Re: `Venus Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews ... evidence against Creation'

AN

Thanks for your reply. But as is my longstanding policy which is stated on each of my blogs' front page, if I receive a private message on a topic covered by one of my blogs, I will usually respond via that blog, after removing the sender's personal identifying information.

[Right (click to enlarge): Illustration of the Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) from Curtis's Botanical Magazine: Wikipedia]

Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Brief quotes are linked to full quotes near the end of the post.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Venus' Flytrap

Thanks for your reply Stephen. I see from your website you seek explanation for carnivorous plant evolution.

Presumably you are referring to my 2007 post, "Re: Carnivorous plants as `Behe's mousetrap' #1" (there was no #2) and/or my 2006 web page "Problems of Evolution: 12. Plants: Carnivorous plants"? In each my request was for "a detailed, step-by-step, Darwinian explanation of how the natural selection of random micromutations produced the ... Venus flytrap":

"I would like to see a detailed, step-by-step, Darwinian explanation of how the natural selection of random micromutations produced the elaborate traps of carnivorous plants, like the pitcher plant and the Venus flytrap. But I suspect there are none, because if there were, the Darwinists would not waste there time on peppered moths and finch beaks! Like Behe's mousetrap, all these parts are needed to be working together simultaneously as a coordinated system to catch insects."

And as for "evolution," I am persuaded by the evidence, both scientific and Biblical, that "evolution," i.e. "the standard scientific theory that `human beings [and all other living things] have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"(my emphasis):

"... perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February. My emphasis)

is false and the true explanation of life's origin and development is my General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation, i.e."that God created the raw materials of the universe immediately from out-of-nothing, and thereafter He created mediately by working (both naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes and existing materials."

This is my specialty. Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews (Drosera sp.) as confirmed by gene sequencing.

You commit the fallacies of Equivocation and Begging the question by claiming that "Venus' Flytrap evolved ... from Sundews" when all "gene sequencing" can show is they shared a common ancestor, which is not necessarily evolution. As both Darwin and Dawkins admitted, God could have supernaturally intervened at links in the chains of common descent, in which case it would not be "evolution at all" (my emphasis):

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' .... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker, pp.248-249. My emphasis).

but a form of "divine creation" (my emphasis):

"... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken ... influencing key moments in evolutionary history ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317. My emphasis).

And since I accept Universal Common Ancestry (see my "Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not Evolution)" I have no problem if Venus Flytrap shared a common ancestor with Sundews (Drosera sp.). Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia, "Scientists are currently unsure about the evolutionary history of the Venus flytrap" and have only "made hypotheses that the flytrap evolved from Drosera (sundews)":

"The edges of the lobes are fringed by stiff hair-like protrusions or cilia, which mesh together and prevent large prey from escaping. (These protrusions, and the trigger hairs, also known as sensitive hairs, are probably homologous with the tentacles found in this plant's close relatives, the sundews.) Scientists are currently unsure about the evolutionary history of the Venus flytrap; however scientists have made hypotheses that the flytrap evolved from Drosera (sundews)." ("Venus Flytrap: Description," Wikipedia, 3 March 2010 ).

There is certainly no sudden appearance of irreducible complexity here.

You are (as is typical with evolutionists in my experience), confusing common ancestry with "irreducible complexity." But the founder of the modern Theory of Irreducible Complexity, Prof. Michael Behe, accepts "the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)":

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," pp.5-6).

and has pointed out (as the did the then world's leading Darwinist, the late Ernst Mayr) that the relationship of common ancestry is not the same as Darwinism mechanism of the natural selection of random mutations:

"Discrimination among his various theories has not been helped by the fact that Darwin ... in ... the Origin and that he ascribed many phenomena ... to natural selection when they were really the consequences of common descent. ... I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories ... . (2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor ... (5) Natural selection. According to this theory .... The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. ... someone might claim that indeed these five theories are a logically inseparable package and that Darwin was quite correct in treating them as such. This claim, however, is refuted by the fact ... that most evolutionists in the immediate post-1859 period-that is, authors who had accepted the first theory- rejected one or several of Darwin's other four theories. This shows that the five theories are not one indivisible whole." (Mayr, E.W , 1991, "One Long Argument," pp.36-37).

Therefore, "evidence of common descent is not evidence of natural selection" and so "knowledge of the sequence ... of relevant proteins [and DNA]... is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection":

"... EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification ... Natural selection, however, is a ... mechanism - and so must be supported by other evidence if the question is not to be begged. This, of course, is a well-known distinction (Mayr 1991). Yet ... the distinction is often overlooked. ... knowledge of the sequence, structure, and function of relevant proteins is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection. Gene duplication is not a Darwinian explanation because duplication points only to common descent, not to the mechanism of evolution." (Behe M.J., 2000, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade," July 31. Emphasis original.)

which is all that the Theory of Irreducible Complexity challenges:

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. ... critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution." (Behe, 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.39. Emphasis original).

The trap of VFT is actually less complex than that of Drosera.

That only means it has less parts. But having less parts, is actually supportive of Irreducible Complexity, as Behe's mousetrap example illustrates:

"An irreducibly complex object will be composed of several parts, all of which contribute to the function. To avoid the problems encountered with extremely complex objects ... I will begin with a simple mechanical example: the humble mousetrap. ... [which] consist of a number of parts ... (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied, and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. (There are also assorted staples to hold the system together.) The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the function. In this example, the answer is clearly yes. .... If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it; in order to use a trap like that you would have to chase the mouse around while holding the trap open."(Behe, 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.42).

So, this case is actually more evidence against Creation.

Thanks for showing by your "against Creation" that like Darwin your primary motivation is not scientific but religious, i.e. anti-religious

"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change ... ... hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power ... or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin, C.R., 1874, "The Descent of Man," p.92. My emphasis).

Also you are also committing the fallacy of Circular Reasoning. That is, you assumed "evolution" in the premises of your argument that "Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews" and then you concluded that this is "evidence against Creation."

Hope that helps. Please ask if you have any further questions. ~AN

Thanks, but it did not help, except to give me something to blog about! Yours is just the same old Darwinist anti-Christian, "deceiving and being deceived" (2Tim 3:13), "powerful delusion" (2Th 2:11), due to your mind having been taken "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on ... the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col 2:8), namely "Naturalism ... the metaphysical position that `nature is all there is ...'," that I experienced in my ~11 years of debating evolutionists between 1993-2005.

Only when you can actually cite in a peer-reviewed scientific journal a fully documented and detailed explanation of how exactly "Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews (Drosera sp.)" by the natural selection of random micromutations would you have shown that the Venus Flytrap is not irreducibly complex.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"The predicament is easily resolved when a critical point is recalled: EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification - that is, for evolution. Natural selection, however, is a proposed explanation for how evolution might take place - its mechanism - and so must be supported by other evidence if the question is not to be begged. This, of course, is a well-known distinction (Mayr 1991). Yet, from reviewers' responses to my book, the distinction is often overlooked. Knowledge of homology is certainly very useful, can give us a good idea of the path of descent, and can constrain our hypotheses. Nonetheless, knowledge of the sequence, structure, and function of relevant proteins is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection. Gene duplication is not a Darwinian explanation because duplication points only to common descent, not to the mechanism of evolution." (Behe M.J., 2000, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison," Discovery Institute, July 31. Emphasis original.)

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, pp.5-6).

"," Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C., 1872, "Origin of Species", 6th ed., New York University Press: New York, 1988, p.154]. It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box, p.39. Emphasis original).

"The first step in determining irreducible complexity is to specify both the function of the system and all system components. An irreducibly complex object will be composed of several parts, all of which contribute to the function. To avoid the problems encountered with extremely complex objects (such as eyes, beetles, or other multicellular biological systems) I will begin with a simple mechanical example: the humble mousetrap. The function of a mousetrap is to immobilize a mouse so that it can't perform such unfriendly acts as chewing through sacks of flour or electrical cords, or leaving little reminders of its presence in unswept comers. The mousetraps that my family uses consist of a number of parts (Figure 2-2): (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied, and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. (There are also assorted staples to hold the system together.) The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the function. In this example, the answer is clearly yes. Suppose that while reading one evening, you hear the patter of little feet in the pantry, and you go to the utility drawer to get a mousetrap. Unfortunately, due to faulty manufacture, the trap is missing one of the parts listed above. Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it; in order to use a trap like that you would have to chase the mouse around while holding the trap open." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.42).

"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book [The Origin of Species], that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin, C.R., 1874., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second edition, Reprinted, 1922, p.92).

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non- miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.248-249).

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317).

"Discrimination among his various theories has not been helped by the fact that Darwin treated speciation under natural selection in ... the Origin and that he ascribed many phenomena, particularly those of geographic distribution, to natural selection when they were really the consequences of common descent. Under the circumstances I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However, when later authors referred to Darwin's theory they invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind: (1) Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant nor recently created nor perpetually cycling but rather is steadily changing and that organisms are transformed in time. (2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth. (3) Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding," that is, by the establishment of geographically isolated founder populations that evolve into new species. (4) Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type. (5) Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about through the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. For Darwin himself these five theories were apparently a unity, and someone might claim that indeed these five theories are a logically inseparable package and that Darwin was quite correct in treating them as such. This claim, however, is refuted by the fact ... that most evolutionists in the immediate post-1859 period-that is, authors who had accepted the first theory- rejected one or several of Darwin's other four theories. This shows that the five theories are not one indivisible whole." (Mayr, E.W , 1991, "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, pp.36-37).

"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)