The Flatfish Revisited

The Flatfish Revisited

The flatfish is a unique creature making it worthy of study.  This is partly what I mean when I see chaos in nature.  Another unique example is a species of flatworm that runs off the energy that is produced by algae beneath its epidermis.  How did Darwinism evolve that?  I think the symbiotic relationship between the algae and the flatworm may have been formed from a random event but not random mutations.  This is another example of something unique.  These species are results made possible under chaos.   

How did the flatfish evolve?  Yes, there are fossil ancestors.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/07/09/dawn-of-the-picasso-fish/

Should Darwinists wave their victory flags?  I say, "Not so fast."  They still haven’t explained how the flatfish eye slowly moved across to the other side of the fish.  They need to explain why the first movements were necessary and how it served the fish in order for natural selection to preserve it.

http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwins-flatfish-flounder.html

Natural Genetic Engineering

I say the guided process of NGE ‘natural genetic engineering’ is a better contender for explaining flatfish evolution.  Although the link and the cut and paste below doesn’t mention NGE, I believe it is an example of NGE.

http://www.brucelipton.com/article/the-evolving-science-of-chiropractic-philo...

David Thaler published an important revisionist article entitled The Evolution of Genetic Intelligence (Science 264:224, 1994). Thaler’s new perspective recognizes that biological expression is actively defined by the individual’s perception of their life experiences. Thaler emphasizes the significance of perception, not only in its ability to regulate the body’s expression by dynamically switching gene programs, but also in its ability to induce the “rewriting” of existing gene programs in order to better adapt to environmental stresses.

The processing of environmental information and its translation into biological behavior is carried out by the cell membrane, the “skin” of the cell. The membrane separates the external non-self environment from the internal self, the cytoplasm. For the following, discussion refer to the illustration below.

The cell’s INPUT devices are the protein receptors which extend from both of the cell membrane’s surfaces. Receptors facing inwards “read” the status of the cytoplasm’s environmental conditions. These receptors receive information concerning cytoplasmic pH, salt balance, membrane potential, the availability of metabolites and energy molecules and other parameters related to the cell’s physiology. Protein receptors displayed on the outer surface of the membrane provide the cell with awareness of the external environment. Cells use information derived from external receptors to “navigate” through their world. Internal membrane receptors are concerned with visceral needs, externally deployed receptors primarily regulate somatic behaviors. Consequently, information of the external environmental profoundly influences the cell’s cytoskeleton and behavior.

At this point, it wouldn’t be very much of a stretch to form a hypothesis. It says that the cells inside the precursors of the flatfish were reading the signals provided by primitive concious commands of the fish.

Either the precursors of the flatfish utilized a strategy to escape at least one predator (a faster predator that didn’t easily see the fish when it buried in the sand) or it was attempting to bury in order to find a better method of disguise in order to hunt prey or perhaps both.

When the fish was buried for whatever reason, the cells in the fish kept receiving the same message (I need to see with both of my eyes on one side). 

So is this intelligent design?  Superficially you don’t need to invoke a designer into the evolution of the flatfish but how did all of this complex information that makes all of this possible arise?  Did it arise out of 3 billion years of evolution?  I remember reading something in the book “Rare Earth” which is divorced from any theological framework, stating that scientists have determined that bacteria were sophisticated back then just as they are now.  Surely there should be an minimum complexity threshold considering how complex DNA actually is.

Do you now see more reasons why neo-Darwinism just doesn't explain everything?  More chaos would be a better explanation.  I believe that order such as a creative event can be hidden within the flow of chaos.

By the way, at least one book author has stated that a skate is a better design than the flatfish.  I don't think so.  I think each design serves each species for what it does best.  From my experience from fishing and observing these species in the water, the flatfish is faster than the species of skate that I have seen.  Some flatfish are also able to camouflage themselves and they can do it very well unlike the two species of skates that I know of. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish