Bioluminescence is difficult for evolutionists to explain

 

Bioluminescence is a phenomenon that is difficult for evolutionists to explain because it occurs across phyla. It can be found in potato plant leaves, foxfire fungi, squids, fireflies, the black dragonfish and sharks. Bioluminescence is a double-edged sword. It brings camouflage, a meal, or a mate in the correct context but would actually be deadly if it occurred in the wrong species (as with a mouse on a dark night). Our Creator has equipped each member of Creation according to its needs.

Viviana and Bechara (1997) hypothesize that these red-emitting head-mounted photic organs provide an illumination function, which may help in locating prey which do not have spectral sensitivity shifted to the red, and that the lateral photic organs serve an … See Moreaposematic defensive function” (p. 13). Between these two sources we can see three different functions for bioluminescence: red spectrum or infrared hunting, warning displays, and oxygen consumption. We can add to that a fourth function if we consider sharks’ bellies and camouflage and a fifth if we consider mating displays in cuttlefish. The more we examine the instances of bioluminescence in the natural world, the more we find diversity and specificity in its application. Keep in mind that the bioluminescence would be a heavy liability if the organism’s mating partner, prey object, or predator does not possess photosensitivity and the specific spectral sensitivity to respond to the light signals. The interacting species must dovetail in terms of light production and light perception or there is no benefit. Further, bioluminescence occurs across phyla. There is no common strand of development across phylogeny, it is context-specific. Clearly, this is not a case of homology (specific structural similarities across species). What we are seeing is genetic coding for specific biochemical reactions that are occurring in both plants and animals, in different locations and with varying applications. These are the brushstrokes of a Master Craftsman.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11343128

http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe84p565.pdf

Advertisements

About dynamicbydesign

B.A.Ed, (English, Speech) University of Nebraska, 1993 M.S. (Psychology), University of Nebraska, 1999
This entry was posted in More than a "blind watchmaker" and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Bioluminescence is difficult for evolutionists to explain

  1. Andrew Smith says:

    You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The premise here is absolute nonsense; something occuring across phyla is in no way a problem for evolution. I can’t even think of how you could come to such a conclusion. Obviously if something is particularly useful, there is nothing to prevent it from arising multiple times independently. The evolution of eyesight is a good example of this. As for your statement about bioluminescence occuring in the wrong species; that is easily explained by natural selection. A trait that causes animal such as a mouse to be highlighted for predators is akin to one causing spontaneous combustion. The result is that the animal would go extinct. You should be able to see why such a trait would not be selected.

    • Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., a biochemist at Brandeis University, wrote an article for TalkOrigins.org entitled “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.” In this essay, he states, “It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or
      pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Nonseed
      plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only
      some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could
      have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers
      (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars” (Theobald 2004, pp. 7-8).

      In the fossil record, the Pakasuchus, which was a Crocodilian with “chewing teeth” meets Theobald’s falsification criterion. In extant fauna, bioluminescence and parietal eyes meet this standard. These types of “mix and match” attributes defy nested hierarchies and undermine cladistic analyses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s