Archetypes

Im in a debate with a creationst over vestiges. He has proposed that vestigial structures come about due to the Archetype on which it is based on. For example the archetype on which all vertebrates are based can be found here: Richard Owen (1804-1892) To say it simple: it is a blueprint used by God to create all vertebrates with. Only with different sizes or different functions for the bones.Allthough I understand that archetypes lack explanatory power which the ToE does provide- Why for example would an all powerfull God need to use a blueprint while he could all animals perfect- I dont think this will convince him. What Im really looking for is something (a bone or organ) that is present in some vertebrates but not in all. Or another argument that cripples the archetype argument effectively.any suggestions?[This message has been edited by dinoflagulates, 05-05-2003]

quote:

---

Well, some primates including humans have lost the ability (through genetic mutation) to synthesize vitamin C, while almost all other mammals can.

---

-This could be explained in the archetype model by stating that the blueprint contained the vitamin c synthesizing enzyme but God just decided not to use it for creating humans.

quote:

---

Not all vertebrates reproduce the same way; marsupials versus placentals

---

. this might indeed be a good point, but couldn't these different reproduction mechanisms be explained by shortening/lengthening some bones, tissue or something like that?

quote:

---

There are also a great many sub-optimal design elements all around the animal kingdom. For starters, in humans we have poorly-designed spines and knees for upright locomotion, which is why back pain and knee injury is so prevalent.

---

.

quote:

---

We have a sharp ridge inside of our skulls which damages our brains very easily.

---

Agreed, but I dont think this is a good point to counter the archetype argument with. sub-optimal design is precisely what the archetype model predicts. Allthough it begs the question why God has designed us in a sub-optimal way.

quote:

---

We have a (unique in nature) crossover food/air pipe construction in our throats which results in many choking deaths per year. It's benefit to the species (the ability to produce complex speech) far outweighs the cost to the species.

---

this unique crossover food/air pipe could probably have been created by rearranging some bones in the vertebrate blueprint, not?Im beginning to think that there is always a way to wiggle oneself out of this.

quote:

---

I dont think the archetype model predicts suboptimal design at all, divergent perhaps but not suboptimal, why do you think this?

---

I stand corrected, indeed it can explain some vestigial structures like the tailbone or hindlegs of whales, but it cannot explain why for example our backs are suboptimally designed. Allthough creationsts could argue that any suboptimally designed feature actually has been designed perfectly and that future research will find out why it is perfect.would be another unsupported creationist assumption for an allready infinite long list.[This message has been edited by dinoflagulates, 05-05-2003]