Evolutionists seem to be fond of “panda’s thumb” type arguments which compare the world that is to an imaginary world of perfection. Often this type of reasoning is combined with imaginary “just so” stories. Instead of pointing out that these types of arguments are largely based on imaginary evidence and leaving it at that it seems to me that I may as well imagine things as well.
For example, Darwin imagined that male nipples are vestigial so I will simply imagine that they are not by imagining a story. So then, once upon a time there was a Creator who created some little creatures and put them in a place he made for them. He noticed them doing some odd things and he heard them murmuring in to him what was a simplistic language, “Hey, I have nipples. But they don’t do anything! Hmmm, the fact that I have nipples that don’t seem to do anything must mean that no one created us. For if they did create then they covered it up well.” So the Creator watched for a while as the little creatures pointed to their chests and pointed around the place he had made for them. He was fascinated by some of the stories they came up with about it all. One day it was time to do away with the place he had made for them. So he took some creatures he saved into a different place but he set one of them aside for a moment and asked, “About that nipple business, why did you think that?” The little creature replied, “Well it’s like they said, why didn’t you just make things obvious? Why create things to be so that I have these little useless nipples on me, it just seems odd!”
“Well, once I created some creatures, put them in a world and made it so that some would have nipples and some would not. But there was this problem with nipplism and nipplists began to mistreat others….and well, it was quite a problem.”
The creature looked thoughtful, “Well…I guess a creature like me can’t know all that might happen in all possible worlds.”
Note that if male nipples were vestigial then the fact that one can imagine mythological narratives of naturalism about them would have little to do with finding evidence to that effect. In fact, it is hard to say how one would find supporting evidence for most hypotheses about past “evolution” given their tendency toward being rooted in hypothetical goo which comports with all observations. If it was observed that males did not have nipples then natural selection would be imagined to have eliminated them. If it is observed that they do have nipples then one can imagine that they are vestigial or that they have enough function that natural selection did not eliminate them. And so on. This is why I ask what sort of biological observations would falsify “evolution,” as whatever “evolution” may be it cannot truly be verified if it cannot be falsified.
Yet it is interesting that even the imaginary verification typical to evolutionists is often lacking. It is as if many organisms are designed to resist “explanations” rooted in hypothetical goo.
The living world is full of innumerable other systems, particularly among the insects and invertebrates, for which gradual evolutionary explanations have never been provided. [I.e. imaginary explanations are lacking] A particularly fascinating case is the mating flight of the dragonfly. The male flies ahead of the female and grips her head with terminal claspers. The female then bends her abdomen forward and receives the sperm from a special copulatory organ which is situated toward the front on the under surface of the abdomen of the male dragonfly and which he fills with semen from the true reproductive aperture before the start of the mating flight. This strange manoeuvre, which seems a curiously round about way to bring sperm to egg, depends on the unique and complex machinery which forms the male copulatory organ. Although in its detailed structure it varies enormously in different species, the fundamental design of this extraordinary complex organ is essentially the same in all species of dragonfly. No other insect possesses anything remotely like it, nor is it led up to gradually by a sequence of simpler transitional structures.
As Tillyard remarked:
The copulatory apparatus of the male Dragonfly is one of the most remarkable structures in the Animal Kingdom. The “palpal organ” on the pedipaip of the male Spider, and the hectocotylous arm of the Cephalopod Mollusc, extraordinary as they are, do not defy all explanation, since in each case they are modifications of an appendage already present. But the apparatus of the male Dragonfly is not homologous with any known organ in the Animal Kingdom; it is not derived from any pre-existing organ; and its origin, therefore, is as complete a mystery as it well could be.
(Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton :219-220)
If a proponent of evolutionary creation myths would like to provide an evolutionary creation myth for the copulatory organ of the male dragon fly then do so. As far as I know even the imaginary evidence which apparently seems so “overwhelming” to many evolutionists is lacking in many cases like this.
Of course if an evolutionary creation myth were imagined it would still be imaginary evidence for evolution having little to do with a scientific theory.
Filed under: Uncategorized |