coaptation

HURDLE NUMBER 35. THE COAPTATION HURDLE.

The next quote is from the book Difficulties of the Evolution Theory by Douglas Dewar (F.Z.S.), published by Edward Arnold, 1931, pages 83 to 84:-

Dewar defines the term “Coaptation” (sometimes called “Co-adaptation”) thus:- “Coaptations are the reciprocal adjustments of two independent parts of an organism so that they fit into one another as the blades of a pocket knife fit into the handle.”

The next quote is from the book Evolution a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton (molecular biologist – He was a senior research fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand from 1990 to 2005), published by Adler and Adler, 1986:-

Pages 102 to 103:- “Because all the parts of each organism were so beautifully fashioned TO FUNCTION TOGETHER, it seemed self-evident to Cuvier that any major functional transformation would necessitate SIMULTANEOUS - - - - co-adaptive changes in all - - - structures, but as such a sudden purposeful reorganization of all the component structures - - - was so - - - improbable, this seemed to preclude - - - - evolutionary transmutation - - - - literally inconceivable.”

(Jean Léopold Nicolas Frédéric, Baron Cuvier (23 August 1769 – 13 May 1832), known as Georges Cuvier, was a French naturalist and zoologist, sometimes referred to as the "founding father of paleontology". Cuvier was a major figure in natural sciences research in the early 19th century and was instrumental in establishing the fields of comparative anatomy and paleontology through his work in comparing living animals with fossils. Cuvier's work is considered the foundation of vertebrate paleontology.)

The next quote is from the same book – pages 90 to 91:-

“To cross - - - from one “type” of system to another necessitates a - - - massive reorganization - - - redesign - - - of - - - most of the interacting component subsystems. - - - - - Fundamental change in the design of an organism would require SIMULTANEOUS and co-adaptive change throughout the organism to ensure that all the components would still function in a coherent and integrated manner.” Denton then points out that, to Cuvier and Agassiz and other 19^th century biologists, this completely precluded any sort of gradual transformation.

Denton then makes an interesting analogy:- “Any major functional innovation, such as the addition of a new cogwheel - - - - necessarily involves simultaneous highly specific correlated changes throughout the entire cogwheel system.” (My capitals.)

My comment:- Darwinism promotes the notion of GRADUAL change by random mutations. If a random mutation produces a new feature, this will be in vain unless a whole series of further random mutations realign each separate part of the total system, so as to “fit in” with the new feature. It would be vastly improbable that a series of further RANDOM mutations could “come along” just in the nick of time, just when they are needed, so as to enable the new feature. The Theory of Evolution requires a vast number of vastly improbable SIMULTANEOUS occurrences to take place.

The next quote is from the book Fact and Faith (Thinker’s Library number 44), by J.B.S. Haldane (He was the Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution from 1930 to 1932 and in 1933 he became full Professor of Genetics at University College London, where he spent most of his academic career. Four years later he became the first Weldon Professor of Biometry at University College London.), published by Watts and co. 1934, page 12:-

“In many cases a change in one (biological) character will be of advantage - - - only if some other (character) varies SIMULTANEOUSLY in the same direction.” (My capitals.)

The next quote is from the book The Cosmic Blueprint, by Paul Davies, (Professor of Physics at The University of Newcastle Upon Tyne), published by Heinemann, 1987, page 111:-

“Consider, for example, intricate organs such as the eye and ear. The component parts of these organs are so SPECIFICALLY INTERDEPENDENT it is hard to believe that THEY HAVE ARISEN SEPARATELY AND GRADUALLY BY A SEQUENCE OF INDEPENDENT ACCIDENTS. - - - - What are the chances that JUST THE RIGHT SEQUENCE OF PURELY RANDOM MUTATIONS WOULD OCCUR IN THE LIMITED TIME AVAILABLE so that the end product happened to be a successfully functioning eye?” (My capitals.)

The following (extensive) quote is from the book The Unknown God, by (The English poet) Alfred Noyes, published by Sheed and Ward, 1949, pages 55 to 58:- (My comment:- I think he puts this rather well!)

“There was the further immense difficulty of supposing that a vast number of more or less independent accidents could cooperate for a single beneficial end; an end which did not become beneficial till vast periods of time had elapsed and could therefore have no bearing on any process of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The eye, for instance - - - - - in the making, and in the earlier stages, before it was capable of vision - - - - - How were we to account for the innumerable slight cooperative changes in nerve and brain structure, all working towards a single beneficent end during those aeons in which no benefit could have been received and no advantage gained? The full wonder of the process is not apparent till we realize the number and intricacy of the events which are required, not only to happen, but to cooperate (and in some cases simultaneously) from various centers for a single end. It is when one asks what the unifying principle and power is that one begins to grasp - - - teleology. - - - - - - These happy accidents must coincide in their effects with the untold myriads of other happy accidents which were required to cooperate in the extremely intricate development of the organism as a whole. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The seventeen thousand tubes in the compound lens of a butterfly’s eye are formed and developed - - - - by a cooperative process so complicated that it defies description. It includes all the preliminary arrangements in the egg, caterpillar, and chrysalis stage, and the contributory process whereby food, taken in and digested, is conveyed to build up the intricate structure of the lens - - - - - The happy accidents - - - - - must be adapted - - - to the improvement of an optical instrument. - - - - - The argument is not against evolution, but against any easy acceptance of happy accidents as an explanation of a - - - - - harmonious system. - - - - - - - - - - It is well to remember - - - - - the statement of a former Savilian professor of astronomy (Note:- Noyes does not specifically identify this professor) on the difficulty of improving such an optical instrument (ie:- as the eye) by mere accident.”

(Noyes now quoting this professor):- “Suppose, for instance, one of the surfaces of the crystalline lens of the eye to be accidentally altered, then I say that UNLESS THE FORM OF THE OTHER SURFACE IS SIMULTANEOUSLY ALTERED IN ONLY ONE WAY OUT OF MILLIONS OF POSSIBLE WAYS, the eye would not be optically improved. An alteration in the two surfaces of the crystalline lens - - - - -would involve a definite alteration in the form of the cornea, or in the distance of its surface from the centre of the crystalline lens, in order that the eye may be optically better. ALL THESE ALTERATIONS MUST BE SIMULTANEOUS and definite in amount, and these definite amounts must co-exist in obedience to an extremely complicated law. To my apprehension then – that so complex an instrument as an eye should undergo a succession of millions of improvements, by means of a succession of millions of accidental alterations, is not less probable than if all the letters in The Origin of Species were placed in a box and on being shaken and poured out millions on millions of times should at last come out together in the order in which they occur in that fascinating and, in general highly philosophical work. - - - - - - - If this be so, then not only must there be a Bias in the order of succession of the circumstances, but so strong a Bias as to remove the whole process from the accidental to THE INTENTIONAL. The Bias implies the existence of a Law, and Mind, a Will. The process becomes not one of Natural Selection but of Selection by an Intelligent Will.” (My capitals.)

The next two quotes are from the book Nomogenesis or Evolution determined by Law, by Leo S. Berg (who has a Diploma in Zoology from The University of Moscow, and who was Curator at The Zoological Museum of The Academy of Science in St Petersburg), published by MIT Press, 1969:-

Page 12:- “The phenomenon of simultaneous correlative variation, when organs which function together very often vary IN THE SAME DIRECTION. Thus, if the bones of the limbs elongate, so do simultaneously the muscles, nerves, and vessels.” (My capitals.)

Page 10:- “It is highly incredible that in the evolution of a complex organ, the requisite variation should occur SIMULTANEOUSLY AND IN A HARMONIOUS MANNER. (My capitals.) - - - - Why - - - should the variations in the corolla of orchids correspond to the forms of the insects by which they are fertilized? - - - Why should modifications in the generative organs of the male correspond to those of the female? What causes such coordination, and why should it occur in both simultaneously?”

The next quote is from the book Creation: Facts of Life, by Gary Parker, published by Master Books, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, 1994, pages 57 to 60:-

Parker discusses the woodpecker. This bird has a habit of banging its beak vigorously into trees (to get bark beetles). To do this, it requires a thick skull with shock absorbing tissues - - - Parker describes the woodpecker as being “a marvel of INTERDEPENDENT PARTS or compound traits; traits that depend on one another for any to have functional value.” (My capitals.) Parker continues to explain that the woodpecker also needs a long sticky tongue to extract the bark beetles. This long tongue has to be neatly tucked away when flying. It is slipped into a muscular sheath that wraps around the skull. Parker then discusses some of the writings of Nobel Peace prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgi. (He received the Nobel Prize in Physiology "for his discoveries in connection with the biological combustion process with special reference to vitamin C and the catalysis of fumaric acid"), who stated that – “A coordinated behavioral adaptation such as the woodpecker’s drilling and probing as random mutations has the probability of zero.” Parker then comments:-“Its survival value - - - just cannot come about by time and chance and the process of mutation and selection.” Then Parker further quotes Szent-Gyorgi:- “I am unable to approach the problem (ie:- of the woodpecker) without supposing an innate drive in living matter to perfect itself.”

My comment on The Coaptation Hurdle:- Random mutations might plausibly create one single new feature. However, random mutations cannot plausibly create all the other changes that are required in order to “fit in” with this new feature. The Random Mutations Hypothesis has zero scientific merit. All that an honest biologist could say is that the world is full of organisms that are apparently perfectly adapted to their environment; and that we do not have the faintest idea how this came about. To propose “explanations” (such as random mutation) that are obviously spurious is simply pseudoscience.