Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 5:54 AM
42 online now:
caffeine (1 member, 41 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,612 Year: 3,649/19,786 Month: 644/1,087 Week: 13/221 Day: 13/36 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
SR71
Member (Idle past 4294 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 1 of 95 (320780)
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=114
This article presents an argument for creation using creatures who have specific parts designed "for the job." I know this isn't new, but someone brought it up in a debate and I really wanted to know what you guys had to say about it... here are the questions from the end of the article.

How did the gecko develop its outstanding ability to climb? Were the hairs on its toes useless up until the time they were just right? Why haven't a host of other lizards developed such a beneficial ability?

How did the bombardier beetle slowly evolve such a dangerous mechanism without obliterating itself into extinction? If the chemicals were not just the right strength or right ingredients, or if the control valve did not close when the explosion took place, think of the consequences. If the mechanism didn't work until fully formed, think of the extra baggage it would have been.

How did the hummingbird develop into such a high-metabolic bird? Why are there not many other birds similar to it? What fossils do we have that show its gradual development into what we know them as today?

How did the giraffe slowly develop such a brain structure that would allow it to raise and lower its head without any problems? If they are the result of millions of years of evolution, wherein they grew longer and longer necks overtime in order to eat from the trees, why aren't there hundreds of other animals with such necks?

How did male seahorses ever evolve from non-pouch to pouch? Why would they ever develop a pouch in the first place? How did the eggs survive before the male ever developed a pouch, and who convinced the male to watch over the eggs once the pouch was developed?

If the platypus developed from some type of rat millions of years ago, how did its fleshy snout develop into a leather bill? How did the electric sensors evolve where none existed before? And why do they lay eggs? Why don't many other mammals lay eggs?

THANK YOU!


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jazzns, posted 06-12-2006 4:23 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2006 4:59 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 06-12-2006 5:26 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by jar, posted 06-12-2006 5:42 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2006 7:32 PM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 06-18-2006 9:13 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Jonson-Needs_proof, posted 06-22-2006 7:53 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 06-22-2006 9:19 AM SR71 has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Jaderis, posted 07-17-2006 6:43 AM SR71 has not yet responded

    
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 95 (320833)
06-12-2006 2:53 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 95 (320857)
06-12-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


Off the top of my head there is one thing I wanted to comment on.

Platapus are among a class of mammals called monotremes. There are three in fact monotremes, marsupial, and placental mammals. The qualification for being a mammal is simply that you have mammary glands to feed your young. The method of deliving those young is not what defines a mammal.

The other features of a platapus are all easily explained by converget evolution. The features are not so weird that they don't exist in other species although the platapus in particular does LOOK like a weird chimeria type animal. Its "bill" is nothing like the bill of a duck. It is more like overgrown lips. Webbing is a charachteristic of many aquatic creatures including other aquatic mammals. Its electric sense is common in other aquatic predators.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 95 (320868)
06-12-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


Most of these questions seem predicated on a fair bit of ignorance about the natural world.

How did the hummingbird develop into such a high-metabolic bird? Why are there not many other birds similar to it?

Not many birds? A quick Wikipedia search tells me that there's as many as 340 species of hummingbird, organized into two subfamilies.

If the mechanism didn't work until fully formed, think of the extra baggage it would have been.

In regards to bombadier beetles, there's hundreds of species of beetles with ealier versions of the bombadier mechanism. They don't, as a rule, tend to blow up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 95 (320880)
06-12-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


More important than the answers to those questions.....
While interesting, those questions are not particularly important in evaluating the weight of the ToE. A scientific theory is not condemned simply because there are questions within the theory that cannot be fully answered. In fact, in every field of scientific endeavor, you can find 100s, 1,000s of questions that cannot yet be answered. Believe it or not, the fact that there are unsolved questions is one of the hallmarks of a strong field of scientific investigation. (That's a big part of the reason why creationism is not scientific. Goddidit is the answer to everything, and ends all inquiry.)

The ToE is a vital, important scientific theory because of the vast number of questions that it can answer. If you choose to reject it because it hasn't yet explained every detail of ever possible question in the field of natural history, you might as well reject every other science as well. That's an impossible standard.

It's indisputable that there are questions that the ToE can't answer. There always will be. But before any of those unanswered questions are going to be significant enough for us to abandon the ToE, someone is going to have to come up with a theory that explains things better than the ToE does. Since creationism, and intelligent design, don't explain anything, they fall far short of replacing the ToE.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 06-12-2006 6:19 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 95 (320888)
06-12-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


Most of these as I hope you're seeing from the other responses are just examples of "the false dilemma". What is sad is that Kent Hovind has had that pointed out to him many, many times, yet he continues to preach the same false dilemmas just as though they were valid. It might be just ignorance until the errors are pointed out to him, but when he continues using them it starts to look more and more like he is just a liar.

For example.

How did the gecko develop its outstanding ability to climb? Were the hairs on its toes useless up until the time they were just right? Why haven't a host of other lizards developed such a beneficial ability?

Any one that has seen chameleons run up and down walls, trees, bushes, table legs and drainspouts knows that the Gecko is not unique. Lots of lizards climb.

How did the giraffe slowly develop such a brain structure that would allow it to raise and lower its head without any problems? If they are the result of millions of years of evolution, wherein they grew longer and longer necks overtime in order to eat from the trees, why aren't there hundreds of other animals with such necks?

The Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck, in little steps and over a long period of time. And the giraffe is NOT the only such critter. There have been many such long necked critters. Ever see a picture of Brachiosaurus?

What Kent Hovond tries to do is toss something out and claim it's a problem, then move on before the audience laugh reflex sets in.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 7 of 95 (320904)
06-12-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
06-12-2006 5:26 PM


Re: More important than the answers to those questions.....
I don't think that subbie's comment can be too overemphasized. There are unanswered questions in all fields of science. A theory is not falsified just because there is a phenomenon under its purview that poses unanswered questions.

There is so much evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution that it is not in serious doubt. Therefore, we have are led to consider two possibilities:

(1) Geckos, bombadier beetles, hummingbirds, giraffes, seahorses, and platypuses the only six specially created "kinds" among all life, or

(2) they evolved like everything else, except we just don't know the details of their evolutionary history.

Incidentally, I have already seen plausible histories of several of the mentioned species, and for the others it just isn't too hard to think of a plausible history. Try doing it yourself; the only requirement is that you develop the feature in small steps, and that each step results in improved "fitness" over the previous step.

Remember: the opposite of "this is impossible" is not "this actually occurred"; the opposite of "this is impossible" is "this is possible". Therefore, it is not necessary to know the actual details of the actual history to refute the argument by incredulity; all that is necessary is to explain why it is possible, to give a plausible explanation.


"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 06-12-2006 5:26 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 4294 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 8 of 95 (320910)
06-12-2006 6:31 PM


Thanks for all of this information. It's not only helping me in the discussion I'm having, but it is also helping me learn.
    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19758
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 9 of 95 (320923)
06-12-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


How did the hummingbird develop into such a high-metabolic bird? Why are there not many other birds similar to it? What fossils do we have that show its gradual development into what we know them as today?

The metabolism is related to the size and the requirements for flight.

Are there other birds that can hover? Lots, the biggest is probably the Osprey.

Are there other birds that dine on flower nectar? Lots, the most colorful are arguably the Hawaiian Honeycreepers
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/hawaiihoneycreepers.html

Are there other birds that are small? Lots, as any birder trying to track warblers knows, especially young ones. Hummingbirds are the smallest, true, but one kind of bird has to be the smallest doesn't it? There are other birds smaller than the biggest hummingbird, the 8" long 'Giant Hummingbird' of South America.

Are there other birds with irridescent colors? Lots, too many to list here, other than to mention that there are "ordinary" blackbirds included on the list.

Are there any birds that combine all these characteristics? Yes, hummingbirds.

Are there OTHER birds that are just exactly like hummingbirds without being hummingbirds? (After you stop laughing at how silly this question really is ... ) No, because evolution does not work that way.

Convergent evolution shows that certain features will be arrived at by separate evolution where the opportunity exists for an ecological niche to fill -- but not that a whole {species\genera\family} will be duplicated, as that is not necessary to take advantage of the ecological opportunity.

As for the fossils question, why do we need to? It's a bird, in every bone and every feather, and it doesn't have features that we don't see in other birds. It is not significantly different from an "average" bird, certainly not more so than many other examples of avian diversification. There is nothing special to be explained by such a fossil record: all it would show is a gradual decrease in size to get to the point of being the smallest bird, but no great transformation (transition?) is necessary to get there.

Why don't hummingbirds have expandable pouches like pelicans, for instance, so they can carry loads of nectar back to the nest? LOL.

All of these questions are just an argument of incredulity -- look at this species ... isn't it incredible? Amazing that there aren't others JUST like it!!!

It relies on ignorance to sound reasonable.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MangyTiger, posted 06-16-2006 10:34 PM RAZD has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 10 of 95 (322436)
06-16-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
06-12-2006 7:32 PM


I'm surprised he didn't mention the one thing that is, as far as I know (and according to Trivial Pursuit :)), unique to the humming birds - the ability to fly backwards.


Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2006 7:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 06-16-2006 11:24 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2006 8:45 AM MangyTiger has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 591 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 11 of 95 (322452)
06-16-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MangyTiger
06-16-2006 10:34 PM


Actually, helicopters of today have that vaunted ability.:). Not that they're living, of course.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MangyTiger, posted 06-16-2006 10:34 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19758
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 12 of 95 (322846)
06-18-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by MangyTiger
06-16-2006 10:34 PM


... the one thing that is, ... unique to the humming birds - the ability to fly backwards. ...

Several insects, most notably the dragonfly that has been around since ? the creataceous ? can fly backwards.

The Kestral comes the closest in it's {agility\ability} as it hovers over a possible prey and keeps it underneath - they can back up but it's more like they're flying 'up' with their wings near vertical.

It could be a function of size limitations - lift\drag ratios as well as surface to volume (weight) ratios.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MangyTiger, posted 06-16-2006 10:34 PM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by MangyTiger, posted 06-18-2006 11:56 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 95 (322848)
06-18-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


If the platypus developed from some type of rat millions of years ago,

That's beyond lame and all the way to about a triple-amputee man of straw. "Some type of rat." That's Hovind misdirection at its finest - the last common ancestor of the Platypus and the rat scurried around the feet of early dinosaurs, if not a bit before the first dinosaur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

    
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 14 of 95 (322886)
06-18-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
06-18-2006 8:45 AM


Note to self - be more precise!
Several insects, most notably the dragonfly that has been around since ? the creataceous ? can fly backwards.

Sorry about that - I should have specified "unique amongst birds".

Since the original hummingbird part of the discussion was comparing and contrasting hummingbirds to other birds I took the 'bird context' as a given - but as the thread progresses that nuance gets lost in the overall discussion so it was a mistake on my part to omit it.


Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2006 8:45 AM RAZD has not yet responded

    
Jonson-Needs_proof
Inactive Junior Member


Message 15 of 95 (324771)
06-22-2006 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


Lets look at this from another angle.
If you look at crocodiles you'll find they have remained essentially the same for millions of years now. If you look that far back into most other animals history you may only find similar creatures which would indicate that change has occurred.
So why have crocs remained the same for so long?
The answer is evolution, they have evolved to a state where they are perfectly developed for their environment and therefore any genetic mutations are either a disadvantage and therefore selected out or neutral (what could you change in a croc that would not be a disadvantage?)
Humans on the other hand, physically we have remained essentially the same for thousands of years now. The difference is we have evolved socially to the point where genetic disadvantages won't stop you from passing your genes on to the next generation.
If this trend continues in humans I would predict that the gene pool would eventually be flooded with "bad genes" and we will devolve.
A little far fetched maybe but look at cystic fybrosis.

Edited by Jonson-Needs_proof, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mespo, posted 07-05-2006 10:16 AM Jonson-Needs_proof has not yet responded

  
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019