The Creationist Explanaton

[dreadnought]

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?

Everyone likes a little variety. I would think a non-creationist would have more difficulty answering the question.

 

[JackRT]

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.

The Orca (Killer Whale) has been observed to prey on sharks.

 

[SkyWriting]

Indeed. And so far the creationist explanation hasn't risen past "it just is the way it is".

Whining. Horizontal tails are better at bottom and surface skimming, fast vertical changes. Vertical tails better in open water and lateral direction changes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Doesn't explain why sharks and aquatic mammals (specifically predatory ones like dolphins and orcas) would have fundamentally different designs if they were independently created.

Maybe they were created by different designers?

I'm thinking it's more like functionality and it's a big fat I don't know unless it's tied to something substantive. It doesn't make me wonder if God created them, or certainly question whether or not there are different creators. It just makes me wonder how the life of dolphins and sharks are different.

 

[pitabread]

Everyone likes a little variety. I would think a non-creationist would have more difficulty answering the question.

Not so given this thread so far.

 

[pitabread]

Whining.

That's it? You're done now?

 

[mark kennedy]

The Orca (Killer Whale) has been observed to prey on sharks.

It was just a thought, or maybe the design is simply variation, with no real significance to the origins debate, which I suspect is the case.

 

[pitabread]

I'm thinking it's more like functionality and it's a big fat I don't know unless it's tied to something substantive.

But that's the problem. The overall responses from creationists so far have amounted to "I don't know" and "God made things that way".

USincognito gave a (very high level) evolutionary answer which is owning to their respective lineages. Sharks owe their aquatic evolutionary lineage all the back to the Cambrian and the very first fish evolved from more primitive chordates. And consequently have a physiology owing to that evolutionary history.

Dolphins like other aquatic mammals are derived from terrestrial origins and have anatomies to match those origins. This includes the differences in spinal structures which appears to have shaped the respective way these different groups of organisms move in the water.

Not to mention a whole host of other features like air breathing lungs as opposed to gills, presence of olfactory genes but no olfactory system, hind limb buds that develop and then re-absorb during development and so on.

 

[dreadnought]

Not so given this thread so far.

Maybe it was the way the original post was worded.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe it was the way the original post was worded.

It seems like a straightforward question to me. If creationists have trouble answering a question as basic as the one listed in the OP, that doesn't bode well when proffering creationism as an explanation for biological forms.

 

[mark kennedy]

But that's the problem. The overall responses from creationists so far have amounted to "I don't know" and "God made things that way".

USincognito gave a (very high level) evolutionary answer which is owning to their respective lineages. Sharks owe their aquatic evolutionary lineage all the back to the Cambrian and the very first fish evolved from more primitive chordates. And consequently have a physiology owing to that evolutionary history.

Dolphins like other aquatic mammals are derived from terrestrial origins and have anatomies to match those origins. This includes the differences in spinal structures which appears to have shaped the respective way these different groups of organisms move in the water.

Not to mention a whole host of other features like air breathing lungs as opposed to gills, presence of olfactory genes but no olfactory system, hind limb buds that develop and then re-absorb during development and so on.

Ok you think Ucog is high level, he is kind of an interesting guy but that's a bit of a stretch. Yea, it might have something to do with them like the Orca being air breathing, that seems reasonable. But if you think you have some kind of an origins issue here worth serious consideration I think your reaching.

 

[pitabread]

Ok you think Ucog is high level, he is kind of an interesting guy but that's a bit of a stretch.

I said his explanation was "very high level". He alluded to the respective difference in evolutionary origins.

Yea, it might have something to do with them like the Orca being air breathing, that seems reasonable. But if you think you have some kind of an origins issue here worth serious consideration I think your reaching.

Evolution exists as an explanation for the biological forms we observe in nature. If any creationist believes that creationism can supplant evolution in that regard, then at minimum it needs to have the same level of explanatory power. That's at minimum.

Thus far, this thread has demonstrated that creationism doesn't have any explanation for diversity of biological forms.

 

[dreadnought]

It seems like a straightforward question to me. If creationists have trouble answering a question as basic as the one listed in the OP, that doesn't bode well when proffering creationism as an explanation for biological forms.

I'd hardly it basic. Read it again:

"Basically, why are shark tails and dolphin tails different morphologically when they serve the same basic function?"

 

[pitabread]

I'd hardly it basic. Read it again:

"Basically, why are shark tails and dolphin tails different morphologically when they serve the same basic function?"

I'm not seeing what is difficult about the question.

Dolphin tail:

Shark tail:

The tails on each are oriented differently (dolphin horizontal flukes and sharks vertical fins).

So why are they that way?

 

[Anguspure]

Regardless of any areas whereby an evolutionary explanation may not be known, it doesn't override areas where we do have known explanations. This is in stark contrast to creationism which explains nothing.

It explains the appearance of design in biology, whereas the opposing view discards it as an illusion, which is no explanation at all and certainly not intellectually satisfying.

That doesn't reveal why it is the way it is though, since there are often multiple variations of said trait which can serve the same function. Just look at the major physiological differences between fish and whales for example.

On evolution there is no why there is no purpose! Only blind pitiless senseless indifference.

"Evolution did it" isn't the end of the explanation however. We have an idea how evolution works (i.e. the specific mechanisms) and can therefore formulate testable hypotheses based on that to determine how specific things evolved. As I said, this can even get into the molecular level and looking at specific DNA changes required.

Indeed we know how Natural Selection works, we also know the limits of it's efficacy and the truth is that it fails to provide explanation for the observed phenomena. To insist that "Evolution did it" in the face of such failure ends all explanation and damages the very foundation of reason itself.

Conversely with creationism there is nothing past "Designer did it". There is zero explanation as to how or why a designer would have done things the way they did and consequently no way to formulate any testable hypotheses for further investigation.

The answer to the "why?", becomes evident from the function that it serves. To explore the why of the Creator is a major and very interesting function of science.

 

[pitabread]

The answer to the "why?", becomes evident from the function that it serves.

Whale and fish tails both serve the same function: propelling the respective organism through the water. Yet they are anatomically different.

Why are they different?

 

[dreadnought]

.

 

[dreadnought]

I'm not seeing what is difficult about the question.

Dolphin tail:

Shark tail:

The tails on each are oriented differently (dolphin horizontal flukes and sharks vertical fins).

So why are they that way?

Which species of dolphins are you referring to?

 

[pitabread]

Which species of dolphins are you referring to?

Not sure how that is relevant?

 

[SkyWriting]

Doesn't explain why sharks and aquatic mammals (specifically predatory ones like dolphins and orcas) would have fundamentally different designs if they were independently created. Maybe they were created by different designers?

Or diversity is part of good design? Somebody mentioned that.