Animals with bad design.

Granny M, Relatively non-essential? Perhaps you should reread the post by Dr. Mead. If reproduction is non-essential, none of us would be here. Mead also mentions sexual dimorphism.The Mead quote had no mention of pelvic similarities or dissimilarities. He just called it a pelvis. I'll call it a pelvis too from now on. Calling it a pelvis doesn't mean its a remnant from a four legged ancestor's pelvis.You might also reread the quote I posted about pelvic comparisons. The one that starts "The pelvis is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals. "The reason you call something a pelvis isn't because it is a current or vestigal feature of four-leggedness. Some fish have a pelvis - they don't have four legs - neither did their ancestors. They are called a pelvis because of the general shape and general region. This is curious. I'll be contacting a marine biologist about it. Could be that the variations are related to habitat or other behaviors.Interestingly, the species with the most complex pelvis is the bowhead whale. A unique behavior of this whale is that it breaks through the sea ice from time to time. Mead mentioned that the pelvic extensions (what you would call the femur) form an anchor point for the ischiocaudalis muscle - which is linked to tail locomotion. Perhaps this particular muscle/bone arrangement assists the bowhead in breaking through the ice.Similar pelvis bones are found in other fin whale species. Another unique feature of this branch of whales is that they lack dorsal fins - which acts as a swimming stabilizer in other whales. Could be the extra pelvis structures provide muscular attachments to provide extra swimming stability.In general, all baleen whales have a more elaborate pelvis structure than toothed whales. How would you explain this? That doesn't fit the linear progression of whale evolution. They say baleen whales evolved from toothed whales. If whale physiology was changing in a linear fashion, toothed whales would have more femur leftovers - and their descendants would have little or no femur leftovers. I know, I know, not everything evolves in a linear fashion... But that's exactly the claim being made when it comes to whales and the line of ancestors - pieces evolving in a linear fashion.Indeed, how could the excess nubs and pieces on a whale pelvis be leg bones? The study I referenced before showed that neither of the proteins essential to limb growth were present in the embryonic limb bud. If there are no signals for making a leg - a leg isn't going to grow - not a leg nub - not anything.Pelvic bones develop in a completely different way and have their own protein signals, such as Pax1 and Alx4. You're right that "perfect" is difficult to wrap our minds around - and probably isn't a useful word. Everybody's definition of "perfect" is different.Instead of "perfect," I'll say the whale pelvis "works properly" for its intended purpose. Extending the pelvis 5 cm in length most likely doesn't change how the whale pelvis works - so to that I'll agree that an exact 20cm x 10cm x 5cm isn't essential to the pelvis' function - so their is some flexibility in natural selection.Under your strict definition of "perfect," would you say that a Shih Tzu jaw bone is imperfect because it's not the same size as a Dachshund jaw bone? Same animal family - different sized bones - yet they both serve the dogs well. Ok -fair enough. Some whale pelvises consist of one bone, some of several fused bones. Again, the differences could be due to different behaviors or habitats.It must be a fact of this universe that some complex bone arrangements can only form by the fusing of several pieces - the human skull and rib cage for example. Would you jump to the conclusion that the human skull is a misleading structure because it is made up of fused bones? Before you think I said something I didn't - let me clarify.I'm not saying that God made certain structures or animals perfect but for some reason, decided to limit himself when it came to other structures or animals.I'm saying that God's self-imposed limitations apply to the entire created universe and everything in it.I'm sure God could have created a universe where everything gained energy directly from His glory and every creature was invincible and immortal - but He chose not to.Decay is a property of the universe. Why did he do this? The theological answer is that He did this to set up a system where evil could be eradicated in the quickest way possible - in order to set up a universe where everything does receive "energy" directly from Him.

Razd,That was a very thorough post on the subject.Here's a few of my quips with cladistics. So, evolutionists harp on the similarities that prove their point - the ones that fall in line with what they already think is the case.Like vestigial organs, homologies aren't in themselves proof of evolution - because the term "homologous" is defined by evolutionary relationships - it only has meaning if the theory is already true. It's like using an idea contingent on the validity of the theory to prove the theory.I think the most that can be said of homologous structures is that they are an interesting fact of nature. Of course, like other observations, homologies are routinely said to only make sense under an evolution paradigm.As Jerry Coyne elegantly states:
"In such a case (of special creation), organisms would not have common ancestry, but would simply result from an instantaneous creation of forms designed de novo to fit their environments. Under this scenario, we wouldn't expect to see species falling into a nested hierarchy of forms that is recognized by all biologists."What is the claim being made here? That if everything was specially created, there wouldn't be any two organisms that share any physical or genetic similarities? That God wouldn't create organisms that fall into specific categories? That within each category (bird, fish, lizard) there would only be one single animal - and any variation on a theme can only be understood by evolution?I wonder what Jerry expects a created world to look like. Should one animal be carbon based and another be silicon based? (even though carbon has better chemical properties for complex organisms) Should one animal have traditional tube shaped bones and another have triangular shaped bones? Should some animals have traditional base pairs in their DNA and another have completely different bases? If you take this notion to its logical conclusion, no two animals would have anything at all in common if creationism were true - for even the slightest commonality would be used for "proof" of evolution. This is circular reasoning. In essence: the best trees are built using characteristics inherited from a common ancestor. How do we know what the common ancestor is and what it looked like? Refer to the best phylogenic tree...Yale professor Stephen Stearns pointed out the logical dilemma in building trees:
"You need some traits. The traits that are useful are shared with members of a group but derived from the ancestor. You can only define "derived" by comparison to the "primitive" form - the primitive form being found closer to the base of the tree. But you can't do that without a tree. There's kind of a paradox. Without a tree, you have no way of knowing what came first - and you don't know what state is primitive and what is derived."

​

"A solution is to make a tree that would be most likely to give you the data that you did observe."This is the principal of Maximum Likelihood - a common practice of inventing trees that fit your evolution preconceptions. I do agree that phylogenic trees can be good at explaining animal diversity. I wouldn't say that God created every beetle species that now exists - or every bat species - or every plant species. Mutations, adaptations, and diversification is a given - I'm not arguing against the concept in general. It hasn't been done on the page you linked to. Dr. Gingerich made a complete tree of archaic and modern whales based on a single trait - one bone in the ankle - a trait that no modern whales have, yet he still uses that non-existent trait to link them in the same clade as the whale "ancestors" that have ankles.Let me give you a little test to see if evolution is as clear cut and predictive as you all imply.Try and place each three in their proper relationship on the tree of life. Which is more closely related to which? (note: both bacteria and archaea lack a nucleus, interior membranes, and organelles) As Dr. Stearns also pointed out: "Traits can conflict with each other and the information they give you - and they often do."

Ringo, Unless the submarine also cruises along the ocean floor - then the wheels would be useful. No whale structure we've been discussing is useless.

Bluejay, I'm about to get on a little tangent - but I see a difference between the ToE explaining differences and expecting differences.The ToE is a framework for explaining the differences - but I don't know that you could say that it expects or predicts change.If you could travel back to the beginning, an atheistic ToE would expect an eternal equilibrium of nothingness - not the evolution from big bang to elements to earth.You wouldn't predict that molecules would independently form the first replicating cell.From a purely theoretical standpoint, a theistic view based on a Designer would predict a vast array of biological diversity - an atheistic view of strictly natural forces couldn't reliably predict that any diversity would develop. I wasn't implying that. I just gave the tuna speed as an example of the benefits of maintaining higher body heat on motor/chemical abilities. Good question. These "land mammal" traits certainly haven't hindered them though. Couldn't you say that their presence as the largest predator in the ocean and widest global distribution of any other mammal is proof enough that they're doing something right? You have to have the right mix of features in order to maximally exploit the ocean's resources and grow to be the largest marine creatures. Of course, leave it to man's overhunting to bring them to their knees (figuratively speaking of course). But, manta rays don't have the distribution range of whales. You could make the same claim about a number of other links in the food chain. Why are there 10 species of African carnivores when only one species could do the job? Why are there so many types of insects that help pollinate flowers? But, you expect variation from a design/artist paradigm.I think its pretty clear though in nature that when one species begins to overpopulate a habitat - the effects are never good. In fact, there are epigenetic mechanisms that limit reproductive rates in species when a species' population become too dense. The echosystem is strengthened by deep diversity. But, ID isn't based primarily on "good design" or "optimality." It doesn't say "this is the best possible design - so it must have been designed." ID says that we can recognize design - and design implies a designer. Even if somebody makes the claim that an organism or a structure is "bad design" - there is still the underlying understanding that the thing in question has a design. You wouldn't call a rock a "bad design" because you know it was formed by random processes and there is no "goal" or "purpose" to the rock. A "bad design" label can only be thrown at complex, purposeful systems. All biological organisms exhibit complex systems of small parts that work together in a specified and complex way towards an overall purpose. That is the common criticism - but it's not accurate. ID specifically forms opinions based on what we DO know - not what we DON'T know about science. We do know how to recognize design when it comes to man made objects vs. naturally created objects. We do know that intelligence is the only empirically verified cause behind specific/complex designs. We have experiments that give us an idea of the abilities and limitations of natural selection. We know what ingredients are necessary for the first replicating cell - and we know from experimentation that you can't get all the necessary ingredients to form in the same testing environment. (some experiments can generate amino acids - some generate long chain fatty acids - but an environment that might be good to form one necessary substance can also prohibit the formation of another necessary substance.)Darwinism has as many unknown details as you might accuse creationism of - but you are right - scientists haven't waited to figure out all the answers before accepting evolution. Yes, this makes biological optimality a hypothetical issue - partly because there is so much biological diversity. It makes it possible to compare two different organisms and see how they do things. You might even suggest that creature A would be more "optimal" if it had features from creature B - but that may just be a subjective assertion - and it certainly isn't testable.On the other hand, optimality is a much clearer issue when it comes to the cosmos. Astronomy isn't my strongest subject - but I know there are a number of anthropic principles that earth is privy to. Unlike the diversity in the animal kingdom, there is only one known planet that possess life - which has helped astronomers calculate the necessary conditions for planetary life - from proximity to the sun, to the presence of water, to specific planetary elements, to our proportionally large moon, and even the presence of large perimeter planets like Jupiter which protects the earth from space debris. You may be able to change the size of a whale's pelvis by a few cm without affecting function, but if you change the axis of the earth's rotation by the same degree, you wind up with a planet unsuitable for life. It's hard to argue against the earth being optimal for biological life.The earth/moon/sun system is a complex system with all the specifics finely tuned for life - which is strong evidence for a designer.

You get that from reading what I've written?I wasn't trying to lay out a complete creationist theory with all the ins and outs.My whole purpose in starting the thread was to refute complaints of bad design. We talked about the tail bud in another thread:EvC Forum: How creationism explains babies with tails

Dr. Adequate, I think I've gone out of my way to try and say that just because the designer is perfect - it doesn't mean that he is logically bound to create perfect creatures. I don't think perfection isn't something we can measure. I could say that plant photosynthesis is "perfect" - but you could think of a hypothetically better variation where a plant generates more energy from the sun and can store it longer.I don't think any created thing can ever be "perfect." Only God is.Since we've only been focusing on whales, do you consider tiny legs on a Dorudon an example of imperfect design? However you interpret them vestigially- they fulfilled a purpose. Do you think they are imperfect because they made you believe in evolution? It worked then and it works now. If we lose a significant amount of species it will work less well. How about going from a single celled aquatic organism to a bird?
That's pretty amazing power, eh? So if you add time - THEN evolution has near limitless power. Again, this is not an attack on the "perfection" of the wing design and how well wings work. This is an attack on how similar the structures are - which is apparently bad because it makes you think of evolution.What would a better wing be? One with different shaped bones so you didn't think of evolution?
Why is bone structure your sticking point. Maybe God should have put unique muscles and organs in each creature just so you wouldn't think they evolved. Making it up of course. I just barely started to do some reading on this.Here's an interesting tid-bit:Bees also have the vitellogenin gene - which has nothing to do with egg yolks. It is a glycolipoprotein - used to transport lipids. Bees use it to store food in their bodies and as an antioxidant - and they didn't get it from their lizard ancestor. Actually, that's pretty much how it went... I'm pretty sure they also said "by jingo!" I didn't do the calculations. I referred to the paper. Are you saying that the right mutations were able to happen because we now have whales? and the only way you can have a whale is by mutations? I never claimed I knew more about whales than he. I cited people who know more about whales and function of the pelvis than he. I can dissect a whale and be no more an expert than I am now. It takes someone who is familiar with whale anatomy and behavior to say what the bones are used for. The only reason we got on the topic of whale legs is because someone used them as evidence of bad design. The solutions of evolutionary biology is that time will produce organisms that look ideally designed for their environment. If there was a "better" design for the arm, flipper, and wing, certainly it would have evolved by now, wouldn't it? The truth is that the current design works very well. It meets the needs of the organism. Why wouldn't God use a design that works well?Evolution predicts step-wise solutions that lead to a powerfully functional design - limited only by the laws of physics.Why would the creation solution be any different - only that God started with the powerfully functional design?Darwin said: "How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organization to another part, and to the conditions of life, and of one distinct organic being, been perfected? ... In short, we see beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part of the organic world."I am looking at the big picture. You want to focus on the mysterious bones in the whales hind quarters and say they are proof that there isn't a designer.I'm looking at the whale as a whole, saying that it is a creature beyond the constructive ability of random mutations.You focus on one animal and wonder why it also doesn't have echolocation. Obviously proof that there isn't a designer.I'm looking at the broader ecological structure and noting that a well designed circle of life is based on creatures that don't have every conceivable ability and adaptation.I wish I had more time to respond to everybody's questions quicker. I try not to dish out cliche one-liners. I try to be thorough and do my research.

Hi Granny and everyone else,I disappeared for a while to do some research on whale anatomy.I got really caught up in it and delved as deep as I could go.I've posted some of my findings in a new post. It is extremely long - but not as long as the full report I am still working on.Enjoy.EvC Forum: Creationist response to cetacean femur, leg atavism, and limb bud.