I’ve always been an inquisitive person, but for most of my life I avoided anything having to do with the biological sciences.  Not because they are uninteresting — far from it.  But for no other reason than the plain and simple fact that nothing in the biological science makes sense apart from evolution.  For anyone who has been convinced (for theological reasons) that this paradigm is flawed, evil, and only exists so that non-theists can be “intellectually fulfilled” - biology is something that must be avoided.

But now that I’ve gotten over this ridiculous notion, put my YEC-induced “crisis of faith” behind me, and have fully embraced all of the theological and natural peculiarities of God’s evolving creation, I can’t help but see evolution in everything.

Two Saturday’s ago, I was doing some yard-work and came into contact with poison ivy — which, by the way, is just another reason why ID is stupid (who would design such a friggin’ ridiculous plant anyway)?  After fully breaking out in a rash, I searched the Internet for a way to alleviate my suffering.  Manipulating the mouse with one hand and scratching myself with the other, I discovered that the chief offender in this chemical conspiracy is an oily substance called urushiol.  By they way, the reason it’s hard to pronounce is probably to keep you from speaking it — sort of like how the young wizards of Hogwartz are not to mention Voldem…  or, rather, “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.”

Before I scroll down to find out what expensive remedy I can rub on my skin, I’m captivated by something that the web-doctor says in passing.  Poison Ivy, Poison Oak, and Poison Sumac all produce the same unspeakable oil — no real surprise there.  But interestingly, a few other not-so-threatening plants contain the same oil in lesser amounts, including the Japanese lacquer tree [and thus some lacquered furniture], the gingko tree, the shells of cashews, the shells of brazil nuts, and the rinds of mangoes.  So immediately I’m constructing a phylogeny in my head.  Are these seemingly-dissimilar plants related?  Did demon-oil evolve in several unrelated species independently (convergent evolution)? 

The reason I’m curious is this: as a non-botanist, mangoes, cashews, and poison ivy couldn’t seem more distantly related.  So I immediately investigate the situation.  According to the evolutionary paradigm, these different species of plant should share a common ancestor that also produces the uru… stuff.  And a molecular phylogeny constructed from the oil should match the standard phylogeny derived by comparative anatomy (do they still call it anatomy when referring to plants?).  Moreover, any plant descended from that node that does not still produce the oil must have lost it, but should still retain some molecular and/or morphological vestiges that tie it to the monophyletic group (or clade).

Herein lies the descriptive and predictive power of evolutionary biology.  Evolution is often ridiculed (re: Expelled) for not being able to answer every possible biological question, but unlike the various non-scientific special creation models, it alone creates a coherent integrative discipline capable of solving a wide range of real-world problems that fall within that discipline.  For example, each of the predictions I just made can be tested.  If evolution is not true, or if all species were created independently and descend only after their own kind, then I have no material basis upon which to make any testable predictions whatsoever.  Apart from a material theory such as evolution, there is no unifying principle that ties the otherwise disparate facts of biology together in a coherent way.  And in order to do science (the study of the material world) you need a material-based framework by which to analyze and interpret the data.

With special (supernatural) creation, any species of plant could have any characteristic the creator gives it — end of story.  There should be no apparent patterns apart from those arbitrarily designed and built ex-nihilo.  But here is the problem: given the infinite number of arbitrary geological, geographical, developmental, morphological, and molecular patterns the Creator could have used if He were unconstrained, why is it that – in every case — we are faced with the only patterns required by the evolutionary model?  The world doesn’t have  to look like it does.  Is it too much to ask for a few distantly-related animal species that also produce urushiol?  Or why not put a few poison ivy fossils below the first appearance of flowing plant fossils?  Or how about switching around each species’ introns so that no rational person could infer descent with modification?  It this God’s idea of a joke?  A test of faith?  Or do we have the liberty to believe what our own senses clearly tell us, even when it makes us theologically uncomfortable?

So I climbed down from my soap box and did a quick search to find that all of these poison-producing plants do indeed fall within the same family, Anacardiaceae.  The plants that produce urushiol in toxic quantities are all members of the genus Toxicodendron.  In the Wikipedia entry, there is even a reference to a PhD dissertation by a graduate student named Susan Katherine Pell entitled, “MOLECULAR SYSTEMATICS OF THE CASHEW FAMILY” wherin she dutifully resolves the taxonomic relationships using several lines of physical evidence, including fossil evidence going back 65 million years (did poison ivy kill the dinosaurs?), biogeography, comparative anatomy, and molecular genetics.  In the end, she used several genetic markers to construct an objective phylogeny for this family of plants — including identifying (and naming) the subfamily that contains the dreaded urushiol producing species (Anacardioideae).

Would any of this be possible apart from evolution?  Would special creation or Intelligent Design have added anything to the scientific body of knowledge?  Absolutely not!  These non-scientific doctrines might add to our telelogical knowledge of creation, but they are completely useless for doing science.  Quite simply, if the species are unrelated, then classifying them would be a pointless and arbitrary exercise.  Apart from evolution, there would be no systematic way of arriving at an objective phylogeny for any collection of species — not that it makes the itch any less itchy!

This entry was posted on Monday, May 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.