Discoveroids Say: Behold the Ostrich!

If you’re still one of those die-hard evolutionists who insists that there’s no evidence for the Discovery Institute’s intelligent design “theory,” this will be a real mind-changer.

The newest post at their creationist blog is Ostrich Kneecaps — Another Enduring Mystery for Darwinism, written by Cornelius Hunter — a Discoveroid “fellow” who teaches at a bible college. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

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.

Wowie — an enduring mystery! PhysOrg had an article about this a month ago: Two knees or not two knees: The curious case of the ostrich’s double kneecap. They discuss a study by PhD student Sophie Regnault from the Royal Veterinary College, UK, and say:

“We are still not sure why ostriches might have evolved this second kneecap,” says Ms Regnault. “It might help to protect the tendon of these heavy fast-running birds, but there are other potential roles that we haven’t yet explored”.

Evolutionists are fools! and they can’t figure it out, but it’s no problem for creationists. Cornelius says:

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.

Aha — evolution is useless! After that he tells us:

As one article admits [Why the ostrich is the only living animal with four kneecaps]: “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.

That article discusses the same research that PhysOrg wrote about, and it actually admits — Gasp! — that there are species with unique features.

That’s enough for Cornelius. He doesn’t need to waste any time with elaborate explanations. He leaps to the answer at the end of his post:

Such one-off, “lineage specific” designs are “bizarre” for evolutionists. So while there are design reasons for the ostriches [sic] four kneecaps, on the ordinary view of the evolution of each being, we can only say that so it is.

We knew it! There are “design reasons” for those kneecaps. The Discoveroids’ theory triumphs again! Isn’t it time you gave up on evolution, dear reader?

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Discoveroids Say: Behold the Ostrich!

  1. Michael Fugate

    The enduring mystery for creationists is why ostrich’s have wings!

  2. The Discoveroid’s creationist blog and News and Views all read like a National Inquirer tabloid paper, particularly the cartoon page.

  3. Wait, what? A design proponentsist suggesting darwinian evolution can’t make predictions? I’m not going to risk keeping my irony meter too close to Hunter.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Based on intelligent design, Cornelius, why did the “designer” put a double knee caps in ostriches, but no other ratite past or present? Why didn’t the “designer” put them in humans?

  5. 1) All that it shows is “design”, not why this particular design.
    2) We don’t know the ways of the Lord.
    3) Because of the Fall if Adam.
    On the other hand, don’t forget to check whether it’s true.

  6. Michael Fugate

    Here is an interesting paper on the anatomy:
    https://peerj.com/articles/706/
    Given the amount of fusion in bird skeletons, I am wondering if the 2nd patella would normally be fused to the tibia in other ratites or if it is an independent ossification. We have a Rhea skeleton in our anatomy lab – I will need to take a look when I get some time.

  7. As one article admits [Why the ostrich is the only living animal with four kneecaps]: “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.

    I suppose it couldn’t be that these “unique designs” are merely examples of natural selection providing solutions to special problems. One couldn’t possibly suggest that the ostrich’s four knees represent a benign mutation preserved by natural selection because it’s advantageous in the ostrich’s natural habitat.

    Cornelius goes on:

    Such one-off, “lineage specific” designs are “bizarre” for evolutionists. So while there are design reasons for the ostriches [sic] four kneecaps, on the ordinary view of the evolution of each being, we can only say that so it is.

    And, of course, look for answers to the question beyond simply, “God did it!”, which shuts off all further effort at understanding.

  8. Of course, since all those “related species ” must have come from the same “ostrich kind” on Noah’s ark, how did they evolve so QUICKLY to be different?

    So, didn’t mean to get into the tough questions….

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    The plethora of ‘whys’ in living things is staggering regardless of your causal understanding. This post by DI is another of seeing the trees without noticing the forest. That there are so much of these ‘whys’ challenges design thinking. Evolution doesn’t proport a specific why for each case, while design does.

  10. Is there any case – any one case – where “it is designed” is a sufficient answer to why or how?
    If I wonder about a watch, that the hands go around in the direction that we call “clockwise”, that the minute hand is makes one circuit in one hour and the hour hand makes one circuit in 12 hours, or how the watch came to be on the heath? What does “it is designed” tell me?
    If I wonder about my right eye – how did I come to have one, or anything else about it – what does “it was designed” tell me?
    If I wonder about Schubert’s 8th Symphony, the “Unfinished” – anything about it – what does being told that it is designed tell me?

  11. One common characteristic about creationists is that you don’t have to read their dreck to know it’s rubbish. I see Corny Hunter or Dense O’Dreary or Kankerwanker on the byline and I know it’s rubbish before I read a single word. Let me guess, Grandy Sewerwell’s next essay will be another misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Just a guess.

  12. 4 kneecaps in ostriches on Earth therefore 1 immaterial infinite omniscient god everywhere. Glad they cleared that up for us.

  13. Michael Fugate

    What is also clear is that 2 kneecaps and 0 kneecaps in ratites are also evidence of “design” and therefore God. Hunter fails to point that out.