We can only say that so it is
Why do ostriches have four, rather than two, kneecaps? A
new study has found several possible biomechanical advantages. Perhaps they allow the ostrich to straighten its leg more quickly, helping the animal to run quickly. Perhaps the lower kneecap protects the joined tendons crossing the front of the knee. One reason that does not help to explain the ostriches four kneecaps is evolution. That is because this unique design is not predicted, and makes no sense, on the theory. As
one article admits: “Bizarrely, many of the ostrich’s closest relatives don’t have kneecaps at all.” Similarities across the species were a strong argument for evolution, but in fact biology is full of unique designs, particular to one or a few species. Such one-off, “lineage specific,” designs are “bizarre” for evolutionists. So while there are design reasons for the ostriches four kneecaps, on the ordinary view of the evolution of each being, we can only say that so it is.
The funny thing about Darwinist explanations as to why a species has certain features is they are all explanations from the point of view of an intelligent designer, the Darwinist himself.
ReplyDeleteEverything in the universe makes sense only from an intelligent design perspective. The properties of subatomic particles, for example, were all designed to behave a certain way. The search space for possible particles properties is infinite. The curse of dimensionality prohibits a stochastic origin.
Darwinism and materialism are not just pseudoscience. It is a type of virulently pernicious and stupid pseudoscience enforced by gutless propagandists with a hidden agenda.
Its not bizarre to God or nature. its the humans presumptions that are incompetent.
ReplyDeleteBig ground birds have caught by interest lately as I have become confident that creatures called theropod dinosaurs are in fact just ground birds.
there are no dinos/reptiles and these theropd dinos are actually just giant ground birds. They make a big deal about how BIRD LIKE these dinos are with usual results in lines of reasoning.
Other big birds have unique muscle structure. I think the emu. Unlike other big birds or cousins.
Why can't they just say evolution created it easily in a segregated population?
Do they understand their own evolution concepts??
The more people study/get smart about biiology the more wrong ideas on biological mechanisms will be seen as failing. Example is evolutionary biology.
In our time.
"That is because this unique design is not predicted, and makes no sense, on the theory."
ReplyDeleteEvolution does not predict specific "solutions". However, the paper suggests some real advantages of this knee arrangement that might result in increased fitness.
"As one article admits: “Bizarrely, many of the ostrich’s closest relatives don’t have kneecaps at all.” "
But if you look at the currently accepted familial relationship between these birds, it appears that there were some lineages that lost their kneecaps rather than several independent evolution of kneecaps. How is this a problem for evolution?
There aren't any evolutionary predictions based on the proposed mechanisms.
DeleteWS
ReplyDelete"But if you look at the currently accepted familial relationship between these birds, it appears that there were some lineages that lost their kneecaps rather than several independent evolution of kneecaps. How is this a problem for evolution?"
If you look at the paper Harshman et al 2008 you can see by his publication of limited DNA sequence comparison between flightless and flighted birds that strangely enough the ostrich appears to be a mixture of the two. If you can spot it the paper is a classic on how universal common descent is taken as an a priori assumption as it clams multiple losses of flight despite any real way to explain how that could happen.
John Harshman, 13462–13467, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803242105
Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds
Bill, the tree I was looking at was based on DNA sequence comparison. Based on that, what appears to have happened is that some lineages have lost the kneecaps, not several independent developments of kneecaps.
DeleteLoss of flight is similar. In most cases, the ability to fly is an obvious advantage. However, if you are nocturnal, or very large, or live a largely aquatic life, flying may be more of a detriment than an advantage.
There are several examples of different lineages losing something that is present in closely related species, and in their ancestors. Sightless cave fish is an example.
WS
Delete"There are several examples of different lineages losing something that is present in closely related species, and in their ancestors. Sightless cave fish is an example."
What are you assuming when you make this statement?
"What are you assuming when you make this statement?"
DeleteWell, I'm certainly not assuming design.
Losing something is fine for evolutionism. However evolutionism still cannot account for anything gained.
DeleteThe ancestors of extant bats evolved the ability to fly approx. 52 MYA. I suppose in moron JokeLand that means they lost the ability to not fly.
DeleteWS
Delete"Well, I'm certainly not assuming design."
Yes, you are assuming universal common descent and therefore your argument is circular based on this assumption. You are not alone, this is what evolutionists do.
If you start to require validation of this assumption you no longer have a valid argument.
Since no one has validated a specie transition occurring this assumption is on very shaky grounds.
The ancestors of extant bats evolved the ability to fly approx. 52 MYA.
DeleteThat is your untestable story, anyway. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing metazoans, so that would be a problem.
Everything is simple in evolution. You can easily loose your kneecaps. And you can easily loose your head. And that's what happened to the evolutionists.
ReplyDelete