Mistletoe is a hemiparasitic plant and obligate parasite on many different species of tree. It can kill a heavily infested tree. Although mistletoe is photosynthetic, so produces its own sugars, it is dependent on its host for water and the nutrients such as nitrates and other minerals that the host plant obtains from soil. There is no evidence that mistletoe gives anything back to the host in the form of sugars.
Mistletoes and similar parasitic plants obtain the nutrients from their host via a structure called a haustorium which infiltrates the host tissues and forms a close association with the vascular bundles.
But why would an intelligent designer create all the complexity needed for a parasitic lifestyle when it had supposedly designed other plants to obtain nutrients from the soil, and simply added another layer of complexity between the host's roots and the parasitic plant's tissues to achieve the same result? In fact, this is just another example of the needless complexity that characterises evolved systems and distinguishes them from intelligently designed systems, which are characteristically minimally complex.
And it hasn't just done it once! There are over 100 parasitic species of similar plants in Australia alone, which I'll come to next, but first, a little AI background on mistletoe:
Figure 7. Flat wasps (Bethylidae) trapped in Kachin amber while stinging into host larvae for oviposition
(A) Snakefly larva as host, PED 2351.
(B) Beetle larva as host.81
(C) Lepidopteran caterpillar as host, PED 2575.
On top of the evidence of people practicing animal husbandry in the Pyrenees Mountains before, during and after the legendary genocidal flood inflicted on Earth by creationism's 'omni-benevolent' god according to their superstition, and the fact that the predictable layer of silt from such a flood failed to materialise or was away the evidence of this occupation, we have more bad news for creationists.
A paper which describes how insects had evolved a whole array of defensive strategies, 100 million years before the legendary 'creation Week', when the universe was allegedly magicked up out of nothing by a magic man made of nothing, has just been published in the journal iScience.
The significance of this is that it shows an already mature and established ecosystem with predators against which insects needed protection. Defence is one aspect of an evolutionary arms race, of course, and arms races are entirely inconsistent with any notion of intelligent [sic] design because it is not intelligent to create predators to eat your designs, then created mechanisms and structure for the victims of predation to prevent your designs doing what they were designed to do. Arms races are examples of the needless complexity and prolific waste that can result from a mindless, undirected natural process. Needless complexity and prolific waste are the antithesis of intelligent design which should be minimally complex and minimally wasteful.
And of course, the existence of these fossil insects set in amber from 100 million years ago, alone falsifies the childish notion that Earth has only existed for 10,000 years.
The paper is the work of a team of palaeoarchaeologists from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Germany and University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany, led by Professor Carolin Haug of MMU. It is explained in a brief news release from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität:
These microscope images show how interferon in the nucleus raises levels of the protective protein IFI16 (stained green) from low background levels (left) to the higher levels needed to resist herpes infection (right).
Image: HMS MicRoN core imaging facility/ Nicolas Romero Rata
Throughout the Cold War, starting soon after World War II and continuing through most of the second half of the 20th Century, the world's great powers, led by America on one side and Russia on the other, competed in a wasteful arms race where one side tried to outdo the other by building more powerful bombs and better delivery systems while also building better defences capable of preventing successful attack by the other. Money and resources that went into this ultimately pointless arms race could have been used for better, more peaceful projects like better world health care, better education or ending poverty and famine, yet neither side could afford to do the sensible thing because neither side trusted the other to abandon the race and compete with peace instead.
Although we can understand the pressures and insecurities that caused these wasteful arms races, we can also see the ultimate futility of it all and how the costs escalate with every turn of the spiral.
But how much more stupid would it have been if both 'sides' had the same people running them - if both America and Russia had the same political and military leaders? In other words, if the arms race was being run by one side alone, for no better reason than that the leaders had amnesia and didn't know why they built a bigger bomb or a better defence system yesterday and woke up today faced with a threat they had designed yesterday and needed to spend today designing ways to cope with these new threats?
One might be tempted to call into question the sanity of these leaders and wonder about their fitness to lead. What on Earth had allowed them to behave so stupidly? And for what reason? It certainly would have had nothing to do with the health and welfare or safety of the populations of Russia or America, or indeed the rest of the world, so could not be excused as some sort of well-intentioned altruism. An OCD or sheer malevolence, maybe, but not benevolence.
And yet creationists worship what they believe is a supernatural entity who behaves exactly like the amnesiac maniac I've just described. The natural world it reputedly designed, according to creationists, is full of example of these pointless and wasteful arms races for no ultimate long-term benefit to either 'side'.
'Morning sickness, which is common in the earlier stages of pregnancy, and which, in its more severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum, can be seriously debilitating and may even require admission to hospital and iv fluids to prevent life-threatening dehydration, is now known to be caused by a protein hormone, known as GDF15, produced by the foetal part of the placenta.
This discovery, published yesterday in Nature, by a team from Cambridge University, UK, led by Professor Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, and including researchers in Scotland, the USA and Sri Lanka, points to a potential way to prevent pregnancy sickness by exposing mothers to GDF15 ahead of pregnancy to build up their resilience.
It had previously been suggested that GDF15 might be acting on the mother's brain to make her feel nauseous. This has now been confirmed and found to be dependent on two factors:
How much of the hormone is being produced.
How sensitive to it the mother's brain is.
GDF15 is produced in low levels by all tissues outside of pregnancy and the mother's sensitivity to the hormone is related to how much of it she has been exposed to prior to becoming pregnant.
The team arrived at this conclusion after obtaining data from women recruited to a number of studies, including at the Rosie Maternity Hospital, part of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Peterborough City Hospital, North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust. They used a combination of approaches including human genetics, new ways of measuring hormones in pregnant women’s blood, and studies in cells and mice.
The team found that a rare genetic variant that puts women at a much greater risk of hyperemesis gravidarum was associated with lower levels of the hormone in the blood and tissues outside of pregnancy. Similarly, women with the inherited blood disorder beta thalassemia, which causes them to have naturally very high levels of GDF15 prior to pregnancy, experience little or no nausea or vomiting.
Most women who become pregnant will experience nausea and sickness at some point, and while this is not pleasant, for some women it can be much worse – they’ll become so sick they require treatment and even hospitalisation. We now know why.
The baby growing in the womb is producing a hormone at levels the mother is not used to. The more sensitive she is to this hormone, the sicker she will become.
Knowing this gives us a clue as to how we might prevent this from happening. It also makes us more confident that preventing GDF15 from accessing its highly specific receptor in the mother’s brain will ultimately form the basis for an effective and safe way of treating this disorder.
Professor Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, co-senior author.
Co-Director of the Institute of Metabolic Science
and Director of the Medical Research Council Metabolic Diseases Unit
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
When I was pregnant, I became so ill that I could barely move without being sick. When I tried to find out why, I realised how little was known about my condition, despite pregnancy nausea being very common.
Hopefully, now that we understand the cause of hyperemesis gravidarum, we’re a step closer to developing effective treatments to stop other mothers going through what I and many other women have experienced.
Dr Marlena Fejzo, co-senior author
Center for Genetic Epidemiology
Department of Population and Public Health Sciences
Keck School of Medicine
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
The problem for creationists here is to explain why their putative designer god designed a protein which is normally very mild but rarely, can kill the mother and child and at the very least makes pregnancy a misery for a large number of women.
Their problem is compounded by the fact that, in this case, they can't blame it all on 'Sin' and let their little pet good off the hook, because the culprit, GDF15, has several important functions unrelated to pregnancy, so the side effects such as morning sickness and hyperemesis gravidarum appear to be an unforeseen consequence of it. No intelligent [sic] designer worthy of the name, especially a reputedly omniscient, omnipotent one, would design a protein hormone with unforeseen consequences, so we have to assume either it knew what it would do and didn't care, or it knew what it would do and designed it for that purpose. Briefly, GDF15 does the following:
What biological function does the hormonal protein GDF15, have?
Growth Differentiation Factor 15 (GDF15) is a protein that plays a role in various biological processes, particularly in the regulation of energy balance and metabolic functions. Here are some key aspects of GDF15's biological functions:
Appetite Regulation: GDF15 is known to act as a satiety signal, meaning it can reduce appetite and food intake. It is produced in response to conditions such as inflammation, tissue damage, or cellular stress, and it signals to the brain to decrease food consumption.
Metabolic Regulation: GDF15 has been implicated in the regulation of metabolism. It can influence energy expenditure and may contribute to the control of body weight. Its levels are often elevated in conditions associated with weight loss, such as cancer or certain chronic diseases.
Anti-inflammatory Effects: GDF15 has anti-inflammatory properties and can modulate the immune response. It may play a role in limiting excessive inflammation during certain physiological or pathological conditions.
Cardioprotective Effects: GDF15 has been associated with cardioprotective effects. Elevated levels of GDF15 are often observed in response to cardiovascular stress, and it may have a role in protecting the heart and blood vessels.
Cancer-Related Functions: GDF15 is expressed in various tissues, and its levels are often increased in certain types of cancer. It may have both tumor-suppressive and tumor-promoting effects, depending on the specific context and type of cancer.
The exact mechanisms through which GDF15 exerts its effects are still an active area of research, and its functions can vary in different physiological and pathological conditions. It's important to note that the understanding of GDF15's functions is continually evolving as new research findings emerge.
So, creationists have a three-way choice here:
Is this a result of:
Way back 370 million years before the mythical 'Creation Week' the seas were full of life and angiosperm plants were rapidly replacing the tree ferns and other Tracheophytes and life was looking good, despite the fact that the single large landmass, Pangea, was on the point of breaking up.
Then something happened to cause another of those periodic mass extinctions that have punctuated Earth's long 'pre-Creation' history. What exactly it was has been the subject of ongoing debate by geologists, biologists and climatologists ever since evidence of it was found in the fossil record, particularly in Devonian rocks like those in Greenland.
But whatever the cause, it's not good news for creationists who have been duped by their cult leaders into believing Earth is fine-tuned for life by a designer god, and, by the circular reasoning that characterises creationism, therefore this fine-tuning 'proves' their designer god exists. A cynic might wonder, if faith is any good, why creationists are so desperate to find scientific 'proof' of their god that they perform all manner of ludicrous mental gymnastics and commit just about every logical fallacy in the book, to tell themselves and their target dupes that they have discovered it - and will be producing it any day now, real soon!
But that's by the by.
Sadly for creationists the evidence is that Earth is anything but finely tuned and perfect for life. The simple truth is that an Earth that was perfectly designed for life would never have extinctions, let alone mass extinctions like the ones that ended the Devonian and Cretaceous eras, and the one that's in progress right now. In fact, there would not even be biodiversity on such a planet because there would be no reason to adapt to adverse conditions because since these would not exist on a perfectly designed Earth, so life would not have progressed beyond the simplest of self-replicating molecules.
So, just for any creationists still under the delusion that Earth is finely tuned for life, here is a brief description of the Devonian and the mass extinction at the end of it:
The more you learn of creationism's putative intelligent [sic] designer, the more like William Heath Robinson it becomes.
The main difference is that, no matter how ramshakled they were, William Heath Robinsons inventions actually worked, even if they didn't produce the required result. The same can't be said for creationism's god's designs. They resemble piecemeal designs where each part is designed in isolation in response to a problem, often a problem somewhere else in the design, where near enough is good enough and there is no joined up thinking.
Rather like a William Heath Robinson machine, conbbled together from disparate parts, but where when a knotted piece of string breaks, instead of replacing it with a new piece of string or tying the broken ends together, like Heath Robinson would, a different, weaker sort of string is designed and tied across the broken ends, but then that keeps breaking too.
An example of this inept design was discovered recently and found to be the cause of autoimmune diseases such as iritable bowel syndrome (IBS), type 1 diabetes, eczema and other chronic disorders. The problem is with a protein called DECTIN-1 (also known as CLEC7A) which is producd by the immune system in response to fungal infections. Researchers at The Australian National University (ANU) have discovered that a mutated form of DECTIN-1 limits the production of T regulatory cells or so-called ‘guardian’ cells in the immune system.
Mutations arise, of course, because of another poor design - the process for replicating DNA, which is so prone to errors that another mechanism for repairing it is needed. However this is also prone to errors, the result of which means that many of our cells carry mutations, some of which cause cancers.
The mucous membrane lining our respiratory system has evolved (or, according to creationists, been intelligently [sic] designed) to keep our respiratory system clean as we breathe in air containing particles of dirt, dust, pollen and bacteria. It does this by secreting mucus that traps the particles, then ciliated cells on the surface sweep them towards our pharynx to be swallowed and disposed of in our digestive system where the proteins in the mucous are recycled.
Other body cavities are lined by a mucous membrane that serves to protect and keep the cavity moist and lubricated.
But, in one of those research papers that creationists have to avoid reading, a team of researchers from Penn State University, have shown how bacteria have evolved (or been intelligently [sic] designed, according to creationists) to exploit the mucous, the better to infect us and make us sick, and the thicker the mucus, the better it is for these would-be pathogens.
Infections by bacteria, known medically as opportunist infections, especially in the nasal sinuses and lungs, are a frequent complication of viral infections such as a common cold or influenza. These opportunist infections can be more dangerous than the virus infections that facilitate them.
The team showed that bacteria find it easier to swim, swarm and form colonies in thick mucus than in thin, watery mucus and that this swarming probably helps protect them from the antibacterial enzymes in the mucus.
Their research is explained in a Penn State news release:
Creationists trying to defend their magic creator god argue that it didn't create pathogenic parasites and instead blame it on 'Sin'. Sadly for them, however, one of their leading cult gurus, Michael J. Behe, has pulled that rug from underneath them by writing a book in which he used the supposedly irreducibly complex flagellum of a common pathogen, Escherichia coli (E. coli) to argue that it must have been intelligently designed, (so God did it!). Behe's book, 'Darwin’s Black Box' is constantly being cited as 'proof' that the reputedly omniscience, omnipotent creator god of the Bible and Qur'an is real and creates things.
So, let's go with their 'proof of God' argument and assume therefore that pathogens are the intentional design of their putative designer god and were designed for the function they perform - making us sick, while producing more copies of themselves to make others sick too.
Now a team of researchers have shown the lengths this alleged designer god has gone to to continue making us sick and suffer. The team, led by Professor Yan Yu, of the College of Arts and Sciences’ Department of Chemistry, Indian University, Bloomington, IN, USA have shown that the intracellular pathogens like Toxoplasma, tuberculosis, malaria and chlamydia don't use subtlety to gain entry into the cell, probably because this would provoke an immune response as our immune system, allegedly designed by the same intelligent designer to protect us from the pathogens it designed to harm us, tried to fight back. Instead, they use brute force to break into the cell and once inside use the same force to break into a cell vacuole where they are protected by the internal cell membranes.
How the research team which included Professor Yan Yu's colleagues from Indiana University with Thomas K. Gaetjens and Steven M. Abel of the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, made this discovery is explained in an Indian University new release:
It's better to warn than to attack because attacking is costly and carries risks, but a warning is often free or takes minimal effort.
This is why many creatures advertise the fact that they can be dangerous so leave them alone - yellow and black wasps; the warning rattle of a rattlesnake, the bright colours of a poison dart frog, or the black and white pattern of a skunk, for example.
But these patterns only work as a deterrent, if the potential threat has some experience or has evolved in their presence so has a genetic aversion.
It's almost as though creationism's putative designer took lessons from William Heath-Robinson, and then lost its sense of humour, the ludicrously complicated ways it designs to carry out simple tasks.
The evolutionary advantage of penetrative sex is that the male is able to deposit sperm close to the egg, using his penis, and the female is able to exercise a degree of selection in her choice of who is to father her babies. It is a considerable advantage over the more primitive forms of external fertilisation such as those used by amphibians where the sperm is shed onto the eggs as the female lays them, or by fish, where the sperm is deposited near the eggs and then swims towards them. The later method, especially, frequently allows opportunist males to sneak in and fertilise some of the eggs when another male has done all the work.
However, for reasons which are not entirely clear, most male birds have lost their penis and deposit their sperm into the female's reproductive opening by a 'cloacal kiss', a notable exception being the swans, geese and ducks which have retained a penis and sex is penetrative. This may be because a strategy used by male members of this order of birds is forcible penetration or, frankly, rape.
Of course, being unintelligently designed, birds lost their penis, not by simply losing the genes that grow one during embryonic development, but by have a gene that literally kills the growing penis soon after it starts to develop. Inhibit that gene in chickens and the male chick is born with a penis. Give it to a goose, and the male gosling is born without one.
William Heath-Robinson
And now, in what looks like another example of unintelligent design (by that I mean, of course, evolution) there is a species of bat in which the male's penis is too big to penetrate the female, so he uses it to transfer his sperm into the vagina by pressing the tip against her vulva and holding it there until the deed is done. which usually takes about 53 minutes but can take over 12 hours.
The bat is the common serotinus, Eptesicus serotinus. It is the only known example of non-penetrative sex in a mammal. Quite why it evolved is something of a mystery, but it could be something to do with needing to get round the female's tail membrane resulting in a penis that, when erect is 22% of the bat's body length. The tip is large and bulbous and almost seems designed to prevent penetration.
The study began when Nicolas Fasel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, and his colleagues noticed that the serotine bat has a rather large and unusual penis. When erect, it is 22% of the bat’s head–body length and has a bulbous, heart-shaped tip. “We were thinking it would be really difficult for it to enter anything,” he says.
It is described in a University of Lausanne (UNIL) news release and published Current Biology:
Despite asking creationists multiple times how they reconcile believing that their putative intelligent [sic] designer designs complex organisms, such as the parasite, Plasmodium falciparum which cause malaria, with their belief that this putative designer is the supposedly omnibenevolent god if the Bible and Qur'an, I can never get a rational answer.
Most often they resort to the fallback claim that parasites and the suffering they cause were not created by their putative intelligent designer, but by another designer they call 'Sin', which of course is nonsensical and borders on blasphemy because it denies the supremacy of their supposed designer god, and allows for another designer over whom their supposedly omnipotent god is powerless.
But, to their embarrassment, if they manage to do the joined-up thinking, their guru, Michael J. Behe - who has the status of a 'brilliant scientist' in creationist circles - wrote a book, The Edge of Evolution in which he argued (wrongly) that the development of anti-malarial drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum must have been intelligently designed, using the 'big scary numbers' tactic of arguing that the likelihood of each of the five steps needed arising by chance was so small, that the chances of all five of them occurring in the right sequence is so infinitesimally small that it couldn't have happened by chance alone, so needed divine intervention.
The fact that he used bad biology and even worse maths, in effect assuming that all the mutations had to happen together in as single cell as a single event, instead of in parallel across the species gene pool, as was shown by microbiologist Kenneth R Miller, is by the by, since creationists generally treat anything Michael J Behe says as proven science, they are stuck with his claim that their god is responsible for anti-malarial drug resistance in the malaria parasite - which infects about 20 million people, mostly children annually, and kills 700,000 of them.
Creationists also believe, contrary to the claim that humans have free will, that their god has a plan for each of us, so presumably planned to have those people die of malaria, and that to oppose their god's divine plan in any way is to oppose their god.
So, again a question I can never get a rational response to, is what should a true-believing creationist support - the god whom they believe creates parasites like malaria as part of its divine plan, or the biomedical scientists who work to thwart that plan?
This is of course, the sort of dilemmas that creationists need to avoid rather than have people accept that parasites like Plasmodium falciparum are the result of a mindless, amoral evolutionary process.
By contrast, and devoid of the sort of muddle, holding mutually exclusive views simultaneously, and dilemmas that creationism, with its evidence-free superstitions, gets itself into, the scientific view, supported by evidence, is:
In laboratory flasks containing just two teaspoons of media, scientists document how rapid adaptation between bacteria and viruses produce complex ecological networks.
Creationists hate evolutionary arms races because they can't be sensibly explained in terms of intelligent design by a single omnipotent, omniscient designer and for a creationist, any other sort of designer(s) would be a serious blasphemy that would see them swiftly ejected from their cult and cast into outer darkness, socially speaking.
And yet evolutionary arms races are an integral part of evolution, probably accounting for more biodiversity than sex selection and environmental change. Evolutionary arms races are the inevitable result of the fact that living things eat other living things, either as parasite or as predators, so there are two ways an organism in a parasite-host or predator-prey relationship can gain an advantage over others of its species: it can either be a more successful parasite/predator or it can be better at avoiding being parasitised or eaten. Either scenario will lead to more offspring carrying the genes for greater success so they will increase in the species gene pool and the whole population will evolve in that direction, creating selection pressure on the other member of the relationship to respond appropriately.
This is all the result of natural selection at works, with no plan and no sentience needed.
It should not be beyond the wit of an average 10-year-old to comprehend that unless childhood brainwashing and theophobic psychosis has prevented rational thinking.
of course, in a natural setting, this all happens relatively slowly in small increments over time, so the evolutionary changes might not be observable for several generations.
So, a group of researchers from UC San Diego, Georgia Institute of Technology and Maryland University, have found a way to speed up the process in laboratory flasks by using small quantities of bacteria and the bacterial parasites, bacteriophage viruses, usually simply called phage viruses.
The news release from UC San Diego explains the research and its significance:
Creationists are always clamouring for evidence of 'transitional' species or fossils, only to dismiss them as 'fully-formed species' so 'not transitional'. What they're demanding is that we show them something that no biologist ever claimed existed - a fossil of something that was half one species and half another - a croccoduck or a half human-half chimpanzee fossil, in other words evidence of their childish parody of evolution.
Instead, what we have is countless examples of species with archaic features and stem species showing characteristics of more primitive taxons and later species that would evolve from it. In fact, every fossil ever found is 'transitional' between its parent generation and its descendant population - a fact only understandable by those with a grasp of what evolution is and how it works over time.
And one such group of animals showing archaic features that show the transition from egg-laying reptiles and the mammals that evolved from them are the monotremes, egg-laying mammals such as the platypus and echidnas - vertebrates that are warm-blooded, have fur and feed their young on milk secreted by special glands on the female's body.
Our immune system is notoriously unreliable and often fails when it is needed most, with cancers and serious infections. As a piece of supposedly intelligent [sic] design, (according to creationist superstition) it is more an example of blithering incompetence, if not downright malevolence.
Remember, creationists believe the designer of it is supremely intelligent, omniscient with the power to foresee the future, omnipotent and perfect. Remember too that creationists claim, as the only supernatural entity capable of designing live things, that it also designed the pathogenic organisms that the immune system was designed to protect us from.
Apparently, in creationist circles, designing pathogens to make us sick, then designing an immune system to protect us from those pathogens, then redesigning the pathogens to bypass our immune system that should be protecting us from them, is considered evidence of supreme intelligence.
Similarly, designing a method of cell replication to replace out old cells when they wear out, but using a method that sometime makes mistakes and turns the cells into cancer cells is also a sign of infinite wisdom.
For reasons that can only be guessed at, and probably for political motives that depend on fools being misled about science and which have nothing to do with worshipping their particular god, creationist frauds would rather we thought of their putative designer god as an incompetent fool and pestilential malevolence, than accept that pathogens, cancers and our immune system are the result of a mindless, utilitarian natural process that operates without a plan and produces suboptimal results, providing the result is better than that which preceded it in terms of producing more offspring which go on to breed successfully.
For creationist frauds, religion merely provides them with an excuse for their avarice and demands for political power over others.
Appearance of the shrub, branches, and surfaces of T. aphylla. (A) A photograph of T. aphylla located across the coastal sabkha of the United Arab Emirates. (B) A close-up view of the branches. (C) A branch recorded in the late morning (11 a.m.) was encrusted with salt crystals. (D) A branch recorded in the early morning (8 a.m.) showed condensed water droplets. (E and F) Scanning electron microscopic images of the surfaces of leaves with salt crystals (E) and a zoomed image of a single salt gland (F). The length of the scale bars in panels B, C, D, E, and F are 5 mm, 3 mm, 3 mm, 1 mm, and 50 µm, respectively.
Yesterday it was fish 'designed' to live in a desert that demonstrated how biological 'design' is a bottom-up process where, in this case, a fish, is faced with increasing desertification of its environment and only those fit for living in the environment survive to breed, so, over time, and with whatever increased complexity evolves, we have fish 'designed for living in a desert.
An intelligent designer, on the other hand, starting with a desert, would be insane to imagine that what was needed was a fish to live in it, and then set about designing all the complexity and elaborate workarounds for the problems it has needlessly created for itself.
And today, we have another example, in the form of a plant that also lives in a desert, so needs an alternative source of water.
What intelligent designer not in need of responsible adult supervision, would look at a desert and think, "I know what that needs - plants!", then try to solve the problem of, being a plant, it needs water which is singularly lacking in a desert, so it designs a ludicrously complicated way to get water, instead of simply designing the plant to live where there is enough water for it, using the method it has already used successfully in just about every other plant.
The last place you'd expect to find fish would be in a desert.
That's because, being intelligent, no-one would expect an intelligent designer to design fish to live in that environment, and yet there are fish living in a lake in the Arizona desert. These are three species of the Catostomidae, all from the Ictiobus genus, Ictiobus cyprinellus, I. bubalus, I. niger, known colloquially as buffalofish.
Good design is a top-down process, but no intelligent designer would take a desert as its starting point and decide that what the desert needed was fish. Evolution being a bottom-up process starts with fish and, as its environment becomes a desert, those that are better adapted to a desert environment are selected by that environment to survive ad breed, so, over time, we have a fish 'designed' to live in a desert.
And this is how we can tell they weren’t intelligently designed but evolved by a natural, unintelligent process without a plan.
Illustration of bacteriophages infecting a bacterium.
Fig 1. Uptake of T4 phage by mammalian cells does not trigger a pro-inflammatory immune response [modified].
(A) A549 cells and (B) MDCK-I cells incubated with T4 phages for 2 hours. Images were taken with a confocal microscope; the plasma membrane is shown in magenta, T4 phage DNA in green, and the cell nucleus in blue.
Imagine you're a designer charged with designing a mammalian cell so it grows and multiplies efficiently. You've already designed DNA and genes to make the right proteins to stimulate cell growth, but it isn't working as well as it should.
What do you do?
An intelligent designer, especially an omnipotent, omniscient designer, wouldn't have designed it sub-optimally in the first place, but if it had, it would simply redesign it and make sure all the right genes were provided because, being omnipotent, nothing would be impossible.
But whatever designed the mammalian cell didn't do the intelligent thing.
Instead it opted for an unnecessarily complex solution - it used the bacteriophage viruses that it had designed to infect and kill the bacteria it had designed earlier, to infect mammalian cells and give them the missing genes to correct its mistake. It then modified the process it had designed to protect the cells from infection, so these viruses don't trigger an immune response and get destroyed.
No going for the simple solution like a normal intelligent designer would, when a much more complex solution is available, eh?
This is what you need to believe to be an intelligent [sic] design creationist, to explain the findings of a group of researchers led by Jeremy J. Barr of the School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. They have discovered that phage viruses, which proliferate in our gut where they normally parasitise and kill bacteria, are taken in by mammalian cells where they accumulate and activate metabolic pathways that promote cell metabolism and growth and prolong the cell cycle.
In a classic example of how scientists never take what they think they know as proven beyond question, a group of scientists led by associate professor Lasse Jakobsen of the Department of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark have reassessed how the Western barbastelle bat, Barbastella barbastellus, evolved its hunting strategy, and have concluded that the way we thought it evolved is probably wrong.
But it's no comfort to creationists because there is no suggestion that it may have been acquired by anything other than a god-free natural process or that the scientists are having any doubts about the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, the general principle of arms races is not in doubt, only whether it applies in the case of the barbastelle's hunting strategy. To add to creationist discomfort, evolutionary arms races were the subject of an early research paper by a certain Richard Dawkins together with John Richard Krebs and are now accepted as a fundamental driver of evolution. They are, of course, utterly incompatible with the notion of intelligent [sic] design.
Briefly, it was previously thought that the 'quiet' echolocation used by barbastelles to locate their insect prey was the result of an evolutionary arms race between bats and insects in which insects had evolved the ability to detect bats by their echolocation sounds and take evasive action. Bats then adjusted their sounds by either changing their frequencies or, in the case of barbastelles, turning down the volume.
An international team of mycologists led by Christoffer Bugge Harder of the Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway has discovered that a family of fungi, the Mycena or Mycenaceae, also known as the bonnet mushrooms, is in the process of evolving a change of life style from that of a saprophyte (i.e., feeding on dead and decaying plant matter, mostly wood) to becoming a symbiont, living in cooperative alliance with other plants, or even a parasite able to invade and live on living plant tissues.
As the reputed work of an intelligent [sic] designer, this tick can only be regarded as evidence of the pestilential malevolent of any designer that could design such a creature, as it serves no purpose other than to be the vector of a number of different pathogens and to make more ticks.
