Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 91 of 443 (777829)
02-09-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by AlphaOmegakid
02-09-2016 5:53 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
And actually, my citation doesn't disagree with me...
quote:
Cetacean pelves...etc...
It calls them "pelves," which directly contradicts your claim that they're not. The remainder of the passage is about a lack of consensus concerning whale pelvis evolutionary history, not about a lack of consensus that it's a pelvis. Your citation pretty much disagrees with you and in any case provides no support for your view.
The main point Coyote was making and that I attempted to repeat is that in mammals the ischiocavernosus muscle (mentioned in the portion of the reference you quoted in your Message 78) is attached to the pelvis and is involved in the male erection. Whales have an ischiocavernosus muscle that is attached to the pelvis and is involved in the male erection. The whale pelvis is much diminished compared to vertebrae with legs. Similarly, in most species of snakes the pelvis is completely absent.
We understand your view that all life is unrelated separate creations, but the evidence we haven't doesn't provide any support for that view.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-09-2016 5:53 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 5:11 PM Percy has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 92 of 443 (777832)
02-09-2016 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by AlphaOmegakid
02-09-2016 11:32 AM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Clearly I do see what he is saying, but I'm afraid you don't.
And yet he agrees with me and not with you; and I noticed that he was including the pubic bones and you didn't.
Yes, and my balloon continues to rise as you an Coyote are drowning in wet ashes.
Why yes, creationism has gone from strength to strength. Only a couple of centuries ago it was merely the dominant idea in biology, but from these humble beginnings it has risen to become the sectarian dogma of a crackpot religious cult whose proudest legitimate boast is that most of them aren't actually flat-Earthers.
Please cite some sources here.
Besides the legged whales in the fossil record, there are numerous recorded cases of avatism. For example:
Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint is firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures.
Is this just God fucking with scientists again, or might there be a more rational explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-09-2016 11:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 5:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 93 of 443 (777858)
02-10-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
02-09-2016 6:18 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Percy writes:
The main point Coyote was making and that I attempted to repeat is that in mammals the ischiocavernosus muscle (mentioned in the portion of the reference you quoted in your Message 78) is attached to the pelvis and is involved in the male erection. Whales have an ischiocavernosus muscle that is attached to the pelvis and is involved in the male erection. The whale pelvis is much diminished compared to vertebrae with legs. Similarly, in most species of snakes the pelvis is completely absent.
And my main point which you and Coyote continue to miss is that the pelvis in most terrestrial mammals is made up of three distinct paired bones plus the sacrum and coccyx. The pelvic girdle or innominate is three paired bones fused together, the pubis, ischium and ilium. The ischiocavernosus muscle which controls the penis in males and various genitalia functions in females attach to the pubis and the ischium. Not the ilium! This from a size perspective is a very small part of the pelvis.
Now in cetacea, you have one set of paired bones to which these muscles attach. That set of bones are:
quote:
devoid of distinguishing land- marks (Fig. 1C), hampering traditional morphometric techniques.
Meaning there is no fusion evidence. So they are just one bone that supports genitalia function. Anatomically there is nothing to justify calling these "pelvic" bones at all.
This is the evidence or facts. The rest is inference. Evolutionist are just assuming the consequence of their theory with this phraseology of "pelvic".
From a design perspective, this one bone in proportional size and shape to the animals genitalia looks like the pubis bone alone. But that's just a name. It could be named anything in cetacea, because it is clearly a unique anatomy.
It calls them "pelves," which directly contradicts your claim that they're not. The remainder of the passage is about a lack of consensus concerning whale pelvis evolutionary history, not about a lack of consensus that it's a pelvis. Your citation pretty much disagrees with you and in any case provides no support for your view.
You are correct that they refute my argument, but their inference begs the question. The evidence does not support that reasoning from the anatomy. So I reject the inference which is not evidence.
We understand your view that all life is unrelated separate creations,
You clearly do not. I, like informed creos, do not in any way view life as unrelated separate creations. That's a strong strawman. In fact we believe in a whole bunch of evolution which is pretty rapid. And we believe in a common designer which uses repeated design features. So I reject your assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 02-09-2016 6:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 02-10-2016 6:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2016 8:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2016 1:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 94 of 443 (777860)
02-10-2016 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2016 9:00 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Dr.A writes:
Why yes, creationism has gone from strength to strength. Only a couple of centuries ago it was merely the dominant idea in biology, but from these humble beginnings it has risen to become the sectarian dogma of a crackpot religious cult whose proudest legitimate boast is that most of them aren't actually flat-Earthers.
Why yes, evolutionism has gone from weakness to strength. Only centuries ago it was merely a faint idea in biology, but from these humble beginnings it has risen to become the sectarian dogma of a crackpot religious cult whose proudest legitimate boast is that most of them aren't actually flat-Earthers. Except of course for the leader of the Flat Earth Society!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2016 9:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2016 10:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 95 of 443 (777861)
02-10-2016 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by AlphaOmegakid
02-10-2016 5:11 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
The ischiocavernosus muscle which controls the penis in males and various genitalia functions in females attach to the pubis and the ischium. Not the ilium!
Not sure why you're responding as if someone claimed the ischiocavernosus muscle attaches to the ilium. No one did unless someone accidentally misspoke. Right in his first post in this topic Coyote said, "Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium?"
Anatomically there is nothing to justify calling these "pelvic" bones at all.
Anatomically, though diminished the whale pelvis resides in its traditional location in mammals, it attaches to at least one of the muscles that mammal pelves attach to, some whale species also have vestigial femurs and/or tibiae and sometimes even develop external hindlimbs, and the same diminishment of the pelvis is found in other animals that have found other means of locomotion besides walking.
From a design perspective, this one bone in proportional size and shape to the animals genitalia looks like the pubis bone alone. But that's just a name. It could be named anything in cetacea, because it is clearly a unique anatomy.
Except that it isn't a unique anatomy. It shares a good deal with other mammals.
The evidence does not support that reasoning from the anatomy. So I reject the inference which is not evidence.
Okay, that's fine, your privilege.
You clearly do not. I, like informed creos, do not in any way view life as unrelated separate creations. That's a strong strawman. In fact we believe in a whole bunch of evolution which is pretty rapid. And we believe in a common designer which uses repeated design features.
Although it seems odd to accept rapid evolution while rejecting so much of the actual evidence for evolution, it's great that you have a view to seek evidence for.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 5:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 7:26 PM Percy has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 96 of 443 (777862)
02-10-2016 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
02-10-2016 6:56 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Percy writes:
Not sure why you're responding as if someone claimed the ischiocavernosus muscle attaches to the ilium. No one did unless someone accidentally misspoke. Right in his first post in this topic Coyote said, "Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium?"
The reason I point to this fact is that the ischiocavernosus muscle attaches to this single bone in cetacea.
The evo hypothesis of a reduced pelvis causes them to think that this bone is a reduced pelvis which is a combo of ilium and icshium and pubis. But there's no evidence of any fusion, so what they are doing is reasoning circular to find what they predict. See the OP post.
So what we have is a very small bone in multiple species which fits the relative size needed to support the genitalia of the animal. It does not fit at all with a pelvis, so they force the inference of a pelvis to agree with their theory.
Anatomically, though diminished the whale pelvis resides in its traditional location in mammals, it attaches to at least one of the muscles that mammal pelves attach to
Really? What I see is anatomically it is located where the genitalia are. The pelvis spans from the vertebral column to the genitalia. And the muscles that attach are the muscles for the genitalia. Simple design, not forced inferences.
some whale species also have vestigial femurs and/or tibiae and sometimes even develop external hindlimbs
Yes, I have heard of this, and read most of the literature on it including Dr.A's citation. What do you have? I will respond. Try reading Dr.A's citation with one ounce of skepticism. Does anything pop out to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 02-10-2016 6:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 02-10-2016 8:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 102 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2016 12:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 97 of 443 (777865)
02-10-2016 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by AlphaOmegakid
02-10-2016 5:11 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
In fact we believe in a whole bunch of evolution which is pretty rapid.
Right, I've seen some of the "arguments" for rapid evolution. A good example is John Woodmorappe, who in his article The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’--on evolutionists’ terms claims that a variety of fossil species, including:
Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
For this to happen the change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all (what they call macroevolution).
But now we see a creationist has not only proposed macroevolution, but sees it occurring several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
So don't give us this "rapid evolution" business without researching who is claiming what and where. Seems like every creationist engages in his own version of apologetics without regard to what other creationists claim or what the evidence actually supports.
But I guess when you're engaging in faith-based apologetics rather than evidence-based science, that's what you're stuck with.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 5:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 98 of 443 (777866)
02-10-2016 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AlphaOmegakid
02-10-2016 7:26 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Hi AlphaOmegakid,
As I said, it's your right to reject whatever evidence and inferences you like, and having your own framework of understanding in which to fit the evidence you accept is even better, but I think you should explicitly make your case instead of handing out reading assignments and asking, "Does anything pop out at you?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 7:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-11-2016 9:53 AM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 99 of 443 (777871)
02-11-2016 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by AlphaOmegakid
02-10-2016 5:11 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
It seems to me that your case is very weak. The paper you cite only deals with current function which is largely irrelevant. Trying to undermine the case that these bones are a reduced pelvis - which can only be partially successful in that there is evidence for that view - is not sufficient to establish that they are not. Further, the paper you cite implies that the identification of these bones as a reduced pelvis goes back to 1820 so it is unlikely that evolution was a concern.
So I'm not sure why you're bothering to argue this case. You've got very little evidence, the paper you chose doesn't directly support you, and the support that you claim is weak and far from the primary focus. Really, why don't you hit the books and come up with references that directly address your points before trying to argue ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 5:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 100 of 443 (777876)
02-11-2016 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Percy
02-10-2016 8:40 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Just trying to have a conversation. You made a claim about hind legs and I asked for your input, so I could combine it with my response to Dr. A. If you don't want to read the citations, that is your right as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 02-10-2016 8:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 02-11-2016 10:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 101 of 443 (777877)
02-11-2016 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by AlphaOmegakid
02-11-2016 9:53 AM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
If you don't want to read the citations, that is your right as well.
But issuing citations without making an argument is not your right. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Here's your citation: On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale, Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Volume 15, MacMillan and Co., London and Cambridge, 1881. What argument are you making that you believe is supported by this citation, and where in this rather long reference can the support be found?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-11-2016 9:53 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-22-2016 11:19 AM Percy has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 102 of 443 (777887)
02-11-2016 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AlphaOmegakid
02-10-2016 7:26 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
The evo hypothesis of a reduced pelvis causes them to think that this bone is a reduced pelvis which is a combo of ilium and icshium and pubis. But there's no evidence of any fusion, so what they are doing is reasoning circular to find what they predict.
The moral of the story is that, if you use the word "pelvis" when you do not necessarily mean "every single bone of the pelvis," creationists are liable to make a stupid argument from it.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 7:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 103 of 443 (778606)
02-22-2016 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Percy
02-11-2016 10:59 AM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Percy writes:
But issuing citations without making an argument is not your right. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Here's your citation: On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale, Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Volume 15, MacMillan and Co., London and Cambridge, 1881. What argument are you making that you believe is supported by this citation, and where in this rather long reference can the support be found?
Hi Percy,
My apologies for being delinquent for awhile, but my occupation does not afford me the time for daily interaction. Sometimes, I will disappear and jump back in.
I think if you reread my original post Message 78, you will see that I am not posting a bare link in any sense of the word. I am clearly answering the old OP writer's request...
Dan4reason writes:
I need some back-up for the claim that the whale pelvis is "vital" for reproduction, if it is at all.
The article provided answers this question clearly and I provided a quote from the article. Here it is again...
quote:
Furthermore, the anatomy of cetacean pelvic bones reveals important roles in male reproductive function. The paired pelvic bones anchor the genitalia and the paired ischiocavernosus muscles, which control the penis.
These bones, whatever you call them anchor the genitalia for both male and female organisms. That is the evidence from this article as well as previous citations within the article.
Now that makes these bones critical for evolution to even take place. In fact these bones must have been critical in every evolutionary step in between in the evo history. Each organism in the hypothesized evo chain of whales have the genitalia muscles and tendons anchored to bones. These bones are in other organisms, the pubis and the ischium. Never the ilium. Therefore, my secondary argument is that these particular bones cannot be vestigial in any sense of the word, because there is no reduced function.
In every organism, these bones are critical for evolution to even begin. They were used for sexual procreation in any imagined ancestor, and they are used for sexual procreation in extant whales and dolphins.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 02-11-2016 10:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 02-22-2016 12:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 104 of 443 (778612)
02-22-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid
02-22-2016 11:19 AM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Hi AlphaOmegakid,
I was responding to where you said this in your Message 96:
Yes, I have heard of this, and read most of the literature on it including Dr.A's citation. What do you have? I will respond. Try reading Dr.A's citation with one ounce of skepticism. Does anything pop out to you?
Dr. A's citation is On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale, Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Volume 15, MacMillan and Co., London and Cambridge, 1881. It's long. If you think something supporting your position should pop out to people please describe it and tell us where in the reference it can be found.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-22-2016 11:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-22-2016 5:31 PM Percy has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 105 of 443 (778638)
02-22-2016 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Percy
02-22-2016 12:02 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
I am confused. This is Dr. A's citation, so how could it be my bare link?
I know I mentioned it in a reply to you, and I am preparing a response with my claims, but I don't see how I broke any forum rules here? Can you please clarify?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 02-22-2016 12:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 02-22-2016 6:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024