Critter design that is not intelligent

[MrWhy]

I often run across, or think of things that do not appear to reflect intelligent design in living critters. Often these are characteristics that conflict with, or contribute little to, survival. The Australian funnel web spider is an example. Its venom is powerful enough to kill a large animal, yet it does not eat, nor is it threatened by, large animals. This would seem to be an unnecessary facility for this critter. It could survive just a well with a simpler toxin that only kills potential food. Why would an intelligent designer include an unnecessary characteristic. Are these more testimony to evolution than to ID?

[Goat]

To OP:

Your original example, the funnel web spider, is a bit... unfitting for the topic you wish to discuss.

I suggest reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_funnel-web_spider

To sum up, the funnel web venom is only extraordinary because it effects primates (it's a neurotoxin). It does not affect any other mammals. It looks to be just a "side effect" to a normal venomous spider bite.

So, from a design or evolutionary standpoint, this example is poorly chosen. I suggest choosing a better specimen to discuss for the topic.

Thanks for the comment. It triggered more thought about the idea, though I'm not sure it changes the end conclusion. The fundamental source of error/flaw in natural selection seems to be of two types.
1. The absence of forethought about future situations. It would configure for the current local environment because there's no input from other places. Any adaptation for other different environments would be an accident. An animal may survive or adapt in a different environment, and that may prevent extinction if the immediate area becomes inhospitable. Also some critters also become more widely distributed because they were not configured for a narrow specific area. Initially this was probably more accidental than selection at work. There are many examples where extinction occurred because the design was not compatible with the future. No intelligent planning.
2. The second type of design flaw I see is the lack of consideration for other species. If another species is not a food source, or a predator then natural selection would not do much adjustment for that critters sake. A mindless uncaring process. Just not very nice. The Funnel Web flaw would be of this type. An intelligent designer would not make the venom so effective on another animal that is neither food or predator. The design flaw could be placed on the primate or the spider, but I would still consider it a design flaw. Again a lack of planning, but this time it's about the scope of the venom effect.

Another flaw I see is there are systems out there that do have have redundancy built it. A good designer would put backup systems into place, so the failure of one piece would not render a function inoperative.

Wait.. just a minute. This is the definition of Irreducible complex used by Behe.

[seventil]

2. The second type of design flaw I see is the lack of consideration for other species. If another species is not a food source, or a predator then natural selection would not do much adjustment for that critters sake. A mindless uncaring process. Just not very nice. The Funnel Web flaw would be of this type. An intelligent designer would not make the venom so effective on another animal that is neither food or predator. The design flaw could be placed on the primate or the spider, but I would still consider it a design flaw. Again a lack of planning, but this time it's about the scope of the venom effect.

I'd be willing to be there is a perfectly good scientific reason why funnel-web spider poison contains neurotoxin in it. However, not being a ... spiderologist (haha) I can't produce anything. I'll browse around a bit and see if I can come up with something.

Regardless of the outcome, I think it's an interesting topic. Strange to see both Natural Selection and Intelligent Design not explaining something.

[seventil]

Pulled this from another forum:

Some of Australia's venomism is accidental. The Sydney Funnel-Web spider is the most deadly spider on earth - but only to Humans and Apes. It's poison specifically attacks the central nervous system of those species, which is why cats and dogs often tangle with the large, aggressive spiders to no detriment.

The most poisonous snake on earth is Australian, and has a good reason for it. The Inland Taipan or Small-Scaled Snake (also known as the Three-step snake, as that's how far you'll get before you keel over after it bites you). This thing is nature's H-Bomb - its venom is Neurotoxic, Haemotoxic, and Lymphotoxic, and includes a biological "bleach" that lets it melt right through tissues instead of relying on the bloodstream - even a tourniquet (which shouldn't be used on snakebite anyway) won't stop it. Plus, every bite it disgorges MASSIVE quantities of this monstrous venom, enough to kill a human a thousand times over.

Why? Because it actually needs such a venom. The Inland Taipan (unlike its almost-as-lethal and better known coastal cousin) hunts primarily mammals - and goes after them in their own burrows. In those circumstances, a merely dying Kangaroo Rat or Rabbit could easily seriously injure the snake before it died. But thanks to its super-venom, anything the Small-Scaled Snake bites that's roughly the right size dies instantly. No threat to the snake.

Oh, and regarding the Sahara Desert argument - the Sahara has existed for only a few thousand years; it's a artifact of human interference with the climate. Australia has been in its current climate for tens of millions of years. "Anyone will tell you it's a prisoner island, lost forever in the summer sun."

Interesting. Still can't narrow it down for the funnel web, but perhaps neurotoxin poisons (at least the one it uses) work better for whatever its diet consists of.

[seventil]

Ok, I have our answer.

http://www.toxinology.com/generic_stati ... unweb.html

Taken from the site above:

Funnel web spider venom is multicomponent, but a protein toxin, robustoxin, is considered to be the principal component responsible for severe envenoming in humans. It is interesting to note that most mammals are relatively unaffected by funnel web spider venom, but humans are very sensitive. Robustoxin causes stimulation of the nervous system at a variety of synapse types, with rapid and devastating effect.

So, the funnel web poison is multicomponent - meaning that the neurotoxin is just one part of it's poison. Now we have to speculate why: indigenous humans? Aborigineas?

Any thoughts on the subject now?

[MrWhy]

I'd be willing to bet there is a perfectly good scientific reason why funnel-web spider poison contains neurotoxin in it. However, not being a ... spiderologist (haha) I can't produce anything. I'll browse around a bit and see if I can come up with something.

Regardless of the outcome, I think it's an interesting topic. Strange to see both Natural Selection and Intelligent Design not explaining something.

Someone suggested it may be the results of an arms race with a prey that developed higher levels of immunity. It's reasonable that this would evolve more potent toxin in the predator. It's also reasonable that natural selection would ignore the consequences to another animal that was neither prey nor predator to the spider. Primates were an innocent bystanders to an arms race they had little, if any, involvement in.

Design flaws make sense in the evolution view. Considering how the process works, it would be surprising if flaws did not occur. Design flaws do not make sense in the intelligent design view.

[Cathar1950]

I wonder about people that are immune to venom.
Did God make a mistake or did he bless someone?
My this new breyers root beer float ice cream is good.