Argument from poor design

Last updated

The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the assumption of the existence of a creator God, based on the reasoning that any omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity or deities would not create organisms with the perceived suboptimal designs that occur in nature.

Contents

The argument is structured as a basic modus ponens : if "creation" contains many defects, then design appears an implausible theory for the origin of earthly existence. Proponents most commonly use the argument in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design (which suggests that living things appear too well-designed to have originated by chance, and so an intelligent God or gods must have deliberately created them).

Although the phrase "argument from poor design" has seen little use, this type of argument has been advanced many times using words and phrases such as "poor design", "suboptimal design", "unintelligent design" or "dysteleology/dysteleological". The nineteenth-century biologist Ernst Haeckel applied the term "dysteleology" to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism. [1] In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Creation), Haeckel devoted most of a chapter to the argument, ending with the proposition (perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek) of "a theory of the unsuitability of parts in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the suitability of parts". [1] In 2005, Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst popularised the term "incompetent design" (a play on "intelligent design"), to describe aspects of nature seen as flawed in design. [2]

Traditional Christian theological responses generally posit that God constructed a perfect universe but that humanity's misuse of its free will to rebel against God has resulted in the corruption of divine good design. [3] [4] [5]

Overview

Natural selection is expected to push fitness to a peak, but that peak often is not the highest. Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png
Natural selection is expected to push fitness to a peak, but that peak often is not the highest.

The argument runs that:

  1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
  2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
  3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

It is sometimes used as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:

  1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
  2. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
  3. This creator is God.

"Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

In fitness landscape terms, natural selection will always push "up the hill", but a species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley.

The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin; [6] modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Nathan H. Lents. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generally reject the argument from design, but do still maintain belief in the existence of God.[ citation needed ]

Examples

In humans

Fatal flaws

Artist's representation of an ectopic pregnancy. Critics cite such common biological occurrences as contradictory to the 'watchmaker analogy'. Ectopic.png
Artist's representation of an ectopic pregnancy. Critics cite such common biological occurrences as contradictory to the 'watchmaker analogy'.

American scientist Nathan H. Lents published his book on poor design in the human body and genome in 2018 titled Human Errors. The book ignited a firestorm of criticism from the creationist community [7] [8] but was well received by the scientific community and received unanimously favorable reviews [9] in the dozens of non-creationist media outlets that covered it.

Several defects in human anatomy can result in death, especially without modern medical care:

  • In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
  • In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby's head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby, or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
  • In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, such as intestinal blockage and gangrene, usually resulted in death. [10]
  • The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
  • The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate.
  • The human appendix is a vestigial organ thought to serve no purpose. Appendicitis, an infection of this organ, is a certain death without medical intervention. "During the past few years, however, several studies have suggested its immunological importance for the development and preservation of the intestinal immune system." [11]
  • Tinnitus, a phantom auditory sensation, is a maladaptation resulting from hearing loss most often caused by exposure to loud noise. [12] Tinnitus serves no practical purpose, reduces quality of life, may cause depression, and when severe can lead to suicide. [13]

Other flaws

  • Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot, [14] that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case. [15]
  • The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae. The spinal cord cannot ever properly heal if it is damaged, because neurons have become so specialized that they are no longer able to regrow once they reach their mature state. The spinal cord, if broken, will never repair itself and will result in permanent paralysis. [16]
  • Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). [17] Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and in guinea pigs, but is functional in most other animals. [18]
  • The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's disease.
  • The male urethra passes directly through the prostate, which can produce urinary difficulties if the prostate becomes swollen. [19]
  • Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates although humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth, which can damage neighboring teeth or cause serious infections of the mouth. [20]
  • The structure of human eyes (as well as those of all vertebrates). The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. [21] Having the optic nerve connected to the side of the retina that does not receive the light, as is the case in cephalopods, would avoid these problems. [22] Lents and colleagues have proposed that the tapetum lucidum, the reflective surface behind vertebrate retinas, has evolved to overcome the limitations of the inverted retina, [23] as cephalopods have never evolved this structure. [24] However, an 'inverted' retina actually improves image quality through müller cells by reducing distortion. [25] The effects of the blind spots resulting from the inverted retina are cancelled by binocular vision, as the blind spots in both eyes are oppositely angled. Additionally, as cephalopod eyes lack cone cells and might be able to judge color by bringing specific wavelengths to a focus on the retina, an inverted retina might interfere with this mechanism. [26]
  • Humans are attracted to junk food's non-nutritious ingredients, and even wholly non-nutritious psychoactive drugs, and can experience physiological adaptations to prefer them to nutrients.

Other life

Counterarguments

Specific examples

Intelligent design proponent William Dembski questions the first premise of the argument, claiming that "intelligent design" does not need to be optimal. [30]

While the appendix has been previously credited with very little function, research has shown that it serves an important role in the fetus and young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development, which produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. In young adults, the appendix has some immune functions. [31]

Responses to counterarguments

In response to the claim that uses have been found for "junk" DNA, proponents note that the fact that some non-coding DNA has a purpose does not establish that all non-coding DNA has a purpose, and that the human genome does include pseudogenes that are nonfunctional "junk", with others noting that some sections of DNA can be randomized, cut, or added to with no apparent effect on the organism in question. [32] The original study that suggested that the Makorin1-p1 served some purpose [33] has been disputed. [34] However, the original study is still frequently cited in newer studies and articles on pseudogenes previously thought to be nonfunctional. [35]

As an argument regarding God

The argument from poor design is sometimes interpreted, by the argumenter or the listener, as an argument against the existence of God, or against characteristics commonly attributed to a creator deity, such as omnipotence, omniscience, or personality. In a weaker form, it is used as an argument for the incompetence of God. The existence of "poor design" (as well as the perceived prodigious "wastefulness" of the evolutionary process) would seem to imply a "poor" designer, or a "blind" designer, or no designer at all. In Gould's words, "If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes. Orchids are not made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged...." [36]

The apparently suboptimal design of organisms has also been used by proponents of theistic evolution to argue in favour of a creator deity who uses natural selection as a mechanism of his creation. [37] Arguers from poor design regard counter-arguments as a false dilemma, imposing that either a creator deity designed life on earth well or flaws in design indicate the life is not designed. This allows proponents of intelligent design to cherry pick which aspects of life constitute design, leading to the unfalsifiability of the theory. Christian proponents of both intelligent design and creationism may claim that good design indicates the creative intelligence of their God, while poor design indicates corruption of the world as a result of free will that caused the fall of man (for example, in Genesis 3:16 Yahweh says to Eve "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy"). [38]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creationism</span> Belief that nature originated through supernatural acts

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views, which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation science</span> Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism

Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative. Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts, theories and paradigms of geology, cosmology, biological evolution, archaeology, history, and linguistics using creation science. Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional. This negative argument is then complemented by the claim that the only alternative explanation is a "purposeful arrangement of parts" inferring design by an intelligent agent. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design (ID), but the concept of irreducible complexity has been rejected by the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity and specified complexity, are the two main arguments used by intelligent-design proponents to support their version of the theological argument from design.

The teleological argument also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument, is a rational argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world, which looks designed, is evidence of an intelligent creator. The earliest recorded versions of this argument are associated with Socrates in ancient Greece, although it has been argued that he was taking up an older argument. Later, Plato and Aristotle developed complex approaches to the proposal that the cosmos has an intelligent cause, but it was the Stoics during the Roman era who, under their influence, "developed the battery of creationist arguments broadly known under the label 'The Argument from Design'".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theistic evolution</span> Views that religion is compatible with science

Theistic evolution, alternatively called evolutionary creationism, is a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature. Here, God is taken as the primary cause while natural causes are secondary, positing that the concept of God and religious beliefs are compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but includes a range of views about how science relates to religious beliefs and the extent to which God intervenes. It rejects the strict creationist doctrines of special creation, but can include beliefs such as creation of the human soul. Modern theistic evolution accepts the general scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, the origin of the Solar System, the origin of life, and evolution.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and theology. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology and ontology and the theory of value.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rejection of evolution by religious groups</span> Religious rejection of evolution

Recurring cultural, political, and theological rejection of evolution by religious groups exists regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. In accordance with creationism, species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation, but since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its chief activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this concept, the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high school science classes, and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it. The movement arose out of the creation science movement in the United States, and is driven by a small group of proponents. The Encyclopædia Britannica explains that ID cannot be empirically tested and that it fails to solve the problem of evil; thus, it is neither sound science nor sound theology.

The "Teach the controversy" campaign of the Discovery Institute seeks to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design as part of its attempts to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations point out that the institute claims that there is a scientific controversy where in fact none exists.

An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the pseudoscientific hypothetical willed and self-aware entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life. The term "intelligent cause" is also used, implying their teleological supposition of direction and purpose in features of the universe and of living things.

The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument, an argument for the existence of God. In broad terms, the watchmaker analogy states that just as it is readily observed that a watch did not come to be accidentally or on its own but rather through the intentional handiwork of a skilled watchmaker, it is also readily observed that nature did not come to be accidentally or on its own but through the intentional handiwork of an intelligent designer. The watchmaker analogy originated in natural theology and is often used to argue for the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. The analogy states that a design implies a designer, by an intelligent designer, i.e. a creator deity. The watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. The original analogy played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God of the universe, in both Christianity and Deism. Prior to Paley, however, Sir Isaac Newton, René Descartes, and others from the time of the Scientific Revolution had each believed "that the physical laws he [each] had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watch, wherein the watchmaker is God."

The junkyard tornado, sometimes known as Hoyle's fallacy, is a fallacious argument formulated by Fred Hoyle against Earth-based abiogenesis and in favor of panspermia. The junkyard tornado argument has been taken out of its original context by theists to argue for intelligent design, and has since become a mainstay in the rejection of evolution by religious groups, even though Fred Hoyle declared himself an atheist, and even though the junkyard tornado argument is considered a fallacy in its original context of Earth-based abiogenesis vs. panspermia.

Objections to evolution have been raised since evolutionary ideas came to prominence in the 19th century. When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution initially met opposition from scientists with different theories, but eventually came to receive near-universal acceptance in the scientific community. The observation of evolutionary processes occurring has been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists since the 1940s.

The reaction of Jewish leaders and organizations to intelligent design has been primarily concerned with responding to proposals to include intelligent design in public school curricula as a rival scientific hypothesis to modern evolutionary theory.

<i>Why Darwin Matters</i> 2006 book by Michael Shermer

Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design is a 2006 book by Michael Shermer, an author, publisher, and historian of science. Shermer examines the theory of evolution and the arguments presented against it. He demonstrates that the theory is very robust and is based on a convergence of evidence from a number of different branches of science. The attacks against it are, for the most part, very simplistic and easily demolished. He discusses how evolution and other branches of science can coexist with religious beliefs. He describes how he and Darwin both started out as creationists and how their thinking changed over time. He examines current attitudes towards evolution and science in general. He finds that in many cases the problem people have is not with the facts about evolution but with their ideas of what it implies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism</span> Religious application of the existence of microorganisms that break down nylon

The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria has been used to refute creationist arguments against evolution and natural selection. These bacteria can produce novel enzymes that allow them to feed on by-products of nylon manufacture which did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in the 1930s. Observation of these adaptations refutes religious and pseudoscientific claims that no new information can be added to a genome and that proteins are too complex to evolve through a process of mutation and natural selection. Apologists have produced reactionary literature attempting to deny that evolution occurs, in turn generating input from the scientific community.

The relationship between intelligent design and science has been a contentious one. Intelligent design (ID) is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank and the leading proponent of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy", which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community rejects intelligent design as a form of creationism, and the basic facts of evolution are not a matter of controversy in science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teleology in biology</span> Use of language of goal-directedness in the context of evolutionary adaptation

Teleology in biology is the use of the language of goal-directedness in accounts of evolutionary adaptation, which some biologists and philosophers of science find problematic. The term teleonomy has also been proposed. Before Darwin, organisms were seen as existing because God had designed and created them; their features such as eyes were taken by natural theology to have been made to enable them to carry out their functions, such as seeing. Evolutionary biologists often use similar teleological formulations that invoke purpose, but these imply natural selection rather than actual goals, whether conscious or not. Some biologists and religious thinkers held that evolution itself was somehow goal-directed (orthogenesis), and in vitalist versions, driven by a purposeful life force. With evolution working by natural selection acting on inherited variation, the use of teleology in biology has attracted criticism, and attempts have been made to teach students to avoid teleological language.

References

  1. 1 2 Haeckel, Ernst (1892). The History of Creation. Appleton, New York: D. Appleton. p.  331.
  2. ↑ Wise, Donald (2005-07-22). ""Intelligent" Design versus Evolution". Science. 309 (5734). AAAS: 556–557. doi:10.1126/science.309.5734.556c. PMID   16040688. S2CID   5241402.
  3. ↑ Harry Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8, Volume 34
  4. ↑ Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict
  5. ↑ ed. Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister, The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology, pages 160-161 - "Fundamental to the position is Augustine's view that the universe God created is good; everything in the universe is good and has good purpose [...]. [...] How did evil arise? It came about, he maintains, through free will. [...] some of God's free creatures turned their will from God, the supreme Good, to lesser goods. [...] It happened first with the angels and then [...] with humans. This is how moral evil entered the universe and this moral fall, or sin, also brought with it tragic cosmic consequences, for it ushered in natural evil as well."
  6. ↑ Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species , 6th ed., Ch. 14.
  7. ↑ "Creation: Review of Human Errors by Nathan H Lents".
  8. ↑ "Evolution News: articles about Human Errors".
  9. ↑ "Human Errors: The Human Evolution Blog". 16 October 2017.
  10. 1 2 3 Colby, Chris; Loren Petrich (1993). "Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature". Talk.Origins. Archived from the original on 2011-08-11.
  11. ↑ Kooij, I. A.; Sahami, S.; Meijer, S. L.; Buskens, C. J.; Te Velde, A. A. (October 2016). "The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature". Clinical and Experimental Immunology. 186 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1111/cei.12821. ISSN   1365-2249. PMC   5011360 . PMID   27271818.
  12. ↑ Shore, Susan (2016). "Maladaptive plasticity in tinnitus-triggers, mechanisms and treatment". Nature Reviews. Neurology. 12 (3): 150–160. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2016.12. PMC   4895692 . PMID   26868680.
  13. ↑ Cheng, YF (2023). "Tinnitus and risk of attempted suicide: A one year follow-up study". Journal of Affective Disorders. 322: 141–145. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.11.009. PMID   36372122. S2CID   253472609.
  14. ↑ Selim, Jocelyn (June 2004). "Useless Body Parts". Discover. 25 (6). Archived from the original on 2011-08-17.
  15. ↑ Haeckel, Ernst (1892). The History of Creation. Appleton, New York: D. Appleton. p.  328.
  16. ↑ "Nervous System Guide by the National Science Teachers Association." Nervous System Guide by the National Science Teachers Association. National Science Teachers Association, n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. < "Nervous System Guide by the National Science Teachers Association". Archived from the original on 2013-10-01. Retrieved 2013-11-07.>
  17. ↑ Nishikimi M, Yagi K (December 1991). "Molecular basis for the deficiency in humans of gulonolactone oxidase, a key enzyme for ascorbic acid biosynthesis". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 54 (6 Suppl): 1203S–1208S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/54.6.1203s . PMID   1962571. S2CID   27631027.
  18. ↑ Ohta Y, Nishikimi M (October 1999). "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis". Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1472 (1–2): 408–11. doi:10.1016/S0304-4165(99)00123-3. PMID   10572964.
  19. ↑ Gregory, T. Ryan (December 2009). "The Argument from Design: A Guided Tour of William Paley's Natural Theology (1802)". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2 (4): 602–611. doi: 10.1007/s12052-009-0184-6 . ISSN   1936-6434. S2CID   35806252.
  20. ↑ "Wisdom Teeth." American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). AAOMS, n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. < "Wisdom Teeth | AAOMS.org". Archived from the original on 2013-11-10. Retrieved 2013-11-07.>.
  21. ↑ Nave, R. "The Retina." of the Human Eye. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. < "The Retina of the Human Eye". Archived from the original on 2015-05-04. Retrieved 2015-06-03.>.
  22. ↑ "Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color." Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. < "Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color". Archived from the original on 2013-11-11. Retrieved 2013-11-07.>.
  23. ↑ Vee, Samantha; Barclay, Gerald; Lents, Nathan H. (2022). "The glow of the night: The tapetum lucidum as a co‐adaptation for the inverted retina". BioEssays. 44 (10). doi:10.1002/bies.202200003. S2CID   251864970.
  24. ↑ "The Night Begins to Shine: The Tapetum Lucidum and Our Backward Retinas | Skeptical Inquirer". 29 December 2022.
  25. ↑ Franze, Kristian; Grosche, Jens; Skatchkov, Serguei N.; Schinkinger, Stefan; Foja, Christian; Schild, Detlev; Uckermann, Ortrud; Travis, Kort; Reichenbach, Andreas; Guck, Jochen (2007-05-15). "Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (20): 8287–8292. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611180104 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   1895942 . PMID   17485670.
  26. ↑ Sanders, Robert (2016-07-05). "Weird pupils let octopuses see their colorful gardens". Berkeley News. Archived from the original on 2016-07-06. Retrieved 2021-01-12.
  27. ↑ Haeckel, Ernst (1892). The History of Creation. Appleton, New York: D. Appleton. p.  326.
  28. ↑ Spreitzer RJ, Salvucci ME (2002). "Rubisco: structure, regulatory interactions, and possibilities for a better enzyme". Annu Rev Plant Biol. 53: 449–75. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135233. PMID   12221984. S2CID   9387705.
  29. ↑ Ellis RJ (January 2010). "Biochemistry: Tackling unintelligent design". Nature. 463 (7278): 164–5. Bibcode:2010Natur.463..164E. doi:10.1038/463164a. PMID   20075906. S2CID   205052478.
  30. ↑ Dembski, William (1999). Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology. InterVarsity Press. p. 261. ISBN   0-8308-2314-X.
  31. ↑ Martin, Loren G. (October 21, 1999). "What is the function of the human appendix?". Scientific American. Archived from the original on October 9, 2012.
  32. ↑ Isaak, Mark (2004). "Claim CB130". Talk.Origins. Archived from the original on 2006-09-11.
  33. ↑ Hirotsune, S; Yoshida, N; Chen, A; Garrett, L; Sugiyama, F; Takahashi, S; Yagami, K; Wynshaw-Boris, A; Yoshiki, A.; et al. (2003). "An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene". Nature. 423 (6935): 91–6. Bibcode:2003Natur.423...91H. doi:10.1038/nature01535. PMID   12721631. S2CID   4360619.
  34. ↑ Gray, TA; Wilson, A; Fortin, PJ; Nicholls, RD (2006). "The putatively functional Mkrn1-p1 pseudogene is neither expressed nor imprinted, nor does it regulate its source gene in trans". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103 (32): 12039–12044. Bibcode:2006PNAS..10312039G. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0602216103 . PMC   1567693 . PMID   16882727.
  35. ↑ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.
  36. ↑ "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb". NATURAL HISTORY. November 1978. Archived from the original on 2006-09-28.
  37. ↑ Collins, Francis S. The Language of God (New York: Simon & Schuster), 2006. p 191. ISBN   978-1-4165-4274-2
  38. ↑ Mitchell, Dr. Elizabeth (15 November 2006). "The Evolution of Childbirth?". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 11 December 2020.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.