• 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.

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
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?
good question. basically its like asking why a truck trait (say a wheel) is so different from other types of cars. basically this is because its just another kind of a vehicle.

also remember that many times we find similar morphological traits in a far (unrelated) species. and when we find such a non-hierarchy evolutionists just call it "convergent evolution". so when it doesnt fit with the evolutionery hierarchy they just made up an ad hoc explanation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟262,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
also remember that many times we find similar morphological traits in a far (unrelated) species. and when we find such a non-hierarchy evolutionists just call it "convergent evolution".
Could you please give a specific example of such a trait? Include an explanation of why it is "non-hierarchical" and why it is a problem for evolution.

For example, you may choose wings on birds/bats/insects. Explain why they are a problem for evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,768
New Zealand
✟148,435.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Could you please give a specific example of such a trait? Include an explanation of why it is "non-hierarchical" and why it is a problem for evolution.

For example, you may choose wings on birds/bats/insects. Explain why they are a problem for evolution.
Not wanting to steal @xianghua thunder the pennaceous contour feather is definitely a problem.

Feduccia and Bock write: By emphasizing the reconstruction of a series of functionally and microevolutionarily plausible intermediate transitional states, neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers have failed to appropriately recognize the novel features of feather development and morphology, and have thus failed to adequately explain their origins.

From Michael Dentons book Evilution, still a theory in crisis:
Although the origin of the feather occurred via a succession of novelties (see Figure 9-2), the new evo-devo picture provides not the slightest evidence that any of the novelties leading to the feather were actualized by cumulative selection. As Prum and Brush comment: “Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.”

Müller and Wagner defined a morphological novelty as a structure that is neither homologous to any ancestral structure nor homonomous (i.e., serially homologous) with any other structure in that organism. Many features of feathers and feather helical development meet this definition and qualify as evolutionary novelties. The follicle, the differentiated sheath and feather germ, differentiated barb ridges, barb rami, barbules, differentiated pennulae of the proximal and distal barbules, and the rachis are all evolutionary novelties.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,768
New Zealand
✟148,435.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Of course. Evolution is simply the process by which gene pools vary over time. That never stops until life itself does.
Günter Wagner, mentioned earlier, is equally skeptical of the micro-evolution to macroevolution extrapolation and claims that the origin of major novelties may be inexplicable via gradualistic, bit-by-bit, Darwinian steps. One of his main points in Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation is that while microevolutionary changes may throw light on the origin of small-scale novelties, they may do nothing to explain macroevolutionary novelties such as the major higher-taxa-defining novelties discussed in this book. Wagner writes: The question of how complex body plans arise is not within the reach of population genetics [defined as the change in gene frequencies in populations, i.e., microevolution] neither are the questions on how complex organisms can arise from random mutation and selection. (Evolution Still a Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton)
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,768
New Zealand
✟148,435.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Could you please give a specific example of such a trait? Include an explanation of why it is "non-hierarchical" and why it is a problem for evolution.

For example, you may choose wings on birds/bats/insects. Explain why they are a problem for evolution.
Wings on pigs is probably as likely as anything else on the Evolutionary model.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: xianghua
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,816
7,831
65
Massachusetts
✟391,671.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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?
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.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,816
7,831
65
Massachusetts
✟391,671.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Günter Wagner, mentioned earlier, is equally skeptical of the micro-evolution to macroevolution extrapolation and claims that the origin of major novelties may be inexplicable via gradualistic, bit-by-bit, Darwinian steps. One of his main points in Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation is that while microevolutionary changes may throw light on the origin of small-scale novelties, they may do nothing to explain macroevolutionary novelties such as the major higher-taxa-defining novelties discussed in this book. Wagner writes: The question of how complex body plans arise is not within the reach of population genetics [defined as the change in gene frequencies in populations, i.e., microevolution] neither are the questions on how complex organisms can arise from random mutation and selection. (Evolution Still a Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton)
So what do you think of what Wagner views as the emerging picture of how evolutionary novelties do appear?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're just begging the question. If all you have to say is "diversity!", then we've gone as far as this discussion will go.



And what is your creationist explanation for eyes? Is it also "diversity is good"?

Because if all your answers are going to be exactly the same, then you're not actually able to provide an explanation. Which is the whole point of the exercise given in the OP.
There are three reasons why ecologists are interested in ecological diversity and its measurement. First, despite changing fashions and preoccupations, diversity has remained a central theme in ecology. The well documented patterns of spatial and temporal variation in diversity which intrigued the early investigators of the natural world (for example Clements, 1916; Thoreau, 1860) continue to stimulate the minds of ecologists today (Currie and Paquin, 1987; May, 1986). Second, measures of diversity are frequently seen as indicators of the wellbeing of ecological systems. Thirdly, considerable debate surrounds the measurement of diversity. Diversity may appear to be a straightforward concept which can be quickly and painlessly measured. This is because most people have a ready intuitive grasp of what is meant by diversity and have little difficulty in accepting, say, that tropical rain forests are more diverse than temperate woodlands or that there is a high diversity of organisms in coral reefs. Yet diversity is rather like an optical illusion. The more it is looked at, the less clearly defined it appears to be and viewing it from different angles can lead to different perceptions of what is involved.

--Why diversity?

--https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,50&q=diversity&btnG=
 
Upvote 0

Herman Hedning

Hiking is fun
Mar 2, 2004
503,928
1,577
N 57° 44', E 12° 00'
Visit site
✟791,360.00
Faith
Humanist
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?
What makes you think there is any catching up to do? Dolphins seem to swim just fine as they are.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
evolutionists just call it "convergent evolution". so when it doesnt fit with the evolutionery hierarchy they just made up an ad hoc explanation.

Convergent evolution isn't an "ad hoc" explanation. Rather it's a case of similar morphology in distinct lineages as a result of similar environmental pressures. Which entirely makes sense within the context of how biological evolution (and specifically natural selection) works.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Convergent evolution isn't an "ad hoc" explanation. Rather it's a case of similar morphology in distinct lineages as a result of similar environmental pressures. Which entirely makes sense within the context of how biological evolution (and specifically natural selection) works.
Except environment and selective pressures are not the cause, they are effects. The cause is invariably molecular with regards to adaptive evolution
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Except environment and selective pressures are not the cause, they are effects. The cause is invariably molecular with regards to adaptive evolution

We're talking about the evolution of phenotypes in a population. Selective pressure as a result of environment plays a role in that process.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
We're talking about the evolution of phenotypes in a population. Selective pressure as a result of environment plays a role in that process.
Of course it does but that the external pressue, not a true cause. All the environmental and selective pressures in the world won't get you adaptive evolution without a molecular cause.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Of course it does but that the external pressue, not a true cause. All the environmental and selective pressures in the world won't get you adaptive evolution without a molecular cause.
No. You need a random distribution of variants for selective pressure to act on. The source of that random distribution is ultimately molecular.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,242
10,138
✟285,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Well, if you are going to judge all creationists on whether or not they know why one creature's tail goes this way, and another the other way, at least you can provide the specifics of what you are talking about.
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.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Could you please give a specific example of such a trait? Include an explanation of why it is "non-hierarchical" and why it is a problem for evolution.

For example, you may choose wings on birds/bats/insects. Explain why they are a problem for evolution.
i never said its a problem for evolution. i actually said the opposite: both hierarchy and non-hierarchy is not a problem for evolution. this is why its not a scientific theory.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,242
10,138
✟285,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
i never said its a problem for evolution. i actually said the opposite: both hierarchy and non-hierarchy is not a problem for evolution. this is why its not a scientific theory.
So, to take an analagous example, the Duke of Edinburgh and Marcel Marceau are not a problem for deep sea fishing. this is why it's not the Magna Carta.
 
Upvote 0