Animals with bad design.

I'm going to post a snip from a different topic and a snip from a book and offer a few counter thoughts.Granny Magda said: In his book Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne makes a similar point: This line of thinking seems to me like a very narrow idea of what constitutes good design.First, its amusing how evolutionists like Coyne and Dawkins look at organisms and marvel at how well adapted they are - and how they appear to be designed. Oh, but before getting too carried away in awe - they bring in some aspect that seems to them like bad design.It's like sitting in a car and saying it wasn't made by a designer because the seats aren't heated, the mirrors have blind spots, and the brake pads are prone to wearing out early.You might retort "But cars are designed by humans. God's designs should be perfect in every way."What does it mean to be perfect? Let's push Jerry Coyne's suppositions further. Why didn't God create sea turtles with another set of limbs with sharp claws to fend off predators. Wings would have been nice too just in case it needs a quick getaway.Why can't mice run 60 mph to escape the swooping owl? Why aren't all plant species poisonous to fend off hungry herbivores?Ahh yes, that's more like it - a world where every species has the maximum level of offensive and defensive capabilities.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.When it comes to creating a complex interdependent ecosystem, vulnerability is necessary to keep the whole thing going.

What is your definition of good design? Or perfect design?If you take your logic to its ultimate end, the only perfect creature would be one that could never die - perfectly able to defend itself from any adversity.Again, if that was the case - and all creatures fit into your idea of perfection, there would be no exchange of nutrients. The verse you reference may include these animal pictures as metaphors of peace and harmony. The question, however, is a good one. If God is going to make a new heaven and earth one day that will be perfect, why didn't He start out with it in the first place?There have been a lot of philosophical musings on the subject - most of which deal with the issue of free will. I'm not thoroughly versed in the all the arguments. Hugh Ross wrote a book on the subject. He has some interesting podcasts that deal with how the physics of the current universe were designed to get rid of evil in the most efficient way possible. (Page not found - Reasons to Believe)The short answer to your question is that God designed this world for a specific purpose - in order to make it possible for the perfect world yet to come.

Whales have mammary glands - and only two limbs.
There are animals who don't have feathers that lay eggs. So, you think killing an animals is morally wrong? How about stepping on an ant? What's the difference?I think your evoking a post-modern moral idea and suggesting that God should be bound to it.Is it not caring for your creation by providing it food?The only alternative to living things dying for food is if all life were photosynthetic. Nature shows us quite clearly what the limitations are for organisms that live off the sun's energy. You would not have the large, complex, mobile creatures there are today.

I agree with the main premise of the statement.I believe God set up things in the beginning to adapt and evolve.I don't think every creature on earth looks exactly like it did when it was first created. I believe God endued each creature with the genetic ability to adapt to certain environments. Certainly, natural selection has played a roll in shaping the way creatures look and behave.It is possible that some environmental and genetic swings have caused creatures to change in such a way that might not look like good design.As an illustration, God didn't create English bulldogs with heads so big that they couldn't be born naturally. I understand nobody would propose this, but it goes to show that creatures possess the genetic potential for quirky body shapes that might not work well in a different environment - if the proper factors were at hand to shape them.Similarly, one guy told me people aren't designed properly because of the propensity of back problems we have today. Maybe someone would argue the same thing from seeing the rampant obesity and diabetes. I would argue that the body was designed to work properly under certain circumstances and diet. Many of the health problems we see are not from bad design, but from lack of proper nutrition and excercise.

Why exactly do you think this is an imperfection, besides the fact that "they" say it is?Perhaps it doesn't seem logical to us - but have there been any models to propose that a shorter nerve would enhance the fitness of the organism?

(hit submit too soon - edit)Edited by Aaron, : hit submit to soonEdited by Aaron, : No reason given.

Do you consider the whale "pelvis" to be two extra limbs?By definition, a limb is an external body part. Under the current universe's properties of physics and chemistry, there are only certain ways that things can operate. I don't think God would "magically" make a system able to work a certain way that defies the physics of the system.When you begin to conjecture about why God made the universe one way and not another, you are entering the realm of philosophy and theology - which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this thread - which was only to show that within the world that we know, creatures that are often touted as examples of poor design are not necessarily poor design when you consider the living world as a cohesive whole.The question goes back to why God would create creatures that have limits. I'll give you one answer from a theological perspective. If God allowed man to live forever - it wouldn't take long for the most evil men to completely rule the world. Morally corrupt men would have no problem "offing" anyone that got in their way - and soon they would be the only ones left.If you are really interested in this subject, I suggest you take a look at the link I provided earlier - if only to hear some of the answers on the other side.

Disaster area? Talk about a loaded sentiment.Is that what you think when you go outside, go scuba diving, or hike in the mountains? What a mess!? Certainly groups of animals have died off. There are species of fish that are not around today. However, as I said before, I believe God created each creature with the ability to diversify, adapt, and spread out - the core of speciation. If one fish branch dies off, that doesn't mean the original fish branch has gone extinct. Besides the dinosaurs, I can't think of many extinct species that don't have an extant branch.Regarding animal suffering - you are looking at it from a human perspective. You are reading your ideas of human suffering into the animal kingdom.

Briterican said: What do you mean by prolonged suffering? An animal that gets eaten alive? Would you feel better if an animal being eaten didn't feel any pain? Would the lack of pain receptors make the system perfect? Or the ability to escape from any prospect of pain? (which I refer back to my opening comments)Do you think the zebra that gets killed thinks to himself "why was I ever born?"What moral standard are you using to suggest that an animal eating another animal is a bad thing?Again, I think you are reading into it from your human emotional perspectives. The point I made fits within orthodox theology. People have been writing about these types of theological issues for centuries - so it is more than my opinion. You may not agree with the theology as a whole - but the promise of a world yet to come is a part of the complete creation package.However, I know this is entering the theological realm, which is a side trail.

I've seen similar images.This is getting back to atavism. Just because whales have hind bones that bear a resemblance to mammal pelvic bones - doesn't have to mean that they are.An important question to ask is if these bones have a function.Here's a clip of an email from James Mead, the Curator of Marine Mammals at the Smithsonian Institution:

Razd said: It was just a general statement to let you know my point of view. I meant endued.(Endued - definition of endued by The Free Dictionary)Some mutations is random, some is not.This is an interesting topic I've been studying. It would warrant a new thread.Consider epigenetics to start - large behavioral and structural changes in direct response to environmental factors.

If each car lasted 5 million years before breaking down (as God's designs have) - then I'd consider him an awesome designer. Your idea of perfection is a car whose parts don't wear out and never breaks down - and isn't out-competed by SUVs or trucks when the market shifts in that direction. So, how would the "best" biological engineer do things differently?Make creatures that never went extinct?How would you propose he do that? Make those creatures unable to die?If that was a possibility, can you give me a reason why God must by necessity create such a world? If God possesses all creative wisdom - is there a logical reason why He must - by necessity - create a world that is absolutely perfect in every way - according to your limited understanding of what perfection is?If God wants to create a world with limitations and death, doesn't He have the right to? Why must he conform to your opinion of perfection?These are philosophical issues as much as science issues. The argument I was addressing in this thread is a philosophical one - that God wouldn't create animals with limitations. I think the argument falls flat on both philosophical and scientific grounds.The only way to avoid species going extinct is if they were indestructable. That's the only way around it. I'll repeat it again - without limitations, there would be no exchange of nutrients amongst biological life. The possibility of extinction is a potential side effect of this circle of life. Without the possibility of organisms dying - without competition amongst species - without one species keeping another in check - the intricate system of biodiversity would come to a crashing halt.Lets say that green algae fit your idea of "perfect" creatures - unable to go extinct - because they are unable to die. What would happen if they multiplied unchecked in a pond or lake? They would choke out all other forms of life. A species is just a group of animals that is physically or reproductively isolated from others like it. A founder group of giraffes can become 4 species of giraffes over time (which is in fact how many species there are today). If one of those species of giraffes lives in a climate that suddenly has a heat wave that kills of the entire species - would you consider that extinction a sign of God's failure as a designer? I said no such thing.Obviously animals have pain receptors. I wouldn't classify animal distress the same way I would human distress though. I don't believe that.

Dr. Adequate elegantly stated: That was a statement I realized I would be corrected on. I'm sure I could have thought up a bunch of extinct lineages if I took a few moments.I should have edited it out - especially if I knew it would garner a response like yours.It's not really crucial to the point I'm trying to make though.

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...

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 .