Defective Design—Part 1

Evolution has been a disputed theory, ever since Darwin so eloquently described it, over 150 years ago. Most of the controversy and resistance to the concept of evolution has been led by adherents of Christian fundamentalism. The core cause of that Christian opposition has stemmed from the fact that evolution presents an explanation that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible's Book of Genesis—that the world was created by the monotheistic God as a perfect and final design… that is, by an “Intelligent Design."

I won't go into a justification of the theory of evolution here—it has been verified countless times by strong scientific evidence. But I wish to address one specific fallacy of the intelligent design idea that I believe adds to undermining it... the fact that there are several examples in nature of not intelligent design but, in fact, defective design. The operation of the human body is an excellent example. If, as Christianity declares, humans are made in the image of God, then shouldn't we humans represent the epitome of intelligent design? In fact, however, our bodies exhibit several defective behaviors, of which I will describe two.

Before launching into these flaws, I want to make it clear that evolution has no plan. There is no goal or end product of evolution. One can easily come to feel that the beauty, elegance, and balance of the natural world was brought about by a super-intelligent, guiding hand. How could our world be so wonderful, without that intentional design? Evolutionary science has irrefutably demonstrated what the actual process is—one that slowly builds, step-by-step, on a series of in-the-moment choices. It just happens on its own. 

Here is how it goes: mutations—in the form of genetic variations—constantly occur and are then passed on to the next generation. Those new variations then find themselves in competition with preexisting forms. The winner survives and procreates, sending its genes into the future. The loser will not get a chance to procreate and will go extinct. Thus a minutely-improved version comes into being. Very soon there will be another tiny mutation—favorable or not—and if favorable, it will add its tiny, improved modification to the organism.  Gradually, this is how all the millions of species on planet Earth came to be in their current form... beautiful and elegant. And all creatures will continue to evolve—slowly but inexorably bringing about new and varied life forms.

One key aspect of how this process works, however, is that there is no backing up—there is no chance to correct any potentially flawed changes that are made along the way… flaws that at the time are of no consequence. At each tiny step of the process a winner is declared, as the fittest critter survives and multiplies. The winner need not be perfect; just a minuscule bit better than the last.

So sometimes a mutation occurs, and because it is a momentary improvement, it gets built into an organism. It may later prove to have not been the best long-term change, but that less-than-perfect initial change is now a permanent aspect of the organism, which must be dealt with as best it can. Now let me describe those two flaws of the human organism that got built in that I mentioned above. Because they cannot be removed, we have to deal with their defective behaviors.

Two examples of human defective design, next time…

Capacity for Cooperation—Part 1

A battle has been raging in biology for a few decades, about the role of cooperation in evolution. Is evolution primarily driven by competition or cooperation? Darwin posited his theory of evolution on the basis that competition for life dominates in the natural world. He saw that far more offspring of any given species are born than can survive in any given situation and location, so there's an intense struggle for survival—which later came to be dubbed “survival of the fittest.” (That’s not Darwin’s term, but was coined by enthusiasts who followed him.) Those critters most fit will survive and those less so will perish...it's that simple and that brutal. 

Any tiny advantage—any favorable minuscule genetic mutation that pops up—may offer a critter a wee bit better chance of survival that its competitors. If the critter does have a better chance of staying alive, it has a better chance of reproducing and sending that advantage into the future. In contrast, a tiny disadvantage in a genetic mutation may see the critter die early and fail to send its genes into the future. It's the end of the line for that less favorable mutation.

So far, what I have described is no cause for the disagreement that prevails between the opposing biological camps. They both agree…thus far. The debate enters when we come to consider what's called “inclusiveness fitness”—when a critter sacrifices itself for others. Martyrdom prevents one's genes from continuing on, and since the propagation of one's genes into the future seems to be a driving factor, how can one explain the systematic willingness of some members of a species to sacrifice themselves for others, when that sacrifice terminates one's genes? If all critters are driven solely by the urge to send their genes into the future, how does one account for those who voluntarily give up that drive?

Richard Dawkins is a prominent leader of the camp that considers our genes to be firmly in control—that we are “driven” by our “selfish genes.” He writes that our behavior is literally determined by our self-seeking genes, simply to transport them into the future. Dawkins’s camp insists that inclusive fitness is the only way to explain why some members of a species will sacrifice themselves. All members of a bee colony, for example, share common genes (they are all sisters). Thus, if a sister sacrifices itself, it's doing so to protect the family—the family's genes will survive, even if the individual bee dies. Similarly, a human being may sacrifice himself for a close family member. By doing so, his genes will get terminated, but the family genes may go on.

That's all fine. There’s still no real argument among biologists. The debate comes in because there are a few situations where individuals will sacrifice themselves for others who are not family members. What's going on here? How do you explain why someone would willingly give up her chance to send her own genes into the future, just to help foreign genes to survive? Does this not seem to violate the principle that we are controlled by our selfish genes? This is the core of the disagreement between the biology camps.

More on our capacity to cooperate next time…