|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
[qs=TheArtist] I think your comments are uncalled for. [/qs=TheAtist]Nope. Untruths should be pointed out. Every time.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You guys are responding to some pretty old messages...
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
dan4reason writes: Wrong, there are many other species that have hips e.g. the sperm whale, and the fin whale. The fact that your "author" would make such an incredibly ignorant mistake suggests his or her extreme bias and ignorance on the topic. Because of that, can you please use a better source? However, not all whales do have vestigial hips. This only goes to show how whales can be made without them and still get along just fine. Now a vestigial organ does not mean this organ is useless, but one whose original function is much reduced. Naturally nearly every body part will have an effect on other parts no matter how vestigial it might be. The hips have most if not all of their original function. I need some back-up for the claim that the whale pelvis is "vital" for reproduction, if it is at all. Well first of all, these bones are not a "hip" and are not a "pelvis". These terms are just ad hoc evo jargon to claim evolutionary "facts" that can't be substantiated. The facts are that these bones support the tendons and muscles for the penis in male whales. Knowing this, from an evolutionary standpoint, they should be the pubic bones. That's all. Europe PMC As far as being "vital" for reproduction, I think if you talk to Dory, she would tell you that yes, any whale would agree that these bones are vital for reproduction.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah, the bones just look like a pelvis. Do you have an explanation for why they exist other than that God wanted to trick scientists into believing in evolution? Do tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Not a pelvis?
But you'll allow the pubic bones, right? Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium? That's 2/3 of the pelvis right there! Now all you need is the ilium. Hmmm. Seems like they have those too. Your argument seems to have gone down in flames.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Well throughout history scientists have been pretty easily tricked into believing bizarre things. It was the devil though, and not God! But seriously, did you read the paper? The bones don't look like a pelvis at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Well throughout history scientists have been pretty easily tricked into believing bizarre things. It was the devil though, and not God! But seriously, did you read the paper? The bones don't look like a pelvis at all. No, I didn't read that paper, but I did read the abstract. It doesn't say what you think/hope it does. In graduate school I studied a lot of bones, both human and non-human, and have dealt with both in the decades since. (I also do consulting for local Coroners, helping them by identifying some of the bones they find.) The bones of marine mammals differ a bit or a lot from those of terrestrial mammals for the obvious reasons. So, I am to take your opinion, "The bones don't look like a pelvis at all" as being meaningful, even superior, to my opinion after years of experience? Or the opinion of some real experts? I bet you've never studied bones at all! Your uninformed opinions are therefor quite worthless! And when you say, "It was the devil though, and not God!" you demonstrate that you are not interested in evidence anyway, and that you will stick to your belief in spite of even overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and your post demonstrates quite clearly what you are doing with your's.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But seriously, did you read the paper? The bones don't look like a pelvis at all. And yet somehow scientists have managed to identify them as such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
coyote writes: Not a pelvis? But you'll allow the pubic bones, right? Yes, no need for a pelvis in a whale. No legs, no hip joint, and no attachment to the vertebral column. But a vital need to have sexually related muscles and tendons attached to an anchoring bone.
Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium? Well in cetaceans they attach to the two bones shown in multiple species in the paper. The paper calls those bones...."reduced pelvic bones". Now, of course that is just an evo interpretation of the data. The bones themselves are the actual data. The facts are that in all terrestrial, pelvic mammals, these muscles would attach to the pubis and the ischium. However, they would not attach to the ilium!
That's 2/3 of the pelvis right there! Now all you need is the ilium. So, I am to take your opinion, "The bones don't look like a pelvis at all" as being meaningful, even superior, to my opinion after years of experience? Or the opinion of some real experts? I bet you've never studied bones at all! Your uninformed opinions are therefor quite worthless! Hmmm, so much for civil discourse! All opinions have some worth. And I suggest that you do take my opinion, because your credibility on this matter is zilch. The ischium is the smaller of the pelvic bones, the ilium is the much larger bone. However after your "years of experience" you somehow conclude that the ischium is about "2/3 of the pelvis". Any Anatomy 101 student would know better. Are you one of Dr. A's easily tricked scientists? You should not listen to the devil.
Your argument seems to have gone down in flames. Well, my argument came from the perspective of a hot air balloon. And it is now rising with the flames. Your argument came rom the perspective of your authority and your flames have been dowsed with water!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes, no need for a pelvis in a whale. No legs, no hip joint, and no attachment to the vertebral column. But a vital need to have sexually related muscles and tendons attached to an anchoring bone. Well, occasional legs.
However after your "years of experience" you somehow conclude that the ischium is about "2/3 of the pelvis". Any Anatomy 101 student would know better. Anatomy 101 students are literate and would be able to read Coyote's post:
Coyote writes: But you'll allow the pubic bones, right? Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium? That's 2/3 of the pelvis right there! See what he's saying?
Well, my argument came from the perspective of a hot air balloon. Your argument does seem to be supported exclusively by hot air.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Dr.A writes: Anatomy 101 students are literate and would be able to read Coyote's post:
Coyote writes: But you'll allow the pubic bones, right? Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium? That's 2/3 of the pelvis right there! See what he's saying?[ Clearly I do see what he is saying, but I'm afraid you don't. The pubic bones and ischium combined only make up about 1/3 of any terrestrial mammals pelvis. The ilium makes up about 2/3 of the pelvis. So I have proven that not only can I read well, but you like Coyote do not know very much about anatomy.
Your argument does seem to be supported exclusively by hot air. Yes, and my balloon continues to rise as you an Coyote are drowning in wet ashes.
Well, occasional legs. Please cite some sources here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Clearly I do see what he is saying, but I'm afraid you don't. The pubic bones and ischium combined only make up about 1/3 of any terrestrial mammals pelvis. The ilium makes up about 2/3 of the pelvis. So I have proven that not only can I read well, but you like Coyote do not know very much about anatomy. The bones that make up the pelvis are the pubis, ilium, and ischium, forming what is referred to as the innominate. Innominates are connected to each other pubis to pubis at the front and by the sacrum at the back in most critters. So, to refer to the pubis and ischium as 2/3 of the innomiate (or pelvis in layman-speak) refers to individual bones, not the relative sizes of the bones. Perhaps you should take a basic osteology class? Then you could actually handle some of these bones and see the differences between them for various species.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Coyote writes: The bones that make up the pelvis are the pubis, ilium, and ischium, forming what is referred to as the innominate. Innominates are connected to each other pubis to pubis at the front and by the sacrum at the back in most critters. So, to refer to the pubis and ischium as 2/3 of the innomiate (or pelvis in layman-speak) refers to individual bones, not the relative sizes of the bones. Well you're getting better at your wiki searches, but you're not quite there yet. Again, twice you mistakenly refer to the pelvis as you try and squirm out of your conundrum. Any educated person in anatomy knows that the pelvis has more bones than two sets of three bones which you mention above. They also know that the innominate and the pelvis are not the same things. But I will let you continue with your research, you may eventually learn this. So to be clear, the pubis and ischium do not in any way make up 2/3 of the number of bones in a pelvis, nor do they make up 2/3 of the pelvis by approximate size. And the pelvis and innominate have two different definitions, and they are not the same group of bones. So in summary, your "expert" claims are grossly lacking expertise. I submitted a peer reviewed paper for your review. You ignored it. If you had read and understood it, you wouldn't be making these mistakes, because all of the bones within the pelvis are mentioned at different times and in an evolutionary framework. Maybe you shouldn't assume that creos are so uneducated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Getting back on topic, your original point in Message 78 was that what evolutionists think is a vestigial pelvis in whales is actually an unrelated structure for supporting "the tendons and muscles for the penis in male whales." In Message 80 and subsequent messages Coyote described how the ischiocavernosus muscles mentioned in your quote from your reference attach to the ischium in mammals, one of the three bones of the innominate that is part of the pelvis. This same muscle exists in whales and attaches to its pelvis, as your reference states (Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones):
quote: And your reference seems quite certain that whales have a pelvis:
quote: You seem peeved at Coyote for not treating your opinion that whales have no pelvic bones with more respect, but what can you expect when even your own reference disagrees with you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Hi Percy,
I address your concerns in my first post. I recognize that all published evo literature is going to call these "pelvic" bones. Meaning from their perspective that these bones devolved from a once terrestrial pelvis equipped ancestor. My argument is that this is all ad hoc evo interpretations and not facts. Whales have two relatively very small bones that are crucially required to properly support their genitalia in both sexes. The fact that two bones exist for this purpose alone in cetacea do not warrant the interpretation that the bones are "pelvic". The interpretation that these are vestigial is even more specious considering that they are vitally important for any evolutionary chain which begs the reduced function question. Whale evolution as you know has a fairly short evo time span going back to land animals. The terrestrial animals had hips and pelvis'. The "amphibious animals had hips and pelvis' . The fully aquatic animals have two bones to support the genitalia. There are no transitions in between. The pelvis in all the hipped animals is usually eight bones, not all of which are found in the fossils I assume. However, cetacea only have two bones. No transition in-between. It's ad hoc imagination, not evidence. The same applies to so-called whales with legs etc. And actually, my citation doesn't disagree with me...
quote: No one know the evolutionary history of these bones. We only know their function which is highly important. Therefore, the assumption of evolution forces the interpretation that these bones are "pelvic". The evidence does not warrant this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024