One element of Design is the ability to create something that solves a problem with a specific design. so for example, wheel-spin is a problem in cars, and the novel design to solve the problem was the clever idea of the differential.
In the same way, if evolution is false and Creation is true then we would expect sometimes, where there is a strange necessity, for there to be a novel design, a very clever solution in place, that is neither homologous nor homo-plastic, or if it is homo-plastic, then it is shared very little, in nature. The reason people might say, "oh but where is the Creator's imagination if there are very few unique designs?" But one has to remember the numbers involved, there are billions of designs of species, all possessing NEEDS. One name for God is Jehovah Jireh, which basically means, "The Lord Who Provides". Yet we only have a few designs of land-vehicle with the differential example. Anything four-wheel is likely to have the same design. (analogous)
"It is the only fish that swims upright, and achieves this by having a special bubble inside its bladder. Sensitive cells at the top of the bladder detect when the bubble is in the wrong place and the animal moves until the bubble feels right."
It should be noted that evidence of unique and clever solutions in nature, would be expected to be there if there was an immensely intelligent designer behind organisms.
1. The actual creation of a strange organism actually CREATES problems. Note with the Seahorse, the fact that it swims upright creates a necessity for it's bubble-gut, (as opposed to it's bubble-butt). ;-)
Think how many problems occur when you think to create yourself a Giraffe? I mean, let's not forget that a Giraffe doesn't come complete, it actually starts off as a round blastocyst, a simple spherical cellular condition, and must eventually morph into the immensely complex and oblong shape.
Both the evolutionary definitions of convergence and divergence can be amalgamated both into the Designer's Convergence and necessity/constraints..
What do I mean? Well, all land-animals share the same design-plan for bones and they all have eyes, but eyes and bones would be examples of designer-convergence. But an analogous feature would be there because of constraints. The wing for example, is simply the best design for the job so if the designer wants both a bird and a bat, He gives them both wings but find multiple ways of achieving the same solution. This would show remarkable wisdom and intelligence because it shows, with the more analogs you collect, that He is capable of solving the same problem in numerous ways. But often people don't consider this.
With echolocation, whales, bats and oil-birds all have echolocation but this is by necessity because of where they are designed to live for the use of sonar. (Analogous). Basically the same design in totally different creatures, in different environments.
I think it can be concluded that in nature there is a very large span of over-lapping not because the designer doesn't have an imagination but because certain designs simply work best. But in cases where there are no homologous or convergent features then we can spot unique designs.
Here are some more unique designs that are not homologous or convergent but are a third option of unique necessity.
- Human Foot
- Contraflow Avian Lung.
- The Human Consciousness/Capacity.
- Sea Slugs
- Crustacean Eye.
- Eagle's Eye
"Even more amazing is what happens to the stinging cells when they reach the sea slug’s stomach. There are tiny tubes lined with moving cilia (hairs), which link the stomach to waving spurs on the sea slug’s back. The sea anemone’s stinging cells—so fatal to other organisms—are transported from the stomach, up those tiny tubes, to the tips of the spurs. There the sea slug stores those stolen weapons to use in its own defence, shooting them at any fish which dares to attack it!"
"The unique design of the eye of the lobster is one such example that has been intensely studied to help understand how it allows some organisms to see in low light and murky waters. Rather than bending (refracting) the light to focus the image on the retina, several of the long-bodied decapod2 crustaceans (shrimps, prawns, crayfish and lobsters) possess reflecting compound eyes. Unlike the more common compound eyes of insects, which have hexagonal facets, the lobster eye design incorporates square facets that are arranged radially to form an optic array with a 180° field of view.3 The geometric assemblage of facets has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms"
And my favourite unique design with the elongated finger and pteroid, the;
"However, we have reported on recent discoveries that pterosaurs had a complex wing anatomy, with muscles and nerves, and a large brain region to process the signals.1 This enabled them to fly more smoothly and efficiently than fixed-wing aircraft. And fossil trackways showed they could also land elegantly.But what about the initial take-off? Earlier calculations had overlooked a tiny bone called the pteroid".
(All links and quotes from Creation.com, and all credit to that website for the information quoted.) - Doubtless there will be many more unique designs I have yet to learn about, and given there are billions of species and only a limited number of environments, then SOME sharing (analogue) is to be expected, but this shouldn't mean the design is of less value. Vehicles share wheels and differentials, but they are no "less" designed.
Sunday, 3 August 2014
Daren Hew (an objective agnost) said: "There are many other phyla that you wont find in the Cambrian. You wont find any bony fish or shark teeth in Cambrian strata for example, despite the existence of said fossils in upper strata. (There are plenty of bottom-dwelling bony fish, like flatfish that didn't get preserved in Cambrian fossil beds)"
I would say though, that since there are thousands of marine forms, should we expect a few not being there to be all that relevant? There would have been perhaps more that were obliterated. I mean, eventually, chance alone is going to create the possibility of certain burials based on whatever creatures were in that place of the particular deposition. If we DON'T assume long-ages, then the sharks in the upper-layers would also have been alive along with the organisms in the Cambrian, if most or all of the layers were part of the same flood. So logically, really all we need is sharks to be present, in any layer, if all of the layers were laid down at the same time, over weeks and months, by inundation.
It depends on how we interpret the record. Most creation-scientists argue that fish can escape, and indeed fish are fast, but slow-movers don't. Nevertheless there is evidence of vertebrates in the Cambrian. Here are the links to the scientific articles:
"However, just last year a team of nine scientists reported well-preserved fossils of two different kinds of agnathan fish from China found in Lower Cambrian strata.10,11 The fossils are described as ‘the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found’,11 and extend the fossil range of fish by at least 20 and possibly 50 million years in evolutionary thinking. Vertebrates had now been found at the base of the Cambrian along with all the other multi-celled animals."
If the Cambrian, upper or lower, does not express a significant passage of time, then to find a vertebrate in the Cambrian would be enough to prove they existed at the same time of the other marine organisms, if the Cambrian is not an "era". So I can't just ASSUME the truth of the Cambrian being an evolution "era" as that would be to assume what evolutionists have to prove, on their behalf.
No but rather, it is usually requested we provide an, "out of place" fossil. This is impossible if none can be found, but even when on occasions they can be found, the scientists will then conclude the following type of reasoning:
For example they might say: "So now we have to understand how vertebrates evolved earlier".
So those who say, "show me X and this will falsify evolution", well, that's been done before and when we find X they change the goal posts.
What tends to happen, is they then request you score through another goal they create. If there is a request to find something in the Cambrian, and if it is at the top, the request will then change to, "now show me something at the bottom of the Cambrian". Pollen is found Pre-Cambrian because it is small. Surely that is enough? But the evidence is ignored, probably regarded as inexplicable, because it's only one example. (Yet Nye and the likes tell us we only need one example? Can you see the problem yet?)
All of this is assuming that the fossil record is an evolution record. Please note, we are just seeing fully formed known-forms, not an evolution in rocks. After all what are we discussing? We are discussing things that have always existed. Fish, sharks, pollen, etc....what has this got to do with evolution? Nothing.
So the "pushing back evolution" when it is "out of place" is common. It was thought mammals rose after the dinosaurs but now they are found in their bellies, you will get statements such as, "surprisingly mammals were already well developed at this stage" (example of reasoning). There is some evidence of birds in bellies of dinos too, and apparently some pre-dated dinos. (Or so I heard, IIRC)
One has to ask, logically - how many push-backs do we allow? At what stage can evolution be falsified if it is so plastic that it can be pushed back infinitely? Because we keep finding fully-formed, unchanged, sophisticated and therefore, "modern" forms. Eyes, like sophisticated Trilobite-eyes. Pollen, mammal-hair, unchanged organisms such as Jellyfish or snails, and all types of every order.
The additional problem is the apriori and posteriori claims, which highlights the difference between predictive evidence and post-knowledge evidence.
The fossil order was generally known when Darwin formed his theory, so he didn't predict the evolutionary order, he actually based it on the already-known fossil order. This is posteriori-evidence.(None-predictive)
But if he were to make a prediction that for example, "we will find intermediatesof bats", this would be apriori-evidence if it was found. (Predictive).
Predictive = Strong scientific evidence.
None-predictive = Weak scientific evidence.
To be fair to Darwin-ites, in whatever we say about the flood, if we say it because of our post-knowledge of the fossil record, then we say it in a none-predictive, weak and conjectural fashion, also.
The only difference is the bible itself, which said there was a worldwide catastrophe, BEFORE there was a discovered fossil record. This would imply a worldwide graveyard, whether it was preserved in rocks or not, left as remnants. It is reasonable to expect circumstantial remnants, given it has been shown that sediment has been found in fossilized throats. Given we know water can do this, certainly, and is the best explanation by far for all of the odd evidence around the world.