The Creationist Explanaton

Astrophile · May 31, 2018

The IbanezerScrooge said:
I mean, if I observe some feature of, say, a watch, that I don't understand I can take it apart and try and come up with an explanation and/or I can actually go ask the watchmaker the reason for the design. We can't seem to get a hold of the designer of living things right now, so we look at how they work and how they're put together and in so doing come to the conclusion that there doesn't seem to be an intelligent designer at work. Even if there were, it's so far removed from its designs as to be inconsequential to our observations and synonymous with "things that don't exist." Our conclusion holds. In order for ID to be plausible you would have to show that the designer is still at work today and be able to elucidate what living things would be like with out the actions of the designer.

Perhaps you could apply the same argument to unexplained features of inanimate objects, for example why some stars pulsate, or why there are anomalies in the spectra of some stars, or why some planets have ring systems, or why some planets have magnetic fields and others don't. Does it make better sense to ask the star-maker or planet-maker the reason for the design, or to examine the stars and planets and try to come up with an explanation?

xianghua said:
It's actually a good point. Say that we will find a very complex machine (say an alien spaceship) that contain many parts. and we don't fully understand what some parts do or why they designed in such a way, what will be the best scientific conclusion in this case?:

1) the spaceship just evolved by a natural process.

2) someone designed this spaceship.

what do you think will be the best explanation in this case?

Again, you could apply the same argument to other inanimate objects. Did pulsating stars or spectroscopically anomalous stars evolve, and did planets acquire ring systems and magnetic fields, by natural processes, or did somebody design them? As before, does it make better sense to ask the star-maker or planet-maker the reason for the design, or to examine the stars and planets and try to come up with an explanation for their peculiarities?

Root of Jesse · May 31, 2018

Speedwell said:
If you don't know and don't care what science has to say on the subject, then why are you here arguing about it?

I'm not arguing, at all. I answered the question, and am dealing with objections to my answer. And you don't know if 'science's' reasoning is right, or not. So, even if they provided an explanation that seems to fit, YOU don't know, either, for sure.

Chinchilla · May 31, 2018

The IbanezerScrooge said:
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?

To make evolution look stupid , same as Whale who is considered mammal by evolution but it's fish

Same as Yah created termite which do not eat wood but they have microbes inside of them for digestion purposes , which evolved first microbes inside of termite or termite ?

SkyWriting · May 31, 2018

dreadnought said:
Well, one might explore WHY the Lord made them that way.

Or why we think God made them that way.

pitabread · May 31, 2018

SkyWriting said:
--Why diversity?

Still not the point. I already understand that biological forms in nature are diverse.

The question posed in the OP is answering why sharks and dolphins exhibit a specific case of diversity, namely the different morphology of their tails.

It's this specific case we are trying to answer, not diversity as a whole.

SkyWriting · May 31, 2018

pitabread said:
But that's the whole point. There already exists an explanation based on the respective evolutionary origins of the different groups of organisms: purely aquatic for sharks going back to Cambrian origins from primitive chordates and inheritance of side-to-side undulation for underwater movement, versus dolphins originating from terrestrial mammals and differing inherited spinal structures more easily allowing vertical undulation for movement.

This really isn't a mystery at all.

Shark evolution mystery grows older and deeper | Cosmos

SkyWriting · May 31, 2018

pitabread said:
Still not the point. I already understand that biological forms in nature are diverse.

The question posed in the OP is answering why sharks and dolphins exhibit a specific case of diversity, namely the different morphology of their tails.

It's this specific case we are trying to answer, not diversity as a whole.

I'll wait for the Op authors questions. Thanks for clarifying, your interest.

pitabread · May 31, 2018

SkyWriting said:
Shark evolution mystery grows older and deeper | Cosmos

And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?

SkyWriting · May 31, 2018

HitchSlap said:
Just for the sake of clarification, dolphins move up and down, and sharks move side to side.

I'd say it's better for aggressive feeding in groups.

SkyWriting · May 31, 2018

pitabread said:
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?

I'll wait for the OP authors questions.

SkyWriting · May 31, 2018

pitabread said:
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?

I'll wait for the op.

pitabread · May 31, 2018

SkyWriting said:
It is in regards to their tails

In what way? Did you have anything to specific to note in regards to the article you linked?

Speedwell · May 31, 2018

Anguspure said:
Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. - Richard Dawkins

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved" - Francis Crick

Both of these statements are about the metaphysical commitment that biologists are obliged to make.

Are biologists obliged to commit to any such comment which Crick or Dawkins may make? What nonsense. Crick especially--unlike Dawkins, who understands nothing of metaphysics--should know better. The presence of intelligent design is an unfalsifiable proposition. That is, it can be asserted, but never scientifically disproven.

For those of us with a different metaphysical commitment there is no problem with recognising design for what it is when we appraise it.

What, in particular, led you to that particular metaphysical commitment? It is far from the only one possible for a theist.

pitabread · May 31, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Nobody saying that science isn't important. But why do we need to know why a tail is horizontal or vertical?

It's just a small part of a much bigger understanding of biology as a whole.

pitabread · May 31, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Isn't "I don't know or care" acceptable?

Sure, but not particularly satisfying.

A horizontal one better, I think. Certainly sharks can breach the surface, but they have to be generally pointed that way to do so. Dolphins do it every few minutes their entire lives. That's just the way it is.

Flying fish also breach the water and have vertical tail fins.

dreadnought · May 31, 2018

pitabread said:
Then I don't understand what you are missing in my reply.

In a nutshell, organisms can't escape their ancestry. Dolphin evolutionary lineage includes originating from terrestrial mammals which in turn had already underwent evolutionary anatomical changes allowing for more upright structure and differences to spinal movement.

Whereas shark ancestry is purely aquatic going back to the Cambrian and evolution of the first fish from more primitive worm like chordates which likely undulated side-to-side for movement. That side-to-side movement appears to have carried forward over hundreds of millions of years in how they move which is what we see in modern fish/sharks.

The respective evolutionary lineages of different organisms and selective adaptations to their respective environments is why there are what they are.

And now even a longer post.

dreadnought · May 31, 2018

Occams Barber said:
No- seriously - it's all about reproduction.

If you are unable to produce offspring your particular set of genes won't be added to the gene pool

If you survive long enough to produce offspring then your particular genes are incorporated into the gene pool.

Once you've finished reproducing it doesn't matter how long you survive - you will not contribute anything more to the gene pool

Unless you are reproducing, mere survival has no evolutionary value.
OB

No, it ain't.

dreadnought · May 31, 2018

pitabread said:
That still doesn't address the fact that "Goddidit" doesn't serve as a useful explanation to build knowledge about our universe on.

For example, if I want to track the evolution of a pathogen during an outbreak or improve livestock production or investigate treatments for genetic diseases, these are things where reading the Bible ain't going to help. You need to real-world scientific inquiry to understand how these things work and be able to then apply that knowledge. And it's the result of that inquiry for better or worse which is why we enjoy our current technology and relative standard of living.

Actually, "God did it" might be the foundation.

dreadnought · May 31, 2018

sfs said:
You misunderstand evolution. Evolution is not about developing the perfect anything. At most, it finds a local optimum, constrained by its evolutionary history. Dolphins and sharks started with different constraints and found different solutions.

If evolution isn't about finding the perfect existence, then it's rather hard to believe in evolution, isn't it?

pitabread · May 31, 2018

dreadnought said:
And now even a longer post.

If you don't understand my responses, then you'll have to tell me what parts you aren't getting.

The Creationist Explanaton

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lip service isn't really service.

Lip service isn't really service.

Lip service isn't really service.

Lip service isn't really service.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency