The Carnival of Evolution #48 is up and it has been Pharyngulated!

The Squidmiester himself, P-Zed Myers, who inscribes his electronic tome of iniquity (a blog) from atop a throne of humans skulls (a ordinary office chair), ensconced in his deep sea fortress of doom (the University of Minnesota Morris), is hosting the 48th Carnival of Evolution at his retched hive of scum and atheistic villainy, Pharyngula!!! You are not going to want to be late for this one, because the lucky ones will be eaten first!!!

Welcome your new Cephalopod overlord! I think he likes you…

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Praise be to Cthulhu for this invisible line break! Pain in the ass html…

Previous Carnivals of Evolution:

If you missed any of these you’ll definitely want to go check them out!

Is the human knee joint “irreducibly complex”?

This is a re-post, in slightly modified from, of one of my Talk Origins Archive feedback responses (from back when the Archive had a feedback section, specifically March of 2002)


Luke asked:

Please email me your response if possible. I don’t want to categorize myself as a evolutionist or creationist. I was visiting the other website I think it was creationist or similar, your guys arch enemies; anyways I was trying to find proof to support modern man evolving from ape, and they had an extensive article written about the human knee and how it has sixteen parts and minus just one and its useless. Apes have non locking knees and because of their makeup you aparently can’t evolve it into a locking one you have to start from scratch. Evolution and mutations from what I’ve read only allow for small changes no mutation can allow for the formation of a complex organism with sixteen moving parts? The knee would have to be built all at once it couldn’t evolve or it would have no use. How do you suggest that apes dumped their knees and immediately mutated new ones with sixteen brand new parts? I would like to believe it could happen just seems far fetched?

This argument originates from an article (Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint) published in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (Vol. 13, No. 2, 1999) by a British engineer named Stuart Burgess.

From my reading of the article it seems to be highly flawed, especially in its almost total lack of discussion on the comparative anatomies of living non-human apes (gorillas & chimps etc.), extinct hominins (australopithecines, early Homo) and modern humans. This lack of attention to comparative anatomy (and physiology) is typical of anti-evolutionists and it leads them to continually talk about the anatomy/physiology of various organisms as if they exist in a vacuum (examples: The woodpecker or The bombardier beetle). They focus on some extreme example of organ or system in a particular species as if it is totally unique to that species. The fact is that when one looks at other closely related species one usually finds that there are variations on the extreme example that the anti-evolutionists have focused upon.

For instance the bombardier beetle that anti-evolutionists often cite is just one species of a whole group of beetles (“Ground beetles”, Family Carabidae) many of which have some variation on a chemical defense mechanism, using the same basic chemicals (which exist in many beetles in varying amounts), but used in differing ways. The specific example that anti-evolutionists cite sprays an explosive mixture out of its abdomen in a fairly well aimed stream at its attackers, however there are other Carabid beetles that spray with less accurate aim, and others that merely excrete bad tasting chemicals out of their abdomens when attacked. There is a whole spectrum from fairly simple to fairly complex defense mechanisms. Anti-evolutionists only talk about the more complex variant.

This discussion of the human knee is another example of this sort of argument in a vacuum.

While I am not an expert in the comparative anatomies of the living non-human apes and humans, as far as I am aware there is no material difference between them. That is, every bone, muscle, ligament, tendon, and cartilage in the human knee has its corresponding representative in the knee of chimpanzees and the other great apes (and presumably in the knee of their concestor). Yes they are shaped somewhat differently. Yes they are proportioned differently. But as far as I know all the same parts are there (if there are any primatologists or physical anthropologists out there, please correct me if I am wrong). [Note: see the 2nd Lovejoy quote provided by Adam Benton in the comments section below.]

As for fossil hominins, the knees of more derived types like Homo erectus (which are either “fully human” or “just apes” depending on what anti-evolutionist you talk to) seem to be virtually identical to those of H. sapiens. As for the knees of the more basal species of Homo (H. habilis) and the australopithecines these become increasingly like those of living non-human apes the farther back in time one goes. Exactly the sort of thing one would predict if humans evolved from an “ape-like” ancestor. The knee of Australopithecus afarensis (which most anti-evolutionists say is “just an ape”) retains a number of “ape-like” features but also has characteristics like those of later hominins including H. sapiens. In other words it is an intermediate form in this regard.

The knee bones of a modern human, an australopithecine and a chimpanzee.

See The ICR and Lucy: Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor for more comparative photos, or refer to any good text on human evolution for comparative illustrations.

Burgess does mention living apes briefly but only to dismiss them as being poor bipedal walkers. However this is a problem for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), at least as I understand Michael Behe‘s (the person responsible for the recent popularity of this term) definition of the term, in that while the knees of living non-human apes are slightly different in form, and are not as efficient for use in bipedal walking as those of humans, they do work, and they can walk bipedally.

Note: please remember that evolutionary theory does not postulate that humans are descended from other living apes, like chimps or bonobos, rather we share a common (ape) ancestor with those species.

So, assuming that knee joints of the ancestor of later hominins was essentially the same as those of the living non-human apes and could, like them, walk in a bipedal manner at all, then it would be possible for there to be a selective advantage for any slight modifications in their descendants which lead towards an increase in efficiency of bipedalism.

The human knee seems to me to be a poor example of an IC structure.

Some of Burgess’ other arguments just seem nonsensical to me. For example he states:

The knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans – the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint. (Burgess, 1999)

I fail to understand Mr. Burgess’ challenge here. Knee joints did not evolve from elbow, shoulder, or hip joints. Rather knee joints have been knee joints since their origin in the first tetrapods. The same applies to the other types of joints. So why would we expect to find “intermediate forms” between them? That Burgess even poses this as a supposed problem for evolution demonstrates a significant lack of understanding about evolutionary theory and the fossil record.

Ichthyostega; an early tetrapod and its hind leg bones. Its “knee” was the joint between the femur and the tibia and fibula.

It is a curious thing that Behe’s principle of IC as an argument for design turns the traditional argument from design on its head. It used to be argued that those features of organisms that seem perfectly sculpted to suit their needs, or seem well designed from an engineering point was evidence for design. Now, under Behe’s IC principle of design, it doesn’t matter how clunky, ungainly, and poorly designed from an engineering point of view something is, it only matters that it is supposedly irreducibly complex.

Apparently the “Designer” under this new design “theory” is a (supernatural) cosmic Rube Goldberg.

Related Links

Extra! Extra! The Carnival of Evolution #47 is up!

Read all about it at Evolving Thoughts, blog of eccentric Australian philosophy mogul John Wilkins!


Previous Carnivals of Evolution:

If you missed any of these you’ll definitely want to go check them out!

Camouflage

I was looking through some “old” pictures I had taken and ran across this excellent example of crypsis:

Can you see me?

Photo taken in Joshua Tree National Park (California), six years ago tomorrow (3-12-2006).

The 45th Carnival of Evolution is now available!

And it’s just lousy with bugs! This month the Carnival of Evolution hive is infesting Splendour Awaits, weblog of photographer and amateur insect enthusiast Adrian Thysse.

Creep or crawl your way over there and check out all the invertebrate wonderfulnessness!

Note: The Carnival is trying something a bit new this go around by presenting the article summaries and links in Google Docs – Presentation (a slide show format). If you have any difficulties seeing the slide window, please try another browser (Google Chrome worked best for me).

Previous Carnivals of Evolution:

If you missed any of these you’ll definitely want to go check them out!

The Proceedings of the 44th Carnival of Evolution is now available

Ladies and Gentlemen… Mesdames et Messieurs… Damen und Herren… The Carnival of Evolution XLIV! This month the carnival is inhabiting The Atavism (great name) and is cleverly set up as a scientific symposium. See for yourself.


Previous Carnivals of Evolution:

If you missed any of these you’ll definitely want to go check them out!

Symphony of Science – Evolution

Not my cup of tea* musically but fun just the same:

Hat tip to Michael Barton at The Dispersal of Darwin.

*technically no cup of tea is my cup of tea, as I loathe tea.

The Carnival of Evolution #42 is up!

Oh no, not again…

Yep, it’s time for the Carnival of Evolution (#42)!!!  This month it is being held at The Ocelloid and in case you can’t tell there is a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy theme. So grab your towel, pour yourself a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster and head on over for the latest batch of evolutionary goodness.

It’s either that or Vogon poetry…

Previous Carnivals of Evolution:

Life! Don’t talk to me about life.

Darwin’s Pigeons

This seemed apropos:

[Hat tip to the WhyEvolutionIsTrue channel on YouTube.]

The Carnival of Evolution #38 is up!

And it’s a doozy! I know I say something like that every month and I mean it, but this time it’s truer than ever. This months host is the estimable Larry Moran (Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto) on his excellent blog Sandwalk.

There are lots and lots of great links to evolution related articles for you to peruse (even if none of them are mine because my opus on creationists and arthropods keeps getting longer and longer).

As a bit of housekeeping I am going to list links to the past CoE below so I can clean up the blog a bit (all those green glowy spheres make me feel bad about not being more productive /honest self reflection).

If you missed any of these you’ll definitely want to go check them out!