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.
But the question "why" implies reason and reason implies intellect.Which is the question posed in the OP. Why are they different?
No human being, including creationists, knows the answers to all the mysteries in life. Someone who studies dolphins and sharks would better know what makes their tails useful.
It doesn't supply the answer to the question "why?" either. It only shows me a supposed series of accidents that turned out to have selective advantage.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.
Well...yea...I've seen some bizarre arguments but this one takes the cake.Or diversity is part of good design? Somebody mentioned that.
I'm aghast that you would take the question seriously.I am frankly aghast that we can assemble the cream of our local Creationist intelligentsia (plus Dreadnought) and they are unable to answer a simple question.
OB
But the question "why" implies reason and reason implies intellect.
On evolution there need be no reason at all, just an alphabet soup type of accident that happened to have selective advantage in a given environment.
The beginning of answering "why" is to recognise that form follows function for a purpose, which is a top down process, that necessarily involves a designer.
I'm aghast that you would take the question seriously.
It doesn't supply the answer to the question "why?" either. It only shows me a supposed series of accidents that turned out to have selective advantage.
There is no goal or purpose in any of it, my inquisitive son would not be satisfied with such an answer.
Clearly the sharks' method of propulsion is superior to the dolphins'. Why haven't the dolphins further evolved to develop tail structures like the sharks?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.
I never called myself a creationist, since I don't know exactly what a creationist is, but I think I've answered every question posed to me in this thread, so far.I am frankly aghast that we can assemble the cream of our local Creationist intelligentsia (plus Dreadnought) and they are unable to answer a simple question.
OB
Maybe the intellect of some is satisfied by such an interpretation of the question, I can tell you that the children I have asked why are not satisfied by the assertion "There is no implication of anything beyond that." especially when design is so self evident."Why" in this context simply relates to the underlying explanation for each organism's anatomy. There is no implication of anything beyond that.
You a right, you could twist the intent of the question any way you wish to limit the enquiry. But that would be a disservice to the person asking why.If you want you could always rephrase it: What is the explanation for dolphins tails being horizontally-shaped while shark tails are vertically-shaped?
Still doesn't tell anybody why.From an evolutionary point-of-view, the reason is the respective evolutionary lineage of each group of organisms. Specifically that sharks have a fully aquatic history going back to early chordates which used side-to-side undulation for movement underwater. Whereas dolphins had substantially different evolutionary path which included terrestrial mammalian origins.
This sort of puerility about basic sexual function, is not a sign of a well developed intellect.And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here to provide such an explanation. I'll admit I got a chuckle out of "less awkward dolphin sex" as a reason, but unfortunately it doesn't answer why sharks weren't given the same privilege.
Clearly the sharks' method of propulsion is superior to the dolphins'.
Why haven't the dolphins further evolved to develop tail structures like the sharks?
How true. Once again however you are trying to second guess the one making the enquiry in an attempt to limit the converstion.If you're looking for a broader metaphysical purpose or meaning behind everything, you're not necessarily going to find that answer in science. Science is about describing the universe and things in it as we see them and determining explanations for them within the scope of that universe.
The purpose of science is enquiry, perhaps limited to methodological naturalism for the purpose of focus.In the context of biological diversity evolution is that explanation. You might not like that there is no broader purpose beyond reproductive success. But oh well. The purpose of science isn't personal comfort; it's simply to describe things as they are.
I can tell you that the children I have asked why are not satisfied by the assertion "There is no implication of anything beyond that." especially when design is so self evident.
I assume, since the shark has always been a marine animal, that it's developed its tail to the fullest degree. Why, then, doesn't the dolphin evolve so that its tail resembles shark's?How do you figure?
It has to do with the overall anatomy of the respective organisms and differences in how they propel themselves through the water, which in turn is owing to the evolutionary ancestry of each lineage: Undulatory Swimming
Once again however you are trying to second guess the one making the enquiry in an attempt to limit the converstion.
But a Scientist that demands that all legitimate enquiry make no reference to reality beyond the natural is as a metaphysical claim (that no such possibility exists) is expressing flawed ideaology.
Why, then, doesn't the dolphin evolve so that its tail resembles shark's?
I now what the dolphin's tail stems from, but why hasn't it evolved further?The dolphins tail is shaped in relation to its overall movement. Its movement in turn is owing to its terrestrial origins from land mammals and spinal structures more geared towards mammalian movement (walking, running, etc) with the legs under the body.
You can see similar types of movement in other aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals like seals, otters, etc.
I now what the dolphin's tail stems from, but why hasn't it evolved further?
The shark, which has always lived in the water, has developed the perfect tail for propelling itself through the water. The dolphin has the exact opposite tail. When will the dolphin's evolutionary process catch up to the shark's?"Further" how? I mean, it does what it needs to do which is propel the dolphin through the water. What else is it supposed to do?
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?