Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Animals with bad design.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 204 (600583)
01-15-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aaron
01-15-2011 4:22 AM


But wait - how long do you think a world like that would last? If every plant and animals is perfectly equipped to fend off every potential snack seeker - nothing would get eaten, nutrients wouldn't be exchanged, the complex circle of life would come to a grinding halt.
But now you've made the idea of good design unfalsifiable. If God magicked up a fish that could only swim backwards, that would just be another brilliant idea, since then they'd be more likely to get eaten by sharks --- which is good for the sharks and helps keep the whole ecosystem going. Sure, it would be a crappy fish, but it would still be an example of God's awesome cleverness at designing things.
When it comes to creating a complex interdependent ecosystem, vulnerability is necessary to keep the whole thing going.
Well, why do so in the first place? There's nothing in the concept of life as such that requires everything to chow down on everything else. Why not make a world where "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aaron, posted 01-15-2011 4:22 AM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by barbara, posted 01-15-2011 7:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 17 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 2:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 204 (600653)
01-16-2011 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by barbara
01-15-2011 7:45 PM


Re: Predator/Prey mechanism
What do mean there is nothing in the concept of life that says living entities have to eat other living entities?
I'm not sure that there's any simpler way to put it.
This is an absolute fact of life on this planet that all living organisms must consume other living organisms to survive [...] Recycling of converting energy from predation is the only mechanism on this planet that feeds the living.
I think enough posters have commented on this howler.
Animal designs that are viewed as imperfect and the constant remarks that a "God" should have made them perfect so obviously no God created them is stupid.
Perhaps you could explain why.
It seems obvious that a perfect creator would create things perfectly.
Another way to look at this is why waste your time on designing animals perfectly when they are just going to be eaten anyway?
Well, again, there's that "perfect" thing.
God doesn't have to settle for just good enough, he doesn't have to be lazy or cut corners, he doesn't have to economize on his effort or resources. He's God.
Perfection does not occur in life forms because the food web of recycling energy would not be successful.
Like the original poster, you seem to have eliminated the possibility of distinguishing good design from bad design. Badly designed prey is well-designed because the bad design means predators can catch it. Badly designed predators are well-designed because that means that they can't eat all the prey animals. Any design flaw, no matter how crass and stupid, could be represented as a good thing from some point of view.
---
I found it hard to follow some of your remarks, especially since they seemed to be unrelated to the post to which you were supposed to be replying, so for now I have passed over them in silence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by barbara, posted 01-15-2011 7:45 PM barbara has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 204 (601956)
01-25-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
Besides the dinosaurs, I can't think of many extinct species that don't have an extant branch.
May i congratulate you on your broad and deep ignorance of biology. With that amount of unfounded ignorance to your credit, a lucrative career in writing creationist pamphlets awaits you.
Of course, you will have to be a complete fucking moron, but on the other hand it's easy work and the money's good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Aaron, posted 01-30-2011 12:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 204 (602686)
01-30-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Jon
01-30-2011 1:34 PM


God Hides
I find the 'bad design' arguments against design akin to the 'argument from evil' against the existence of God; quite frankly I think both of those arguments suck: those who present them pretend to know the will of One whose will is by definition unknowable to man.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Jon, posted 01-30-2011 1:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Jon, posted 01-31-2011 12:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 62 of 204 (602700)
01-30-2011 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Aaron
01-29-2011 3:59 AM


Extinction
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Aaron, posted 01-29-2011 3:59 AM Aaron has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 204 (602977)
02-01-2011 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Jon
01-31-2011 12:27 PM


Re: God Hides
Falsifiability is only a requirement of scientific claims.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Jon, posted 01-31-2011 12:27 PM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 74 of 204 (603002)
02-02-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Aaron
02-02-2011 2:59 AM


Re: Whale legs
That's a musing with no substance. Whales have mammal features - but they clearly have an optimal body design for living in the water ...
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?
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.
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.
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.
See below.
Interestingly, Philip Gingrich mentioned to me in an email correspondence that Basilosaurus isn't considered a direct ancestor of whales.
"BASILOSAURUS IS UNUSUALLY SPECIALIZED IN HAVING GREATLY ELONGATED VERTEBRAE GIVING IT A SNAKE-LIKE BODY FORM. ... SO IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY THAT LATER WHALES EVOLVED FROM DORUDON OR SOMETHING LIKE IT. YOU ARE RIGHT THAT BASILOSAURUS PROBABLY DIED OFF AND NEVER EVOLVED INTO ANYTHING ELSE."
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.
---
Amazingly all the major body changes supposedly took place within 10 million years ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Aaron, posted 02-02-2011 2:59 AM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Aaron, posted 02-08-2011 1:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 204 (603069)
02-02-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Granny Magda
02-02-2011 12:56 PM


Now okay, Darwin got the bear bit wrong ...
He wasn't actually claiming that whales were descended from bears, it was just an illustration of the sort of thing descent with modification might achieve.
If you want to criticize his example, say rather that the earliest whales were not filter feeders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Granny Magda, posted 02-02-2011 12:56 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 02-03-2011 5:44 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 84 of 204 (603837)
02-08-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Aaron
02-08-2011 1:41 AM


Re: Whale legs
Can you give me some specifics about what whale species went extinct because it couldn't breathe underwater?
Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of whaling, which relies on whales surfacing to breathe, but no whale species has been driven to extinction by whaling, though some have come mighty close.
The lung breathing of whales goes hand in hand with being warm blooded, having large hearts and large brains. These features allow whales to occupy territory that equivalently shaped gill breathing fish could not.
There are warm-blooded fish, notably some species of tuna.
If God was looking to fill every ecological niche with the right mix of predators and food species ...
Where the "right mix" is determined how?
Were species now extinct necessary or unnecessary to this "right mix"?
This study here mentions that while the "limb buds" are present, they express the protein Fgf8. This protein is an important embryonic growth inducer utilized in the proper alignment of the anterior-posterior axis and shape of the embryo. It is also involved with mesoderm develoment. Far from useless, these buds induce the formation of important parts of the body [...] The "pelvic" bones and "leg-like" nubs of modern whales are muscle anchors for reproductive organs and assist in tail movement (as I've said before) - so they are essential to their lives.
But again, you're tacitly assuming that things have to be that way. A creator God starts with a blank sheet of paper. And yet somehow the best way that omnipotence can come up with to make a whale involves giving it what look just like vestiges of terrestrial ancestry. Why?
Now, I do know why they're there. Evolution offers a simple answer. I have yet to hear your answer.
The long serpentine shape of basilosaurus would have made underwater mating difficult. Most reports I read of their hind leg use say they would have been used in mating to help clasp the male and female together.
The same probably goes for dorudon. If it was a shorter offshoot of basilosaurus it would have retained its hind legs even if they weren't as necessary for its shorter body.
And again, God starts with a blank sheet of paper. And yet when designing organs to clasp serpentine whales together during sex, his mighty omnipotent brain told him that the best solution would be a variation of the hind legs of tetrapods as used by them for walking.
Why was this the best solution?
Again, evolution makes the answer simple. I know why these structures look like itsy-bitsy hind legs of land mammals, but I want to hear your answer.
Unlike modern whales, Dorudon and basilosaurus lacked the melon organ used in echolocation. They also had much smaller brains.
Yeah. It's like they were primitive whales.
Now let's hear your explanation of why God in his wisdom withheld the melon organ from Dorudon.
'Course, I know why early whales wouldn't be so well adapted to the whale lifestyle as modern whales --- the question is trivial --- but let's hear the creationist view.
That's a near direct quote from our friend Jerry Coyne: "the evolution of whales from land animals was remarkably fast: most of the action took place within only 10 million years."
Why do you think otherwise?
You didn't say that you were only talking about land-animal-to-whale evolution, and I misunderstood you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Aaron, posted 02-08-2011 1:41 AM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Aaron, posted 02-16-2011 4:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 204 (603839)
02-08-2011 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Aaron
02-08-2011 2:10 AM


One quick thought on the vestigial argument.
As several have pointed out, vestigial doesn't necessarily mean "useless" - it just means "it doesn't do what it originally did." Certainly, none of the structures you mentioned are useless.
So then, without an empirical way of determining whether something used to do something completely different - the "truth" of vestigiality is hung on the "truth" of evolution.
It seems that an assertion like "The existence of vestigial structures is evidence of evolution" is begging the question.
Its like saying "Evolution predicts vestigial structures. This structure is vestigial - so evolution is true."
However, something can only be termed vestigial in the first place if evolution is true.
Well, yes and no.
Properly speaking, if we're arguing for evolution we ought to talk about "things that look exactly like vestigial structures" or some such phrase. (You will note that I have been using such phrases). They are evidence for evolution, and stand as evidence for evolution without having to presuppose that they are the products of evolution.
Once we have been convinced by this and other lines of evidence that evolution has in fact taken place, then we can interpret them as not merely looking, but actually being, vestigial.
But the problem you raise is merely linguistic, and not (as you seem to think) substantive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Aaron, posted 02-08-2011 2:10 AM Aaron has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 204 (603902)
02-08-2011 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Blue Jay
02-08-2011 12:43 PM


Re: Whale legs
Every scientific name promotes a theory.
Yes, but he has a point. It's no use telling him that Basilosaurus is considered a whale if he doesn't believe it; you might as well tell him that evolution is considered true.
---
What I should like to ask him is what animals he considers to be whales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Blue Jay, posted 02-08-2011 12:43 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2011 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 101 of 204 (605115)
02-17-2011 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Aaron
02-16-2011 4:18 AM


Re: Whale legs
Tuna can swim in water down to 43 degrees, but whales can swim in much colder water - as cold as 0 degrees.
The information I can find on this subject on the internet is confused, contradictory, unreferenced and included the following little gem of stupid:
Unlike most fish, tuna are warm-blooded and can heat their bodies up to 6 C (43 F) warmer than the surrounding water.
I'll let you know if I can find anything not made up by idiots.
Are you aware of the role whales play in the circle of life?
Yes.
That doesn't answer my question.
How are you determining the "right mix"?
Will you tell us that if there were no whales, you'd be going around saying: "Well, clearly there's no Creator, because there was he'd have made these, like, big blubbery aquatic mammals that eat krill"?
Or if there were unicorns, would you be saying: "Ah, there's no Creator, because he definitely wouldn't have made those"?
I'm sure every creature played a crucial role in the echosystem.
It can't have been that crucial, because apparently we can do without them.
I heard one ecologist explain it like this: you might not realize a difference when one or ten species goes extinct, due to ecological overlap - but if too many species go extinct, you will reach a critical minimum level where widespread collapse of ecological systems is soon to follow.
And yet we can apparently do without the trilobites, the ceratopians, the giant ground sloths, the ichthyosaurs, the Small Shelly Fauna of the Tomotian, the pelycosaurs, the brontotheres ...
Once God determined what the physical and chemical properties of the universe would be, his creation in that universe followed those guidelines. In essence, everything is drawn on the same universal sheet of paper and must follow the guidelines of that paper. Under the current properties of chemistry and biology, embryos develop in a stepwise manner where certain body parts and signals induce the formation of other body parts and signals. [...] So, as suggested previously, perhaps it was necessary for whale embryos to have a transient structure to assist in the development of other body parts. Transient structures are not uncommon in development.
But again this is all very ad hoc. You can always postulate (though, I will wager, never demonstrate) some as yet undiscovered law of biology that means it has to be whatever way it is, or isn't. If whales gained and then lost vestigial feathers, you could answer me in just the same way.
Again, you are just adding unevidenced postulates under which what looks like bad design is unbeknownst to us good design.
And a better solution would have been.... velcro? What should the appendage look like to keep you from thinking it's a tetrapod remnant?
Anything at all that doesn't look exactly like a tetrapod remnant.
Why, out of all the conceivable things that can clasp things together, does it have to be something that looks exactly like a pair of itty-bitty legs?
Suppose we find a man using what looks exactly like a bicycle, minus its wheels, as a boat anchor. I say: "Look, that man is using an old bicycle as a boat anchor". You say: "I have reason to believe that that man is the greatest mechanical genius who ever lived; after spending many decades studying what shape would be the best possible boat anchor (given the laws of nature obtaining in our universe) he designed that". I say: "No, I think it's an old bicycle because it looks exactly like one, and, really, what are the odds that the ideal boat anchor would be exactly that shape, down to the little bell and the grocery basket?" You exclaim in disgust: "What should the anchor look like to keep you from thinking it's an old bicycle?"
Well, like anything but an old bicycle.
You have doubts about the purpose of certain structures. I provide some potential insight - and your answer is "That can't be the best way. Why didn't God do it a different way?" This takes the discussion away from science and into your subjective opinion of why God doesn't act in a way that you find logical.
I don't think I said that it "can't be the best way" about anything.
What I want to know from you is why it should be "the best way" and why "the best way" is always consistent with the theory of evolution.
The same reason he didn't give Dorudon wings - it was a shallow water predator who didn't need them ...
Shallow water predators don't need echolocation?
Tell that to river dolphins.
Also I would point out that as their fossils have been found in North America as well as Egypt and Pakistan it seems unlikely that they were confirmed shore-huggers.
It goes back to the very first post - an assumption that God must give every creature every possible survival tool. God was creating ecological niches with unique creatures. Why do you think he would create them all the same?
I think he'd create them all "the best way". But what is that?
Look in the mirror and try just to explain the evolution of echolocation. It's a complex process with multiple structures working together in a symphony. Without the properly tuned sending organ or receiving organ, the system would be a wasteful piece of metabolic junk.
Blind people can do it without growing any special sending or receiving organs.
Do you think the absence of echolocation in Dorudon is an indictment on my position?
I think the whole darn natural world is an indictment of your position.
From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. From a creationist perspective, you just have to keep reaching after more unproven hypotheses. Maybe Dorudon didn't need echolocation ... maybe tiny legs make the best sexual claspers ... maybe the laws of the universe are such that it's impossible to have whales without embryos having hind limb buds ... maybe ... maybe ... maybe.
Here's another one for you. Baleen whale embryos grow and then lose teeth in the womb. I'm sure that you will protest that there must be some reason why that should be a good idea. But you would make exactly the same argument if they grew and then lost antlers.
Why are all God's wonderful, ineffable, unbeatable ideas consistent with evolutionary biology?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Aaron, posted 02-16-2011 4:18 AM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Aaron, posted 02-23-2011 2:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 204 (605117)
02-17-2011 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Aaron
02-17-2011 2:55 AM


I don't think my statement was false.
Vestigiality assumes a unique evolutionary ancestor by definition.
I could propose that the human appendix used to play a larger role in digesting plant matter - but that it no longer performs that role.
A digression in ability does not logically necessitate a unique evolutionary ancestor with an increased ability. It could just as easily be said that fully human ancestors had an appendix that played a higher role - but for mutational reasons, that role has been diminished.
I maintain that vestigiality is based on evolution.
Loss of function doesn't have to be based on evolution.
See post #86.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Aaron, posted 02-17-2011 2:55 AM Aaron has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 204 (605618)
02-21-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Aaron
02-21-2011 5:18 AM


Re: Whale legs
Although, packicetus is considered to be semi-aquatic - so it isn't so odd to find a bone structure that allows them to hear better underwater.
But it doesn't. The adaptations of modern whales do.
Would it make a difference if I pointed out all the differences in packicetus ear structure compared to modern whales?
Pakicetus lacked two important adaptations which are present in modern whales. In living whales, the ears contain large sinuses that can be filled with blood, allowing the animal to maintain pressure while diving. Modern whales also transmit sound vibrations to the inner ear using a "fat pad," which allows them to hear directionally underwater.
Right. The similarities are arbitrary, suggesting common descent or wild coincidence; the differences are adaptive, suggesting adaptation.
What other types of bone analysis is there? All I've heard is how closely the pelvis of whales matches the pelvis of land mammals - and here is somebody talking about the detailed differences.
Again, it's like the differences are no big deal. All that matters are the similarities. Yet, obtaining major structural changes through random mutation is no small matter.
Again the differences are explicable as adaptive. Clearly whales don't need legs that they can walk on, and natural selection would have dispensed with them just as a creator would have done.
But the similarities are baffling except as a result of common ancestry. Here's an anatomist describing a dissection of a right whale:
Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint as firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures.
Now if we take that with all the parallel cases in other animals, the whole "God just felt like doing it that way for some unknown reason" hypothesis looks distinctly flakey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Aaron, posted 02-21-2011 5:18 AM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Aaron, posted 02-25-2011 3:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 127 of 204 (605998)
02-23-2011 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Aaron
02-23-2011 2:57 AM


Re: Whale legs
These theoretical questions are a bit difficult. We can only examine and explain what we see. If there were no such thing as whales, I wouldn't ask "why are there no whales?" You don't like my answers about what DOES exist. How am I supposed to discuss a reality that DOESN'T exist.
Well, if you want to claim that nature looks like the perfect product of a perfect designer, then you need to have some idea of what would constitute an imperfect design.
Well, its a good thing there are other creatures who play a similar ecological role. Nice to know there are "back-up" creatures.
So ... it was perfect then and it's perfect now?
You might say that evolution is limited in what it can or can't do. That's great to say when looking at one thing - but then you turn around and trust the near limitless power of evolution to produce massive body changes like transforming a stubby forearm into a wing.
That doesn't require "near limitless power". Not even near near limitless power. A wing is a forearm tweaked --- the homologies are very, very obvious.
To give tetrapods wings that were designed from scratch would have taken "near limitless power". But for some reason the Creator decided that the very very best wings he could make for tetrapods involved variations on the same design that he used for the front legs of other tetrapods.
From an evolutionary perspective, the reason why is obvious. For a creationist, it must be just another of those things God likes to do.
Dorudon lived in the open sea - hunting in shallow clear waters.
Do you have any evidence for this or are you making it up as you go along?
That is remarkable, but there is no comparison between what a blind person can do and what a whale can do. Are you denying that whales have special organs for echolocation?
No, my point is that they don't have to start with special organs --- they can start with no special organs or "programming" of the brain at all, and build on that.
Fortunately I don't have to defend the loss of antlers in whales.
But you could if you wanted to. It would just be God Moving In Mysterious Ways again.
A 1995 paper that explored the role of tooth buds in baleen whales suggests the degradation of the tooth buds may induce the formation of baleen. Development and physiological degradation of tooth buds and development of rudiment of baleen plate in southern minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata - PubMed
And once more God in his infinite wisdom couldn't find any way to achieve his purpose (in this case, baleen) that wasn't consistent with evolutionary biology.
Why couldn't it have been the degradation of antlers that triggers the formation of baleen? I know, but you just have to have faith that this way just happened to be the best --- just like all God's ineffably perfect methods turn out to be consistent with evolution.
I can point to the same proving grounds you can. How does an evolutionist know what the "best" arrangement of pieces is? The arrangement that survives. Millions of years have a way of sorting out the best way from the inadequate way. The fossils we find represent the species that lasted for millions of years, not the hampered mutants that came and went. It would be hard to argue that what we see isn't a great solution to the problem. As far as "best"? That becomes hypothetical. How do we know what might be "better" if it doesn't exist? You may be able to imagine a better solution - but unless that idea can be tested in the wild, you don't know if your better solution might actually be worse.
Well, we can in many cases say a priori what would and wouldn't be good. For example, an animal with a lifestyle involving lots of rapid swimming would do well to be streamlined. But to the extent that your statement is true, and there is certainly an element of truth in it, I would point out that evolution has other constraints.
Since "with God all things are possible", the only way that creationism would have any predictive power with respect to anatomy is if you did have some clear idea of what would constitute good design.
Evolution is constrained by history as well as by natural selection. For example, at least one of the following is true:
* Placental mammals have vestigial genes for producing egg-yolk proteins.
* Placental mammals have vestigial genes for producing feathers.
Which? If we adopt a creationist view and then follow our natural instincts as to what constitutes good design, then we would think that neither would be true. In that case, creationism has predictive power but would be wrong.
If we adopt a creationist view and furnish ourselves with your methods of making excuses, then either, neither, or both could be true. In which case creationism evades being wrong only by virtue of having no predictive power.
And if we adopt a evolutionary point of view, we know that only one of them is possible, and the other is completely impossible. And it is only the possible one which occurs. Evolution has predictive power and is correct.
And this sort of thing makes the evolutionary view more compelling. The very best that you can do is to protect your hypothesis by rendering it vacuous with respect to what we might or might not observe in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Aaron, posted 02-23-2011 2:57 AM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Aaron, posted 03-04-2011 4:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024