Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dragonfly both perfect at first AND “the perfected result” of 300 mya of evolution?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Philosopher Laszlo Bencze reflects on a recent National Geographic program on dragonflies:

First I hear, “The dragonfly, the perfected result of 300 million years of evolution.’’ Then a few minutes later I hear, “The dragonfly was perfect when it first appeared 300 million years ago.” I guess the producers of these shows don’t bother listening to what they’re saying as long as they are saying something about evolution and how wonderful it is. Oh, and there’s not a word about how the imperfections of the dragonfly might reveal the random meanderings of an evolutionary process. Nope, it’s the perfection of the dang thing that tells us evolution is responsible even though it doesn’t change a bit after it first appears.

Actually, Laszlo, Darwinspeak is so much a part of the landscape that few viewers likely noticed the contradiction. They hear this stuff all the time, and it doesn’t need to hang together as long as it all conforms to a certain type of correctness: Darwinian evolution is true, no matter what the evidence.

In any event, it would be career incorrect to be seen raising any questions about it. Even knowing that there is a contradiction flags one as a suspicious person, who may actually doubt.

Darwin doubted, at times. His followers do not. They run things; he’s dead.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
From a design and engineering perspective just flapping up to 1000 times per second in a figure-8 pattern to allow hovering, high speed, maneuvering... and creating lift and controlled flight are only the first of so many other very complex and difficult things required. The compound eye comprised of 30K eyes on each side enabling near 360 degree vision. The ability to navigate... all that's needed to live, eat, metabolize and reproduce... and dragonfly's 'just appeared'. They 'formed'. Perhaps a fish had gills that grew. Darwinian just-so stories not only leave God out. They destroy rightful awe. The stories are so far removed from the evidence they shouldn't be considered scientific... if by that we mean rational deduction based on evidence. Who should we praise? But I'm told that design and engineering are disciplines that don't apply to biology. This is good on the dragonfly: http://www.insectman.us/articles/misc-design/flight/evolution-of.htmleodp
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Beautiful photos at the site but I couldn’t find his essay.
Denyse has access to some of his comments from somewhere but they are not on his site, or at least there is no link on his site to his comments.jerry
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
This is similar to the eye which many feel is not perfect but still an amazing organism. Several versions appeared out of nowhere 500+ million years ago and they are still pretty much the same.jerry
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Acartia_bogart @7 "Evolution is not about striving for perfection, it is just about having the appropriate tools to survive and reproduce." You don't say? Sounds like a Design hypothesis to me.inunison
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Barry perhaps they meant it that way, assuming that it evolved over 300 million years to get to the point where it first appeared in the fossil record 300 million years ago. 300 million years to get to perfection... then from there 300 million years of morphological stasis. :) Either way I marvel at dragonflies (well most living things I end up thinking about but I digress), specifically their wings! Phenomenal things. Flexible yet strong with an intricate scaffolding and at the same time often beautiful in appearance. Pterostigmata cells for gliding stability and balance. A nice summary: "Dragonfly wing’s are able to absorb and endure the inertial forces imposed upon them by the surrounding air, caused by acceleration and decelerating their own weight, as well with interactions with the local environment and other members of their species.[8,14,19,20,21] They are able to achieve an assortment of different flight patterns such as gliding, synchronized-stroking of both sets of wings that maximizes thrust to change direction quickly, phased-stroking, and the very efficient counter-stroking. During counter-stroking the front and hind wings are beating in opposite directions to maximize lift. These ultra light flexible airfoils perform all of these roles extremely well, despite the fact that they are largely passive flight structures. [20, 21] All muscular control is located at the base of the wing. This means that any change or deformation of the wing in flight is caused solely by the wings innate properties" A few images: wings close wings pattern more wings (sorry if links don't work, I am no programmer)bw
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
AB @ 7. It is like you are insisting on ignoring the point of the OP. It is not whether the dragonfly was perfect or not. It was about the contradiction in the NG story. Do you have anything useful to say about that?Barry Arrington
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
A-B "First, evolution has nothing to do with ‘perfection’. Evolution is not about striving for perfection, it is just about having the appropriate tools to survive and reproduce." Wow, this simply speaks volumes as to why the earth is sinking lower and lower into ruin. I work with habitat restoration and utilize concepts observed in nature as to how to go about in the best procedure to accomplish the tasks. I am at odds with the US Forest Service in re-establishing a forest. Their method is to strip the landscape of what they mistakenly believe to be all other competitive vegetation. They will also often times till the ground on the surface, which unfortunately disrupts the microbiological elements necessary in establishing the trees, along with the chaparral. They often fail where I have succeeded because of this mistaken dogma of "Survival of the Fittest" and viewing nature as something flawed and imperfect. I have never in my life observed the natural world as something imperfect. It's this debased worldview of "Bad Designer" argumentation that has done more harm than good and only a misplaced loyalty to such dogmatism prevents them from turning things around ecologically. It would otherwise be funny if it in reality weren't so sad. This board over and over is proving and illustrating the very reasons behind the present global degradation.DavidD
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
I agree with you on all counts there then. I wish there could be more done to find out more about so called living fossils. Does anyone know of any studies with relation to them and things like mutation rates... do theirs differ for other similar animals? Found this on coelacanths: http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/epc/conservation/L3-BOE-BA/ppt/Bioessays_paper_coelacanths.pdf But then I can also find other conflicting papers.articles so its hard to gauge what is going on there. Can't find anything specific to the dragonfly. One paper on the subject says this though which is interesting: "Recent advances in our understanding of the fossil record and in population genetics and evolutionary ecology point to the complex geographic structure of species being fundamental to resolution of how taxa can commonly exhibit both short-term evolutionary dynamics and long-term stasis." Sort of indicates that some species appear to be locked into a state of stasis that has enough flex to allow for modification within some form of bounds. Still unsure as to why some animals fall into this and not others. Wonder if being a very successful predator helps.bw
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
BW, I just don't like terms like 'perfect' when referring to life forms. This is a subjective statement that has no scientific or explanatory value. I also get a little uncomfortable when I hear the statement that ome animal hasn't changed, especially when you are basing this statement on fossils which, by their nature, are not complete. Even terms like 'living fossil' is more accurate because it only suggests that the shape has not changed.Acartia_bogart
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
@a_b They use the word perfection in the article "its body design is virtually perfect" Which to me is so bizarre, the idea that we can know and recognize perfection is flawed in my view in the first place. As for your second point, it may well have changed massively... but then again, it might not have changed at all, we cannot know. If you think about it yourself does it matter at all either way? You mention that it "may have" but why mention this, would you expect it to have changed much? Would you rather it had changed much? Or are you totally indifferent? Purely curious :)bw
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Nope, it’s the perfection of the dang thing that tells us evolution is responsible even though it doesn’t change a bit after it first appears.
First, evolution has nothing to do with 'perfection'. Evolution is not about striving for perfection, it is just about having the appropriate tools to survive and reproduce. Second, how does anyone know that an organism doesn't change after it first appears. 'First appears' is a misnomer. This just refers to the first time that it is seen in the fossil record. It doesn't mean that it didn't exist prior to this. As well, all we can say is that its physical appearance doesn't seem to have changed. However, the biochemistry/metabolism may have changed significantly.Acartia_bogart
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Obviously, the dragonfly had the perfect fitness landscape to take it from perfection to perfection. Who needs a golfer to score a hole in one when the perfect landscape can funnel the ball perfectly toward the perfect hole? There's no need to consider the improbability of such a landscape. After all, we're here aren't we?Phinehas
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Philosopher Laszlo Bencze reflects on a recent National Geographic program on dragonflies:
Beautiful photos at the site but I couldn't find his essay.Silver Asiatic
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Darwinspeak is so much a part of the landscape that few viewers likely noticed the contradiction.
What contradiction? We just don't understand it, that's all ;-) Now, seriously, does anyone care about understanding anything these days? It's pretty sad. :(Dionisio
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Dragonfly both perfect at first AND “the perfected result” of 300 mya of evolution?
“hole in one” + “consistent game” ? Well, that means that apparently nature is a darn good golfer and has mastered the swing technique pretty well ;-)Dionisio
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Dragonfly both perfect at first AND “the perfected result” of 300 mya of evolution?
"hole in one" + "consistent game" ? ;-)Dionisio
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
“The dragonfly was perfect when I first appeared 300 million years ago.”
“The dragonfly was perfect when it first appeared 300 million years ago.”
Dionisio
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply