[Return to Silly Design Institute Homepage]
Sex, Sickness and Silliness
More problems for the Neo-Paleyists concepts of "Intelligent Design" that they are loath to confront.Sex
This has to be one of the silliest features of life that can be observed. If one wants to see an organism in a fit of silly behavior, all one needs to do is observe the mating behavior.
Look at Rocky Mountain Sheep that bang heads until one is left standing, thus demonstrating their ability to run directly into rock walls as a survival skill?
Look at all the birds that puff up and preen like some Prima Donna Prom Queen, or frogs that try to double their size by inflating their throat, like some little kid comparing muscles with his dad ("see how big I am?").
Sexual pre-mating behavior appears to be much closer to juvenile show-off displays of silly behavior, particularly for the males.
In fact I know of no single species that is in the habit of making a list of desirable traits in a mate and then going out and checking off the list against possible mates before choosing one.
Humans are no exception, in spite of having a fairly well developed sense of reason and causality (some would say the "most developed" but that is open to debate). The most intelligent male can become a tongue tied, inarticulate goofus in the presence of a desirable dame while some addle-brained lothario can sweep the subject off her feet, both failing (thereby) to make the intelligent choice.
But that is not all. Let us assume (for now) that the purpose of such behavior is intelligent improvement of a species, a mechanism for designing increased fitness by the intelligent combination of beneficial genes from two different organism. If this were the case there would be a couple of observable trends:
- All beneficial mutations would be passed on,
- All deleterious mutations would be blocked, pre-screened from being passed on,
- Species would become visibly improved in each generation.
In contrast, what we see is that there is absolutely no discrimination in the process between beneficial and deleterious, and species are virtually indistinguishable from generation to generation.
A further problem of sex as a design mechanism is that it is limited in its ability to transmit good design from one organism to another: there is no lateral transfer of good design material. This lateral transfer has been observed in several species of bacteria (1)(2), so one should be able to assume that this efficient kind of transfer would be maintained in the design of more complex 'improved' model species. The idea of sex is to transfer genetic material, but it doesn't transfer material between the participants when this would be an obvious benefit to the species. This also rules out any less drawn out or intimate contact between individuals (a handshake, for instance) as a means to transfer beneficial material.
For the Neo-Paleyists, the problem for them is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... absolute failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied.
The obvious conclusion is that sex is not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this behavior is designed, and it is not for an intelligent purpose, then it must be designed for the silliness that is evident. Thus this behavior displays a high Silliness Index (SI).
Sickness
If sex is not a viable mechanism for spreading intelligent design within a species (or between species) then what are other possible mechanisms that we can observe in action that could be used?
Bacteria
Bacterial infection would be an obvious possibility, not only are such bacteria transmitted between individuals, but they are transmitted between species. As noted above, bacteria have displayed the ability to transfer genetic material between individual organisms, so this transfer mechanism should also be useable to select beneficial design elements from one individual of any species and transfer it via the bacteria to any other individual of any other species.
There are also multiple ways and means to transfer bacteria between individuals of larger organisms. Not only do we have the 'scatter spores' approach of nasal discharges, and the mixing of bodily fluids involved with the acts of such as sex, kissing, licking and the like, but we have certain species that can act as a natural syringe to transfer blood samples: the mosquito for example, an excellent vector to direct the specific transfer of design material from one organism to another.
There is no evidence of any bacterial infection being beneficial to the genetic structure of the individuals infected, rather these individuals display various levels of rather silly behavior, from sneezing, to funny voices, to bizarre appearances, to itches in funny places.
For the Neo-Paleyists, the problem for them is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... another failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied.
The obvious conclusion is that bacterial infections are not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this is a mechanism of design, and it is not used for an intelligent purpose, then it must be used for the silliness that is evident. Thus this mechanism displays a high Silliness Index (SI).
Virus
Bacteria fail to transfer genetic material, so what about viruses: when they infect a cell they hi-jack the cell to manufacture more copies of the genetic material carried by the virus. Again, this is a mechanism that involves direct transfer between individuals and between species.
We have the same mechanisms available to transfer viruses as we have for bacteria, and we have the same results: no change to to genetic structure of the individuals infected, rather these individuals display various levels of rather silly behavior, from sneezing, to funny voices, to bizarre appearances, to itches in funny places. In addition we can have some other silly results, like loss of memory or use of various limbs.
Once again, for the Neo-Paleyists, the problem is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... another failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied.
The obvious conclusion is that viruses are not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this is a mechanism of design, and it is not used for an intelligent purpose, then it must be used for the silliness that is evident. Thus this mechanism displays a high Silliness Index (SI).
Cancer
One other mechanism remains, cancerous growths, where genetic material in an individual is directly altered and results in new growth and the potential to form new features as needed.
Consider the possibilities: a population living near water could grow gills to allow staying in the water for extended periods; a population living high in the mountains could grow a third or fourth lung to allow processing oxygen from the thinner air; people who have lost a limb or a sense organ (eyes, ears, etc) could grow new ones.
One can argue about the relative silliness of bulging growths, displacing of normal features, inducing people to indulge in treatment that renders them infertile or removes all bodily hair in the process, but one cannot show any known benefit to such features.
Once again, for the Neo-Paleyists, the problem is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... another failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied.
The obvious conclusion is that cancers are not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this is a mechanism of design, and it is not used for an intelligent purpose, then it must be used for the silliness that is evident. Thus this mechanism displays at least a positive Silliness Index (SI).
Silliness
There is no known mechanism for intelligently transferring design information from one individual to another that does not show both a failure of intelligent use and a high Silliness Index (SI) except for one case: the direct transfer of genetic material from one bacteria to another. This particular mechanism is used to defeat the design by humans of means of suppressing these organisms.
The obvious conclusion is that if this is a mechanism of "intelligent design" that then these bacteria are the focus of such design effort. The corollary is that all other organisms are subsidiary to these bacteria and are meant to provide support mechanism for them, however this means that the least intelligent species are the most intelligently designed. This mechanism displays an excessively high Silliness Index (SI).
Enjoy.
References:
