(Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2014, 09:06 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(20-02-2014 11:29 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Because they live solely in the water, but are dependent on rising to the surface to breath.

Maybe God is Japanese (and not Jewish) and he doesn't like whales.

Maybe God wants the Japanese to know what whales taste like but he doesn't want them to use induction so they have to actually taste every whale.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
21-02-2014, 05:30 AM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Devils advocate: Why haven't these creatures evolved to have gills?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 05:30 AM)TheStraightener Wrote:  Devils advocate: Why haven't these creatures evolved to have gills?

Too big of a jump back, it is a smaller step to increase lung capacity.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2014 11:44 AM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 05:30 AM)TheStraightener Wrote:  Devils advocate: Why haven't these creatures evolved to have gills?

Short answer is; every organism (in the fossil record, or alive today) is a “transitional” species, in a sense, unless that species goes extinct.

Long answer:
No species is complete, we are all in transition. More stable species, like sharks, horseshoe crabs, or ginkgo trees, are forms that have suited them will millions of years ago, and today still, so selective pressures haven’t been as great on them to morphologically change as greatly, as say having legs and moving to live life in the water might be.

We Homo sapiens have teeth that do not fit in our jaws, lower backs that do not carry our weight well enough (yet), extra bits and pieces that we can simply have removed if they flare up, etc…

It’s a sign of evolution to see these arguably “imperfect” features in organisms, as all organisms are in a state of change, to one degree or another. In fact, it only makes sense in light of evolution by natural selection, not by special creation. Special creation by ID would certainly be a world that looks quite different than the one we find ourselves in and see around us.

But also, in addition to what Revenant77x said, not only is it harder to completely create a gill from scratch, especially when it’s easier to simply improve a preexisting lung (which is a very important point), but that gill could not ever be a “fish” (like) gill anyway. It would be a completely separately evolved gill, likely as distinct from fish gills as insect eyes are from ours eyes. The point being, the prexistiant lung deminisies the selective pressures to develople gills. There would need to be far greater, and persistent, natural selective pressures to produce a gill despite already having a lung, than to simply improve the lung capacity that requires far less steps, time, or complexity. Not something that an omnipotent intelligent designer would be bounded by. But evolution is, thus whales with lungs, not gills, just what we’d expect to see from evolution, but not from a “creator”.

Sure, we, as mammals, still carry most of the genes for building a fish gill, (further genetic evidence of evolution, and unintelligent design by an “intelligent designer”) but many of those genes are turned off or rendered useless by mutations over time for. We can even see the gill arches being formed in our human baby embryos (further proof of evolution, not design) But a great many of those vestigial gill genes we (and other tetrapods) carry are currently being used in mammals to build our jaw bones, ear bones, throats, and so forth. If we were able to “switch” those vestigial fish gill genes back on, we would lose other very important, hard won evolutionarily features.

A blue whale without a jaw cannot feed.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
21-02-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 11:01 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 05:30 AM)TheStraightener Wrote:  Devils advocate: Why haven't these creatures evolved to have gills?

Short answer is; every organism (in the fossil record, or alive today) is a “transitional” species, in a sense, unless that species goes extinct.

Long answer:
No species is complete, we are all in transition. More stable species, like sharks, horseshoe crabs, or ginkgo trees, are forms that have suited them will millions of years ago, and today still, so selective pressures haven’t been as great on them to morphologically change as greatly, as say having legs and moving to live life in the water might be.

We Homo sapiens have teeth that do not fit in our jaws, lower backs that do not carry our weight well enough (yet), extra bits and pieces that we can simply have removed if they flare up, etc…

It’s a sign of evolution to see these arguably “imperfect” features in organisms, as all organisms are in a state of change, to one degree or another. In fact, it only makes sense in light of evolution by natural selection, not by special creation. Special creation by ID would certainly be a world that looks quite different than the one we find ourselves in and see around us.

But also, in addition to what Revenant77x said, not only is it harder to completely create a gill from scratch, especially when it’s easier to simply improve a preexisting lung (which is a very important point), but that gill could not ever be a “fish” (like) gill anyway. It would be a completely separately evolved gill, likely as distinct from fish gills as insect eyes are from ours eyes. The point being, the prexistiant lung deminisies the selective pressures to develople gills. There would need to be far greater, and persistent, natural selective pressures to produce a gill despite already having a lung, than to simply improve the lung capacity that requires far less steps, time, or complexity. Not something that an omnipotent intelligent designer would be bounded by. But evolution is, thus whales with lungs, not gills, just what we’d expect to see from evolution, but not from a “creator”.

Sure, we, as mammals, still carry most of the genes for building a fish gill, (further genetic evidence of evolution, and unintelligent design by an “intelligent designer”) but many of those genes are turned off or rendered useless by mutations over time for. We can even see the gill arches being formed in our human baby embryos (further proof of evolution, not design) But a great many of those vestigial gill genes we (and other tetrapods) carry are currently being used in mammals to build our jaw bones, ear bones, throats, and so forth. If we were able to “switch” those vestigial fish gill genes back on, we would lose other very important, hard won evolutionarily features.

A blue whale without a jaw cannot feed.

This is another point that creationists (and other assorted idiots) don't seem to understand. Evolution follows the laws of entropy, it always goes by the path of least resistance. This is why that stupid crocoduck will never happen.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 03:20 PM
(Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
It's amazing that Crocoduck is still a convincing argument to anyone, and shows just how delusional and disconnected from reality people are.

Cameron thought it' was scientific to propose animals of any species morph into another existing species, and get stuck halfway, and people believed it.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Well I thought I'd get the question out of the way before a gawd person asked it
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 11:01 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Short answer is; every organism (in the fossil record, or alive today) is a “transitional” species, in a sense, unless that species goes extinct.

Long answer:
No species is complete, we are all in transition. More stable species, like sharks, horseshoe crabs, or ginkgo trees, are forms that have suited them will millions of years ago, and today still, so selective pressures haven’t been as great on them to morphologically change as greatly, as say having legs and moving to live life in the water might be.

We Homo sapiens have teeth that do not fit in our jaws, lower backs that do not carry our weight well enough (yet), extra bits and pieces that we can simply have removed if they flare up, etc…

It’s a sign of evolution to see these arguably “imperfect” features in organisms, as all organisms are in a state of change, to one degree or another. In fact, it only makes sense in light of evolution by natural selection, not by special creation. Special creation by ID would certainly be a world that looks quite different than the one we find ourselves in and see around us.

But also, in addition to what Revenant77x said, not only is it harder to completely create a gill from scratch, especially when it’s easier to simply improve a preexisting lung (which is a very important point), but that gill could not ever be a “fish” (like) gill anyway. It would be a completely separately evolved gill, likely as distinct from fish gills as insect eyes are from ours eyes. The point being, the prexistiant lung deminisies the selective pressures to develople gills. There would need to be far greater, and persistent, natural selective pressures to produce a gill despite already having a lung, than to simply improve the lung capacity that requires far less steps, time, or complexity. Not something that an omnipotent intelligent designer would be bounded by. But evolution is, thus whales with lungs, not gills, just what we’d expect to see from evolution, but not from a “creator”.

Sure, we, as mammals, still carry most of the genes for building a fish gill, (further genetic evidence of evolution, and unintelligent design by an “intelligent designer”) but many of those genes are turned off or rendered useless by mutations over time for. We can even see the gill arches being formed in our human baby embryos (further proof of evolution, not design) But a great many of those vestigial gill genes we (and other tetrapods) carry are currently being used in mammals to build our jaw bones, ear bones, throats, and so forth. If we were able to “switch” those vestigial fish gill genes back on, we would lose other very important, hard won evolutionarily features.

A blue whale without a jaw cannot feed.

This is another point that creationists (and other assorted idiots) don't seem to understand. Evolution follows the laws of entropy, it always goes by the path of least resistance. This is why that stupid crocoduck will never happen.

Not entropy, no. Drinking Beverage

Evolution is the outcome of a selection process. It is really as simple as random change either survives to reproduce or doesn't; the environment is the sieve.

And by 'environment', I mean all of it. This includes the physical and biological, as well as genetic fellow travelers.

But not entropy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-02-2014, 06:48 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 11:01 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  No species is complete

That doesn't really mean anything in evolutionary terms. The term complete also implies a teleology, i.e. that evolution is moving towards the realisation of some plan against which an organisms' current genotype can be measured.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is another point that creationists (and other assorted idiots) don't seem to understand. Evolution follows the laws of entropy, it always goes by the path of least resistance. This is why that stupid crocoduck will never happen.

Not entropy, no. Drinking Beverage

Evolution is the outcome of a selection process. It is really as simple as random change either survives to reproduce or doesn't; the environment is the sieve.

And by 'environment', I mean all of it. This includes the physical and biological, as well as genetic fellow travelers.

But not entropy.

Well, it does follow small changes rather than sudden drastic ones. Climbing Mount Improbable etc... Even selection is entropy however, in the sense that it is only an advantage if it makes survival easier or breeding more likely (in the case of some birds like the Peacock).

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: