Fw: the evolution of mousetraps

Russell Maatman (rmaat@mtc1.mtcnet.net)
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:09:33 -0600

Glenn, you have written some pretty insightful stuff on these listserves.
And you have enlightened me in quite a few matters. In addition, I enjoyed
your book. I admire your wide range of knowledge.

But. Yes, there is a but. It seems to me that anyone who reads your account
of how mousetraps evolved would move pretty far into the antievolutionary
camp. Your scenario is Rube Goldberg-ish. I would like to see a biochemist
construct a gradualistic path for one of Mike Behe's cases, present it to
the Journal of Molecular Evolution, get past the referees, etc., and
finally get it in print. If that path had the characteristics of your
mousetrap scenario, I rather think the YECs would have a field day.
Naturalistic evolutionists would run for cover.

Really. Glenn, please re-read what you wrote. If _this_ is the answer to
people like Mike Behe, then the argument is over.

Nevertheless, brother,

In the Lord,

Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net

----------
> From: Glenn Morton <grmorton@gnn.com>
> To: rmaat@mtc1.mtcnet.net; asa@calvin.edu
> Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: the evolution of mousetraps
> Date: Thursday, November 21, 1996 3:28 PM
>
> Russell Maatman wrote:
>
> >What about presupposition? Behe's favorite analogy is the mousetrap. If
you
> >find a mousetrap, you would be hard put to show how it evolved
> >gradualistically. The trap platform alone does not catch mice, and so
one
> >cannot maintain that the platform evolved into the trap because the trap
> >would catch more mice. It is the same with the other parts of the
trap--the
> >spring alone catches no mice, etc. Behe discusses in his book several
> >biological systems that fall into this category.
>
> First, the mousetrap is an inappropriate analogy. Mousetraps are not
> iterative, that is, they do not reproduce offspring with genetic errors
in
> their DNA. However, as a marvelous intellectual challenge I am going to
try to
> show how a mousetrap could evolve. What I think is the case with the
mouse
> trap is that we recognize that it is designed because it is too complex
to
> have just happened by stages, BECAUSE of the fact that it has NO
reproductive
> potential. Like Paley's watch, it has no ability to reproduce itself.
>
> But granting Behe and the mousetrap the ability to procreate, I think I
can
> see how to evolve an efficient mousetrap, given two assumptions: that the

> mousetrap will reproduce after it kills a mouse, and that we start with a
flat
> wooden board e.g., the trap platform. The board lies flat on the ground.

> Occasionally a plant grows at the edge of the platform lifting it up. as
below
>
> <pre>
> mouse trap platform
> |
> V
>
> / V flower at top of plant. :-)
> / |
> / |
> / | plant
> ________|__________ground.
> <\pre>
> Once in a while a mouse walks under this board supported by the plant and

> jostles the plant, the board falls and bopps the mouse on the head. Once
in a
> while, the board kills a mouse and reproduces.
>
> The next step is for a spring to be added as follows:
>
> <pre>
> mouse trap platform
> |
> V
>
> / V flower at top of plant. :-)
> / |
> /& |
> / & | plant The & is the spring.
> ___&____|___________ground.
> <\pre>
>
>
> Now when a mouse jostles the plant, the bopp on the head is harder and
more
> mice are killed and this model reproduces faster.
>
> Next the plant evolves to be pollinated by the flies attracted by rotting

> mice. Thus a wonderful symbiotic relationship is developed. The
mousetrap
> reproduces, the plant gets pollinated and mice, the scourge of the world
are
> eliminated.
>
> After this, the plant evolves odors which attract mice. This makes the
whole
> affair more efficient. Mice by the thousands are now flocking to the
> mousetraps and the traps are reproducing like mad.
>
> Next, since the ground is soft, a few mice survive the force of the trap
> closing on them. A new mutation occurs two boards connected by a spring.
It
> looks like this:
>
> <pre>
> mouse trap platform
> |
> V
>
> / V flower at top of plant. :-)
> / |
> / & |
> / & |
> / & | plant & is spring; --- is second board
> --------- |
> __________|________ground.
> <\pre>
>
> Now the plant does something that parasites do, he began to live in the
bodies
> of the mousetrap or should I say board. Now it looks like this:
>
> <pre>
> mouse trap platform
> |
> V
>
> / V flower at top of plant. :-)
> / |
> / & |
> / & |
> / & | plant & is spring; --- is second board
> ----------|--
> _________________ground.
> <\pre>
>
> The next change is that the plant now no longer grows straight up but
grows at
> an angle which forces the boards wider apart.
>
>
>
> <pre>
> mouse trap platform
> |
> V
> board
> |V flower at top of plant. :-)
> | \
> |& \ plant
> | & \ | is first board now.
> | & \ \ is parasitic plant; & is spring; --- is second
board
> ------------ board
> _________________ground.
> <\pre>
>
>
> Eventually, to increase the force of the blow on the mouse, the plant
grows
> and pushes the two boards flat.
>
> Now the trap looks like
>
>
>
> V_______________
> ------&&&&&&----|---- ___ is parasitic plant;--- is board &&& is
spring
>
>
> The final change is that the upper board become less wind resistive so
that it
> can close faster. It developes a huge hole in the middle so that the air
can
> pass through it.
>
> Thus, when I find a mouse trap, that is capable of reproduction, I will
have
> no certainty that it was designed rather than evolved.
>
> glenn
> glenn
>
> Foundation,Fall and Flood
> http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm