The Creationist Explanaton

[xianghua]

But that's the whole point. There already exists an explanation based on the respective evolutionary origins of the different groups of organisms

like in the eye case where they were actually wrong?:

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html

"Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly"

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision"

 

[pitabread]

like in the eye case where they were actually wrong?:

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the post you were replying to.

 

[pitabread]

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.

I never said it was a "true cause", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The entire process of evolution involves multiple mechanisms/steps which leads to the biological forms we see today. My point was simply that with respect to convergent evolution, organisms of independent lineages but evolving in similar environments may develop similar morphological features as a result of selective pressures shaping the gene pools in those environments.

Dolphins and sharks being a prime example owing to their streamlined bodies allowing them to move quickly through water.

 

[xianghua]

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.

actually we do. a motion system for instance need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore it cant evolve stepwise by evolution. so according to our scientific data evolution is wrong according to darwins own criteria.

 

[xianghua]

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the post you were replying to.

lets go a step by step. are you saying that the whale tail cant be explain by design?

 

[AV1611VET]

Pita, do you know your profile is off-limits?

 

[pitabread]

lets go a step by step. are you saying that the whale tail cant be explain by design?

I never said "can't". Rather it's that so far nobody has given an explanation for the difference between dolphin and shark tails based on independent creation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you find that answer satisfying? Does it really even answer the question? What's the difference between that answer and just saying "that's just the way they are"?

Why must we have an explanation for everything? Does it really matter to anything? Must we know, and does it matter, that we're 3% negro or 7% Asian? Must we know why one tail wags one way and one another? Why are there so many different kinds of dogs, and does it matter? Doesn't it matter more that a dog with a long muzzle can do something different than a dog with a short muzzle? That a certain kind of dog is good at rounding up sheep? Personally, I'm just fascinated at nature, not necessarily worried about why that tree grew there, and that one didn't.

What I know is that God made the universe the way it is. Our atmosphere is a certain percentage of oxygen and a certain percentage of nitrogen, and if it was any other way, we wouldn't be here. That the tilt of the earth is the way it is and causes the seasons, along with the revolution around the sun. And I also know that God wouldn't allow any species he created destroy the planet.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So after tossing out biology... then what? What's the explanation?

Who's tossing out biology, or any other science? I let scientists worry about science, and know enough to know when they're jerking my chain for another grant.

 

[xianghua]

I never said "can't". Rather it's that so far nobody has given an explanation for the difference between dolphin and shark tails based on independent creation.

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

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

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

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.

to continue?...

 

[pitabread]

Why must we have an explanation for everything? Does it really matter to anything?

We are dependent on biology for our survival. Everything from medical research to agriculture to conservation biology are dependent on an understanding of biological science. So yes, having the best understanding we can matters.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Evolution is the only thing in biology which explains why species are the way they are, both with respect to their evolutionary history and adaptations relative to their respective environments. It's even possible for biologists to investigate specific molecular changes required for the evolution of certain features.

So if you toss all that out, what else is there? How would you explain why biological organisms are the way they are?

The fact is, some biology is pure conjecture. Certainly a certain appendage, like the opposable thumb has a purpose, and we can discern what the purpose is. But a tail on a dolphin and a tail on a shark serve the same purpose. Dolphins have to breathe oxygen, and must propel their breathing apparatus above the surface. That makes sense to me. Sharks don't. But a tail is a propulsion device for a fish, and a balancing device for other land mammals.

 

[pitabread]

its also true for evolution

This isn't about what evolution can or can't do. It's about whether there is an explanation based on independent design.

The answer so far appears to be "no".

(Besides I've already posted about the evolutionary reasons for the differences between shark and dolphin tails and their respective lineages. Go back through the thread and you can read about it.)

 

[Root of Jesse]

We are dependent on biology for our survival. Everything from medical research to agriculture to conservation biology are dependent on an understanding of biological science. So yes, having the best understanding we can matters.

We are dependent on food and water for survival. But why a dolphin tail is horizontal isn't really too important to me.

 

[pitabread]

We are dependent on food and water for survival.

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why must we have an explanation for everything? Does it really matter to anything?

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.

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

And I also know that God wouldn't allow any species he created destroy the planet.

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. 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?

 

[pitabread]

But a tail on a dolphin and a tail on a shark serve the same purpose.

Then why are they different?

Dolphins have to breathe oxygen, and must propel their breathing apparatus above the surface. That makes sense to me. Sharks don't. But a tail is a propulsion device for a fish, and a balancing device for other land mammals.

Both tail designs can propel an organism to the surface. And for whales and dolphins, the tail functions for propulsion in the water.

 

[xianghua]

This isn't about what evolution can or can't do

but your whole idea here is to show evidence for evolution by the whale tail example. so its indeed about evolution, and as i pointed out: by this criteria evolution is basically false.

The answer so far appears to be "no".

the answer is "we dont know yet". its true for many things in nature. including evolution.

 

[pitabread]

but your whole idea here is to show evidence for evolution by the whale tail example.

No, the topic of the thread is what is the creationist explanation for the difference between dolphin tails and shark tails. It has nothing to do with evolution.

And since you don't have an explanation, that settles that.

 

[xianghua]

No, the topic of the thread is what is the creationist explanation for the difference between dolphin tails and shark tails. It has nothing to do with evolution.

.

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