Animals with bad design.

Yes, but it isn't the thickness of the involucrum or any other adaptation to hearing underwater that made the discoverers of Pakicetus exclaim: "By Jingo, this has the ears of a whale!" You seem to be using the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. You're retrospectively calculating the odds of the mutations which actually happened to happen happening. But it seems to me that there are probably lots of ways in which to (for example) not have legs.Also I would point out that if whales still had bitty legs like Dorudon, you wouldn't be saying: "Oh, well, in that case evolution must be true", would you? You do? And all that without going to the trouble of dissecting a whale. Well, given that he dissected a whale and published a paper on whale anatomy, I'll wager that he was more of an expert on whale anatomy then you are. I don't see how you can get more expert in the anatomy of whales than by actually dissecting a frickin' whale.Give the man some credit. This still doesn't help you. Of all the things that an omnipotent God could have chosen to attach reproductive muscles to, he chose what look exactly like vestigial legs. That was the very best plan that omnipotence could come up with.Again, I know why. And you just have to think that it's another of those things.Step back, see the big picture. This isn't just about whale legs. Why is it that time and time and time again, the mighty omniscience of God always comes up with the solution conformal to evolutionary biology?It's as though you asserted that there's no such thing as gravity, things are just pushed around by invisible angels. The question that one would then ask is why the angels always push things around in a way conformal with the theory of gravity. They could push the planets round in triangular orbits. So why do they always do it in the form of an ellipse with the Sun at one focus?Surely the theory that explains the particular observations that we actually make must be held superior to the vacuous hypothesis that would explain any observations whatsoever.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In which case evolutionists would be guilty of cherry-picking --- if there was anything at all in nature which didn't "fall in line with what they already think is the case". Like vestigial features, see post #86.If you prefer, feel free to use the phrase: "structures that look exactly in every way as if they were homologous and as if evolutionists were right about everything, as usual". No, that's not the claim that's being made.The claim is that everything fits with the evolutionary paradigm. That is what you have to explain away.And I think you're smart enough to know that your latest bit of rhetoric is disingenuous. No, of course we're not claiming that to disprove evolution every aspect of every animal should have to contradict evolution. But at least some aspect of some animal ought to, surely? Like most creationists, you are trying to muddle the difference between the evidence that evolution has occurred and the evidence (in the light of evolution) as to what exactly has occurred. It's one of your permanent errors. So would you like to explain how you draw the line in any particular case?Is there a reason why you would say: "Yes, using their methods the evolutionists are right to unite this beetle species with that species, and using their methods they are right to unite this beetle genus with this beetle genus with that beetle genus, but, dammit, when they use the exact same methods to unite this beetle family with that beetle family they've gone too damn far"? Biologists do not classify organisms on the basis of low-resolution photographs. As you yourself must realize, because the whole point of your question must depend on you knowing that they don't. Your point must depend on you yourself knowing that biologists do not classify organisms by simple superficial analogy just as they don't classify whales as the sister group of fish. The point of your question must depend on you yourself knowing that if biologists tried to do that, they would be wrong according to biologists.But if you know that, doesn't that kinda vitiate the point you were trying to make?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But no whale walks on its hind legs, no matter how leg-like they are.It is that that you have to explain away.You are free to speculate that the vestigial legs of extinct whales are for the purpose of clasping them together sexually. What you then have to explain is why the omnipotent deity decided that the best structures for doing that had to look exactly like vestigial hind legs.

See posts #7, #48.

In the first place, no-one would expect that unless what was present "in the beginning" was nothingness in stable equilibrium. If you can prove that, there are people in Stockholm who'd like to give you some sort of medal.In the second place, the ToE would say nothing at all about what we should expect under those circumstances. Because it's the theory of evolution.You might as well complain that you couldn't derive the existence of spaghetti from Maxwell's First Law. Why?OK, under your hypothesis if we could read the mind of God just before he poofed things into existence, then one could predict everything down to the number of spots on the first ladybug. But otherwise, no. Given merely the standard basic claims about God, for example that he is perfectly wise and good and so forth, we couldn't predict anything --- as this thread has pretty much demonstrated. Faced with any detail of reality, you just have to suppose retrospectively that that's what a good and intelligent God would have come up with.Consider what you would think if there was less biological diversity. Suppose, for example, that there weren't any whales. Would you honestly then be going around saying: "There is, I admit, less biological diversity than a theistic view based on a Designer would predict; hence, there is no God"? So good that you have apparently chosen to answer a completely different question. Or, to put it another way, it's a retreat from a position that appeared to make actual predictions.One of the (many) problems with creationism as it stood was that if it was true we would have expected the universe to look less like the work of a bungling sadist. The solution? Remove predictive power from your hypothesis until we haven't a clue what sort of thing the designer would design.Of course, this makes it somewhat inconsistent for you to claim that a "view based on a Designer would predict a vast array of biological diversity". If the degree of intelligence of the designer is not given a priori then the dumb klutz might have made a couple of half-assed attempts at bacteria and then given up because it was too hard for him. Yeah. For example, we know that tigers fall into the latter category.The central tenet of ID must surely be that "we", or at least 99.9% of biologists, do not know how to recognize designed objects. What we verify empirically is that when we study the history of any particular organism we see its genotype and phenotype being formed by natural and unintelligent processes. I've got Stockholm on the phone for you again. Well, no. Because creationism is all holes. How did such-and-such a thing happen? A miracle. Why did it happen? God wanted it that way. What can we predict from creationist premises? Nothing; we can just say retrospectively that God must have wanted the world to look like it does. Why does the world look exactly like the theory of evolution is true? Well, for some reason every particular detail is how God chose it to be for subtle reasons of his own. Or gravity. Or that there are zillions of stars and zillions of planets, and the chances against none of them being suitable are literally astronomical.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Perfect can be a relative as well as an absolute term. If I speak of "the perfect bacon sandwich", I do not mean that it is the sum of all perfections, I just mean that it's better than all other conceivable bacon sandwiches. To summarize my view: the point about whale legs and indeed everything else is that it would be freakishly strange if good design also always just happened to be consistent with evolution. You seem to have been driven to (implicitly) defend the view that it is, but without offering us any particular criterion to identify good design. What does "working" consist of? What sort of thing would you say didn't "work"? Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound, and I can nearly do the same thing --- I can go up the stairs of the building, one at a time. That would have been nice of him, yes.Again, the point is not that I think that the wings are bad, but that you must think that making wings bearing all the hallmarks of evolution was the best of all possible ideas. Again.Really, what are the odds that every time the perfect being thought up the perfect design, it just turned out to be one that would gladden the hearts of Darwinians? The key words there would be bees use it. So they do. We don't --- it's a pseudogene. But for some reason when the Almighty brooded over the primordial chaos, he thought that it would be better to give us one of those than not.You don't know why, do you? But I do know why it's there. No, it isn't. The features that made them recognize it as whale-ish were not adaptations to living underwater. My point is that you're only retrospectively identifying these as the right mutations. Is it really conceivable that there is only one right way to not develop legs? Not necessarily. As you point out in the next paragraph: "evolution predicts step-wise solutions". Which is why you're wrong to say that they are "limited only by the laws of physics". We may assume that a God of unlimited power and wisdom wouldn't ever settle for "good enough". He'd produce the best arm, the best flipper, the best wing. So why does he always do so in such a way as to fool me into believing in evolution? Either that was part of his goal (but surely we must say with Einstein that "he is not malicious") or the whole of nature constitutes a coincidence so vast that the mind can barely grasp its magnitude --- or, of course, evolution occurred. No, I want to look at the big picture. Which is why I just urged you to look at it with me. And why I keep referring to it.You know, like this: Does this sound like I want to focus on whale legs, or like I want to look at the big picture?It is easy enough for you to hypothesize that Dorudon's legs were used as a "sexual clasper". It is only slightly more difficult for you to imagine that they might have been the best of all conceivable sexual claspers. This is particularly easy since you are free to imagine that handicapping an animal might have been part of God's perfect plan.One homology does not a summer make. I agree.The question that I keep asking you is why in every instance, every darn time, God's perfect plan involved mimicking the expected results of evolution. That's the big picture. That's what I'm looking at. I am still awaiting your answer.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Boss: Ah, Jenkins, isn't it? Do come in, sit yourself down. About this new design of yours ... Jenkins: Yes, sir. We're all very excited about it. Boss: So am I, Jenkins. So am I. But I was wondering ... Jenkins: Sir? Boss: These structures on the diagram here? Labeled "wings"? Jenkins: Sir? Boss: You do know that the product isn't meant to fly? Jenkins: Sir. Boss: Because, and I can't emphasize this enough, it's a lawnmower. Jenkins: Yes sir. Boss: Contact with the grass could be considered a sine qua non of its function. Jenkins: Yes sir. Boss: Flight would be most undesirable and might well expose us to lawsuits. Jenkins: Well of course, sir. Of course I know that. Boss: So it seems to me that the wings would be a flaw in the design. Jenkins: Only if they made it fly. Boss: They don't? Jenkins: Oh good heavens no. No, they're far too small. If you look at the area to weight ratio ... make it fly? Oh my, there's going to be a few chuckles in the lab over that, if I may say so sir. Boss: I defer to your engineering expertise, of course. But can I ask ... if they don't make it fly, in what sense are they wings? Jenkins: Homology, sir. Boss: Homology? Jenkins: Yes, sir. I copied the shape, the internal structure, the wiring, everything, from a blueprint of a Boeing 747. Look, they've even got little ailerons. Boss: But it won't fly. Jenkins: Oh no, don't you worry about that. Boss: Well, I must admit that a lawnmower with wings that doesn't fly is, if anything, better than one with wings that does. And yet ... Jenkins: Sir? Boss: Well, I don't wish to seem obtuse, but ... why have wings at all? I admit that I'm no engineer, but it seems like bad design.(There is an awkward silence for about six thousand years.) Creationist: Excuse me. Boss: Who are you and who let you in? Creationist: I'm a self-appointed expert on Intelligent Design. Boss: And who let you in? Creationist: Which part of "self-appointed" is giving you trouble? Boss: Security! Creationist: No, wait, let me speak. This is, after all, one of those situations where an expert --- Boss: Self-appointed expert. Creationist: --- where a self-appointed expert on Intelligent Design is invaluable. Boss: There's something in what you say. This isn't going to cost me anything, is it? Creationist: Time and possibly some brain-cells, but no actual money. Boss: OK, the floor's yours. Please explain in what way Jenkins' design is intelligent. Creationist: Oh, I can't do that. Boss: You can't? Creationist: No. But what I can say is this. This design was produced by Jenkins. The Jenkins! The great Jenkins! The inventor of the non-flammable match for use in gunpowder factories and at gas stations, the first and indeed only man to attach a non-functioning rudder to a non-aquatic ironing-board, and of course the unparalleled visionary who realized that if he put square wheels on houses this would prevent them from rolling downhill. Boss: I'm familiar with his work. Painfully so. What's your point? Creationist: My point is that Jenkins is a perfect engineer. If he put non-flying wings on a lawnmower, he must have intended them for some function. Boss: And can you say what this function is? Creationist: I'm glad you asked --- I can speculate wildly on that very subject. Boss: And could you also tell me why this function would best be achieved by copying the wings of a 747? Creationist: Yes! Yes! Yes. Er ... no. Not as such. But ... this is Jenkins! The Jenkins! The grea --- Boss: Yes, yes. Well, it's true that I don't know much about engineering. Though nor, I suspect, do you. But Jenkins has been with the company for a long time --- it seems like an eternity --- so I guess I'll just have to have faith in Jenkins. Creationist: Amen to that. Boss: By the way ... by the way, where is Jenkins? Creationist: I believe he's around here somewhere ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If any creationist really thinks that evolutionary processes could and did do the equivalent of turning a plane into a lawnmower (and "what a lawnmower"!) then in what sense is he a creationist? It seems something of a falling off from the faith.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And, apparently, according to your creationist, and this is what puzzles me. If he admits that evolutionary processes produced new forms and functions from old, and that this evolutionary history is evident in vestigial features, then he isn't much of a creationist, insofar as he seems to be getting his ideas out of the Origin of Species rather than the book of Genesis.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Where the evolutionary process gets you from a well-functioning plane to a well-functioning lawnmower --- and you are free to describe this as "deleterious" or "devolution" and to mouth any other ritualistic shibboleths of creationist jargon if it makes you feel better. And the ability to climb trees and run at seventy miles an hour.Found any fossils? If you wanted to spout nonsense about how "this phenomenon is finally being acknowledged", then perhaps you should have snipped off the first sentence you quoted. You know, the one that reads "The idea of loss in evolution is not new."That evolution can involve loss of function was first pointed out by a chap called Darwin. If creationists are finally admitting even this much, then in another 150 years you guys might give up being wrong entirely, who knows? You speak as though creationists were in agreement. They are not. While one is denouncing even "microevolution" as a lie, another will cheerfully admit the evolution of whales from land animals. How much of reality you personally wish to deny and how much you are willing to accept cannot be taken as an indication of what "creationists believe" in general. Bollocks. That is not evidence that molecular research supports your denial of "increase in complexity". It supports Darwin's idea that evolution can happen as a result of loss, but not your crazy creationist dogma that it can only do so.

Sure it is. We lost fur, we lost quadrapedality, we underwent reduction of bone and muscle size, we lost specificity of diet, and above all we have much bigger brains due to a mutation to brain-growth control genes. (See, they're genes for controlling the size of the brain, so a bigger brain involves a loss of function. Yes, I know how biologically naive this is, I stole it directly from KM's blather about horses.)

You are absolutely wrong. In the "natural selection sense", concepts like "perfect" and "better" and "worse" apply not to "life as a whole", nor to "the ecosystem as a whole", nor even to the species, but most usually to the individual, and sometimes even to the gene.Natural selection cannot take into account "the ecosystem as a whole". How could it?

If it's so easy, why can't creationists agree with which is which? I believe that you were being asked about the actual progression in the fossil record, not the imaginative renderings produced by artists, which are not part of the scientific evidence.

Well, try designing something like that and see how you do. You could, for example, build a machine which has both wings and paddle-wheels --- but so that the wings fall off if you spend a lot of time in the water, and the paddle-wheels fall off if you spend a lot of time in the air. I'm sure that people will flock to buy it, if they're complete frickin' idiots. And yet well within the capacity of evolutionary processes (which include selection) as we know by observing evolution directly.But enough about reality, let's hear more about your daydreams. Tell us more about the formainifera. Perhaps you could show us some details of how the various phenotypes were produced by sequences of losses from a common ancestor. Or at least regale us with entertaining tales of what it looked like as you did with your supercat.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What a shame. You'd entertained us so with your stories of how it had "multi-coloured fur, stripes, spots and sabre-teeth", but apparently when it galloped past in your dreams it was going too fast for you to count its toes. You say the funniest things."Banner of hope for the ToE"? We just want to know what your imaginary animal looks like.