Which came first, the fang or the poison?

[Chesterton]

I have a sort of “irreducible complexity”, or “chicken and the egg” type question:

Some animals, such as snakes, jellyfish and bees, produce a harmful venom, and also an anatomical structure which enables them to inject it into other animals. Would these two things have evolved simultaneously or separately or what?

Also, is there any animal with the abilities to produce and inject a beneficial or neutral substance, like a nutritional mineral or a saline solution?

 

[Mallon]

I'll get around to answering your question after I do a little bit of research, but out of curiosity, how do YOU explain the existence of venom and bee stings and the like, Chesterton? Were they intelligently designed after the Fall?

 

[Chesterton]

I don’t know the answer. I’m almost at the point where I think I’ll just tell myself I’m agnostic on most of these “origins” type of issues. IIRC from another post, you’re a scientist? Even when it comes to speculation, your speculation would be better than mine.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I'm not a biologist, but I'm going to approach this from just a logical position.

Fangs and sharpened teeth are generally common among carnivores. Venom is not. Ergo, it seems reasonable that teeth and fangs would have evolved first. Later on, some species developed additional tools for hunting, such as crude venoms that assisted in disabling their prey.

I'll turn to Richard Dawkins here, and point to an analogy that he loves to use... where some type of venom, no matter how weak, would be a small advantage for a creature, and might make the difference between that creature living and dying. The stronger the venom, the more apt the creature would be at hunting... and the more likely it would continue to survive. By the same logic, a slightly longer fang would enable the predator to inject the venom deeper into its prey's flesh, where it would more-easily be absorbed into the blood.

Gradual change in small steps. Gotta love it.

 

[Chesterton]

A fang performs the function of a hypodermic syringe rather than a tooth, though. And bees stinger's couldn't have evolved from teeth.

 

[Jester4kicks]

A fang performs the function of a hypodermic syringe rather than a tooth, though. And bees stinger's couldn't have evolved from teeth.

I guess I'm lost... is your problem with the fang, or the stinger?

Stingers obviously wouldn't have evolved from teeth, although many species of both plants and animals have poisonous barbs and stingers of varying uses.

 

[Van]

Lets see, fangs are like long "eye" teeth, as are tusks.
Poison that can be inserted into another animal is found all through
nature from snakes to spiders to sea creatures. If the inject is in the tail end, it is called a stinger, and if in the head end a fang or proboscis. And then of course you have animals with poison all over, like frogs and scorpion fish.

If the point is that evolution provides an unlikely answer as to how these differing designs came into being, I think that is a given. Doesn't make the possibility impossible.

 

[Mallon]

From the research I've done into snake fang/venom evolution, it appears that snake fangs were pre-adapted (or co-opted) for venom injection. That is to say, the tubular fangs of colubroid snakes evolved before the full compliment of venom toxin families did. This info comes from:

Jackson, K. 2007. The evolution of venom-conducting fangs: Insights from developmental biology. Toxicon 49:975-981.

Fry, B. G., and W. Wuster. 2004. Assembling an Arsenal: Origin and Evolution of the Snake Venom Proteome Inferred from Phylogenetic Analysis of Toxin Sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(5):870-883.

So I disagree with your assessment that "evolution provides an unlikely answer as to how these differing designs came into being". A perfectly likely answer already exists if you're willing to put in the time to properly research the matter (beyond simple Google searches).

And if you don't know what preadaptation (or co-option) is, see here for starters:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB926.html

 

[Chesterton]

The idea of pre-adaption doesn’t have a lot to say. It merely says a trait had one function, it evolved, and now has a different function. Doesn’t that describe every trait of every organism? Before the whale’s fluke was a whale’s fluke, it was something else doing something else. That’s basically the theory of evolution itself.

 

[Mallon]

The idea of pre-adaption doesn’t have a lot to say. It merely says a trait had one function, it evolved, and now has a different function. Doesn’t that describe every trait of every organism? Before the whale’s fluke was a whale’s fluke, it was something else doing something else. That’s basically the theory of evolution itself.

We should really be speaking of co-option since preadaptation isn't technically correct.
That said, I don't agree that co-option = the theory of evolution. It is but a facet of evolution. Check out the literature on the subject.
Regardless, my point still stands. It is not necessary to appeal to magical explanations involving the special, de novo creation of related parts when co-option is both testable and explains these relationships in a much more satisfying manner.

 

[Jester4kicks]

The idea of pre-adaption doesn’t have a lot to say. It merely says a trait had one function, it evolved, and now has a different function. Doesn’t that describe every trait of every organism? Before the whale’s fluke was a whale’s fluke, it was something else doing something else. That’s basically the theory of evolution itself.

Somewhat, although that is a bit misleading.

The theory of evolution simply states that different traits will gradually develop as long as they either allow the organism to survive longer, propogate more, or both. The key is to remember that we are talking about very minor changes over an VERY large amount of time.

Some traits will become more useful, other traits will lose their usefulness (hence vestigal organs, for example).

I'm not quite sure if your comments are a criticsm of the ToE, or are attempts at understanding it further. Is there some aspect of the theory that you do not understand?

 

[Chesterton]

Trying to use facts against the TOE is like trying to stab water with a knife. I keep trying to come up with difficult follow-up questions about the design and chronology of the venom gland getting hooked up to the syringe contraption, and the pressure needed to make it work, and whether the creature is aware, etc., and it’s useless. Thinking according to evolutionary theory, I can (theoretically) answer every question myself. Miniscule incremental changes over immensely long periods of time, is a magic wand I can wave and make anything happen. I can readily imagine my great, great…great grandchildren being grapefruits or computers. To paraphrase Marianne Moore, “that which explains everything explains nothing”. Am I wrong to be suspicious about an idea which not only explains everything, but can explain any and every potential thing?

 

[Van]

Even Darwin agree his theory seemed unlikely.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Trying to use facts against the TOE is like trying to stab water with a knife. I keep trying to come up with difficult follow-up questions about the design and chronology of the venom gland getting hooked up to the syringe contraption, and the pressure needed to make it work, and whether the creature is aware, etc., and it’s useless. Thinking according to evolutionary theory, I can (theoretically) answer every question myself. Miniscule incremental changes over immensely long periods of time, is a magic wand I can wave and make anything happen. I can readily imagine my great, great…great grandchildren being grapefruits or computers. To paraphrase Marianne Moore, “that which explains everything explains nothing”. Am I wrong to be suspicious about an idea which not only explains everything, but can explain any and every potential thing?

Strawman. Funny... but just a strawman. Unless, of course, you're prepared to outline what physical changes would occur in a human being, that would lead to longer survival or improved reproduction, and would result in human kind somehow transitioning to a fruit, or a silicon-based microchip.

It sounds like the real problem you're having is that cases like a snake's venom, a bat's echolocation, or a bug's camoflage can all be easily explained by the Theory of Evolution.

That's not a sign of magic, it's a sign of a good theory. You tried to go over the top with it, and hopefully realized that the only hole you can poke in it is rediculous anyway.

If you think there is a realistic situation that contradicts what I'm saying, feel free to bring it up and we can examine it. But I suspect that you are now thinking in terms of gradual change... and I'm willing to bet you are suddenly seeing through the eyes of an evolutionist. Congrats!

Even Darwin agree his theory seemed unlikely.

Source?

 

[Chesterton]

Strawman. Funny... but just a strawman. Unless, of course, you're prepared to outline what physical changes would occur in a human being, that would lead to longer survival or improved reproduction, and would result in human kind somehow transitioning to a fruit, or a silicon-based microchip.

Simple. It all depends on the right environmental pressures. Start with losing body hair and little toes, keep adjusting traits from there. After a few eons, I could present you with a grapefruit. (Enough television viewing, a few more Adam Sandler movies, could eliminate Reason within a couple of generations, I should think. )

Becoming machines is one of the hottest topics around today, and also the premise of numerous science fiction novels and some films I think.

It sounds like the real problem you're having is that cases like a snake's venom, a bat's echolocation, or a bug's camoflage can all be easily explained by the Theory of Evolution.

Correct.

That's not a sign of magic, it's a sign of a good theory. You tried to go over the top with it, and hopefully realized that the only hole you can poke in it is rediculous anyway.

I said above I realized I can’t poke any hole in it, which could mean that it has as much substance as wind.

If you think there is a realistic situation that contradicts what I'm saying, feel free to bring it up and we can examine it. But I suspect that you are now thinking in terms of gradual change... and I'm willing to bet you are suddenly seeing through the eyes of an evolutionist. Congrats!

It's not been sudden, and for some reason I don’t feel as if I’ve done anything to deserve congrats, because I still can’t know if my eyes are seeing the truth.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Simple. It all depends on the right environmental pressures. Start with losing body hair and little toes, keep adjusting traits from there. After a few eons, I could present you with a grapefruit. (Enough television viewing, a few more Adam Sandler movies, could eliminate Reason within a couple of generations, I should think. )

Becoming machines is one of the hottest topics around today, and also the premise of numerous science fiction novels and some films I think.

Small correction. Those stories generally revolve around either cybernetic implants, androids, or human "souls" being implanted into machines. I'm not aware of a single story where "evolution" into machines was postulated.

Correct.

I said above I realized I can’t poke any hole in it, which could mean that it has as much substance as wind.

It's not been sudden, and for some reason I don’t feel as if I’ve done anything to deserve congrats, because I still can’t know if my eyes are seeing the truth.

But you're thinking in terms you probably have thought in before... and you're considering possibilities... trust me, that's a HUGE step to take.

If you're interested in learning more about the Theory of Evolution, I'd highly suggest reading some of Dawkins' material on the subject. (Yeah, I know... not a popular guy around here... but just avoid The God Dillusion if you don't want to hear his position on that.)

I've read both The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. They both cover evolution and genetics very well (The Selfish Gene's first two-three chapters are pratically dedicated to the Theory of Evolution)... and they both cover it without really getting into any kind of philosophical arguments about god.

 

[Assyrian]

I said above I realized I can’t poke any hole in it, which could mean that it has as much substance as wind.

And if you had found something Evolution could not explain you would not accept it either?

 

[Chesterton]

And if you had found something Evolution could not explain you would not accept it either?

Yes of course, except I'd have to add the caveat that for the theist, it could be partial. I guess that smacks of God-of-the-Gaps, but I don't know if I have any grounds for ruling that out. (Scientific grounds, not theological grounds.)

But an idea can be possible, and be incredibly far-fetched at the same time. Technically, I suppose I can't disprove the origins claims of Scientology either.

For the record, I believe I have found things that evolution cannot explain, such as reason and free will, maybe even consciousness.

 

[Mallon]

Trying to use facts against the TOE is like trying to stab water with a knife. I keep trying to come up with difficult follow-up questions about the design and chronology of the venom gland getting hooked up to the syringe contraption, and the pressure needed to make it work, and whether the creature is aware, etc., and it’s useless.

Please don't get too exasperated. It's important to know that not everyone here has the answers you're looking for. We don't all claim to be experts, and like you, are on a journey of our own. If you're truly interested in learning about the evolution of bee stings and snake venom (and not simply looking for knowledge gaps in which to squeeze God), why not ask the appropriate experts? It isn't hard to find the relevant researchers with a simple Google search. And please report back here when you do. I'd be interested in knowing the answers you find as well.
Having said all that, what I can tell you for certain is that all previously published identifications of supposedly irreducibly complex systems -- including the eye, bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, etc. --have been thoroughly refuted, and plausible intermediates identified. Check out Miller's Finding Darwin's God for his thorough deconstruction of these systems. The track record of ID is not good and there's little reason to think it will yet prove useful.

 

[Van]

Hi Jester4kicks, you ask for the source for the statement "Even Darwin agreed his theory seems unlikely?"

Origin of the Species, published 1859. Here is a quote: " Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous to human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for an individual possessor." Chapter 14, Recapitulation and Conclusion.