Animals with bad design.

Not sure if this is relevant but what the hey...

quote:

---

At depths greater than a few hundred meters, the sun has little effect on water temperature, because the sun's energy has been absorbed by water at the surface. In the great depths of the ocean the water temperature is very cold. In fact, 75% of the water in the world ocean (the great depths) has a temperature between 0 C and 2 C.

---

sourceSperm Whales often dive as deep as 1000 meters and have been recorded to dive to over 3000 meters.Now that's not 0 F but still pretty cold.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The thing is Aaron wants to play games with temperatures. Either that or he is blindly reciting something he read or heard or even possibly he doesn't know what he is talking about so doesn't realize how bone headed he sounded.It is obvious that the info about the tuna he presented was in F and that the info about the whales was in C. The scary thing is he was unable to tell that his sources were using different temperature scales. But then again I tend to expect this from Creos.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Your patience, thoroughness and savvy are commendable. Thank you for making this an interesting debate. Now, let me ask you how this makes them different from what are considered limb buds in other tetrapods? Don't they perform these same functions in tetrapods? Don't they also appear at comparable stages in development, and grow in the same bodily locations, in both cetaceans and tetrapods?They still seem to be homologous structures, albeit homologous structures from which some components have been lost.----- Ah, I see your point.However, given that the lack of these proteins is probably the actual reason why whales have no hind limbs, I don't think it's such a big deal that whale limb buds don't have them.-----{Added by Edit: I believe I replied to the wrong message. Sorry if that threw you off.}Edited by Bluejay, : Addition (marked)

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I think Aaron was just a bit careless with the scales. We've had the metric system in Canada for more than thirty years and people of my generation still use Fahrenheit and Celsius in the same sentence. I assumed he meant 0 Celsius.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Lets look at his original assertion
Message 96 If he was using celsius the tuna would be in very hot water. That is warmer than a hot tub.Lets see what Aaron's explanation is for this. He needs to learn that fundie sites lie or are just plain wrong.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I don't think he was suggesting that whales can swim in ice. There's no need to assume duplicity when simple carelessness is more likely.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

My point is he should understand what he is posting before he posts something he obviously does not understand completely.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The corrected statement would be something like "Tuna can swim in water down to 6 degrees C, but whales can swim in much colder water - as cold as 0 degrees."That isn't nearly so impressive as comparing 43 to zero.

Hi, Aaron. I agree with you: the term "vestigial" implies evolution. It doesn't technically have to, but there's really little point in arguing otherwise.----- There are still some problems with this reasoning.First, body heat isn't really that important. Most animals in the Arctic and Antarctic spend their entire lives with their body temperature equal to the temperature of the cold water around them. Hypothermia is only really a serious problem when it causes the formation of ice crystals.Second, body size isn't really that important, either. A school of herring can substitute just fine for a whale, and, due to a higher reproductive rate, they turnover biomass much faster, meaning that, overall, they can probably be fed on and sustain more predators and scavengers than whales.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Although, packicetus is considered to be semi-aquatic - so it isn't so odd to find a bone structure that allows them to hear better underwater.It's not like we're talking about a bone that is non-existent in terrestrial mammals -the involucrum of packicetus and whales is thicker than it is in terrestrial mammals, but they all have the same type of bones.It is true that a number of extinct semi-aquatic mammals have an ear structure that helps them hear better underwater. The fact that they have biology that matches their environment in no way undermines a creationist viewpoint.What's interesting is how much evolutionists harp on the similarities of certain features to connect the dots to common ancestors, but don't have an issue with the dissimilarities.Would it make a difference if I pointed out all the differences in packicetus ear structure compared to modern whales? (Whale Transition)In addition, while whales have a reduced semicircular canal, pakicetus' were closest in canal arc size to modern artiodactyls.Its also interesting that toothed and baleen whales have difference in ear anatomy. Baleen whales have middle and inner ear bone casings that are directly fused to the skull while toothed whales do not. The fused setup of baleen whales is more similar to manatees. By appearance, manatees would seem to be closer related to whales than packicetus - but they are not considered closely related. You can find anatomical similarities in distantly related species. What other types of bone analysis is there? All I've heard is how closely the pelvis of whales matches the pelvis of land mammals - and here is somebody talking about the detailed differences.Again, it's like the differences are no big deal. All that matters are the similarities. Yet, obtaining major structural changes through random mutation is no small matter.Edited by Aaron, : No reason given.

Granny M What does "simple" pelvis mean. It looks pretty much the same as a dog pelvis.So, whale evolution went from the small pelvis of the Indohyus to the much larger pelvis of Ambulocetus and back down to the smaller pelvis of modern whales.One main difference between the pelvis of whales and other land mammals is that the two side in whales aren't connected. I mispoke - the original picture I showed was also measured in cm. Apparently I'm having some issues relaying proper measurements. There are also several species of Balaenoptera physalus which inhabit various corners of the globe. Its not unreasonable that the geographically separated sub-species might develop slight differences in bone size. The differences are greater than the similarities. Call it a pelvis. Call it whatever you want. Its a man-made term to describe similar bones. In this case, the bones are not really similar - they look very little like the pelvises of quadrupeds - it has more to do with the region in which they are found.Fish also have a pelvis - named so because of the general shape and general region of the bone. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think it undermines the idea of what constitutes good design. Wheels are the "perfect" design for moving cars along. Yet, they are found in many different sizes. Windshields are a "perfect" design for keeping bugs out of our mouths when we drive, yet they vary from car to car.It is perfectly reasonable for a designer to tailor fit a "perfect" design for the size, shape, and reproductive styles of different whale species. It would be unintelligent to fit killer whales and sperm whales with the same size pelvis bone. I'm sure natural selection has played a roll in creating variations in whale pelvises as well. How would you tell the difference between a group of fused bones and one single bone that looks exactly the same? It doesn't look like whale bones have jagged lines to indicate that the different parts were formed separately and later fused, as is the case in the human skull. Most of the whale pelvises that don't have smaller nobs do look like one smooth piece - and even on these, one of the ends are labeled a femur. God can limit himself. He's not like an exploding bomb whose power must be emitted without control. The question becomes a theological one - why would God do things the way he did them.

Thanks for getting my back.It was a careless oversight on my part. Obviously whales can't swim in ice.Contrary to my accusers opinion, I wasn't quoting from a "fundie" site - so the mistake is mine alone. I do my own research and don't quote from creation sites because I know they wouldn't hold any credence with you.My point was that whales have some advantages over tuna when it comes to extreme environments. Besides, temperature ranges were not the only information I was using to suggest whales occupy a unique ecological niche.

But it doesn't. The adaptations of modern whales do. Right. The similarities are arbitrary, suggesting common descent or wild coincidence; the differences are adaptive, suggesting adaptation. Again the differences are explicable as adaptive. Clearly whales don't need legs that they can walk on, and natural selection would have dispensed with them just as a creator would have done.But the similarities are baffling except as a result of common ancestry. Here's an anatomist describing a dissection of a right whale: Now if we take that with all the parallel cases in other animals, the whole "God just felt like doing it that way for some unknown reason" hypothesis looks distinctly flakey.

Hi, Aaron. We expect differences, because the Theory of Evolution is fundamentally about the differences between species. The similarities, however, are key to understanding what these differences mean.If two species are only similar in ways that are functionally significant, then we can chalk up the similarities to common design or common adaptation. We don't really have much to say on the differences at this point, but we could easily speculate that they, too, have something to do with function.But, if two species are similar in ways that are functionally superfluous, or even functionally inferior to other available options, then we need to look to something other than function to explain why they are the way they are.Combining common descent with evolution leads us to an explanatory framework that beautifully accounts for both the similarities and the differences.
Intelligent design, however, leaves us with a bafflingly quirky designer and the assumption that we'll soon realize that things we currently think are inferior are actually the best fit for the role they are intended to play (which we'll also discover in the future).I'm not saying that it's entirely impossible that we'll get to that point, but don't you agree that it sounds absurdly sketchy?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

But as has been pointed out, you attempted make it seem like there was a huge disparity.The difference between 43 f and 0f is quite a bit.
But not nearly as much of a difference between 6 c and 0 c.
Of i you want it if F 43 and 32.Doesn't seem to be nearly as impressive does it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts