Evolution is so Smart

New research apparently shows that women evolved extra vertebrae to deal with upright walking and pregnancy.  But, does it really show that?  I say, “No,” at least not by modern evolutionary theory.

MET is based on directionless modification with selection pressures acting on those modifications.  That is not, however, what we are seeing here:

Working at the University of Texas with Liza Shapiro, an associate professor of anthropology who studies the primate spine, Dr. Whitcome found that the differences between male and female spines do not show up in chimpanzees. That suggested that the changes occurred in response to the problems caused by walking upright.

The changes occurred in response to walking upright?  Well, then that would not be directionless, but directed.  This is not evolution in action, it is ID science.  Purely directionless modifications would have happened regardless of what the need was.  Yet, that’s clearly not what happened here.  It’s as if the mechanism of change sensed the problem and then overcame it.  This is not directionless activity, but directed.  And, the best inference here is that an intelligent agent was responsible for the change.  ID science is the better explanation.


3 responses to “Evolution is so Smart

  1. I stated inthe “Indoctrination” thread I’d post a comment here regarding predictive powers of evolution and ID.

    The content of the linked paper is mostly over my head, so I cannot discuss the content. But I suppose I could posit that the modern theory of evolution predicts that due to the weight, and location thereof, during pregnancy, the shape of a woman’s spine will have evolved differently than a man’s. Could ID make the same predition? If it could, why didn’t any of the IDers propose it?

    To get to the meat of your post, I think you mean “no apparent Divine direction” instead of merely “directionless.” One could argue that Natural Selection gives mutations direction by “selecting” the beneficial ones. Do you agree with this, if only in principle?

    In fact, I recall someone named, I think, “Febble” posted such an argument on Uncommon Descent about a year ago. I recall her argument was that Natural Selection satisfied the definition Dr. Dembski presented of “intelligence.” I further recall that idea was not well recieved – everyone knows the true identity of Dembski’s “intelligent agent.”

  2. Evolution did not predict the differing of women’s vertebra.

    “No apparent divine direction” would be more palatable than “directionless” but that’s not what Darwinists say. If it were the former, I would have a lot less problem with them. Alas, it is the latter. There was a flap a while ago about how this appeared in quite a few textbooks, even Ken Miller had it in his book.

    I’m not aware of the discussion that you are referring to on UD, so I will decline to comment on it.

  3. ID didn’t predict it either.

    As for “directionless,” I find it very hard to believe that a good author would use the words “directionless” or “purposeless” in a good Biology textbook. I’ll look into if I can find some time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s