Archetypes

Im in a debate with a creationst over vestiges. He has proposed that vestigial structures come about due to the Archetype on which it is based on. For example the archetype on which all vertebrates are based can be found here: Richard Owen (1804-1892) To say it simple: it is a blueprint used by God to create all vertebrates with. Only with different sizes or different functions for the bones.Allthough I understand that archetypes lack explanatory power which the ToE does provide- Why for example would an all powerfull God need to use a blueprint while he could all animals perfect- I dont think this will convince him. What Im really looking for is something (a bone or organ) that is present in some vertebrates but not in all. Or another argument that cripples the archetype argument effectively.any suggestions?[This message has been edited by dinoflagulates, 05-05-2003]

Well, some primates including humans have lost the ability (through genetic mutation) to synthesize vitamin C, while almost all other mammals can.Not all vertebrates reproduce the same way; marsupials versus placentals.There are also a great many sub-optimal design elements all around the animal kingdom. For starters, in humans we have poorly-designed spines and knees for upright locomotion, which is why back pain and knee injury is so prevalent.We have a sharp ridge inside of our skulls which damages our brains very easily.We have a (unique in nature) crossover food/air pipe construction in our throats which results in many choking deaths per year. It's benefit to the species (the ability to produce complex speech) far outweighs the cost to the species.God is a pretty poor designer.

quote:

---

Well, some primates including humans have lost the ability (through genetic mutation) to synthesize vitamin C, while almost all other mammals can.

---

-This could be explained in the archetype model by stating that the blueprint contained the vitamin c synthesizing enzyme but God just decided not to use it for creating humans.

quote:

---

Not all vertebrates reproduce the same way; marsupials versus placentals

---

. this might indeed be a good point, but couldn't these different reproduction mechanisms be explained by shortening/lengthening some bones, tissue or something like that?

quote:

---

There are also a great many sub-optimal design elements all around the animal kingdom. For starters, in humans we have poorly-designed spines and knees for upright locomotion, which is why back pain and knee injury is so prevalent.

---

.

quote:

---

We have a sharp ridge inside of our skulls which damages our brains very easily.

---

Agreed, but I dont think this is a good point to counter the archetype argument with. sub-optimal design is precisely what the archetype model predicts. Allthough it begs the question why God has designed us in a sub-optimal way.

quote:

---

We have a (unique in nature) crossover food/air pipe construction in our throats which results in many choking deaths per year. It's benefit to the species (the ability to produce complex speech) far outweighs the cost to the species.

---

this unique crossover food/air pipe could probably have been created by rearranging some bones in the vertebrate blueprint, not?Im beginning to think that there is always a way to wiggle oneself out of this.

The important question isnt whether theories of archetypes can explain these things but whether such theories have any actual evidence supporting them or can make usefull predictions. I dont think the archetype model predicts suboptimal design at all, divergent perhaps but not suboptimal, why do you think this? If not then it is as much an exercise in magical thinking as any other creationist approach.

Im in a debate with a creationst over vestiges. He has proposed that vestigial structures come about due to the Archetype on which it is based on. For example the archetype on which all vertebrates are based can be found here: Richard Owen (1804-1892)
To say it simple: it is a blueprint used by God to create all vertebrates with. Only with different sizes or different functions for the bones.Allthough I understand that archetypes lack explanatory power which the ToE does provide- Why for example would an all powerfull God need to use a blueprint while he could all animals perfect- I dont think this will convince him. What Im really looking for is something (a bone or organ) that is present in some vertebrates but not in all. Or another argument that cripples the archetype argument effectively.any suggestions?
---------------------
Actually I do indeed know aboslutely what you are talking about. This was a problem I struggled with when I was trying to compare the hemi-pene of snakes with their vertebrae and indeed you are actually correct to *wonder* if there is not some organ or bone that is present in ALL vertebrates for on finding *this* one would indeed "cripple" or say, 'advance' the archetype argument. When I noticed in those Permian herps that have "sails" and the bone Structure "above" the vertebrae is in series of lines projecting at right angles to each other it was clear to me that the molecular embryology of this either sealed the case for "homology or showed in geometric reality the falsity of some such process that today Gould calls deep homology which indeed DOES NOT need to be visualizable (neither a bone or organ need apply). Unfortunately for questions like this I do not even think of this stuff this way any more. Later.

quote:

---

I dont think the archetype model predicts suboptimal design at all, divergent perhaps but not suboptimal, why do you think this?

---

I stand corrected, indeed it can explain some vestigial structures like the tailbone or hindlegs of whales, but it cannot explain why for example our backs are suboptimally designed. Allthough creationsts could argue that any suboptimally designed feature actually has been designed perfectly and that future research will find out why it is perfect.would be another unsupported creationist assumption for an allready infinite long list.[This message has been edited by dinoflagulates, 05-05-2003]

quote:

---

I stand corrected, indeed it can explain some vestigial structures like the tailbone or hindlegs of whales, but it cannot explain why for example our backs are suboptimally designed. Allthough creationsts could argue that any suboptimally designed feature actually has been designed perfectly and that future research will find out why it is perfect.

---

It works fine if you walk on your hands and knees.KC

What would be the difference between this and say, models of common descent? Maybe the reason a lot of vertabrates look like they were built from some kind of modified template is because all vertabrates share a common ancestor?Once he introduces god into the picture it is fruitful to address the archetype issue theologically. Would the god he believes in create so sub-optimally? Doesn't make sense to me. If you have infinite resources and time has no meaning, then it's trivial to create the best animal for any given niche. It just doesn't make sense for god to work like a lazy engineer.The problem this guy is going to have is proving that his archetypes are fundamentally different. If it can be argued that even his archetypes show evidence of common descent - or in his case, modification of some meta-archetype - then his model doesn't really explain anything.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-05-2003]

dinofalgulates responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, some primates including humans have lost the ability (through genetic mutation) to synthesize vitamin C, while almost all other mammals can.

---

​

-This could be explained in the archetype model by stating that the blueprint contained the vitamin c synthesizing enzyme but God just decided not to use it for creating humans.

---

Except that the gene for synthesizing ascorbic acid does exist in humans (and guinea pigs and other primates)...it's just broken. The GLO gene in other mammals exists creates the enzyme L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO) and ascorbate is produced in the liver from blood sugar. Humans, since our GLO gene is broken, cannot produce ascorbate and thus we must consume vitamin C. Fortunately, our diets can provide enough.In fact, the reason why the primate GLO gene is non-functional is because there has been a point deletion causing a frame shift. In humans, chimpanzees, macaques, and orangutans, the error is identical. Guinea pigs, on the other hand, have their GLO genes broken in a different way.One would have to wonder: Why would god create primates with a broken GLO gene if the intent was for them to require to consume vitamin C? And then, why would this god break the GLO gene in different ways for primates and guinea pigs?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not all vertebrates reproduce the same way; marsupials versus placentals

---

​

. this might indeed be a good point, but couldn't these different reproduction mechanisms be explained by shortening/lengthening some bones, tissue or something like that?

---

No, not really. In placentals, the embryo doesn't emerge from the placenta until it is ready to leave the womb. Marsupials, on the other hand, have the embryo leave the womb and then go into a secondary incubator, as it were. A kangaroo fetus literally has to climb up its mother's body from the vagina to the pouch.How about these: Why does a baleen whale fetus have teeth? The adult form doesn't have teeth and there is nothing for the fetus to chew upon. Instead, the fetus develops teeth and then has them regress. What is the point of going through all that trouble? If the baleen whale was designed to eat through the baleen, why bother with teeth at any stage? Why not simply delete the teeth?And a baleen is not congruent with any other structure in any other mammal.On a finer scale: Why do male mammals have mammary glands? They will never have the hormones required to have them develop, so why do males have them at all? Do guys have nipples simply so that a few of them can die of breast cancer every year (about 400 in the US this year, according to the American Cancer Society).I think the problem with this reasoning is that it is essentially unfalsifiable: If you find a structure that only exists on one but not the other, you can simply say that the "master" includes both but that none of the current animals use both.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!