The Creationist Explanaton

[HitchSlap]

I just don't understand how anyone can deny evolution's current place in biological science.

It would be like denying the usage of mathematics within physics. Completely nonsensical.

Unfortunately for creationists, this the corner they’ve painted themselves into.

 

[Speedwell]

Right blind faith. Designed different presupposes a designer. You missed that. But you go ahead and falsify an intelligent designer. Show how naturedidit.

No, the existence of a "designer" is unfalsifiable and no one is trying to falsify it. Let me put it more simply so you can perhaps understand it: The theory of evolution is merely a scientific theory of how life changed and diversified since it began. It deals only with the natural causes involved. It does not deny or rule out the possibility that the process described by the theory was the product of an intelligence. It does not deny or rule out the possibility that the process itself is sustained by divine providence. All it--or any other scientific theory, for that matter--does is describe how the natural process under consideration works.

Further, your protestations that anyone who rejects your concept of a "designer" or denies that you have proven the existence of such an entity must be motivated by a desire to deny the existence of God are shallow, unconvincing and highly offensive.

I put it to you that, given those considerations, your concern is not that the theory of evolution stands in opposition to the belief that there is a God and that He and is the author of our existence. Rather, your concern must be that the theory of evolution interferes with some particular religious or theological proposition which you hold dear, and which you have not been honest in sharing with us.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

How could you know that?

I haven't read past the first page, but it seems to me an answer was given early on, and no one commented on the perfectly reasonable response...this one:

They would answer "I don't know" unless they happened to have studied Dolphins or googled it like I just did. (Apparently the tail slap is part of their communication, I imagine it helps with climbing for air too.)

Is Sanoy a creationist? I suggest you be sure before you find you may be using false info the back your cause....again.

 

[pitabread]

I haven't read past the first page, but it seems to me an answer was given early on, and no one commented on the perfectly reasonable response...this one:

There have been a few similar responses throughout the thread. One poster suggested easier copulation for dolphins, another poster suggested surface breaching.

However we're not specifically looking at just dolphin tails. The question is why dolphin and shark tails are different. So explaining how a dolphin uses its tail doesn't necessarily answer why sharks have a different kind of tail. Likewise, explaining how a shark uses its tail doesn't explain why dolphins have a different kind of tail.

At least not from the perspective of these organisms being designed by an intelligent designer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The thing is though we're not specifically looking at just dolphin tails. The question is why dolphin and shark tails are different. So explaining how a dolphin uses its tail doesn't necessarily answer why sharks have a different kind of tail. Likewise, explaining how a shark uses its tail doesn't explain why dolphins have a different kind of tail.

Here ya go, a shark doesn't slap their tail to communicate and a dolphin does. Not necessarily? Nothing here is going to "necessarily" be correct, but that's as good as any I've heard.

Oops, I almost forgot the point, or was that the whole idea, of all that? It was mentioned by what I gather is a creationist.

 

[Sanoy]

Is Sanoy a creationist?

Definitely a creationist but I'm still agnostic and searching about so much, including some layers of theistic evolution.

I haven't read past the first page or so either. One thing that is interesting though is I feel there is this expectation to give the child his answer in a form that displays the difference between the anatomy of a shark and a dolphin with purpose in mind. That is what the child is after all thinking about as children have an innately teleological world view that is unlearned or diminished later in development. So the most satisfying answer for the child is likely one with purpose in mind. It's also the most satisfying answer for the adult to give because in common vernacular we speak of things based on their purpose even though in truth we might not believe it has a purpose. So for example a naturalist might say to the child, Dolphins have horizontal tails so that they can climb better for air. (I'm just assuming that kind of tail would make that easier here). The naturalist doesn't believe that it's a purpose, it's just that teleology is hard wired into our brain and it's easier in communication to allow the word for speed of comprehension. It's just an interesting condition that the situation is best resolved in any case by using a purpose.

I'm not a marine biologist, or anything really, but I can imagine having a tail that is parallel with the vertebrae would allow more muscle connections with the tail. And the perpendicular relationship between the tail and the orientation of the teeth would compliment tearing. The shark doesn't really have the neck to tear up and down, so it needs a vertical tail. I think dolphins just gulp their food down so they don't need that kind of tail.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Definitely a creationist but I'm still agnostic and searching about so much, including some layers of theistic evolution.

I haven't read past the first page or so either. One thing that is interesting though is I feel there is this expectation to give the child his answer in a form that displays the difference between the anatomy of a shark and a dolphin with purpose in mind. That is what the child is after all thinking about as children have an innately teleological world view that is unlearned or diminished later in development. So the most satisfying answer for the child is likely one with purpose in mind. It's also the most satisfying answer for the adult to give because in common vernacular we speak of things based on their purpose even though in truth we might not believe it has a purpose. So for example a naturalist might say to the child, Dolphins have horizontal tales so that they can climb better for air. (I'm just assuming that kind of tail would make that easier here). The naturalist doesn't believe that it's a purpose, it's just that teleology is hard wired into our brain and it's easier in communication to allow the word for speed of comprehension. It's just an interesting condition that the situation is best resolved in any case by using a purpose.

Thanks for clearing the creationist thing up. Some just have a terrible time being truthful, they seem so insecure with their arguments/so in need of "whatever it takes", they don't even give it a second thought some things they say aren't true.

Anyway, I thought the answer was perfect and the other funny thing was no one responded, at least on the first page. Some things just make too much sense for the argumentative to even bother responding too.

 

[pitabread]

So for example a naturalist might say to the child, Dolphins have horizontal tales so that they can climb better for air. (I'm just assuming that kind of tail would make that easier here). The naturalist doesn't believe that it's a purpose, it's just that teleology is hard wired into our brain and it's easier in communication to allow the word for speed of comprehension.

But if the argument is that it conveys a particular advantage; say in the case of dolphin tails allowing more rapid movement through water (that's really what we're talking about here), why wouldn't sharks have the same type of tail?

After all, sharks could also benefit from rapid movement through water when it comes to ascending or descending. Maybe not for air specifically, but certainly for predation.

There are also other types of marine organisms that also benefit from rapidly reaching the surface (flying fish for example) yet also don't have horizontal tails.

Thus, these types of arguments that such-and-such a feature conveys a particular advantage isn't as satisfying when you consider other organisms that don't have the same feature but could otherwise benefit from it.

 

[pitabread]

Here ya go, a shark doesn't slap their tail to communicate and a dolphin does. Not necessarily? Nothing here is going to "necessarily" be correct, but that's as good as any I've heard.

But why would a designer want dolphins to be able to communicate in that fashion but not sharks?

Saying that a dolphin can use its tail for communication doesn't explain why a shark doesn't have the same kind of tail.

 

[dreadnought]

Evolution isn't looking for the perfect existence. Evolution isn't looking for anything. If it did, we wouldn't have mosquitoes.

I think there's something about survival written into evolution, isn't there? Species need to adapt to survive.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But if the argument is that it conveys a particular advantage; say in the case of dolphin tails allowing more rapid movement through water (that's really what we're talking about here), why wouldn't sharks have the same type of tail?

After all, sharks could also benefit from rapid movement through water when it comes to ascending or d*escending. Maybe not for air specifically, but certainly for predation.

There are also other types of marine organisms that also benefit from rapidly reaching the surface (flying fish for example) yet also don't have horizontal tails.

Thus, these types of arguments that such-and-such a feature conveys a particular advantage isn't as satisfying when you consider other organisms that don't have the same feature but could otherwise benefit from it.

Yet, no matter how much you go on, and on, and .... trying to hide it, my point remains.

 

[Sanoy]

But if the argument is that it conveys a particular advantage; say in the case of dolphin tails allowing more rapid movement through water (that's really what we're talking about here), why wouldn't sharks have the same type of tail?

After all, sharks could also benefit from rapid movement through water when it comes to ascending or descending. Maybe not for air specifically, but certainly for predation.

There are also other types of marine organisms that also benefit from rapidly reaching the surface (flying fish for example) yet also don't have horizontal tails.

Thus, these types of arguments that such-and-such a feature conveys a particular advantage isn't as satisfying when you consider other organisms that don't have the same feature but could otherwise benefit from it.

Yeah if you pick purpose A, then a Shark might benefit from trait B but it might also loose out on Purpose Y because of Trait B. So for example Sharks have teeth for tearing and laceration, but they have no vertical neck. So if they had a horizontal tail then how would they tear and lacerate their prey? It would be be easier to do so with a vertical tail that is in line with the way their teeth are positioned to lacerate*.

That is one way to look at it, but it could be completely different. Maybe dolphins have horizontal tails simply because they look better with them, or appear more playful. When you have a conscious agent involved the purpose could be completely unrelated to survival or performance. In some of those cases the answer might just be "I don't know why God did it that way".

(*I'm not a marine biologist, it just seems right mechanically to me)

 

[pitabread]

Yet, no matter how much you go on, and on, and .... trying to hide it, my point remains.

It doesn't answer the question though.

Merely describing differences doesn't explain why those differences exist.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But why would a designer want dolphins to be able to communicate in that fashion but not sharks?

Wasn't it you that said:

However we're not specifically looking at just dolphin tails. The question is why dolphin and shark tails are different.

Wasn't that already answered? The very thing you said was the subject awhile back, and indicated we were to stick with, is no longer the subject? You now move the subject to something else because it's convenient/works for you?

Are you intentionally trying to make me laugh?

 

[Kenny'sID]

It doesn't answer the question though.

It's as good as any, and as I just attested to, you are going to twist and turn this into something that you want, or don't want it to be by using the very methods I was complaining about originally.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

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

That was the original point you are trying to lose, and it is untrue, no matter how you have/will spin it, and it remains untrue. But keep talking, maybe you will eventually hit on the proper terms to make the untrue, true.

And a word to those who agree with posts such as that without giving it a second thought of whether it's true or not. You may not care, but for your own benefit, those actions speak loudly, they tend to tell folks you can't win an argument without deception, ignoring other truths. You give example of how you think, how you defend.

You defend deception, with deception, and in the process, tell anyone who is paying attention, just exactly what you are doing, and why you do it....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think there's something about survival written into evolution, isn't there? Species need to adapt to survive.

But evolution does not seek perfection. It can't seek anything because it's not a process with intelligence. It just is.

 

[xianghua]

However much I respect Dawkins(*), I think he's wrong here. To my eyes, biological systems have the appearance of function, not of design. They look the opposite of designed, in fact.

first: many biologists thinks that nature looks designed, not just dawkins. second: there is no big different between design and function. third: what do you mean by "They look the opposite of designed"?

 

[dreadnought]

But evolution does not seek perfection. It can't seek anything because it's not a process with intelligence. It just is.

If evolution is part of the Lord's scheme, I might suggest that the earth changes, and if a species doesn't evolve perfectly, extinction is the result.

 

[xianghua]

This "nondesigned" piece of art will set you back $1470.00.

Perhaps artists know something scientists don't?

i will add to this this one:

(image from https://microbeonline.com/bacterial...ortance-and-examples-of-flagellated-bacteria/)

or this one:

(image from Flagella and Cilia: Structure and Functions (With Diagram))

or this one:

(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: ATP Synthase: Advanced Look: Synthesis)

or this:

(image from June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If evolution is part of the Lord's scheme, I might suggest that the earth changes, and if a species doesn't evolve perfectly, extinction is the result.

But the organism doesn't need to be perfect. It just has to survive. Humans have a whole host of biological problems (just focusing on the body here) that keeps us far from being perfect and yet we've survived on Earth for over 3 million years (if we take Australopithecus as THE first hominid) with those problems.
Perfection does not exist in the evolutionary model, nor will it ever exist. Evolution merely states that an organism that survives long enough to pass on its genes to its young will continue to prosper.