, the faith!
One could go on and on. How about Gazza minuta, a little fish that produces flashes of bioluminescent light from internal organs. Ponder this amazing statement:
Luminescence from the internally located light organ traverses transparent bone and translucent muscle before passing through the clear skin of the patch area.3
Transparent bones with opaque muscle, or vice versa, would be as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike. This all-or-nothing suite of features would have required who knows how many simultaneous, chance mutations? Not to mention the mutations required to create the complex skin-flap system that opens like a camera shutter for a brief moment to let the light out then snaps shut again. You would need multiple simultaneous mutations to make just this one functioning organ. You don't have to be mad to believe that all the remarkable mutations required to make the system work all happened in the same sex cell of one individual at the same time, but it would help.
Now if someone would care to outline, in detail, how this system could have been built over millions of years, tiny step by tiny step, I would be delighted to post it in a prominent position on the Dawn to Dusk website.
|
|
1Yoshida and others 1997, Antireflective Nanoprotuberance Array in the Transparent Wing of a Hawkmoth, Cephonodes hylas, Zoological Science 14(5):737-741
2Robinson, B. H., and Reisenbichler, K. R. 2008, Macropinna microstoma and the Paradox of Its Tubular Eyes, Copeia, 4, 780-784
3McFall-Ngai and Dunlap 1983, Three new modes of luminescence in the leiognathid fish Gazza minuta: Discrete projected luminescence, ventral body flash, and buccal luminescence, Marine Biology, Volume 73, Number 3 / April
|
