Animals with bad design.

This makes the God hypothesis unfalsifiable. Whatever the universe looks like, you could still claim it to be the work of a wise and beneficent God who knows better than us what sort of things are wise and beneficent things to do.Of course in particular this cuts the Argument From Design off at its knees. It's not persuasive to say that things look like the product of an intelligent designer if following this argument through forces you to end up making the concept of an intelligent designer so vague that you could say that about anything. And this is in fact what "bad design" arguments force creationists to do.Meanwhile the concept of evolution has actual predictive power. We know what sort of things it should be good at and what sort of things it should be bad at.---In the case of morality the problem is even more acute; but that would be a question for a different thread.

Your musings on extinction seem vulnerable to the more general criticisms I made in post #7 --- criticisms which I do not think that you properly answered, and which I will repeat with respect to this specific case: (1) Unfalsifiability. Back in the day, creationists (John Ray comes to mind) cited the supposed fact that no species had ever gone extinct as evidence that they were the product of a perfect creator.But now that you guys know that species have gone extinct, you just have to say: aha, but what if species going extinct is a really good idea in ways unknown to us, and is just the sort of thing which a perfect creator would do?And you could say that about anything --- oblong fish, birds that are scared of heights, mice that can only walk backwards, anything.And when you have to do that, as apparently you do, then the Argument From Design is dead, and you wrote its suicide note. (2) Placing arbitrary limits on God. You seem to be tacitly supposing that God had to make a world somewhat similar to the one we actually live in. Well, an omnipotent creator with the whole universe as his blank slate lies under no such necessity.Take your green algae. We can perfectly well imagine a situation in which individuals neither die nor multiply until they have exceeded their resources. (For example, Heaven is traditionally imagined to be such a state.)A human designing an ecosystem would have that problem --- but God gets to start from scratch. It's fatuous to write as if God had to work within natural limitations, when he chose the limitations that would exist within nature. The best you can do is suggest that perhaps for some reason he wanted to do so, at which point we're back at point (1).

Falsifiability is only a requirement of scientific claims.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Organisms break down all of the time, and well short of the 5 million year mark. I think they call it "death". In fact, the average car well outlasts a goldfish, as one example. What definition of perfection were you using? Like others have said, if both good design and bad design are evidence of God then you are pushing a dogmatic belief, not a testable scientific hypothesis. In a well designed world there wouldn't be a need for an exchange of nutrients amongst biological life. Not if they were perfectly designed. I know that when I grow cells at the wrong temperature and conditions and they all die my boss usually blames me.

This is slightly off the design discussion, but I just wanted to respond to a few of Granny M's points: Exactly the right shape: The whale "femur" is a 5mm nodule fused to the "pelvis." The femur of its ancestors would have been closer to a foot long and not fused to the pelvis.Exactly the right place: Generally speaking, except that the whale "pelvis" isn't connected to the backbone. I can understand how these bones can be a tricky. Jerry Coyne seemed a little confused in his handling of the subject in his book on evolution.On page 48 he mentions whale's "vestigial traits like their rudimentary pelvis and hind legs..." as proof of land dwelling ancestors.In the very next paragraph he mentions the unique features of whales that set them apart from terrestrial mammals, such as "the absence of rear legs." I would hardly call the nub of bone a "leg." The only reason it is called such is because of a supposed evolutionary heritage - not because it resembles anything close to a leg. Funny, how functionality seemed so important to you before:You said: ...... "resemble a limb" - again see pictureSo, if God chose to put a "w" shaped bone in its place you wouldn't think the whale descended from land dwelling mammals?What if the shape of the whale "pelvis" is the most ideal shape for its purpose? Do you think God should have changed the shape anyway just so you wouldn't confuse it with a Rodhocetus pelvis and femur? (which I know can be easy to do) Really? Outside of dolphins, whales have a host of unique physical characteristics not found in other animals, such as flukes, kidney alterations, mammary gland alterations for underwater nursing, unique skin type, lung adaptations, blowholes, short neck, simple conical teeth, etc...

Hi, Aaron.Good to see you back. I'm not very impressed with Jerry Coyne, either: I saw him in person last year (promoting his new book), and I felt like he gave a poor talk. I didn't buy the book.----- I wasn't really interested in getting this technical about what is a limb and what isn't, but, I suppose there's no point running from it anymore.This idea that the cetacean "pelvis" is a vestigial limb isn't just based on a presupposition that evolution has occurred. There are also embryological studies done that show that those little "nubs" on cetacean skeletons start out as limb buds that look identical to the limb buds that later develop into the hind limbs of other mammals.There is also the small matter of fossilized whales in which the tiny "pelvis" and tiny "femur" are attached to a tiny "tibia" and "fibula," which are then attached to a set of tiny "metatarsals" and "tarsals" and "phalanges." It is decidedly less rational to deny that this structure is a "leg."See here for a good explanation of the evidences that the whale's "pelvis" is actually a pelvis, and that its "femur" is actually a femur. That page also contains numerous links to other resources on the topic.So, Granny's comment about cobbling parts together is in reference to the observation that the structure for supporting whale genitalia seems to have been made from a mammalian pelvis, rather than custom-made for the role it was intended to play.----- I should point out that we expect whale to have unique physical characteristics not found in other animals. The Theory of Evolution is, after all, a theory of change, and, if species didn't have unique characteristics, it would be hard to suggest that any change happened.Also, many of these unique traits are just variations on mammalian or tetrapod traits. For example: Mammary glands: That whales have these at all is telling.
Blowholes: These are just are displaced nostrils. You can actually watch them gradually move from the tip of the muzzle to the top of the head as you go from Ambulocetus, through Rhodocetus and Basilosaurus to modern whales.
Neck: Although cetacean necks are short, they still have 7 cervical vertebrae, like all mammals (except sloths and manatees).
Teeth: Although cetacean teeth are simple and conical, they still have deep sockets and innervations like mammal teeth.All of these characteristics suggest that God took a mammal and made it into a marine animal, rather than custom-designed a marine animal specifically as a marine animal.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Perhaps it would be a good time to remind everyone of the definition that Charles Darwin used:"An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... "The whale pelvis no longer serves it's primary function. It no longer serves as an anchoring point for the hind limb which propels the organism. The whale pelvis no longer helps to bear the weight of the organism. The only function that the whale pelvis has is to serve as a rudimentary anchoring point for muscles. So yes, the whale pelvis is vestigial even if it does have a rudimentary function compared to homologous structures in other species.I also used non-biological examples in past posts. Most would say that a TV with a 5 bullet holes through the tube is useless. However, it could be used as a boat anchor so it does have function. Does this mean that the bullet ridden TV is a good design for a boat anchor just because it can act as a boat anchor?

That's not the 10 examples you asked for, but it directly addresses what i think is one of your qualms - how life goes on despite the 99.9% extinction rate.

And so making creationism unfalsifiable makes it no longer fit even to be considered as a candidate scientific claim; rendering it inferior to, for example, evolution, which is a candidate --- and, indeed, the current incumbent.

Hi barbara,

1. Pelycodus ralstoni
2. P. mckennai
3. P. trigonodus
4. P. abditus
5. P. jarrovi
6. P. frugivorous (additional descendant species not shown)
7. Notharctus venticolis (additional descendant species not shown)
8. Copelemur proetus
9. C. feretutus
10. C. consortutus (additional descendant species not shown)

These are all extinct species. There are more, however these are all nicely shown on the following graphic showing fossil distribution in time at specific locations. From Phil Gingrich and R.A. Haskin, U of MThis shows the fossil evidence of each species descending from the previous ones that go extinct. This is exactly the pattern that is expected from - predicted by - descent with modification: not just successive generations of fossils, but gradual change in hereditary traits from one generation to the next, with the "trendency" of overall evolution showing the staggered "drunken" walk expected from - predicted by - evolution as a response mechanism rather than a directed process with a goal.Note that this shows a speciation event in the fossil record. From evolution we would not expect to see good design, rather we would expect to see transitions of organisms with varying degrees of success at adapting to the opportunities of the ecologies where they live -- ecologies that are always changing, so that the target is always moving. Couple this with evolution being a response mechanism that takes generations to select traits so evolution is always a step behind. We would expect to see organisms capable of existing, not survival of the fittest, but survival of the able to survive.This is the pattern we see, over and over and over. It's not so much that there is "bad design" compared to some poorly defined "expected ideal" design, that is the problem with the argument from design, as it seems that any Intelligent Designer/s involved just can't make up their mind/s what they want to accomplish. It's like design by committee with changing members. ... not how evolution works: individual organisms do not evolve.Each generation gives birth to individuals that are slightly different from the parent generation/s: evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Bluejay, That doesn't really say much. Very different structures can emerge from similar looking parts in various embryos. My guess is a chicken wing looks a lot like a whale flipper in early embryo stages. How different can any two mini-nubs look? Are you talking about the legs on the Basilosaurus? Certainly those are legs. Clearly they are legs. It is easy to call something a leg when it was a fully formed foot attached to it. I have a much harder time calling a bone nub a leg.Interestingly, Philip Gingrich mentioned to me in an email correspondence that Basilosaurus isn't considered a direct ancestor of whales. ... I didn't see any technical bone analysis that insists those bones must be a pelvis and femur. It's all based on evolutionary relationship and arguments of vestigial organs. That's a musing with no substance. Whales have mammal features - but they clearly have an optimal body design for living in the water - with the incredible ability to dive thousands of feet.Can you think of a mammal design that would seem more "custom designed" for deep sea life?You might be interested in listening to evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Sternberg's take on whale evolution. Amazingly all the major body changes supposedly took place within 10 million years (just slightly longer than it took us to diverge from our ape ancestor - which entails far fewer structural changes).Dr. Sternberg uses a 2007 paper to discuss how there wasn't enough time for all the necessary adaptations to take place under the mechanisms of random genetic mutation. You can here him talk about it in this mp3 .

Why use the term rudimentary? That's such a loaded evolutionary term.If those bones perfectly allow the whale's reproductive organs to properly operate - I would hardly call that a "rudimentary" function.Would you call a birds wings "rudimentary" because they can no longer grasp objects like dinosaur arms?Would you call our hands "rudimentary" because they can't swing from trees like a chimp's can?I had planned to respond to your tv anchor imagery, but I never got around to it.The problem with that example is that a tv clearly has many more parts and pieces that serve no purpose when it comes to being an anchor. It may indeed be a good anchor, but a designer wouldn't invest all those expensive components into something when they are never used.If you wanted to extend your example to biology, you'd have to show a creature like a tv anchor where the majority of its parts sit uselessly and don't contribute to the life of the organisms.

That wouldn't be this Sternberg would it ? Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia

Apart from, y'know, their inability to breathe underwater. That could be inconvenient. Indeed, it has led to the extinction of several whale species.And I don't know where you get your idea that their other features are "clearly" optimal for living in the water. Are the vestigial pelves and femurs "clearly" optimal for living underwater? Then why don't other aquatic creatures have them? Why are they limited to animals with a tetrapod heritage? I would guess that too, because a chicken wing and a whale's flipper are homologous structures.The question is, why do whales have hind limb buds from which no external structure emerges and which are re-absorbed into the body?Perhaps you will tell us that they are "clearly optimal" for life in the womb. Or perhaps they reflect the evolutionary heritage of whales. See below. Indeed, no-one has ever claimed that Basilosaurus (which you brought up and Bluejay didn't) is a likely direct ancestor of anything living today. Dorudon, you say?Let's look at its pelvis. Would you like to tell me what this structure is clearly optimal for? While doing so, bear in mind that modern whales have a much simpler and less leg-like structure. Are both the ancient and the modern form clearly optimal for living in the water? Can you say why?Evolution makes everything so lucid and simple by comparison.--- This is, of course, off-topic, but can you show me the person who supposes this so that I can laugh at him?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No it is not. It is a well defined term that is applicable to many things outside and within biology.A bullet ridden TV can serve as a rudimentary boat anchor.A keyboard missing half of it's keys can still function as a rudimentary hammer.Neither keyboards nor TV's evolved, and yet the term works perfectly to describe each situation. No, I wouldn't. Wings have a very important primary function for which they are well adapted. Using the examples above, would you say that projecting a transmitted picture is a rudimentary function of a TV since it is not involved as a boat anchor?What you need to look at is homologous structures and how those structures relate to fitness. For example, (most) birds share a homologous wing structure. From this we can deduce that the features of the wing are adapted for flight. However, in the ostrich, emu, and rhea we see the same structures but no flight. We can find other functions for the wings in these species, but they are rudimentary functions compared to the function of the same feature in other birds. The wings of ostriches, emus, and rheas is equivalent to using a bullet ridden TV as a boat anchor. Ding ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.That's exactly it. This is true of the ostrich wing, whale pelvis, human vermiform appendix, human coccyx, and a ton of other vestigial structures we can point to. Not uselessly, as the TV boat anchor shows. Each part in the TV adds weight and is therefore useful for keeping the boat in place. Try again.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.