RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

DanJames -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/10/2008 2:36:08 PM)

From what I've learned about snake venom, there is a hemotoxin and a neurotoxin. The hemotoxin breaks down tissue and may be secondarily used in digestion, but no snake really needs it. The neurotoxin paralyzes and is not used in digestion. Both poison sac types are modified salivary glands though even poisonous snakes have salivary glands to lubricate the mouth for swallowing. As it stands, I personally haven't found any way to reconcile snake venom with a pre-fall world where snakes ate only vegetables.



DanJames -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/10/2008 8:29:46 PM)

I guess the only thing I can think of is that snakes hunted large insects. No need for neurotoxin if you're just eating worms. Perhaps the reason that they were so shrewd is that they were active hunters like the octopus and were therefore granted an amount of thinking power. Can a snake digest chitin?



StephenJ -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/14/2008 5:58:22 PM)

Thanks for reposting this Dan James (PS the J in my user name also stands for James, my last name.)

I'm still wondering about how YE:Creationist explain things like the Cheetah's specified speed focused mechanisms, and why the antelope would need to run so fast in a world without predators.

And to add to that what about camafloge. What purpouse does that have in a world where there are no predators.

It's funny that the whole Vegan/Vegitarian thing came up. I just became a Vegitarian earlier this year and was dealing with some of the same questions about protein intake, and certain types of chemicals that they "say" are only found in meat.



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/14/2008 6:58:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephenJ

Thanks for reposting this Dan James (PS the J in my user name also stands for James, my last name.)

I'm still wondering about how YE:Creationist explain things like the Cheetah's specified speed focused mechanisms, and why the antelope would need to run so fast in a world without predators.

And to add to that what about camafloge. What purpouse does that have in a world where there are no predators.

It's funny that the whole Vegan/Vegitarian thing came up. I just became a Vegitarian earlier this year and was dealing with some of the same questions about protein intake, and certain types of chemicals that they "say" are only found in meat.



Consider the Dodo, a now extinct flightless bird which was native to Mauritius. This species evolved on an isolated island which lacked predators and was thus unable to contend with the more competitive and hostile environment brought about by human activity and went extinct roughly 100 years after its discovery. This was due in part to the birds being hunted, which was all too easy as they did not fear humans and Dodo nests being raided by newly introduced animals such as rats, pigs and dogs.

What is pertinent about this account is the fact that ancestors of the Dodo (it was closely related to pigeons) had wings which would have been very useful for fleeing adversaries and nesting in safer places. However evolution has no foresight and in an environment which lacks predators the resource heavy wings become a bane rather than an asset. It is precisely because there are predators that animals have the traits they have.



DanJames -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/14/2008 7:05:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephenJ

Thanks for reposting this Dan James (PS the J in my user name also stands for James, my last name.)

I'm still wondering about how YE:Creationist explain things like the Cheetah's specified speed focused mechanisms, and why the antelope would need to run so fast in a world without predators.

And to add to that what about camafloge. What purpouse does that have in a world where there are no predators.

It's funny that the whole Vegan/Vegitarian thing came up. I just became a Vegitarian earlier this year and was dealing with some of the same questions about protein intake, and certain types of chemicals that they "say" are only found in meat.


No problem, I thought it was too good of a topic to fall prey to the tangents that would inevitably befall such a large OP.

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with attributing the athletic ability of the animals to quite simply being a testimony to the majesty of their creator. Also, it humbles us bumbling humans who would have no hope, even in a pre-fall world, in keeping up with them. So that's my scientifically un-stimulating, intellectually unsatisfying answer. Other than that, they'd be able to use their muscles for bounding into trees to get the high fruit. Claws help their, too.

Also, let's not forget that natural selection fits into a YEC worldview also. Just like zebras have camaflauge, and black horses don't, yet they have the same ancestor. Camaflauge can be evolved through natural selection.

If you want protein, eat legumes.



StephenJ -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/14/2008 9:00:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephenJ

Thanks for reposting this Dan James (PS the J in my user name also stands for James, my last name.)

I'm still wondering about how YE:Creationist explain things like the Cheetah's specified speed focused mechanisms, and why the antelope would need to run so fast in a world without predators.

And to add to that what about camafloge. What purpouse does that have in a world where there are no predators.

It's funny that the whole Vegan/Vegitarian thing came up. I just became a Vegitarian earlier this year and was dealing with some of the same questions about protein intake, and certain types of chemicals that they "say" are only found in meat.


No problem, I thought it was too good of a topic to fall prey to the tangents that would inevitably befall such a large OP.

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with attributing the athletic ability of the animals to quite simply being a testimony to the majesty of their creator. Also, it humbles us bumbling humans who would have no hope, even in a pre-fall world, in keeping up with them. So that's my scientifically un-stimulating, intellectually unsatisfying answer. Other than that, they'd be able to use their muscles for bounding into trees to get the high fruit. Claws help their, too.

Also, let's not forget that natural selection fits into a YEC worldview also. Just like zebras have camaflauge, and black horses don't, yet they have the same ancestor. Camaflauge can be evolved through natural selection.

If you want protein, eat legumes.


But if they did allow these creatures to say jump up into trees, shouldn't we still see them doing that? As far as I know Cheetahs are horrible climbers, unlike lepords, and if Antelope could jump into trees they'd surely still be doing it today to get at fruit or get away from predators.



DanJames -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/15/2008 10:12:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephenJ

But if they did allow these creatures to say jump up into trees, shouldn't we still see them doing that? As far as I know Cheetahs are horrible climbers, unlike lepords, and if Antelope could jump into trees they'd surely still be doing it today to get at fruit or get away from predators.


Well, I was referring to the cat, not the antelope. Some cats do climb trees. My cats do. They would climb a wood post to get back into my second story apartment when I let them outside. But, I'll admit, the argument falls flat on its face when you think too deeply about it, because there are fast animals who's original representatives may not have been good climbers. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't have the answer. I simply reason that a reasonable function for a form is to bring glory to its creator. It isn't intellectually satisfying, I know, but it's all I got until a better explanation comes along.



mcp -> RE: How do YECs explain predator/prey anatomy (4/18/2008 9:50:18 AM)

This is all conjecture on my part; haven't done my homework on ancient cats, etc:
To my knowledge, no cats' ansestors were noted by science to subsist solely on flora. I'm sure one of the identifiers for fossils being classified as a feline species is meat-eating features.
But IMHO, the application of natural selection or speciation from like-kind archetypes could be assumed to have been designed into all species; so that the original of all surviving species from the beginnings had genetic capabilities to be herbivore, carnivore, or omni. At some point, even evolution has to address the abilities of mammals to exibit traits of the three main diets, as can fish and birds. And bacteria can feed on numerous sources of nutrient (iron bacteria). Additionally, the original "parent" species could have had survival traits for predator and prey consideration, temperature extremes, etc.

The questions are is it reasonable to assume God predicted this design necessary post Fall and preengineered in adaptation as a means for survival; and two, is it reasonable to state that the natural selection method is indeed built on pre-existing info or requires more time to mutate cats from separate species already predisposed to be carnivorous/predatory.

All I can say is biologically I can't present a snapshot of the world 6000 years ago, much less further back, if indeed that is reality



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI