The Creationist Explanaton

[pitabread]

so the whole thread isnt about evidence for evolution? fine.

As I said, I already discussed the evolutionary differences between the tails earlier in the thread. You're welcome to read and respond to one of those posts if you'd like.

The topic of the thread however is the creationist explanation for the differences. For which there appears to be no explanation.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

its also true for evolution. evolution cant explain how a complex organ can evolve. so evolution is false because of that?

This is completely untrue. Evolution can and does explain it. It uses the observed mechanisms as support for that explanation. We can enumerate the genetic differences. We can perform experiments on living organisms and observe the changes that occur during development related to those genetics. We can compare them against each other and against completely different organisms and draw further conclusions. etc. What mechanisms can creation/ID point to to support the conclusion of design of biological systems other than it being observed to perform a function and concluding that it was designed by some unknown/unknowable agent using some unknown/unknowable mechanism to perform that function?

2) if the design can explain the whale tail then its not a problem for the design scenario to begin with.

You have to be able to derive design from observation. So far, it is being assumed from the start. Evolution is a derived conclusion from observation. Not an a priori assumption.

3) evolution cant explain how the whale tail evolved at the first place.

See 1 above. It can and does.

4) some shark genes are colser to human than to other species of fishes. so according to your criteria (similar unique traits among whales and land mammals are evidence for a common descent) we need to believe that sharks are more similar to human than to some other fishes.

No, but some individual genes (if what you're saying is even true, of which I am uncertain without a source for your claim, but it wouldn't be a surprise either way) may be conserved better between more distantly related species than more closely related ones for reasons that can be deduced and are understood. When you look at individual genes you can have seemingly disparate lineages due, again, to known mechanisms like incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Evolutionary theory encompasses these things. What does creation/ID have to say about them?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

so the whole thread isnt about evidence for evolution? fine.

And pita is correct. The thread is not about the evolutionary explanation, but the creationist one. Can you offer something more than "that's just the way the designer designed it"?

I mean, if I observe some feature of, say, a watch, that I don't understand I can take it apart and try and come up with an explanation and/or I can actually go ask the watchmaker the reason for the design. We can't seem to get a hold of the designer of living things right now, so we look at how they work and how they're put together and in so doing come to the conclusion that there doesn't seem to be an intelligent designer at work. Even if there were, it's so far removed from its designs as to be inconsequential to our observations and synonymous with "things that don't exist." Our conclusion holds. In order for ID to be plausible you would have to show that the designer is still at work today and be able to elucidate what living things would be like with out the actions of the designer.

 

[tas8831]

Because God wanted it to be that way. Even a creationist who believes evolution would say that.

But that is not a real explanation.

 

[xianghua]

This is completely untrue. Evolution can and does explain it. It uses the observed mechanisms as support for that explanation. We can enumerate the genetic differences. We can perform experiments on living organisms and observe the changes that occur during development related to those genetics. We can compare them against each other and against completely different organisms and draw further conclusions. etc. What mechanisms can creation/ID point to to support the conclusion of design of biological systems other than it being observed to perform a function and concluding that it was designed by some unknown/unknowable agent using some unknown/unknowable mechanism to perform that function?

lets check this. can you show me how evolution evolved a motion system and how many genetic changes (at the DNA level) we need for such evolution?

No, but some individual genes (if what you're saying is even true, of which I am uncertain without a source for your claim, but it wouldn't be a surprise either way) may be conserved better between more distantly related species than more closely related ones for reasons that can be deduced and are understood. When you look at individual genes you can have seemingly disparate lineages due, again, to known mechanisms like incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Evolutionary theory encompasses these things. What does creation/ID have to say about them?

see? when it doesnt fit with the hierarchy evolution can explain it by many explanations. the problem is that we can explain anything by this way, so we cant realy test evolution.

I mean, if I observe some feature of, say, a watch, that I don't understand I can take it apart and try and come up with an explanation

its a ctually a good point. say that we will find a very complex machine (say an alien spaceship) that contain many parts. and we dont fully understand what some parts do or why they designed in such a way. what will be the best scientific conclusion in this case?:

1) the spaceship just evolved by a natural process.

2) someone designed this spaceship.

what do you think will be the best explanation in this case?

 

[Speedwell]

lets test this. can you show me how evolution evolved a motion system and how many genetic changes (at the DNA level) we need for such evolution?



see? when it doesnt fit with the hierarchy evolution can explain it by many explanations. the problem is that we can explain anything by this way, so we cant realy test evolution.



its a ctually a good point. say that we will find a very complex machine (say an alien spaceship) that contain many parts. and we dont fully understand what some parts do or why they designed in such a way. what will be the best scientific conclusion in this case?:

1) the spaceship just evolved by a natural process.

2) someone designed this spaceship.

what do you think will be the best explanation in this case?

Both are possible, both can be true simultaneously. But unless there is evidence of intelligent manufacture, no conclusion about intelligent design can be reached.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Food which involves modern agriculture, which is again a dependency on biology.

Ditto with water when you consider purification and risks posed by biological contaminants.

You can't escape the dependency on biology and our understanding thereof.

Actually, people drink regular water all the time and live off the land, too. Of course, with Costco giving us good produce year around, I can see where you're coming from.
Nobody saying that science isn't important. But why do we need to know why a tail is horizontal or vertical?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Humans are naturally curious. If your postulated God created humans then he created them with the curiosity to ask why and the intellect to find out.

Or come up with a good guess.

Moreover, the OP was not asking for an explanation for everything, but for one very specific thing. Science has an explanation for it already.

or an educated guess.

The OP was curious to know what a creationist explanation would be. What has emerged thus far is that the explanation is "that's just the way it is". That, to an intellectually curious human, is not a satisfying response.

I guess that depends on the human.

He has not done much (anything) yet to stop the extinction, as a consequence of human action, of thousands of species of flora and fauna.

species come, species go, with or without human action. That's just the way it is.

Has it occurred to you that he might just expect better stewardship from his creations than the wholesale, nihilistic slaughter we are currently engaged in? According to your beliefs we already got kicked out of one Garden of Eden. Is it really wise to be messing up the 2nd Version we find ourselves in?

Stewardship is one thing, and yes, we ARE called to be good stewards. But I don't see nihilistic slaughter, unless you're talking about people who kill sharks for their fins or elephants for their tusks, or who shoot animals just to hang their fur on their wall. Killing animals for food and cover is perfectly what they're there for. But that doesn't mean we're destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels. And this ISN'T a 2nd version of the garden of Eden.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then why are they different?

Isn't "I don't know or care" acceptable?

Both tail designs can propel an organism to the surface. And for whales and dolphins, the tail functions for propulsion in the water.[/QUOTE] A horizontal one better, I think. Certainly sharks can breach the surface, but they have to be generally pointed that way to do so. Dolphins do it every few minutes their entire lives. That's just the way it is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But that is not a real explanation.

Excuse me. IT's real enough for me. That's what matters to me.

 

[Speedwell]

Isn't "I don't know or care" acceptable?

If you don't know and don't care what science has to say on the subject, then why are you here arguing about it?

 

[Anguspure]

So what do you think of what Wagner views as the emerging picture of how evolutionary novelties do appear?

The only picture that I see emerging at this point in time lies in the apraisal of design.

Reading Thomas Nagel's book was interesting in this regard. Although an Atheist he writes a book titled: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, and a number of times through the book he has to make it clear that he is not taking up theism, and he has to because the only real alternative at this point appears to be theistic.

Certainly the Darwinian view is missing in some very fundamental respects and clearly there is something else going on. But that something else will never be revealed as long as as reasearchers are obligated to cling to Darwinism and Naturalism as ideaologies out of a fear of Theism.

 

[tas8831]

lets check this. can you show me how evolution evolved a motion system and how many genetic changes (at the DNA level) we need for such evolution?

Right after you show me how Yahweh turned silicates into lipids, amino acids, etc. - and in a step-by-documented-step fashion.

 

[Speedwell]

The only picture that I see emerging at this point in time lies in the apraisal of design.

Reading Thomas Nagel's book was interesting in this regard. Although an Atheist he writes a book titled: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, and a number of times through the book he has to make it clear that he is not taking up theism, and he has to because the only real alternative at this point appears to be theistic.

Certainly the Darwinian view is missing in some very fundamental respects and clearly there is something else going on. But that something else will never be revealed as long as as reasearchers are obligated to cling to Darwinism and Naturalism as ideaologies out of a fear of Theism.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about theism, and given the number of theists who accept it, it is not a barrier to theism, nothing for anti-theists to hide behind. As a general rule, those who whine that scientists clinging to "Darwinism" out of fear of theism know little about either and are only trying to protect their particular literalist interpretation of scripture.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Do you accept that dolphins evolved from terrestrial mammals?

 

[Ophiolite]

Or come up with a good guess.or an educated guess.I guess that depends on the human.species come, species go, with or without human action. That's just the way it is.
Stewardship is one thing, and yes, we ARE called to be good stewards. But I don't see nihilistic slaughter, unless you're talking about people who kill sharks for their fins or elephants for their tusks, or who shoot animals just to hang their fur on their wall. Killing animals for food and cover is perfectly what they're there for. But that doesn't mean we're destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels. And this ISN'T a 2nd version of the garden of Eden.

1. Science does not do guesswork. It produces rigorously tested and validated explanations, that offer the best explanation for the available evidence.
2. Any human who is both intellectual and curious and honest is unlikely to satisfied by an explanation that is no explanation at all.
3. No nihilistic slaughter? Really? I suggest you open your eyes. Overfishing, the devastation of the rain forests,progressive reduction of wilderness across the planet, and on and on and on. Are you seriously ignorant of the extinction of thousands of species as a direct result of human activity? Frankly there is no excuse for such callous ignorance in this day and age. Shame on you.
4. And, yes, we are destroying the enviroment in a mindless, self-indulgent orgy of stupidity, through the burning of fossil fuels. And doing that, in the face of the evidence, is evil and those who support it are a party to that evil. I hope you live long enough to learn how guilty you are through that attitude.
5. It is a metaphorical Garden of Eden, or was, for those of us who actually care about the environment and humanity's place in it.
6. Don't bother responding. I don't wish to have my thoughts polluted by yours. You are now on Ignore.

 

[Anguspure]

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about theism, and given the number of theists who accept it, it is not a barrier to theism, nothing for anti-theists to hide behind. As a general rule, those who whine that scientists cling to "Darwinism" out of fear of theism know little about either and are only trying to protect their particular literalist interpretation of scripture.

Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. - Richard Dawkins

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved" - Francis Crick

Both of these statements are about the metaphysical commitment that biologists are obliged to make.

For those of us with a different metaphysical commitment there is no problem with recognising design for what it is when we appraise it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the shark is a consummate predator, if it has something to do with how the two species had to maneuver.

Killer whales are consummate predators.

 

[Anguspure]

Do you accept that dolphins evolved from terrestrial mammals?

I accept that there is a common origin, and I recognise what may have been a development of one from the other in some respect (although not necessarily so).

I have never seen any evidence that they evolved in the manner of Neo-Darwinism (genetic mutation followed by natural selection).

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

lets check this. can you show me how evolution evolved a motion system and how many genetic changes (at the DNA level) we need for such evolution?

Hypothetically, yes. Can I do it? Probably not. Can you show me how the designer managed it?

see? when it doesnt fit with the hierarchy evolution can explain it by many explanations. the problem is that we can explain anything by this way, so we cant realy test evolution.

But it's not done out of hand or ad hoc. We study the mechanisms and find out why a particular case doesn't seem to fit. Where we have done that we've discovered a new pattern bourne out of the observed mechanisms. Science! Learning! Progress! This is a good thing. We aren't just making up explanations to avoid the issue.

its a ctually a good point. say that we will find a very complex machine (say an alien spaceship) that contain many parts. and we dont fully understand what some parts do or why they designed in such a way. what will be the best scientific conclusion in this case?:

1) the spaceship just evolved by a natural process.

2) someone designed this spaceship.

what do you think will be the best explanation in this case?

if we know it's a spaceship, then we know it's designed. What if the spaceship looked just like a meteor? How would you apply design inference to that to figure out that it was actually a designed object?