Irreducible complexity, "creation ecology", and the predator-prey relationship between California ground squirrels and rattlesnakes

 

INTRODUCTION

Advocates of young earth creationist paradigms will often cite examples in nature of organisms or systems that appear too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, more rudimentary precursors. (Behe, 2004) While such claims continue to be critiques at large in both lay and professional literature (Footnote 1), new claims (or old claims being circulated) are not uncommon to encounter from said creationist advocates. One such claim concerns the predator-prey relationship between California ground squirrels and rattlesnakes. (VonVett, Malone 2017) (Taylor, 2021) The argument goes as follows: When California ground squirrels discover rattlesnakes in their habitat, they will internally pump blood into their tails to create a decoy for the rattlesnake to lunge at, since the snake can see the tail using its infrared vision. The squirrel won't be harmed because it has proteins in its blood that function as a natural antivenin. Interestingly, the ground squirrels will also use this decoy technique without sending blood to their tails against gopher snakes, which cannot detect heat in the same way that rattlesnakes can. How does the squirrel know when to make its tail larger, or that a rattlesnake can see heat and a gopher snake can't? Obviously God knew that they would need this defense mechanism and supernaturally designed it to be able to tell the difference. This paper analyzes this claim in the light of the relevant evolutionary and ecological data, with a brief note regarding the inconsistency this claim brings to the beliefs of young earth creationists themselves.

ANALYSIS

To note, the squirrels in question do not use their heated tails as decoys for the snakes to attack: they use their tails to appear larger and more terrifying to rattlesnakes in an effort to deter the attack and cause them to flee in the face of with their heat detection system deems to be a much larger and faster moving target. (Barbour, Clark 2012) (Minkel, 2007) While the squirrels are capable of differentiating between which snakes are which, this has nothing to do with supernatural knowledge: it's well understood that this achievement is accomplished by the squirrels olfactory and acoustic systems differentiating between rattlesnakes and gopher snakes through distinct smells and sounds associated with the different snakes. (Minkel, 2007) This is not an ability unique to the squirrels either. Mice differentiate unconsciously between suitable mates based on smell, with the olfactory system actually overriding the brain's ability to decide when it comes to mate selection regardless of the mice's "will", while human females tend to select mates among those whose immune response genes differ from their own. (Ferkin, 2018) (Handwerk, 2015) (WGHB, 2001) That is to say the squirrels in this scenario are not special / the ability they exhibit is not surprising to observe. Additionally, the squirrels themselves use the tail talent described for several other reasons then rattlesnake intimidation, even when no predator or threat is present at all. (Putman, Clark 2015)

The initial claim seems to rely on the point being accepted that the unique relationship between the squirrels and the snakes cannot be explained by mainstream evolutionary paradigms. This is simply not true. The relationship between the two organisms is long, and spans a coexistence of approximately ten to twelve million years. (Eaton, 2003) Within evolutionary models, it is understood that the anti-snake defense system in ground squirrels arose in relation to the snake's development (i.e., what role the latter played in the development of the former, how the snake venom and squirrel antivenin both co-evolved among populations of each organism, how the squirrels adapted to be able to resist the venom, and how said resistance manifests across multiple organisms in different ways. 21-24 (Coss et al., 1987) (Coss et al., 1993) (Holding, et al. 2016) (Poran, et al. 1987) None of this research is difficult to find, and is available to the public. (Clark, Joshi 2012) While these data address the scientific side of the argument, further issues arise when one considers the problems that such an argument presents for the wider creationist position.

NOTED INTERNAL FRAMEWORK ERRORS

While not always the case, intelligent design frameworks can be proposed in quasi-rational ways, with notions of a shockingly young earth (6kyo-10kyo) and other hyper-fundamentalist assumptions discarded. Such examples include biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe, who rejects many fundamentalist young earth creationist doctrines. Behe holds many aspects of evolution as reality (specifically Darwin's theory of common descent and the interrelation of all life on Earth) while rejecting others, and defends a billions-of-years-old earth, which "...make him no friends among young earth creationists", according to colleagues. (Lyons, 2008) Another example is Stephen C. Meyer, an author, historian / philosopher of science, and intelligent design advocate. He also agrees with the standard old age model of the Earth and refuses to have his proposals be identified with religious fundamentalists who make assertions that are not scientifically feasible. (Colson Center, 2010) (Meyer, 2012) This section does not deal with views such as these, but rather with more fundamentalist models such as those proposed by groups like Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, that all involve a world in which carnivorous / predatory animals did not partake in the eating of other animals, with no biological death existing, prior to the "Fall of Man" at some point in the last 10ky. (Lacey, 2020) (Stambaugh, 1989) (Turpin, 2013) Such models cannot be consistent with arguments like the one discussed here (squirrels and snakes) that are often used to defend them.

One cannot make the claim that it is inconsistent with the character of the Creator to allow animal death and / or suffering while simultaneously making the claim that the same creator preprogrammed spricic predator-prey relationships into those same animals. If the relationship between the California ground squirrels and rattlesnakes is so complex that it could not arise naturally and had to be present within both organisms from their initial "creation" (as VonVett, Malone, and Taylor claim), then it does not follow logically to make the additional claim that such a relationship was not present within that same system at it's beginning, prior to the "Fall".

Glen Kuban has published research which asks similar questions concerning the seemingly contradictory claims of a supernaturally designed natural system that is supposed to have existed since its inception that apparently also did not exist at the onset of life's creation within young earth creationist paradigms. (Kuban, 2020) Kuban notes, among other observations, that many organisms are obligatory carnivores that "...have extensive anatomic features that have little if any use except for capturing, killing, and eating other animals." Further, "Many animals have defense mechanisms or structures to fend off predators...(including) everything from sharp spikes and spines...to highly offensive odors...to poisonous glands in their skin...to corrosive or toxic sprays...to protective armor." Kuban also notes the existence of camouflage in the natural world as existing solely to protect prey animals from predators, a system that, if present from the initial creation of these creatures, contradicts the idea that there was no predation prior to an arbitrary point in the recent past. As Kuban concludes, "...what would be the purpose of such a defense system if there were no predators?" (Kuban, 2020)

CONCLUSION

This leads to the final observation made, being that there is seemingly no necessity for the irreducible complexity of this relationship to stand out among the other predator-prey relationships that California ground squirrels have with red-tailed hawks, golden eagles, coyotes, raccoons, foxes, weasels, badgers, house cats, or dogs. (Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, 2021) (Quinn et al., 2018) (Washington NatureMapping Program, n.d.) If irreducibly complex relationships are supposed to stand out in nature as not having been able to have developed naturally, why does the behavior demonstrated appear in interactions with other predators? Why would there by a particularly programmed relationship among the squirrels and the snakes but not with any other of the squirrel's natural predators? Because there is nothing irreducibly complex about the relationship in question, as has been demonstrated here: their relationship is portrayed as anomalous only by those who are unaware of its evolutionary development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barbour, M. A., Clark, R. W. (2012) Ground squirrel tail-flag displays alter both predator strike and ambush site selection behavior of rattlesnakes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1743), 3827-3833. LINK.

Behe, M. J. (2004) Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution. Lehigh University. LINK.

Clark, R., Joshi, S. (2012) Project: Predator-Prey Communication. San Diego State University, Biology Department. LINK.

Colson Center (2010, April 30th) The Age of the Earth, by Dr. Stephen Meyer [Video]. YouTube. LINK.

Coss, R. G., Biardi, J. E. (1997) Individual variation in the antismoke behavior of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Journal of Mammalology, 78(2), 294-310. LINK.

Coss, R. G., Poran, N. S., Guse, K. L., Smith, D. G. (1993) Development of Antisnake Defenses in California Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus Beecheyi): II. Microevolutionary Effects of Relaxed Selection From Rattlesnakes. Behavior, 124(1-2), 137-162. LINK.

Eaton, J. (2003, May 15) The Best of Enemies. Ecology Center. LINK.

Ferkin, M. H. (2018) Odor Communication and Mate Choice in Rodents. MDPI Biology, 7(1), 13. LINK.

Handwerk, B. (2015, June 4) Mouse Noses Can Bypass the Brain to Make Females Blind to Males. Smithsonian Magazine. LINK.

Holding, M. L., Biardi, J. E., Gibbs, H. L. (2016) Coevolution of venom function and venom resistance in rattlesnake predator and its squirrel prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1829). LINK.

Lacey, T. (2020) Animal Death Before the Fall? Answers in Genesis. LINK.

Lyons, E. (2008) Michael Behe: "No Friend of Young Earth Creationists". Apologetics Press. LINK.

Meyer, S. C. (2012, June 8) Intelligent Design is not Creationism. LINK.

Minkel, J. R. (2007, August 14) Squirrel Has Hot Tail to Tell Snakes. Scientific American. LINK.

Ojai Valley Land Conservancy. (2021) California Ground Squirrel (Otospermophius beecheyi). LINK.

Poran, N. S., Coss, R. G., Benjamini, E. (1987) Resistance of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) to the venom of the northern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis oreganus): a study of adaptive variation. Toxicon, 25(7), 767-777. LINK.

Putman, B. J., Clark, R. W. (2015) The fear of unseen predators: ground squirrel tail flagging in the absence of snakes signals vigilance. Behavioral Ecology, 26(1), 185-193. LINK.

Quinn, N. M., Dimson, M. J., Baldwin, R. A. (2018) Pets in Gardens and Landscapes: Ground Squirrel. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Integrated Pest Management System. LINK.

Stambaugh, J. (1989) Death Before Sin? The Institute for Creation Research. LINK.

Taylor, P. (2021) Today's Creation Moment - Dancing Infrared Ground Squirrels. One Place. LINK.

Turpin, S. (2013) Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall? What the Bible Says About the Origin of Death and Suffering. Answers Research Journal, 6, 99-116. LINK.

Vonvett, J., Malone, B. (2017) Have You Considered: Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. (1st ed.) Search for the Truth Ministry. LINK.

Washington NatureMapping Program. NatureMapping Animal Facts: California Ground Squirrel. LINK.

WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. (2001) Sweaty T-Shirts and Human Mate Choice. PBS Evolution. LINK.

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 - For more on irreducible complexity, see:

- Boudry, M., Blancke, S., Braeckman, J. (2010) Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(4), 473-482. LINK.

- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory DNA Learning Center (2020) The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked. LINK.

- Isaak, M. (2004) CI102: Irreducible Complexity. Index to Creationist Claims. LINK.

- Isaak, M. (2006, November 5) Index to Creationist Claims - CB200, CB300. TalkOrigins. LINK.

- QualiaSoup (archive). (2010, November 28) Irreducible complexity cut down to size [Video]. YouTube. LINK.

- Robinson, K. (1996, December 11) Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? TalkOrigins. LINK.

- TalkOrigins (n.d.) Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe: Do Biochemical Machines Show Intelligent Design? LINK.

- Venema, D. (2012, April 19) The Evolutionary Origins of Irreducible Complexity. BioLogos. LINK.