The Creationist Explanaton

[The IbanezerScrooge]

My almost 7 year old asked a question the other day and after explaining the answer to him I wondered how creationists would answer the question:

"Why do dolphin tails go side to side and shark tails go up and down? Why are they different?"

Basically, why are shark tails and dolphin tails different morphologically when they serve the same basic function?

How would a creationist answer this question?

 

[USincognito]

Also Ichthyosaurs. It's almost as if marine reptiles inherited their fish lineage movement, but cetaceans move as if they inherited their land dwelling mammal lineage.

 

[Sanoy]

They would answer "I don't know" unless they happened to have studied Dolphins or googled it like I just did. (Apparently the tail slap is part of their communication, I imagine it helps with climbing for air too.)

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because God wanted it to be that way. Even a creationist who believes evolution would say that.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Because God wanted it to be that way. Even a creationist who believes evolution would say that.

Do you find that answer satisfying? Does it really even answer the question? What's the difference between that answer and just saying "that's just the way they are"?

 

[pitabread]

The only creationist answer would be "because that is how God made things". Creationism offers no explanation beyond that.

 

[Anguspure]

Do you find that answer satisfying? Does it really even answer the question? What's the difference between that answer and just saying "that's just the way they are"?

The answer "God did it" may not be intellectually satisfying, but it does satisfy the truth.

Nevertheless any thinking person would be curious as to the reason that God decided that things should be designed and created in a given way.

So in order to give a satisfying answer to an intellectually curious 7 year old we could point them in the direction of those who have studied in the field.

The trouble is, however, that there is so much unhelpful evolutionary gobbledigook that pervades the material that I would do so not until I had taken care to explain a little bit about the bias of many.

 

[pitabread]

The trouble is, however, that there is so much unhelpful evolutionary gobbledigook that pervades the material that I would do so not until I had taken care to explain a little bit about the bias of many.

So after tossing out biology... then what? What's the explanation?

 

[Anguspure]

So after tossing out biology... then what?

When identifying function and purpose in biology, or any other field of research for that matter, it is not necessary to refer to the just so story of evolution, although it does appear to be obligatory.

 

[pitabread]

When identifying function and purpose in biology, or any other field of research for that matter, it is not necessary to refer to the just so story of evolution, although it does appear to be obligatory.

Evolution is the only thing in biology which explains why species are the way they are, both with respect to their evolutionary history and adaptations relative to their respective environments. It's even possible for biologists to investigate specific molecular changes required for the evolution of certain features.

So if you toss all that out, what else is there? How would you explain why biological organisms are the way they are?

 

[Anguspure]

Evolution is the only thing in biology which explains why species are the way they are, both with respect to their evolutionary history and adaptations relative to their respective environments.

And if you toss all that out, what else is there?

Evolution as an observation of change over time in species might provide explanation of some things, but it fals to provide explanation for many others (such as taxa defining traits that suddenly appear in the biological record with no anticedent).

Nevertheless the current function of a given trait is revealed by the purpose that it serves at the current time and in the current environment.

What it may or may have not looked like in the past on another creature is different question, and what may have caused it to be there or change is another question again.

By the time we get to the unhelpful "Evolution did it" assertion we are just spouting the obligatory mantra of those who choose to ignore the obvious inference from the appearance of design.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution as an observation of change over time in species might provide explanation of some things, but it fals to provide explanation for many others (such as taxa defining traits that suddenly appear in the biological record with no anticedent).

Regardless of any areas whereby an evolutionary explanation may not be known, it doesn't override areas where we do have known explanations. This is in stark contrast to creationism which explains nothing.

Nevertheless the current function of a given trait is revealed by the purpose that it serves at the current time and in the current environment.

That doesn't reveal why it is the way it is though, since there are often multiple variations of said trait which can serve the same function. Just look at the major physiological differences between fish and whales for example.

By the time we get to the unhelpful "Evolution did it" assertion

"Evolution did it" isn't the end of the explanation however. We have an idea how evolution works (i.e. the specific mechanisms) and can therefore formulate testable hypotheses based on that to determine how specific things evolved. As I said, this can even get into the molecular level and looking at specific DNA changes required.

Conversely with creationism there is nothing past "Designer did it". There is zero explanation as to how or why a designer would have done things the way they did and consequently no way to formulate any testable hypotheses for further investigation.

 

[SkyWriting]

My almost 7 year old asked a question the other day and after explaining the answer to him I wondered how creationists would answer the question:

"Why do dolphin tails go side to side and shark tails go up and down? Why are they different?"

Basically, why are shark tails and dolphin tails different morphologically when they serve the same basic function?

How would a creationist answer this question?

There are "ups and downs" in every design challange
just as there are different types of creatures.
Diversity plays a key role in society and nature.

 

[pitabread]

There are "ups and downs" in every design challange
just as there are different types of creatures.
Diversity plays a key role in society and nature.

This doesn't answer the question the OP posed though.

Yes, nature has diversity. But the question was about a very specific type of diversity, namely the differences between shark and whale tails.

 

[mark kennedy]

My almost 7 year old asked a question the other day and after explaining the answer to him I wondered how creationists would answer the question:

"Why do dolphin tails go side to side and shark tails go up and down? Why are they different?"

Basically, why are shark tails and dolphin tails different morphologically when they serve the same basic function?

How would a creationist answer this question?

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the shark is a consummate predator, if it has something to do with how the two species had to maneuver.

 

[SkyWriting]

This doesn't answer the question the OP posed though.

Yes, nature has diversity. But the question was about a very specific type of diversity, namely the differences between shark and whale tails.

Why are some people open to a diversity of answers but others closed?
Same thing. Diversity is good design. And not all biological questions
get answered the same. The answer may change from person to person
and day to day, even then.

 

[pitabread]

Why are some people open to a diversity of answers
but others closed minded. Same thing. Diversity is good design.

"Diversity" is just a fancy way of saying they are different. It doesn't explain why they are different though.

The question the OP asked is why are they different.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Diversity" is just a fancy way of saying they are different. It doesn't explain why they are different though.

The question the OP asked is why are they different.

It all depends on the person answering the question.
Does the person answering live in water?
Likely their perspective would have a water based answer.

 

[pitabread]

It all depends on the person answering the question.

Indeed. And so far the creationist explanation hasn't risen past "it just is the way it is".

 

[pitabread]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the shark is a consummate predator, if it has something to do with how the two species had to maneuver.

Doesn't explain why sharks and aquatic mammals (specifically predatory ones like dolphins and orcas) would have fundamentally different designs if they were independently created.

Maybe they were created by different designers?