The Creationist Explanaton

[pitabread]

You and I both know that the evolution of a species is never ending.

Of course. Evolution is simply the process by which gene pools vary over time. That never stops until life itself does.

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps it's the correct answer.

Even if it a "correct answer", it doesn't serve as a useful explanation since it doesn't really answer anything.

"It is what it is" isn't particularly satisfying nor something to build a knowledge base on.

 

[AV1611VET]

In practical terms how can science possibly take into account something it cannot detect and measure?

It can start out by admitting it's myopic.

 

[dreadnought]

Of course. Evolution is simply the process by which gene pools vary over time. That never stops until life itself does.

So why hasn't the dolphin's tail evolved like the shark's?

 

[pitabread]

So why hasn't the dolphin's tail evolved like the shark's?

I already answered this multiple times. See post #77 for example.

 

[adhidw]

Larger brain-to-body ratios owing to diet (compared to other apes), development of complex language and writing, development of cooking and agriculture, and the ability to specialize, and store and pass on knowledge.

The substance : If by chance , why should there be only one ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if it a "correct answer", it doesn't serve as a useful explanation ...

Then you don't need one.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

 

[dreadnought]

Even if it a "correct answer", it doesn't serve as a useful explanation since it doesn't really answer anything.

"It is what it is" isn't particularly satisfying nor something to build a knowledge base on.

Practicing Christians obey the Lord's commandments, and the Lord teaches them what they need to know to survive and be happy.

 

[dreadnought]

I already answered this multiple times. See post #77 for example.

Just because the post was a long one doesn't mean it answered my question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you don't need one.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Practicing Christians obey the Lord's commandments, and the Lord teaches them what they need to know to survive and be happy.

Ninja'd!

 

[pitabread]

Just because the post was a long one doesn't mean it answered my question.

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.

 

[Occams Barber]

Evolution has more to do than merely "successful reproduction." Evolution is about survival. If a creature ceases evolving simple because it "appears good enough for its particular niche," it will soon be extinct.

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

 

[pitabread]

Practicing Christians obey the Lord's commandments, and the Lord teaches them what they need to know to survive and be happy.

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.

 

[pitabread]

Then you don't need one.

The good news for you is that even if you personally believe that you don't [need such an explanation], you still get to enjoy the fruits of the labor of others who go forth an investigate anyway. Ain't life grand?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

My observations so far:

1. pitabread has carried the giant's share of the conversation. Honorable mention to USIncognito. great job!
2. Design seems to be injected instead of deduced/inferred in the creationist responses. A feature is observed performing a function and it is assumed that the feature must have been designed to do that function. I can paddle a boat with a shovel, though the shovel is not designed for that purpose.
3. I wonder if we could all agree that any picture of a specific individual shark or dolphin that might be provided as an example for comparison was not created by a designer today. We all understand that any specific individual is the product of its parent(s) and is different from its parent(s)?
4. Some expected semantic quarrels on the connotation of asking "why" questions.

 

[Anguspure]

If you're talking about pattern recognition of objects (say, identifying cave paintings or rocks used as spear tips), then that's not quite applicable to biology in the fashion you appear to be suggesting. Identification of designed artifacts is based on understanding of processes related to the formation of different observed patterns and the contrast of human-manufactured objects versus naturally occurring formations.

With biology you don't really have that same comparison since biological forms themselves are natural (as they occur in nature) since we don't have an alternative known source of origin. And the patterns we do observe already fit an evolutionary explanation.

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.

Metaphysical reasons for origins appears beyond the scope of what is being asked here.

So you say, but you are not the person asking the question.

An answer that fails to address the full scope of what is being asked in the name of limiting enquiry is a very poor answer at best.

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.

On top of that, you don't actually have a metaphysical explanation for the question at hand. So who cares?

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.

Are you talking about probability arguments? Because there is a gaping problem with probability arguments when it comes to biology and trying to identify design that way. Namely constructing a probability based on all possible variables (which are unknown) and identifying the probability space of all viable outcomes (also unknown). Generally such probability calculation attempts tend to be highly limited in scope and therefore not particularly meaningful.

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.

To recognise design where it is evident will only lead to far greater leaps and bounds of beneficial technological development in the world.

 

[Anguspure]

My observations so far:

1. pitabread has carried the giant's share of the conversation. Honorable mention to USIncognito. great job!

Yes, wonderful job!

2. Design seems to be injected instead of deduced/inferred in the creationist responses. A feature is observed performing a function and it is assumed that the feature must have been designed to do that function. I can paddle a boat with a shovel, though the shovel is not designed for that purpose.

That you re-purposed the shovel is an act of design.

3. I wonder if we could all agree that any picture of a specific individual shark or dolphin that might be provided as an example for comparison was not created by a designer today. We all understand that any specific individual is the product of its parent(s) and is different from its parent(s)?

I am familiar with Darwins statement of falsifiability: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

4. Some expected semantic quarrels on the connotation of asking "why" questions.

Philisophical, not semantic.

When I was 7 the just so stories of evolutionary trees and the like where unsatisfactory and remain umsatisfactory. I grew up to be a simple sailor, so why greater minds than mine consider such explanation as given by evolutionary biologists as satisfactory I have no idea, because they have no idea what so ever why anything happens.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That you re-purposed the shovel is an act of design.

Sure, but then my existence isn't debatable in a scientific sense. If you claim the shovel was designed to row the boat by a designer you can then proceed to point to me and I'll wave back and say, "Yep! I did that!" Not so much with the dolphin's tail designer.

I am familiar with Darwins statement of falsifiability: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

tsk, tsk. Let's finish that thought: "But I can find out no such case." And we still haven't found such a case 150 years on.

When I was 7 the just so stories of evolutionary trees and the like where unsatisfactory and remain umsatisfactory. I grew up to be a simple sailor, so why greater minds than mine consider such explanation as given by evolutionary biologists as satisfactory I have no idea, because they have no idea what so ever why anything happens.

"Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!" :-/

 

[Anguspure]

Sure, but then my existence isn't debatable in a scientific sense. If you claim the shovel was designed to row the boat by a designer you can then proceed to point to me and I'll wave back and say, "Yep! I did that!" Not so much with the dolphin's tail designer.

That we commit ourselves to certain apriori philosophical ideas and so don't know what might have caused the design, does nothing to detract from the inference.

tsk, tsk. Let's finish that thought: "But I can find out no such case." And we still haven't found such a case 150 years on.

Just finished reading an extensive exposition (Evolution Still a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton) that reveals quite a large number of taxa defining traits that Darwin may have found if he had looked at modern biology.

Anyway one of the biggests problems for Darwin, the eye still challenges natural selection in this way and so Darwin was not really being honest when he said he could no find a case.

"Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!" :-/

I would hope I can, I studied it for half a year and passed exams on the topic. Nevertheless in the fullest sense it is the Creator who makes it happen.

 

[Anguspure]

Of course. Evolution is simply the process by which gene pools vary over time. That never stops until life itself does.

The gene pool just hubble bubbles away for a very long time and abracadabra useful novelties just pop into existence.