- Aug 4, 2012
- 7,730
- 3,462
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Methodist
- Marital Status
- Celibate
So I will pose the same question that was posed to me: Why are the dolphin tails and shark tails different?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So I will pose the same question that was posed to me: Why are the dolphin tails and shark tails different?What makes you think there is any catching up to do? Dolphins seem to swim just fine as they are.
You have to admit it's rather silly to judge a person on whether or not they can explain why a dolphin's tail is different than a shark's tail.I see your point and have, intially, a degree of sympathy for it. However, this is a discussion on evolution. I think it's meant to be a serious discussion.
If I get involved in a serious discussion I make sure I am reasonably well versed in the subject matter before expressing an opinion. It is my impression that anyone with an interest in the biosphere in would be familiar with the difference between shark and dolphin tails. This impression rises to a strong expectation if they also have an interest in evolution, either as a scientist, or as a creationist. Why? The shark-dolphin tail scenario is a classic example of the character of convergent evolution.
If this sounds elitist, you are probably correct. I wouldn't consider telling a brain surgeon how to conduct an operation. I don't understand why you would feel comfortable challenging something you are not well grounded in. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, go ahead and believe in the creationist viewpoint, but state honestly that you base that upon faith, not fact.
Yes, that would work.Or why we think God made them that way.
It isn't so much understanding as it is getting bored.If you don't understand my responses, then you'll have to tell me what parts you aren't getting.
To claim that natural things are not designed because they are natural is a bit circular and begs the question.
Given that a level of functional coherence is evident in natural forms that makes the very highest level of human designed functionally coherent systems look like Duplo bricks, an inference to design is obvious.
If Science is unable to address issues beyond the natural scope then Scientists speaking professionally should refrain from any comment that refers to things that they know nothing about.
Biologists commonly recognise design in biology, for them that should be the end of it. That they feel that they have to deny reveals a metaphysical commitment to atheism that has nothing what so ever to do with the field of Science.
Aknowledging the Creator is always part of a complete explanation.
And after all Evolutionists never ever fail to aknowledge the supposed role of evolution in an explanation even when evolutionary theory is wholly irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
Douglas Axe does a very good job of describing the method in his book Undeniable How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed.
The vastly increased complications and integration exhibited by living things mean that levels of functional coherence evident are much, much higher than anything designed by mere humanity.
I am able to express myself without excessive wordiness and I expect the same from others.Then why are you here? After all, you replied to me.
An extract from a recent article by Casey Luskin:Are biologists obliged to commit to any such comment which Crick or Dawkins may make? What nonsense.
It is easily falsified.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.
Ideaological Naturalism is commited to the metaphysical claim that only the natural world exists.What, in particular, led you to that particular metaphysical commitment? It is far from the only one possible for a theist.
I am able to express myself without excessive wordiness and I expect the same from others.
People should learn to discipline themselves not to ramble.This is the science section of the forum. If you're expecting nothing by tweet-sized posts, then you might be in the wrong place.
Just be thankful I didn't start quoting from scientific literature.
People should learn to discipline themselves not to ramble.
This time you got right to the point.There were a few short paragraphs and a mere 123 words in that post you deemed too long. If that's "rambling" to you, then I dunno what to tell you.
God works in mysterious ways, does He not?Yes, that would work.
This time you got right to the point.
Because it is a metaphysically distinct and unfalsifiable assertion, it remains a possibility even if the theory of evolution is correct.An extract from a recent article by Casey Luskin:
The purpose of Dr. Bhushan's paper was to encourage engineers to study nature when creating technology. For some reason, however, he felt compelled to open his article with the following disclaimer:
Nature has gone through evolution over the 3.8 Gyr [Gigayear, equal to one billion years] since life is estimated to have appeared on the Earth. Nature has evolved objects with high performance using commonly found materials.
Why did Bhushan feel this was necessary?
The answer is hard to miss. The widespread practice and success of biomimetics among technology-creating engineers has powerful implications that point to intelligent design (ID). After all, if human technology is intelligently designed, and if biological systems inspire or outperform man-made systems, then we are confronted with the not-so-subtle inference that nature, too, might have been designed.
To prevent ID-oriented thoughts from entering the minds of readers, materialists writing about biomimetics have long upheld a tradition of including superfluous praise of the amazing power of Darwinian evolution.
For example, when explaining how the unique bumpy shape of whale flippers has been mimicked to improve wind turbine design, a ScienceDaily article reminded readers that "sea creatures have evolved over millions of years to maximise efficiency of movement through water."2
Similarly, in 2008, Business Week carried a piece on biomimetics noting that "ultra-strong, biodegradable glues" have been developed "by analyzing how mussels cling to rocks under water," and that bullet-trains could be made more aerodynamic if given "a distinctly bird-like nose." But the story couldn't help but point out that these biological templates weren't designed, but rather "evolved in the natural world over billions of years."3
It's uncanny how predictable this theme has become. In another instance, MSNBC explained how "armor" on fish might be copied to improve battle ware for soldiers. Yet the article included the obligatory subheading instructing readers that "millions of years of evolution could provide exactly what we need today."
It is easily falsified.
For example: The identification of an actual demonstrable naturally occuring process through which new things that exhibit significant levels of functional coherence are regulalry created at the same or greater level of functional coherence as things that we know are designed, would falsify the proposition that the best explanation for the appearance of design in those things is a designer.
It is "identified" as the theory of e evolution by random variation and natural selection.No such process has ever been identified, and given the rational physical laws of our universe I fail to see how any such law might exist.
And as such it is distinct from the methodological naturalism of science.Ideaological Naturalism is commited to the metaphysical claim that only the natural world exists.
Correct. Methodological naturalism is unfalsifiable.This is a philosophical claim about metaphysics because there is no method from Naturalism that is capable of assesing the truth of such a claim (Naturalism only considers the natural world).
Pattern recognition is part of the way we identify design but as you say is not entirely reliable because after all the patterns involved are relatively simple.I was referring specifically to the way we use pattern recognition to identify human artifacts from their surroundings.
Certainly not, but: When a scientist is writing a professional piece or expressing a professional opinion he should keep those opinions and beliefs that fall beyond the scope of what he is capable of establishing through his science to himself.I'm not entirely sure what you are objecting to here. Are you saying scientists can't have opinions or beliefs on things outside of science?
Absolutely they're 2 different concepts. It seems however that in order to be considered a "Scientist" for the purpose of the former one must regularly pay homage to the later.You appear to have confused methodological naturalism with metaphysical atheism. These are two different concepts.
Metaphysical atheism is making a broader statement about the nature of the universe and beyond as a whole. And this certainly isn't something that is universally shared by scientists, as there are scientists of all sorts of beliefs including Christianity.
At the point where a designer interacts with the natural world it is not a supernatural explanation. Certainly to make an inference of who or what the designer might be could be supernatural, but the basic identification of design falls entirely within the objective/natural scope.Science operates by methodological naturalism whereby natural explanations are used because those are the only types of explanations that can be objectively tested. It's not possible to objectively test supernatural explanations.
The point is that those who are committed to an explanation that excludes a designer are missing the point when a child asks the question "Why?".Except in this case the explanation doesn't go beyond that. So what is the point again?
There is a bait and switch game, that gets played using the very broad definition of the term "Evolution", which can mean everything from simple change over time to chemicals to life biogenesis.Actually, I find it's the exact opposite. Usually evolutionists are having to explain the limitation of scope of evolution to creationists.
Well you should, it is very good and very accesible. I gave a copy to my 14 year old son who inspite of finding some of the technical parts a little difficult, enjoyed it thoroughly.I'll take your word for it as I haven't read that particular book of Axe's.
Naturally occuring recursive algorithms may create incredibly complex patterns but they have never been observed to combine in order to perform a higher level function, even one level higher, let alone at the much higher levels of coherence evident in even the most basic of life forms.However, I will say that in my general familiarity with ID-related arguments, I don't view complexity (even functional complexity) as a good indicator of deliberate design in-and-of itself. My view on this has been shaped by an understanding of recursive algorithms and fact that simple recursive processes can yield complexity beyond the inherent scope of the algorithm itself.
This is especially evident in the use of genetic algorithms which are designed to mimic evolutionary processes. There are examples of outputs that far exceed the complexity compared to what a deliberate (human) designer would create on their own. My favorite examples are this discussion of an evolved FPGA circuit and this other example of researchers trying to create an oscillator circuit and unexpectedly evolving a radio instead.
Examples like the above speak to the power of evolutionary algorithms when it comes to generating design. That see such complexity in biology should come as no surprise.
What do you mean by evolution here? Certainly nobody denies that in the natural world when a mutation occurs in a creature it will be tested by a process of natural selection as to whether it is benficial for survival of the creature or not, and that if beneficial that the mutation can be expected to proliferate through the population. And few deny that this has happened. So yes the theory of evolution falls within the scope of design, clearly this process has been designed into the created world.Because it is a metaphysically distinct and unfalsifiable assertion, it remains a possibility even if the theory of evolution is correct.
I specifically referred to "new things". Are you suggesting that random variation is able to invent a new functionally coherent system or thing such as a feather or a pentadactyl limb or a blood cell, or a self reproducing organism? Are you suggesting that natural selection is able to work on things that do not yet exist or are not capable of self reproduction?It is "identified" as the theory of e evolution by random variation and natural selection.
Clearly the natural process is incompetent to produce the observed effect.Correct. Methodological naturalism is unfalsifiable.
But keep in mind that this is not a metaphysical discussion. It is not about the existence of God (or a "designer" if you prefer) it is about the competence of a natural process to produce the results we see around us in nature. Trying to make it into a discussion about theism v. atheism is, I think, a red herring.
No explanation can exclude a designer. The presence of intention is unfalsifiable. The problem comes when you try to prove its presence in natural objects. What is being denied is not the presence of design in natural objects, but that ID proponents have demonstrated that it is present.The point is that those who are committed to an explanation that excludes a designer are missing the point when a child asks the question "Why?"
Does this mean you've read Wagner's papers on evolution and development and you reject his conclusions? I ask because the bit from Wagner that you quoted might give the impression that he thinks there no explanation based on natural processes for the origin of evolutionary novelties is possible. I trust that you are aware that that would be quite a mistaken impression to give.The only picture that I see emerging at this point in time lies in the apraisal of design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?