Is there design in Nature?

Khalid Chraibi

28 November 2010

Is there design in nature?

I became interested in this question after reading Jacques Monod who explicitly and
detailedly raised the issue of design in living beings, in his book « Chance and Necessity. »
(Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1971). He said that it was a fact which one could not overlook,
but had to confront in order to explain its existence in a scientific way. To this end, he went
into a lengthy discussion grounded in genetics and molecular biology (which most readers can
easily understand, because the book was written to be read by non-biologists as well as
specialists). He then presented his conclusion, which was that this design was the mere
product of chance and necessity, as explained by the theory of evolution (i.e. genetic
mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and the like), and was not attributable to a designer.

If Monod had stopped his explanations at this point, he would have said nothing original. He
would merely have repeated what the paradigm stated. He would not even have confirmed the
paradigm, because his developments in genetics and molecular biology, interesting as they
were, did not provide any corroborating evidence for this conclusion, which was expressed
rather like a Truth which required no supporting evidence.

But, Monod did not stop at this conclusion. He put great emphasis on the fact that living
beings had a unique property, which he called teleonomy (a novel concept introduced a few
years earlier by other writers). According to him, teleonomy was the built-in capacity of living
beings to evolve along more and more complex life forms and systems. They had all the
appearances of design, but were not, in fact, the product of a pre-conceived blueprint. They
were only the products of chance and necessity.

This explanation is not satisfactory, within the framework of a scientific discussion.

"Teleonomy" appears in Monod's explanations suddenly, like a « deus ex machina » in a

Greek play, (the God suddenly coming out of a « machine », on stage, at the end of the play,
to settle all the intricate issues raised in the play). Monod doesn't explain the specifics of
teleonomy, and how living beings come into possession of this extraordinary faculty. He uses
it like a magical wand, to provide a pseudo-explanation of something which he obviously
neither understands nor can explain. The teleonomical explanation has thus as much scientific
standing as the explanation that, say, « God did it ».

So, where did Monod go wrong?

1
Monod relied on the explanations provided by the official paradigm of ToE (genetic
mutations, natural selection...). So, the central point of the discussion has to do with
mutations. Monod, and the paradigm, say they take place according to random processes. This
is true of many verified cases of mutations. But, what if mutations also took place, in some
specific situations, not in a random way, but in an organized way, according to
instructions which exist in the genome, and which come into play when some factors
appear (in the same way that adaptation to a new environment takes place, according to
accepted scientific explanations of ToE)?

If that were the case, there would be no need, anymore, for a magical explanation like
« teleonomy ». Design would exist in Nature, in living beings, not as the product of
random mutations, but as the result of organized mutations, based on the genetic
instructions in the genome, which come into play when some specific factors exist in the
environment which activate some specific set of instructions.

This would be in line with Monod's intuition that « living beings have a built-in capacity to
evolve along more and more complex life forms and systems. »

As can be seen, this explanation is not very different from the official explanation of the
paradigm, since both are centered on the instructions in the genome. But, I substitute
"organized mutations" to "random mutations" to explain the appearance of design,
because it makes more sense, when one takes all the relevant data and explanations into
account.

In theory, this explanation could be analyzed, tested and verified by bona fide researchers in
this field. If it is wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate its fallacy. This would reinforce the
existing paradigm with regard to this alternative.

On the other hand, if it can be scientifically established that mutations take place, in some
situations, in an organized way, and and in other situations in a random way, this would
modify in a significant way our understanding of what evolution is, and how it works.
The ToE paradigm would then accept the two processes as equally valid, equally at
work, depending on the context.

When I wrote the preceding ideas, I was not aware of the existence of cases of very rapid
evolution, which would confort my approach. I have since read the following article in
National Geographic, about the rapid evolution of some Croatian lizards, whose specifics
changed considerably over a period of four decades:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Should we attribute the rapid evolution of these lizards to chance and necessity, random
mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and the like? Or should we explain this rapid
evolution by a rapid adaptation of these lizards to a new set of conditions in their
environment, thanks to the existence in their genome of a built-in capacity to adapt to
such a change? That's the question. The answer is easy to obtain, based on the thorough
analysis by biologists and researchers of this concrete case of evolution.

2
A brief account of this rapid evolution of Croatian lizards appears in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizard_evolution. It reads in part:

Rapid evolution

P. sicula gained attention in 2008 following the publication of a research study[5] that detailed
distinct morphological and behavioral changes in a P. sicula population indicative of "rapid
evolution".[6][7][8][9][10]
In 1971, ten adult P. sicula specimens from the island of Pod Kopište were transported 3.5 km
east to the island of Pod Mrčaru (both Croatian islands lie in the Adriatic Sea near Lastovo),
where they founded a new bottlenecked population.[5][11] The two islands have similar size,
elevation, microclimate, and a general absence of terrestrial predators[11] and the P. sicula
expanded for decades without human interference, even outcompeting the (now extinct[5])
local Podarcis melisellensis population.[6]

Following the war, scientists returned to Pod Mrčaru and found that the lizards currently
occupying Pod Mrčaru differ greatly from those on Pod Kopište. While mitochondrial DNA
analyses have verified that P. sicula currently on Pod Mrčaru are genetically indistinguishable
from the Pod Kopište source population,[5] the new Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula was
described, in August 2007, as having a larger average size, shorter hind limbs, lower maximal
sprint speed and altered response to simulated predatory attacks compared to the original Pod
Kopište population.[11] These population changes in morphology and behavior were
attributed to "relaxed predation intensity" and greater protection from vegetation on Pod
Mrčaru.[11]

In 2008, further analysis revealed that the Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula have
significantly different head morphology (longer, wider, and taller heads) and increased bite
force compared to the original Pod Kopište population.[5] This change in head shape
corresponded with a shift in diet: Pod Kopište P. sicula are primarily insectivorous, but those
on Pod Mrčaru eat substantially more plant matter.[5] The changes in foraging style may have
contributed to a greater population density and decreased territorial behavior of the Pod
Mrčaru population.[5]

The most surprising[7] difference found between the two populations was the discovery, in
the Pod Mrčaru lizards, of cecal valves, which slow down food passage and provide
fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to nutrients
digestible by the lizards.[5] Additionally, the researchers discovered that nematodes were
common in the guts of Pod Mrčaru lizards, but absent from Pod Kopište P. sicula, which do
not have cecal valves. The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known
species of scaled reptiles,[7] have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new
feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".[9]