Limits of adaptationism

Yesterday we talked about the "why" of insect antennae. Why ask why?

When biologists ask "why" - they are usually asking for a functional "because." The question could be re-phrased as "what for?" This is a very old approach for understanding how biological things work. It assumes that there's a certain order to things, that organisms are a certain way for a reason. God, in his infinite wisdom, made them that way to be suited to their world.

William Paley talks a lot about this. He's the guy who came up with the watchmaker argument for the existence of God. This argument basically states that a watch is complex and contains a mechanism that works in a intricate way to keep time, so when we see a watch, we get a sense that it has purpose and design and therefore a designer. Living things like animals and plants are likewise complex and work in an intricate way to perform their tasks of survival and reproduction. Ergo, living things have design and have a designer. And it follows that the traits expressed by these living things should have a purpose in that design.

But what about traits of living things that seem to have no function? Are they just fanciful inventions of a whimsical God? Whimsy is not something I typically attribute to God. So perhaps there are other explanations. For the next several days we'll examine the limits of adaptationism - why we cannot always ask why and get a straight answer in biology.