Neurotoxins & Evolution: The New (?) Christian Poster Boy
Posted on: August 7, 2008 - 4:19pm
Offline
Neurotoxins & Evolution: The New (?) Christian Poster Boy
...So there's a new fad up here:
Claiming that evolution cannot explain how the development of neurotoxins in animals (especially lizards), and that the Bible 'called it' before science ever could have, correctly labelling snakes as the most toxic creatures on Earth (...I think this is true? Sea snakes are incredibly venomous... but part of me wonders if certain jellyfish are actually the most poisonous animals around?).
Does anyone know how neurotoxins work? Or how poisons developed in animals? Why snakes would be among the most venomous animals out there?
Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
According to environmentalgraffiti, the top five most venomous creatures in the world are:
5. The stonefish
4. Blue Ringed Octopus
3. Inland Taipan (snake)
2. Brazilian Wandering Spider
1. Box Jellyfish
Yahoo Answers agrees that the box jellyfish is the most venomous creature in the world.
I would think that the term "most venomous" is a little hard to quantify since there are different types of venom, and comparing say, a neurotoxin to a hemotoxin isn't exactly scientific. I mean, if you die really fast from your blood cells exploding, or if you die really fast from your nervous system shutting down, you still die really fast. In any case, the Box Jellyfish can kill within a few minutes if large enough doses of poison are delivered. The fastest snake venoms usually take hours for humans.
As far as the evolutionary development of neurotoxins, I don't know off the top of my head if anyone has ever done a Dawkins-esque step by step evolutionary diagram, or even that we know the exact mechanisms for their evolution. It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to explain, though. The difference between two chemicals, one benign and the other toxic, is often very small, and a slight rewording of a particular gene segment could easily be the result of a random mutation. It's not hard to imagine early animals and plants gaining a significant amount of survival advantage from such a mutation. Once the first step has been made, it's pretty much all downhill.
Anyway, it's not something I'm familiar with, so I'll defer to any biologist who happens to know. The bottom line is that the current lack of an evolutionary model for something is not an argument for design. It's not an argument for anything. It's just a lack of an explanation. There are lots of those in science.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm under the impression that the most toxic venom belongs to the Box Jellyfish "Chironex fleckeri".
The evolution of venom is apparently sketchy right now, with a leading hypotheses being a modification of proteins in saliva that was already part of the digestive process. In snakes especially, their venom closely resembles other chemicals in their digestive tract. As to how neurotoxins work... well, proteins are the be-all-end-all of how phenotypes do things at the cellular level... but I don't know the specifics. I'll bet Deludedgod does, though. =^_^=
So, I guess you could say that, currently, we don't have a complete explanation for the evolution of venom. But that doesn't matter.
It's DI/Creationism's usual bullshit to make the false dichotomy claim. "You can't tell me how it happened, so goddidit!" This god of the gaps crap is pathetically weak as an argument, and really only holds water if you've already accepted the conclusion.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
...Actually, it isn't directly an ID argument. It's an argumentum ad magicum; the Bible says snakes caused the fall of man. Somehow this correlates with them having deadly venom.
Since science can't explain the deadly venom, Christianity is right, and beat science to the answer.
*Shrugs*
Thanks for the help, though.
...There's a venom that makes blood cells explode? Wow. I'll wager it works a tad faster than nuerotoxin does, then? I had no idea the Blue Ringed Octopus was so high up there. They're inexpensive aquarium pets (...perhaps that's why?
)
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Nuerotoxins are faster than blood agents. Rattlesnake venom makes blood cells explode (that's actually a fairly common snake venom.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
...But wouldn't exploding blood cells lead to immediate cardiac arrest?
Good evening,
I hope you are well.
Regarding poisons and related stuff,
I note we can look at stuff the Creationists have been fixated on now and again. I.e. we can look at what has been noticed via scientific inquiry relating to mr. behe's early (and only?) attempt at a real world example of irreducible complexity.
Yep, back to the flagellum.
It is apparent, that is, that 'poison' has been in use for a while, and there are multiple examples of 'organism disruption by introduction of specific proteins' that have developed...
and that there is evidence of continuum on this stuff.
For poisonous reptiles, for example, we can note participants in this continuum running from non-toxic but nasty saliva/bite (komodo) thru toxic saliva chewing (gila monster) to toxic injections (venomous snakes), and even further (spit/launch venom ... some really aggressive snakes).
We can note similar continuums of development elsewhere, e.g. bugs. Got bugs that will poison you to anesthetize you (mosquitoes... damn noah for not swatting), poisonous fuzzy (bunch of caterpillars), poison ovipositors (big clue) like bees, poison bodies and poison explosive butts (beetles are kuhl!).
Even in mammals or almost mammals we can note mr. platypus has spurs with poison.
Noting that a common bit is the ability to share proteins and stuff.
tq
I'm always amazed by the 'the bible beat you to it' arguments. Especially in this case. Creatures that aren't human know to stay the hell away from poisonous stuff.
Is it somehow a viable argument that because bread was first made by accident that eating whatever you find lying around is a better approach to nutrition than science?
The only people that make the argument that the bible is more correct than the scientific method are people that don't understand the scientific method. Someone should fill them in that science explains why things are that way.
If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre
Rattlesnake venom (hemotoxin) has a local effect, causing the break down of tissues and cells nearest the bite. That's why people who don't receive timely treatment end up losing limbs. Neurotoxins are more likely to lead to cardiac arrest and other systemic failures.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
*punch* If evolution *biff* can't explain it *smack* that doesn't automatically mean *whack* that god *smash* did it *thump*
Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
Atheist Batman, ladies and gentlemen! He'll be here all week. Enjoy the buffet.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Jimmy or Warren, with red or white?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
It's a bit bold of them to claim that evolution cannot possibly explain the development of neurotoxins. I think you could kill the argument by asking them to prove this premise alone.
"Snakes", collectively? Then the Bible is wrong, since a number of snakes are perfectly harmless.
Or did they mean that some specific species of snake is the most venomous creature on earth? Assuming that's what they meant to say, they must prove that the Bible was indicating that specific species of snake, and no other. If the Bible was indicating a different species of snake, the Bible is wrong. If nobody can tell which species of snake the Bible was indicating, there is no clear reason to accept this premise.
Personally I think it makes perfect sense evolutionarily, if that's even a word. If not, I'm sure you can figure out what I mean. One animal via natural mutation develops a chemical combination that kills or at least deters its predators. The predator will turn away earlier leaving the creature alone. It lives longer, more opportunities to mate and pass on this mutation to its kin. Fits in perfectly as far as I can tell.
Salamanders (I think that's the creature) are the most interesting. Their natural predators are constantly developing immunities to the salamanders toxins, and as these develop the salamanders are developing new toxins. The rate at which both adaptions happen is astounding.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
It especially makes sense in the context of an animal with out leg, arms, wings, or claws to mount an effective defense.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.