People have asked me, “What is the evidence for biblical creation?” That's a difficult question because there is often a misunderstanding about what “evidence” is. Evidence is neutral – that is, it isn't truly for any theory. Rather, theories are invented in order to explain the evidence. A theory might seem to explain the evidence rather well but then later, the theory could still be rejected in favor of a new theory. As theories come and go, the evidence is always the same. The universe just keeps chugging along like it always has and nothing has changed except the theory.
After having said that evidence isn't really for any theory, I still feel there are some things better explained by biblical creation than by secular theories. I'm not saying secular theories have no explanation for any of things things (well, I guess in some cases they don't), but that biblical creation has the most reasonable explanation and, so, is more likely the correct explanation. I'm not going to make a series of posts with the best evidence, but will make this a recurring topic that I post from time to time, with similar headings. You can find all the posts related to this topic by clicking on “Evidence for creation” in the label cloud on the left.
Mimicry
Mimicry in nature is when one species has supposedly evolved to look like another species. For example, a caterpillar might look like a snake or a moth might look like a bird. There are several reasons why looking like another species could be an advantage. It might allow the mimic to hide from predators or maybe sneak up on prey. One type of mimicry is called Batesian Mimicry, named after the man who discovered it, Dr. Henry Walter Bates. According to Study.com,
[Batesian Mimicry] describes a relationship where one organism that is harmless has evolved aposematic coloration that mimics a noxious species. A noxious species has some sort of harmful or damaging protection, and aposematic coloration is a distinctive warning marking that sets the noxious species apart and makes it easily identifiable. By imitating a harmful species, the mimic can avoid predation.
An example of Batesian mimicry is the hoverfly. The hoverfly has no bite or sting and is harmless to humans. However, you can see how closely it resembles a bee or wasp. So even though the hoverfly is harmless, predators might still avoiding eating it because it looks like a dangerous bee.
 |
| https://unsplash.com/@carolienvanoijen |
The problems of evolution explaining mimicry are myriad. Evolution supposedly happens via mutation and natural selection. A mutation will occur in the DNA of an organism; on rare occasions, the mutation will offer a benefit to the host; because of this advantage, the host may live longer (natural selection) and leave more offspring which will inherit the beneficial mutation; eventually, the descendents with the beneficial mutation will replace the entire population.
In the case of Batesian mimicry, the problem becomes, how does such a striking similarity evolve gradually? Evolution is not a directed process. That is, natural selection won't select a “more like a bee” mutation; it will only select for a “more fit fly.” Every single mutation that doesn't make the fly more fit will be selected against – even if the mutation might slightly resemble a bee.
Another problem for evolution is that, while the mimic is evolving, the model is supposed to be evolving too! Think about it. If evolution is true, bees didn't always look like they do now, right? So over the millions of years that the mimic was evolving to look like the model, the model was also evolving: model changes – mimic changes – model changes – mimic changes. To arrive at similar bodies at precisely the same times smacks of incredulity.
That something like mimicry could ever happen by undirected processes is incredible. To believe it has happened the numerous times we find in nature is laughable. I've read evolutionists' fanciful stories as they seek to explain what clearly seem to be examples of design and purpose. No matter how far fetched their explanations may seem, they prefer their natural causes over the far more reasonable possibility that models and mimics were created that way!
"Evidence is neutral -- that is, it isn't truly for any theory" strikes me as an argument for someone who knows the evidence isn't on his side. Come now: if I were arguing that Pontius Pilate was a fictional character, would you insist on conceding that a tablet with his name declaring him prefect of Judea didn't support his existence over his nonexistence? Would you argue that a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene supported equally his innocence and his guilt?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how protective camouflage is consistent with creation. After all, your version of creationism holds that every animal was created vegetarian, and nothing needed protection against predators. Okay, so the Creator built animals with weapons for predation that, had Adam minded his diet, they would never need, and anyway, it was only "soulish" (nephesh) animals that nothing preyed on, and insects are theologically vegetables. It's still weird for a Creator to build one animal that feeds on a sort of insect, and then build the insect with defenses to protect it against this predator. Do we breed beef cattle to hide from us?
As far as I can tell, by "more consistent with creation," you mean, simply, that "if science can't explain it, we're justified in positing miracles as a cause" -- a pure God-of-the-gaps argument (and one, furthermore, that doesn't obvious favor your God over rival conceivable creators).
Anyway, I'll crib an argument from Richard Dawkins: any given potential prey animal is viewed many times a day, by various potential predators, at various distances, under various lighting. A very slight resemblance might protect the animal against a particularly dim-witted and dim-eyed predator -- or against a clever, keen-sighted predator who views it from a distance at dusk. One predator who on the basis of a glance under bad conditions and decides that the prey is too dangerous to eat represents one more day's survival that a conspecific without that one slight resemblance wouldn't have. Even a small improvement in one's chances adds up over time (this is why casinos stay in business).
And there's no obvious reason why natural selection can't track a moving target (the infamous peppered moth experiment was an example of this being done with a different sort of camouflage). On the other hand, an animal whose coloring warns predators that it is poisonous and best to be avoided has an obvious incentive (I speak figuratively: literally I mean that mutations that change the pattern will be selected against) not to change that color scheme: you don't change your "don't eat me!" sign if that will make predators less likely to recognize it, and consequently eat you.
Steven J,
DeleteThanks for your comments. I'm sorry it's taken a while to respond. I'm just going to make a couple of quick points. You said, “"Evidence is neutral -- that is, it isn't truly for any theory" strikes me as an argument for someone who knows the evidence isn't on his side. Come now: if I were arguing that Pontius Pilate was a fictional character, would you insist on conceding that a tablet with his name declaring him prefect of Judea didn't support his existence over his nonexistence? Would you argue that a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene supported equally his innocence and his guilt?”
A bloody fingerprint found at a crime scene is just that, a bloody fingerprint found at a crime scene. It doesn't tell me whose it is or how it got there. I would have to investigate and devise a theory about how it got there. If I were a prosecutor, I might say it got there because the suspect was the murderer, got blood on his hands, and left a fingerprint. If I were the defense attorney, I might say my client found the victim, examined him, and got blood on his hands which left the fingerprint. Or I might say the bloody fingerprint isn't very clear and, even though it might resemble my client's, it's not his fingerprint because my client wasn't even there!
All the while, the fingerprint doesn't tell me which theory is correct. It's up to the jury to decide which theory best explains the evidence.
You said, “Anyway, I'll crib an argument from Richard Dawkins: any given potential prey animal is viewed many times a day, by various potential predators, at various distances, under various lighting. A very slight resemblance might protect the animal against a particularly dim-witted and dim-eyed predator -- or against a clever, keen-sighted predator who views it from a distance at dusk. One predator who on the basis of a glance under bad conditions and decides that the prey is too dangerous to eat represents one more day's survival that a conspecific without that one slight resemblance wouldn't have. Even a small improvement in one's chances adds up over time.”
Just look at the yellow and black pattern on the fly in the photo. When we consider the finished product, Dawkins' just-so-story doesn't carry much weight because it still sounds too directed. Suppose the first mutation was a little, yellow blotch of color on the fly's abdomen. Is that really enough to convince a predator that the fly is a bee? OK, then is the second mutation another yellow blotch? Then a third? Then the blotches become bands? Then the abdomen becomes narrow and tapered?
You're welcome to your story of fly-looks-like-bee evolution. I know you have to try to explain it somehow and that's probably the most plausible your side can come up with. The jury is still out about how likely the story is though. To me, it's about as convincing as saying, “I know the odds are small but it's just a coincidence that the murderer's bloody fingerprint looks just like my client's!”
Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley