The Creationist Explanaton

[pitabread]

Atheists need to falsify an intelligent designer, not just refuse to consider because they do not like it.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

Otherwise, unless you can prove me wrong, I have a dragon in my garage.

 

[Anguspure]

No. That simply isn't true. The eye is nor more magical or problematic for evolution than any other organ. We can see the evolution in animals and the wide variety of manifestations - from planarian eye spots, to nautiloid pinhole eyes to vertebrate eyes, all of which trace their roots back to our fishy ancestors.

Your Inner Fish – Chapters 9-10

What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.
Evolutionists blithely swallow the story despite the fact that the proposed mechanism of change in the story has never ever been tested as being able to produce the observed effect within the available time frame.
To suggest that NS acting on random mutation is able to produce an eye (or any other significant bioligical feature, such as functional protein), within the time frame of the whole existence of the universe (let alone within the time that biological life has occured) is worse than invoking fairytale magic.

 

[pitabread]

To suggest that NS acting on random mutation is able to produce an eye (or any other significant bioligical feature, such as functional protein), within the time frame of the whole existence of the universe (let alone within the time that biological life has occured) is worse than invoking fairytale magic.

Actually, it seems like it could happen in only a few hundred thousand years: A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Brightmoon]

Nor do we need one. And I'm not a pure creationist. Christianity/Judaism's Old Testament is not a science text book, and doesn't attempt to explain things. God did it, that's good enough for me. I hold evolution as true, but we don't have it 'right' yet. Darwin tried to exclude God altogether.

. Darwin was a scientist and as such he didn’t posit unprovable supernatural explanations instead of evidence based natural ones. He also was originally in training at university to be a minister. Science in general excludes supernatural explanations if it’s done correctly. Adding magic to science is actually doing pseudoscience . ID is pseudoscience by the way.

 

[Speedwell]

What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.
Evolutionists blithely swallow the story despite the fact that the proposed mechanism of change in the story has never ever been tested as being able to produce the observed effect within the available time frame.
To suggest that NS acting on random mutation is able to produce an eye (or any other significant bioligical feature, such as functional protein), within the time frame of the whole existence of the universe (let alone within the time that biological life has occured) is worse than invoking fairytale magic.

OK, so you have just disproven the theory of evolution, for purposes of argument, anyway. You have demonstrated that God is incompetent to create a process based on random variation and selection (which even human engineers can do to create novel devices) to generate the diversity of life we see around us.

Now what?

 

[Anguspure]

That's not how the burden of proof works.

Otherwise, unless you can prove me wrong, I have a dragon in my garage.

Why do cetaceans have the Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development if they never had hind limbs? Why do embryonic cetaceans develop hind limb buds in utero that are absorbed back into the body when Shh/Hand2 doesn't function?

Why does the Ford Focus have the same shaped steering wheel as the Model T Ford. Is this evidence that they evolved through a process of NS acting on random mutation?
The logical principle giving us a design inference, that would lead us to say "Of course not!" does not suddenly evaporate when we look at biology.
Common origin and development from another design supplies an adequate explanation.
Just depends on your apriori frame work. A frame that denies existence of things beyond the natural world must necessarily deny any inference to things that may exist beyond the fence, and it's adherants must close thier minds.

 

[Brightmoon]

Whoever put that info about whale tails . Look at a 4 footed vertebrate run . Cheetahs come to mind here. The hind leg goes forward as the back arches up. This serves to increase the length of the stride. Most mammal quadrupeds can run like that. Whales have retained that running stance even though they don’t have hind limbs . They still ‘run’through the water as they are swimming. Whale flukes haven’t evolved from hind limbs

 

[pitabread]

Why does the Ford Focus have the same shaped steering wheel as the Model T Ford. Is this evidence that they evolved through a process of NS acting on random mutation?
The logical principle giving us a design inference, that would lead us to say "Of course not!" does not suddenly evaporate when we look at biology.

We have known mechanisms by which living organisms reproduce and evolve. We also have known mechanisms by which artificially human manufactured objects are designed and built.

Was this supposed to be a trick question?

A frame that denies existence of things beyond the natural world must necessarily deny any inference to things that may exist beyond the fence, and it's adherants must close thier minds.

You can keep complaining about the scope limitations of science, but it's not going to change just because you don't like it.

 

[USincognito]

What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.

Ugh, I get so tired of the magical words Creationists try to use to hand wave away evidence instead actually addressing the evidence.

Evolutionists blithely swallow the story despite the fact that the proposed mechanism of change in the story has never ever been tested as being able to produce the observed effect within the available time frame.

^^^ Note to lurkers, see how he moves from magical words to talking about "evoluitionists" (whatever that's supposed to mean) instead of actually addressing the evidence that was presented to him. It's a favored Creationist tactic when simply cannot address the evidence.

To suggest that NS acting on random mutation is able to produce an eye (or any other significant bioligical feature, such as functional protein), within the time frame of the whole existence of the universe (let alone within the time that biological life has occured) is worse than invoking fairytale magic.

And of course he sums it up with an appeal to incredulity (without any citation or source for his supposed time limiting calculation) with a final magic word, well phrase this time, as the cherry on top of the sundae.

Zero content that addressed an iota of the evidence presented however.

 

[Ophiolite]

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 am not judging anyone on that basis. I am doing the following:

1. I am making a reasonable assessment of your biological knowledge based upon a demonstrated and admitted area of ignorance. I would expect you to make an equivalent assessment of my knowledge in an area I was largely ignorant of and in which you were well versed. (Although, for those many areas of which I am ignorant I either avoid them, or ask questions, rather than expressing unfounded opinions.)

I would like to think that now you know about this difference that it might inspire you to look more closely into biology in general and evolution in particular. In that regard, if you do have such an interest, I would be happy to recommend some suitable reading by pm.

2. I am noting, as others have noted, that the only explanation creationists have offered to date amounts to "that's just the way it is".

 

[USincognito]

Why does the Ford Focus have the same shaped steering wheel as the Model T Ford.

Let us know when automobiles reproduce by passing along genetic material to offspring and you might begin to have an analogy. That being said, you appear not to have understood the importance of what I wrote. It would be as if an automobile had a non-functioning horse head at the front of the fascia because automobiles evolved from horse drawn carts.

Let me try and make this a little more simple for you. Whales, that according to Creationists were created without hind limbs and have always lived in the oceans, have a non-functioning gene pathway for hind limb development and develop hind limbs as embryos. Creationists need to explain why that is so without appealing to asinine false analogies like automobiles or eating utensils.

Is this evidence that they evolved through a process of NS acting on random mutation?

You can take or leave this advice, but repeating shtick like this as a mantra does not help engender confidence in your mastery of the subject.

The logical principle giving us a design inference, that would lead us to say "Of course not!" does not suddenly evaporate when we look at biology.
Common origin and development from another design supplies an adequate explanation.
Just depends on your apriori frame work. A frame that denies existence of things beyond the natural world must necessarily deny any inference to things that may exist beyond the fence, and it's adherants must close thier minds.

Again, for the lurkers, note how he talks in circles and appeals to "worldview" (another favorite magical word) instead of simply and concisely addressing the fact that the genetic and embryological evidence shows cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammal ancestors.

 

[USincognito]

Actually, it seems like it could happen in only a few hundred thousand years: A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. - PubMed - NCBI

You fool! Your science and "evidence" is no match against the rhetoric and hand waving of Creationism!!!

 

[sfs]

This "nondesigned" piece of art will set you back $1470.00.

Allow me to reiterate my previous "huh?" Yes, works of art are (usually) designed. No, that does not mean the things they represent are designed. Similarly, the fact that Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" is in verse does not mean that the west wind is in iambic pentameter.

Perhaps artists know something scientists don't?

Perhaps Shelley knew something about the west wind that you don't. Or perhaps this argument makes no sense.

 

[sfs]

What is true is that a rather sophisticated just so story, of the type that evolutionists specialise in, has been woven using the available evidence.
Evolutionists blithely swallow the story despite the fact that the proposed mechanism of change in the story has never ever been tested as being able to produce the observed effect within the available time frame.

Well, what we could do is calculate the observed rate of morphological change caused by natural selection as it is occurring, whether in the lab or in the wild. We could then compare that to the rate of morphological change required to explain long-term changes in the fossil record. If we did do that, we might observe that the rate required to explain the fossils is orders of magnitude lower than the observed rate in the present, and we might then conclude that natural selection actually is adequate to explain changes within the available time. In fact, if biologists were real scientists they probably would have done this decades ago.

 

[Anguspure]

But that design is present is not obvious to those of us who actually study biology for a living. That all organisms are related by common descent is simply a fact, mutation and natural selection are observed processes that are known to produce the appearance of design, and no other mechanism has been proposed. ("God wanted it that way" works even less well as a mechanism than it does as an explanation. It's also a statement that is completely consistent with common descent and adaptive evolution by random mutations and natural selection.)

No, as admitted by a number of reputable biologists and other scientists (who are by no means Theist or ID) design is apparent, rather it is the apriori commitment to MN that obliges you to deny it. I can understand the reason for the denial but it is dishonest.

That there is a common origin of all things is not disputed, neither is the development of design overtime, and neither would the the proposed mechanism of NS acting on random mutation be denied except that whenever it is tested in the real world it completely fails to display anywhere near the competence to produce the observed effect.

60 000+ generations of Ecoli, that would have taken larger forms many millions of years to get to, have produced nothing new and lead to no significant changes, and this is under experimental conditions that deliberately sought to produce evidence in favour of the ND thing.

 

[sfs]

No, as admitted by a number of reputable biologists and other scientists (who are by no means Theist or ID) design is apparent

But I'm a reputable biologist telling you that many other scientists disagree.

rather it is the apriori commitment to MN that obliges you to deny it. I can understand the reason for the denial but it is dishonest.

Wait, are you actually saying that you understand why I'm denying something I know to be true, and that I'm being dishonest about it? If so, I'm prepared to make a number of suggestions about what you can do with your comments. If not, you'd better back away quickly.

That there is a common origin of all things is not disputed

What does "a common origin" mean? It's certainly disputed that there was a common ancestral origin for all living things on Earth -- it's disputed here all the time. Anyone who disputes it, however, is ignoring a well-established scientific conclusion. Frankly, anyone who disputes it is so far removed from biological reality that their thoughts on any related topic are not worth attending to.

and neither would the the proposed mechanism of NS acting on random mutation be denied except that whenever it is tested in the real world it completely fails to display anywhere near the competence to produce the observed effect.

Where is your evidence for this remarkable assertion?

60 000+ generations of Ecoli, that would have taken larger forms many millions of years to get to, have produced nothing new and lead to no significant changes, and this is under experimental conditions that deliberately sought to produce evidence in favour of the ND thing.

I'm going to have to go with "huh?" again here. What is your metric for "significant change"? How do you compare the changes in these bacteria to the changes in, say, the human lineage over the same number of generations? What's your comparison function?

 

[pitabread]

60 000+ generations of Ecoli, that would have taken larger forms many millions of years to get to, have produced nothing new and lead to no significant changes, and this is under experimental conditions that deliberately sought to produce evidence in favour of the ND thing.

I've seen a lot of creationists complain about this, but they don't seem to appreciate how limited (relatively speaking) the scope of the e.coli experiment is compared to the time life has had to evolve on Earth.

To put it another way, if the amount of time biological life has had to evolve on Earth was the water in an Olympic sized swimming pool, the time for the e.coli experiment represents less than a 10th of a cup of that water.

And that's without even counting the relative population size of the e.coli experiment versus the relative population of biological life on Earth, which further reduces the scope dramatically.

 

[Speedwell]

That there is a common origin of all things is not disputed, neither is the development of design overtime, and neither would the the proposed mechanism of NS acting on random mutation be denied except that whenever it is tested in the real world it completely fails to display anywhere near the competence to produce the observed effect.

So give us references to these "tests" and their failure.

 

[dreadnought]

Does repentance or "our standing with God" explain the difference between dolphin and shark tails? I'm thinking no, so I'm wondering why it's being discussed...

I don't mean to be rude here, but there are many forums on this site where Christians can go and happily discuss repentance and what not. Forums that I, as an atheist, am not allowed to post in. This is not one of those forums.

My OP is completely sincere. I am genuinely curious how creationism/ID explains a real world feature that evolutionary theory and our knowledge of biological science does explain on a fundamental level. In a very real sense this is where the rubber meets the road. If evolution is false and creationism/ID is the Truth, then what is that explanation?

That's the terrible thing about conversations - you can't control what the other person says.

 

[dreadnought]

This has been answered since the first page.

Sharks, and marine reptiles, have a side to side movement because that's what their ancestors passed on to them.

Dolphins, and all other cetaceans, have a up and down movement because that's what they inherited from their ancestors. Sirenians as well (who, by they way, still have fingernails on their flippers inherited from toes and nailed ancestors).

The answer given wasn't satisfactory.