Evolution......?

"JM: Ok, let's follow your line of reasoning for a moment. Why didn't god give bats good eyesight?"
--Who's to say this was not so? Though irrelevant in a certain way. It is very possible that very sufficient eyesight were once in their possession. We know that it is a nocturnal creature and thus it has not as much a need for this type of eye sight. Eyeless fish live in submerged caves who may have never seen the light of day for many many generations, they have lost their eye sight and/or have been reduced to very dark environmental adoptions. To say the bat is much different is nothing more than speculation."Why did God design the human knee the way he did? An engineer could come up with a more efficient and more trustowrthy design. Ditto for the back."
--What other way would he have designed it, is it bad? And I'm sure that if an engineer (oddly, an engineer isn't a biologist or anatomologist, its a bit like comparing abiogenesis to letting car parts sit there so they could form a new car). Also, I don't remember anything about saying we were perfect in an immortal way (without problems).--Even though Vestiges have nothing against any (for)creationist argument, I do think a critique is highly needed here."Why did God give wings to the Penguin and the ostrich?"
--I'm sure any organismic biologist will tell you how useful a penguin's 'wings' are while doing what they do best, swim. An ostrich's rings are very useful in the sense that they would simply loose balance while going 60 km/h."Why did god give whales the vestiges of a leg or humans a tailbone?"
--If I am not mistaken, a whales 'legs' are very useful in mating, and a humans 'tail-bone' (coccyx) is relatively useful. If I may insert an image from an anatomy text-book, I am quite sure the forum participants here are have the maturity to handle it unlike others I have spoken to on this vestige:
--Percy, I would be most appreciative if you would insert this into your image archive, it is quite small in file size (about 25k). If this isn't possible, I can understand, bandwidth is a bit of an obstacle at times.--And If I may duplicate a descriptional table on the facing page.(added by edit - I couldn't bear to see how horrible it showed up so I posted it on my server): http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/coccyx.htm"Why did God design humans with 5 fingers instead of 4?"
--My best guess is more efficient maneuverability and grasping power."What is magic about 5?"
--See above, I don't know."Why didn't god give humans echolocation? I can think of many wonderful uses if I had that power."
--Why didn't god give us the ability to see ultra-violet light? We weren't made to be Gods or without limitations.(Added by edit) - Resource: Human Anatomy and Physiology; Elaine N. Marieb------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-22-2002]

"God said we were created in his image and that we were 'good', guess that doesn't mean 'great' according to you."
--Being opinionated as it is, I'd have to say, its more than 'great'. And again I must put emphesis on the fact that we were not created to be void of limitations. I am perfectly fine living without the ability to see UV rays.------------------

"Sufficient eyesight is probably still in their possession, given echolocation. But are you saying they’ve evolved to have less good vision?"
--Certainly, though in all technicality, it would be more accurate to be a 'devolution', rather than evolution, it was lost not gained. I'd like to speak to whomever does not allow the process of natural selection controlling speciation."That doesn’t follow. Most nocturnal animals have comparatively very large eyes and good night vision."
--That would be because of their 'need' for these adaptive larger eyes. Bats however, were not dependent on this speciative adaption. This all flows easily through the process of natural selection."Yep, and there’s things like marsupial moles (Notoryctes) -- no lens or pupil and reduced optic nerve -- and cave salamanders (eg Typhlomolge rathbuni:[Image Omitted]"both of which have their eyes, such as they are, covered by skin. So tell me... these ‘very dark environmental adaptations’, and the eyesight they lost... over many generations... that’s evolution, isn’t it?"
--Technically, it certainly is, after all, evolution does mean 'change'."If, say, the blind cave spider Neoleptoneta myopica cannot or simply will not interbreed with a sighted similar form, it’s a different species, isn’t it? Brought about by evolution...?"
--If I were to deny it, I would give you free reign to never allow me to step back into a biology class again, or the other way around."Sure. But the hypothetical creator was starting from scratch, with a blank slate, for each kind. Why might he not give bats -- nocturnal creatures -- just as good eyesight as other nocturnal creatures as well as echolocation? Or was it a case of, well I’ve given them echolocation, so I’ll handicap them with poor eyesight to compensate?"
--No, I think it is reasonable to believe that they had both abilities, echolocation as well as sufficient eye sight for patrolling along in daylight as any other creature. But again, the process of natural selection has obviously favored Bats in which echolocation is superior than the need for any higher grade of eye sight."Ask any long-distance runner whether the knee is a foolproof design. Given that just those two joints have to carry our walking weight all our lives, they seem rather prone to wearing out."
--As any other, though we have superior intelligence rather than athletic ability."I’ve often wondered why, since quadrupedal walking is far more stable and distributes the weight more evenly across joints, our designer didn’t make us, the pinnacle of his creation, more along the lines of centaurs."
--Why do you think that in mainstream paleontology they accept that it is expected that an Ape-like creature would evolve into a human bipedal mobility? This would be a very nice question to ask yourself."As to the back... well, bipedal vertebrates usually carry much of the spine roughly horizontal, and balance the head with a tail. A string of cotton reels with spongy cushions between is a good cantilever bridge type design for flexible quadrupedal running, but a lousy thing to stand on its end and withstand the compression strains of vertical bipedalism."
--We have a very well protected spinal cord, though, bipetalism along with its great advantages comes with its disadvantages."And why thread so important a feature as the spinal cord through the middle of this, where disc damage can cause anything from pain to paralysis"
--Emphasis on cause and effect, what would make this less of a problem while being bipedal."Nerves don’t run alongside or through bones elsewhere in the body; why should the spinal cord not run through the body separately?"
--I cannot see what other path it may take, it contains 31 pairs of spinal nerves that arise from the cord by paired roots and exit from the vertebral column via the internal vertebral foramina to travel to the body regions they serve, there is no other possible directional path to go to but through the spinal column."The spine’s divine design thus results in back pain which causes over 80 million annual days off work in the UK alone, 80% of people being affected by back pain at some point in their lives, and backache during pregnancy (extra weight pulling in an out-and-down direction it can’t happily support)."
--And how much of this is the result of degradation from childhood or disease?"Why might it be that, if you’ve ever slipped a disc, that about the only comfortable position is on all fours?"
--Oh goodness, please, how long can you stand up for, and then get on all fours and tell me how long you can bare. I don't know about you but if my life depended on it I could stand up for days on end, however, I could stay on all fours in whatever position for no more than a couple hours without having to let gravity do what it does best."... that if an engineer what? Whatever, engineers are people with experience of building an planning mechanical structures fitted to particular functions. I’m not sure what an ‘anatomologist’ is, but there is a whole field called biomechanics..."
--Biomechanics would have been a more suitable word then, I've heard much of comparing car parts and organic bodies when they do not follow the same mechanical operations."It’s not about ‘not without problems’, it’s about taking the premise ‘an omniscient designer is behind all this’ and seeing if the natural world fits. It doesn’t."
--I would beg to differ."In the case of the cave and underground creatures above, they are remarkably fitted to their lifestyles. Yet they have -- albeit functionless -- eyes."
--Please see above."Creation says that things were made more or less in their present form."
--Wow there, have we forgotten our biology classes?"So we have to wonder at the wisdom of a creator that gives creatures non-functioning and superfluous bodyparts. Naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glauber) have numerous adaptations to their fossorial habitat, yet they too have near-sightless eyes. Why bother? Similarly, the Chinese grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella, grazes on aquatic plants and, during floods, on land vegetation. It has specialised pharyngeal teeth that enable it to break up leaves, and so access the cell contents. So the creator clearly intended it to be able to eat these plants. Yet like most vertebrates, the cellulose itself and unopened cells pass undigested through the gut. So it is unable to make the most of the food the creator designed it to eat. If only it had the appropriate gut bacteria, as ruminants have... or even the appropriate enzymes. Did god just forget the grass carp when he was giving out the bacteria? Well I suppose there are a lot of species, so he can’t be expected to remember everything."
--Please see above, you should have enough knowledge in the field of biology to see this flaw in contrast with observable studies biology is based on."More to the point, ostriches, like other birds, perhaps use them for displays to mates. It’s unclear though what exactly the kiwi (Apteryx, three species) might use its wings for, since it barely has them. Barely being the point. Why did the creator bother?"
--Using these wings for the ability to attract a mate would have been a natural selection. However the first attribute I cited is more likely an original design."Equally intriguing, from the creation point of view, is why flightless birds from penguin to ostrich to kiwi have the same hollow bone structure as flying ones. This is normally thought to be a weight-reducing feature for flight. But if it was designed into ground-tied birds too, deliberately given to creatures that do not --and according to creation, never did -- get airborne, then it must have some other use. But if so, if it’s a Good Idea for, eg, terrestrial bipeds, why do we humans not have it too?"
--We are fragile enough as it is, hard bones in contrast with our anatomical structure is more of an advantage then for us to have hollow bones and have the short advantages of this effect. However in a birds anatomy, the ostrich for instance has hollow bones accept for its femur. If mind serves me correctly bone volume in flightless birds is proportionally higher than in other animals. This is a rather brilliant design in that its hollow bones give it an ability to run faster and decrease the weight on its legs. The femur is very nice as it is its only source of protection, rather than humans many limbs. Like the chicken this adaption gives flightless birds the advantage of less weight."(continued...)"
--Included for continuance."That’s back legs, and they are tiny pelvis and femur pieces. They are buried deep in the body. If they are of some use, why do only some whales have them?"
--See mine and marks discussion on this, I've changed my stand-point slightly."As I pointed out in the other thread (which I do hope to get back to), since when does vestigial have to mean totally useless?"
--Then I guess that it is safe to say that the coccyx does not belong in this discussion as it pertains to a creative design."The key is that these features are morphologically very similar to more substantial versions in (for many other reasons, apparently related) creatures. The mandrill baboon has a much smaller tail than other baboons:Yet it is still clearly a tail, just greatly reduced. What might these caudal vertebrae look like if reduced still further, do you suppose?"
--Like the human coccyx, all it is is a continuance in the spinal cord."I agree. Silly question. It should be, why not six, or seven? Don’t you find it odd that this pentadactyl limb is the basic standard issue model on creatures as different as birds, bats, dogs and humans?"
--Certainly, obviously if there being a creator, he saw this as useful and sufficient for many of the worlds creatures needs. Though as it pertains to the human, cut your pinky off or attempt to be unable to use it. This may not be a conclusive simple experiment as other factors such as spreading of the fingers may as well fit into the question. Though I do believe that 5 fingers is more useful than 4 of course, as well as 6 or 7 for grasp and maneuverability. It’s surely within god’s powers to grant... instead of gold fillings, the few starving worthies could be given green leafy arms!""Sure, but the ability to digest cellulose would be darned handy. Come to that, why can only plants (and, pace microbiologists, some micro-organisms) photosynthesise? How much starvation could be avoided if we could feed off sunlight as well!"
--Yes, however, with our little bodily surface area, as well as the fact that Photosynthesis in the production and consumption of adenosine triphosphate is highly insufficient for any other biological mechanism such as is in reptiles, mammals, birds, etc rather than vegetation and other photo synthesizers. I would rather my cellular mechanics go through the processes of Glycolysis, the Krebs cycle**, the electron transport chain, and the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate by chemiosmosis. Much more of a highly effective cellular respiration than the processes that vegetation and the synthesis of light reactions, electron transport chains, chemiosmosis and the Calvin cycle. Its production of glyceraldehyde triphosphate is less efficient for the biomechanics of non-vegetative cellular respiration."Take creation at face value. Do the predictions the hypothesis makes stand up?
The answer is either a straight ‘no’, or a ‘no’ dodged by ad hoc rationalisations."
--Not sure why you come to conclusions before the debate has even come near a conclusive value.-Human Anatomy and Physiology, Second Edition - Elaine N. Marieb: pg, 194-200 & 407-416
-Biology, Concepts & Connections, Second Edition - Campbell, et al: pg, 95-103 & 113-119------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-29-2002]

"In what sense can a question be considered a conclusion ?The answer presented is one based upon experience of asking the
question I would guess (from my own experience anyhow).Produce a list of predictions about life on earth founded in a
YEC biblical accuracy framework ... then you can complain about
failure to discuss."
--It is quite evident by his post, I'm not sure what you missed. He had stated that 'take creation at face value. Do the predictions the hypothesis makes stand up? The answer is either a straight ‘no’, or a ‘no’ dodged by ad hoc rationalisations. And so he made his own conclusion before having a critique of his post, and so as I said this 'debate has [not] even come near a conclusive value.------------------

"Then perhaps it would be worth presenting some predictions founded
in a creationist framework, and evidence which bears the
predictions out, rather than simply state that the author has
already made up their mind ... dodging the challenge isn't
debating either"
--What would you accept as evidence? I have an idea, you show me something that is explainable and is evidence for a uniformitarian scale, and show me why it is only explainable by this reasoning. We can take it form there.------------------

"How's about the depth of the oceans, paleomagnetic reversal signatures in the ocean and on land? You keep letting that discussion slip by!"
--Well I know that in the formation of the continents they would have been moving all over the place. Thus I have to wonder what Magnetic polarity studies has to say about Cambrian --> Tertiary and Pre-Cambrian deposits.------------------

"Since the geologic issues are already under discussion in another thread, and since this is the Evolution forum, maybe we could return this thread to its originally scheduled topic."
--Good idea, maybe when Joe replies he can post it in the geology discussion?------------------