The Creationist Explanaton

[dreadnought]

Not sure how that is relevant?

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.

 

[HitchSlap]

"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?

Just for the sake of clarification, dolphins move up and down, and sharks move side to side.

 

[pitabread]

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

That still doesn't answer the question.

 

[pitabread]

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.

All you need to know is that shark tails are vertical and dolphin tails are horizontal. The individual species of each isn't relevant here.

But if it makes you feel better, use a bottlenose dolphin compared to a reef shark.

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

Dolphins are also 'consummate predators'. They're also better at public relations.
OB

 

[mark kennedy]

Dolphins are also 'consummate predators'. They're also better at public relations.
OB

They eat things like shrimp, sharks will eat anything that won't eat them. I don't know what that has to do with fins but there is an obvious difference.

 

[Anguspure]

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?

That is the question for Science to explore, and it is the very sort of question that recognition of the design inference is helpful towards providing an answer.

If we assume that things are only there because they provide some selective advantage after they appeared by accident in the gene pool, we are very likely to miss the greater design implications.

 

[pitabread]

That is the question for Science to explore

And it already has. The answer is found in the evolutionary origins of the respective lineages. Specifically the anatomical differences owing to fully aquatic lineages going back to the earliest Chordates (for sharks) and terrestrial origins going back to land mammals (for dolphins).

and it is the very sort of question that recognition of the design inference is helpful towards providing an answer.

And has this "design inference" provided an answer?

If we assume that things are only there because they provide some selective advantage after they appeared by accident in the gene pool, we are very likely to miss the greater design implications.

Alluding to vague "design implications" isn't answering the question. The point is to answer a very simple questions about the morphological differences between shark tails and dolphin tails. That's it.

Either you have an explanation or you don't. And so far, you don't.

 

[dreadnought]

All you need to know is that shark tails are vertical and dolphin tails are horizontal. The individual species of each isn't relevant here.

But if it makes you feel better, use a bottlenose dolphin compared to a reef shark.

Thanks. The Lord looked down and saw that a horizontal tail would best serve a bottlenose dolphin, and a vertical tail would best serve a reef shark. You're right. It WAS an easy question.

 

[Anguspure]

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?

Just a suggestion:
Has it got something to do with the nature of reproduction practice? Fish lays eggs, which are fertilised remotely or externally, whereas Mammals engage and fertilise internally. A vertical tail would make the mammalian activity a bit awkward.

​

Just a suggestion....

 

[SkyWriting]

The only creationist answer would be "because that is how God made things". Creationism offers no explanation beyond that.

Shark evolution mystery grows older and deeper

 

[pitabread]

Thanks. The Lord looked down and saw that a horizontal tail would best serve a bottlenose dolphin, and a vertical tail would best serve a reef shark. You're right. It WAS an easy question.

And this again reinforces that creationism has no explanatory power beyond "because God made them that way".

 

[pitabread]

Just a suggestion:
Has it got something to do with the nature of reproduction practice? Fish lays eggs, which are fertilised remotely or externally, whereas Mammals engage and fertilise internally. A vertical tail would make the mammalian activity a bit awkward.

I'll give you props for finding a more creative answer than given thus far and posting a bunch of dolphin porn in the process.

However, sharks do fertilize internally as well so unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the answer.

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

Diversity in function is great design. Why are all eyes so different when they
all "serve the same basic function?"

Becasue details are important in design, not just basic functions.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Just a suggestion:
Has it got something to do with the nature of reproduction practice? Fish lays eggs, which are fertilised remotely or externally, whereas Mammals engage and fertilise internally. A vertical tail would make the mammalian activity a bit awkward.

View attachment 229852​

View attachment 229853
​

Just a suggestion....

Nope. Most sharks fertilize eggs sexually, although asexual reproduction is not unknown. And only about 30% of sharks lay eggs, the other 70% giving birth to live pups.

 

[pitabread]

Diversity in function is great design.

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.

Why are all eyes so different when they all "serve the same basic function?"

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.

 

[dreadnought]

And this again reinforces that creationism has no explanatory power beyond "because God made them that way".

Well, one might explore WHY the Lord made them that way.

 

[pitabread]

Well, one might explore WHY the Lord made them that way.

Which is the question posed in the OP. Why are they different?

 

[dreadnought]

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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

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.