My family had a few mounted ducks on our wall and during a moment of boredom I had decided to analyze this animal from the comfort of my couch. A few moments of analysis later and the aviation excellence of this animal became very apparent. The curvature of the wings instantly remind me of the curvature of the most advanced modern airliners:
Not to mention how much science has come to learn from species and how to apply it to various situations, such as bullet trains and more accurate medical drills.
I have no doubt about the possibility for evolution to occur on its own accord but also feel like evolution is exceedingly well at engineering masterpieces of engineering over millions of years. I’ve read a few studies that suggested that the barriers that block evolution are the only real hindrances of it. For example, life used to be unable to exist on the land because high energy radiation from the Sun made it impossible. The “moment” that the Ozone layer developed and the surface became habitable, life almost jumped straight to taking over the surface.
How is evolution so good at creating amazing things?
Evolution is good at creating just good enough. Such as the panda’s “thumb” which functions, but not as well as an opposable thumb. Or in humans the appendix which caused fatal infections until the invention of surgery.
Because we see survivor bias. The unamazing things die off. My question has always been, why did the Wright brothers design their first planes with the elevator surfaces anterior, when nature had proven flight designs with the surfaces at the rear which is far more stable. Nature seems the better engineer.
I completely forgot about this concept. I suppose that given enough time (which evolution had plenty to do), and enough rolls of the dice, nature will settle on a design that is getting the job done.
Perhaps the amazement is a human reaction. Evolution produces function and adaption. The results will tend to be what best fills those criteria. To me the amazing part is the beauty and quirky that seem to defy those parameters. Such as over long tail feathers or kangaroo motion. There is no necessity for bird song to be musical to human ears or Lion Fish to appeal to the human eye because of their shape and form.
That a wing should be aerodynamically correct is not so amazing. It would be strange if it wasn’t, like bats, for instance.
Yep! It’s right there in the word: “evolve” which means ‘gradually’, ‘incrementally’, and ‘over time’. An engineer that worked at the same rate to find a solution to a problem would be fired. But that’s because engineering and evolution are not the same thing, even if there is some conceptual overlap.
1 Like
Gerhard
(Gerhard Nebe-von Caron, formerly "Marvin", Sceptic Christian)
8
I always like it when atheists come up with “crap design” trying to show an inept God because of the “crap evolution has come up with”. They clearly are proof of the crap, considering their brain malfunctions The classic video is Neil deGrasse Tyson and the redesign of the breathing and eating pipe to avoid crossover. Clearly there is a reason behind it, whether designed or evolved (as if evolution could not be designed :-)). To dismiss that is just a revelation of the arrogance of the “Brights” thinking they could do better. But then that clearly is their Motto - God can’t be all knowing because atheists know better
Speaking of wings, we had the opportunity of visiting the Boston Aquarium after the ASA meeting, and my granddaughter was obsessed with the penguins, and truth be known, I too was amazed by their great exhibit. To see their wings propel them through the water at amazing speeds and with such agility was incredible. So those foils work well in water as well. There was even an area where a light beam was focused in the water, controlled by a joy stick you could use, and the penguins would playfully chase the spot of light, much as a cat chases a laser pointer. The also have a huge 4 level tropical reef as well, highly recommended.
Selection is about comparative advantage, as long as existing morphology can be optimized in a particular direction. This is why there are convergent evolutionary pressures by which independent lineages end up with similar looking solutions.
Sharks are cartilaginous fish who have always lived in water. Ichthyosaurs are reptiles which returned to the seas, porpoises are mammals. They differ dramatically in certain aspects of anatomy, demonstrating their ancestry, but they share nearly identical body shape and hydrofoil arrangement, due to the hydrodynamics of competing in an aquatic environment.
Size, shape, and proportion are matters of developmental regulation - there is always variation in expression just as with people’s heights, and there is no need for novel proteins or extra appendages. Optimization is a necessary outcome of that process, and what we see in a snapshot as engineered is actually the product of biology over evolutionary time.
I think that is a slight misunderstanding. They are criticizing ID and special creation in that way, but in the realm of evolutionary creationists, there is really no difference in how to explain such apparent poor designs from either the EC or purely secular view. Both views agree that you have to start with what you are given to build whatever comes next.
Similarly, I was reading The Righteous Mind, and the author noted that both creationists and many secular evolutionists hold that moral codes are inborn, the first holding that they are created by God, the second through evolutionary pressures. This is opposed to those who hold that moral codes are purely learned behavior, and are not inborn. The whole nature vs. nurture thing.
To be fair, ‘crap design’ is more often used in arguments about the special creation of organisms rather than evolution.
On the flip side, I still wonder why the subset of IDists that accept organisms are related by descent still argue against junk DNA. Junk DNA is just a natural consequence of drift with common descent (neutral theory). The additional, unspoken assumption seems to be that all genetic changes were directly ‘guided’ by a designer and must therefore have purpose/function.
You seem to be assuming a God who does not allow for anything other than what He wants or creates. That is not the Christian view of God. God uses what is there rather than creates the perfect soldier.
God does not have to direct the minutia to be in overall control. Theistic evolution assumes that there is latitude for individualism and diversity. The evolutionary process has proved adept at diversifying and optimising. This is why TEs do not just dismiss evolution altogether but acknowledge that it has a part to play. (But not the sole part)
Not me. That’s what some in ID seem to do like many from the Discovery Institute who dispute the existence of largest amounts of junk DNA in organisms like humans.
At its core, ID ‘theory’ is not inherently incompatible with the existence of junk DNA. But a) Maybe that’s too much like natural mechanisms having a major influence or b), Like you mention, assuming everything about an designed organism’s genome must be the product of intentional design with no slop or waste.
Again, the paradox is that even if you started with a perfect, completely functional sequence, subsequent mutation, recombination and drift will naturally add junk to a genome.
ID does not care about junk DNA. ID does not dictate the methodology or the wastage. All ID does claim that the process has guidance. That does not mean control or lack of wastage.
I agree that ID doesn’t care about junk DNA. However, a fair number of ID proponents don’t seem to be on board with that notion and in fact do seem to expect minimum ‘wastage’ in the design implementation. Eg.
I’m glad you can see through what is apparently a blind spot afflicting many of the most prominent and vocal promoters of ID ‘science’.
I don’t see how those like Luskin et al can claim that a lack of junk DNA would be a ‘prediction’ of ID theorists. Especially not without specifying something about how design was implemented.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
The classic video is Neil deGrasse Tyson and the redesign of the breathing and eating pipe to avoid crossover. Clearly there is a reason behind it, whether designed or evolved (as if evolution could not be designed :-)). To dismiss that is just a revelation of the arrogance of the “Brights”