Jim Foley writes:
>If God designed species to form a harmonious ecology, one might well
>expect species to be designed to help one another. But, as far as we
>know, they aren't.
Simply bunk Jim. Fruit trees give fruit to animals that spread their
seeds. Bees pollinate various flowers. In fact, symbiotic relationships
are VERY common in the natural world.
Jim continues:
>That would certainly make sense in a designed ecology. However as
>Krishtalka noted, rabbits *don't* altruistically leave nutrient-rich
>feces around so other animals can get the benefit, they eat them again
>so that they get the benefit.
I believe Kristalka said they SOMETIMES eat their feces. Are you telling
me that they always recycle their feces?
Jim continues:
>Just so story. You could equally well argue that he would design them
>with efficient digestive systems, so that more of them could be
>supported in the ecosystem, and so provide more food for other animals.
Large numbers of rabbits that are difficult to prey upon are not beneficial
for an ecology. Look at Australia. They do research on rabbit specific
viruses to ease the problem of rabbit overpopulation.
Jim continues:
>One example I found convincing: there is a species of whale (minke?) in
>which about 25% of the individuals have vestigial leg bones (I think
>they're fully internal, and invisible externally). What conceivable use
>could they have? If they do have a use, shouldn't all members of the
>species have them?
I will deal with the argument from vestigial organs in a later post.
In Christ
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA