The Creationist Explanaton

[pitabread]

'Tis a book I am reading, and I can hardly put it better myself.

If you want to cite something external, then you need to do so in the context of the questions I asked. Unfortunately the quotes you posted don't actually answer those questions.

I guess we're done here.

 

[Anguspure]

So why is that inappropriate? They did evolve over millions of years to maximize efficiency, which is why their solutions are worth considering.

That they have similarites and perhaps developments is obvious, that design (that we are told to ignore) is present is a no brainer, that NS dunnit is an unsubstantiated extrapolation and does not fit the evidence.

And similarly for the other examples. Sure, there's an element of "gee whiz" here, but that's par for the course in popular descriptions of science. Articles about astronomy often make some comment about how astoundingly far away stars are. What idealogical axe are they trying to sharpen there?

The star distances are measured using red shift, applied mathematics and physics. Evolution is extrapolated from the assumption that micro-evolution = macro-evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's also less impressive considering we still don't have a cogent creationist explanation for the question in the OP.

Only if you consider GOD DID IT as "non-cogent."

In the site I went to, I came up with the term "Suskind."

A Suskind ... or Sus kind ... or Sus genus ... is the binomial for the swine.

Thus I came up with "Suskind" as a term for people who ask good questions to get us to "cast our pearls," so they can trample them.

Most of the time ... if not all the time ... they already know what a Christian is going to say.

 

[Anguspure]

That's also true of my car's grinding sound and of my hematuria. It's still not an explanation for either.

That doesn't follow at all from the premise that a creator designed everything, not without making lots of assumptions about the creator's goals and methods. Now, if you want to restrict consideration to the Christian God as creator, well, then your prediction still seems not to follow. A recurring theme in the Bible is that the ways of the Creator are beyond our understanding.

Theological/religious considerations are not generally part of the philosophical argument, at least not properly.

 

[pitabread]

Only if you consider GOD DID IT as non-cogent.

It's not an explanation, because it doesn't actually explain anything.

Most of the time ... if not all the time ... they already know what a Christian is going to say.

The problem is that there is a disconnect with what certain creationist believers claim on this forum. I've seen a number of creationists on this forum claim creationism has superior explanatory power to evolution.

Put to the test, that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[dreadnought]

Just curious have you ever read any scientific literature? Maybe an article or two, journal paper, book, textbook?

I took chemistry and physics in high school, geology in college. I enjoy astronomy. I took several psychology courses in college, if you call that science.

 

[dreadnought]

A false peace ... yes.

Perfect peace? no.

Isaiah 26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

Or maybe they put on a facade of peace.

 

[dreadnought]

Auto mechanics, the stock market and the electric light bulb are also not seeking a perfect existence. You don't believe in any of those either, I take it?

Well, I don't replace the Lord with any of them, no.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not an explanation, because it doesn't actually explain anything.

And evolution does?

Fins go either up-and-down or side-to-side because, a long time ago, both actions were programmed separately?

So they split into two groups and went their own ways?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or maybe they put on a facade of peace.

No argument there.

 

[pitabread]

And evolution does?

Yes.

Fins go either up-and-down or side-to-side because, a long time ago, both actions were programmed separately?

So they split into two groups and went their own ways?

The evolutionary explanation (posted throughout this thread) relates to the differences in anatomy derived from divergent evolutionary lineages. Dolphins are evolved from terrestrial mammals and have different anatomical configuration for movement from their mammalian roots versus sharks which had purely aquatic lineage going back to the first fish in the Cambrian.

 

[dreadnought]

Life does not improve after repentance. That only changes our standing with God.

Life gets better after we repent of our sin, because we avoid the trouble sin brings into our lives.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Life gets better after we repent of our sin, because we avoid the trouble sin brings into our lives.

Does repentance or "our standing with God" explain the difference between dolphin and shark tails? I'm thinking no, so I'm wondering why it's being discussed...

I don't mean to be rude here, but there are many forums on this site where Christians can go and happily discuss repentance and what not. Forums that I, as an atheist, am not allowed to post in. This is not one of those forums.

My OP is completely sincere. I am genuinely curious how creationism/ID explains a real world feature that evolutionary theory and our knowledge of biological science does explain on a fundamental level. In a very real sense this is where the rubber meets the road. If evolution is false and creationism/ID is the Truth, then what is that explanation?

 

[USincognito]

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.

​

Look at a thresher shark's tail and tell me that would be any more problematic for copulation than a cetacean tail.

Also, you might want to suggest less and read more. Sharks fertilize internally. Some species even give live birth via ovovivipary.
Why do sharks have two penises?​

 

[USincognito]

There are another more interesting questions than that:

Why should there only one species with exponentially growth in knowledge which is called humans , where the others species absolutely non.{snip}

It's because of changes to the MYH-16 gene that controls jaw muscle size and changes to SRGAP2C which allowed more dendrites to form and ARHGAP11B which allowed our neocortex to grow in size. There are still many questions, but the basic changes in our brain are pretty well understood at this point.

 

[USincognito]

So why hasn't the dolphin's tail evolved like the shark's?

This has been answered since the first page.

Sharks, and marine reptiles, have a side to side movement because that's what their ancestors passed on to them.

Dolphins, and all other cetaceans, have a up and down movement because that's what they inherited from their ancestors. Sirenians as well (who, by they way, still have fingernails on their flippers inherited from toes and nailed ancestors).

 

[USincognito]

Anyway one of the biggests problems for Darwin, the eye still challenges natural selection in this way and so Darwin was not really being honest when he said he could no find a case.

No. That simply isn't true. The eye is nor more magical or problematic for evolution than any other organ. We can see the evolution in animals and the wide variety of manifestations - from planarian eye spots, to nautiloid pinhole eyes to vertebrate eyes, all of which trace their roots back to our fishy ancestors.

Your Inner Fish – Chapters 9-10

 

[adhidw]

It's because of changes to the MYH-16 gene that controls jaw muscle size and changes to SRGAP2C which allowed more dendrites to form and ARHGAP11B which allowed our neocortex to grow in size. There are still many questions, but the basic changes in our brain are pretty well understood at this point.

So this formula is also possible to be happened in other species then, so it is possible that tiger one day surely can make vehicle to bring him to the moon ? if not then why it is valid only for humans ? , how special this kind of species compared to others species ?.

 

[USincognito]

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

Why do cetaceans have the Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development if they never had hind limbs? Why do embryonic cetaceans develop hind limb buds in utero that are absorbed back into the body when Shh/Hand2 doesn't function?

 

[USincognito]

And now even a longer post.

Complex ideas sometimes require a bit more than a Tweet. I mean, you read your Bible right? Couldn't it be summarized in two words - Sin bad.