|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If all this forum had to offer was semantic games I wouldn't be here. Anyway, since you've essentially conceded the point on this "easy" example, I guess it's time to move on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
About the only thing I can agree with is your call for evidence, but that has been answered. You just interpret the evidence differently, apparently as fraud.
AlphaOmegakid writes: Percy writes: Hind limbs form during early fetal development in whales and dolphins and are subsequently absorbed. Barbara Streisand! ???
Hind limbs do not form in whale and dolphins during early fetal development. Buds form and disappear very early in development. (4-6 weeks) That's all. No limbs are ever formed. That's a very short bud development time compared to 52-78 weeks of gestation. So this begs the question....Is it even a "bud"? Calling the buds of early fetal development hind limbs was only meant to make clear their anatomical correspondence and wasn't meant to imply that fully formed hind limbs appear at that stage. They appear in the same place as the pelvis.
Percy writes: This would be true if they were hind limbs/legs, but they are fins. There is zero evidence of legs in this dolphin that you have pictured. Obviously they were not absorbed during this dolphin's fetal development, and so are expressed as a birth defect. The dolphins front flippers (not fins) include bones homologous to mammal front legs, and presumably this dolphin's hind flipper (not fin) contains bones homologous to mammal rear legs, and it's positioned on the body where the pelvis is:
But there is visual evidence of polymelia of the front fins. Not in that image (the front flippers are out-of-picture), and not in any normal dolphin. The dolphin front flippers are not a birth defect.
Not in the context you are using it. This dolphin has four fins. That's the visual evidence and the actual claims in your citation as well as all the other citations relative to this dolphin. If these are fins, then it is polymelia. Again, the dolphin front flippers are normal, not polymelia. The rear flippers in the particular dolphin in the image can be said to be a case of polymelia.
However if this is "hind legs" then this cannot be polymelia, because there are no other hind legs in the dolphin. Your statements are not lining up with the scientific reality. I think you don't know what polymelia means. It's a birth defect that produces more than the normal number of limbs or parts of limbs. Since a dolphin normally has two front flippers and no rear flippers, dolphins with rear flippers have experienced polymelia.
Percy writes: Your rejection of vestigial status for the whale pelvis makes no sense given that you accept rapid evolution. My rejection of the vestigial status of the whale pelvis is based solely on fraudulent representations, flimsy anecdotal evidence, and lack of homology, and it has nothing to do with rapid evolution. You haven't produced any evidence of fraud, there's plenty of evidence of homology, and you haven't provided any explanation or evidence for why evolution (rapid evolution for you) could not have caused whale and dolphin hind limbs to become vestigial, in a manner like snake limbs. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
duplicate, or nearly so.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Hand waiving! I need evidence. Where is your skeletal evidence of this dolphin to support your claims? You don't have any. You just can't claim homology, you must demonstrate it with evidence. I am having some difficulty figuring out your position here. At worst, the whale evidence is simply consistent with the theory of evolution, a theory that is support with evidence that goes way beyond homology. In that case, we are using the theory of evolution to make conclusions about the history of whales, rather than using it to prove evolution. So unless you are actually pointing to an issue that is contrary to the theory of evolution, then homology is a perfectly viable tool in tracing the developments of whale species. Not every paper is written as an attempt to discredit whatever theory of evolution or non-evolution you are pushing here. That issue has largely been settled for decades. 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 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
About the only thing I can agree with is your call for evidence, but that has been answered. You just interpret the evidence differently, apparently as fraud. Well, I'm not sure how you interpret the evidence which is just a picture of this particular dolphin. Previously you posted a caption that said "Dolphin reveals an extras set of legs". To which I say "FRAUD"! There is nothing that looks like legs in that picture. I know evos want them to be legs, but surely that wasn't the case, because an x-ray and a paper would have confirmed leg homology and the evidence would be very strong. Instead, it's been ten long silent years since this dolphin was discovered and no x-rays or papers or Jack Squat. Just Fraudulent headlines in the previous reports. Now it appears, you may think these ar fins........?
Percy writes: a failed attempt at humor. Initials are B.S. which stands for many things.
??? Calling the buds of early fetal development hind limbs was only meant to make clear their anatomical correspondence and wasn't meant to imply that fully formed hind limbs appear at that stage. They appear in the same place as the pelvis. I understand. However, the term "limb bud" in embryology comes from the realization that limbs form from the buds. In cetatcea, no limbs grow from the bud. The bud disappears early in gestation. This begs the question of the fraudulent naming of the "bud" . You cannot draw homology from location alone.
The dolphins front flippers (not fins) include bones homologous to mammal front legs, and presumably this dolphin's hind flipper (not fin) contains bones homologous to mammal rear legs, and it's positioned on the body where the pelvis is: And that presumption is not warranted from the pictorial evidence provided. A simple x-ray would provide the warrant. But somehow, amazingly, after ten long, arduous years the warrant still doesn't exist. The presumption was false. It's a fraud.
I think you don't know what polymelia means. It's a birth defect that produces more than the normal number of limbs or parts of limbs. Since a dolphin normally has two front flippers and no rear flippers, dolphins with rear flippers have experienced polymelia. I understand this quite well, I'm not sure you do. Sure if they are polymelia to the front fins/ flippers then they attest nothing about evolution. That's my point. It is simply a duplication/ genetic abnormality. They probably are fibrous inside and are polymelial to the dorsal fin. That's why no x-rays have ever been published. For these structures to attest to evolution, they must be hind legs and must be homologous to terrestrial hind legs. Here they would be atavistic and not polymelial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Well, I'm not sure how you interpret the evidence which is just a picture of this particular dolphin. Previously you posted a caption that said "Dolphin reveals an extras set of legs". To which I say "FRAUD"! The caption was from the newspaper article, but anyway, where's the fraud? The picture is legitimate, and it is most biologists opinion that rear appendages like this on whales, dolphins and snakes are homologous to rear legs. That you have a different opinion doesn't turn other people's opinions into fraud.
I know evos want them to be legs, but surely that wasn't the case, because an x-ray and a paper would have confirmed leg homology and the evidence would be very strong. Instead, it's been ten long silent years since this dolphin was discovered and no x-rays or papers or Jack Squat. Just Fraudulent headlines in the previous reports. Yes, it's too bad there was no scientific followup, but I don't think you know what "fraud" and "fraudulent" means.
This begs the question of the fraudulent naming of the "bud". You've got to stop calling opinions other than your own fraud. You use the word a lot and produce evidence of it not at all.
I understand this quite well, I'm not sure you do. Sure if they are polymelia to the front fins/ flippers then they attest nothing about evolution. That's my point. It is simply a duplication/ genetic abnormality. They probably are fibrous inside and are polymelial to the dorsal fin. That's why no x-rays have ever been published. That's all speculation, or as you would say, fraud.
For these structures to attest to evolution, they must be hind legs and must be homologous to terrestrial hind legs. Here they would be atavistic and not polymelial. When you said, "There is visual evidence of polymelia of the front fins" I understood you to mean it was the front flippers (not fins) that were polymelial. I understand your meaning now. You meant that that the rear flippers were polymelial expressions of the front flippers. I agree that atavism is the correct term for an evolutionary interpretation. But how would you explain your reasoning that evolution could not possibly have reduced the hind legs in whales and dolphins to a vestigial state? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, AOkid.
AlphaOmegakid writes: I understand. However, the term "limb bud" in embryology comes from the realization that limbs form from the buds. In cetatcea, no limbs grow from the bud. The bud disappears early in gestation. This begs the question of the fraudulent naming of the "bud" . You cannot draw homology from location alone. How about "location" + "gene expression"? In 2006 (a few months before the four-limbed dolphin was found), Thewissen et al. showed that the hind "limb buds" of dolphin embryos display the same morphology as the embryonic limb buds of other mammals: specifically they develop an apical ectodermal ridge (AER), which plays an important role in downstream genomic signals that regulate the development of the bud into a true limb. The AER in dolphins also expresses the developmental gene Fgf8, which is expressed in the same way in mammalian limbs, and helps initiate the process of limb development. They note that the dolphin limb bud fails to develop a proper "zone of polarizing activity" (ZPA), which prevents the bud from developing into a full leg, and triggers its later atrophy. So, let's tabulate the evidence:
To me, that seems like a pretty damn good collection of evidence in support of the hypothesis that the putative "pelvis" and "limb buds" actually are the vestiges of the mammalian pelvis and hind limbs. -----
As a side note, I share your consternation with the lack of follow-up studies on that four-limbed dolphin (AO-4). I did some poking around, and apparently AO-4 was kept at the Taiji Whale Museum until she died in 2013. Taiji Cove is notorious as the location of the annual mass dolphin slaughters, and the museum has a real shoddy record of deplorable living conditions for its animals. There's not even any mention of what they did with AO-4's remains. So, they effectively spared this dolphin from the slaughterhouse in order to torture her for eleven years in the name of science, and failed to get any scientifically useful data from her. But hey, I assume they at least made money off admissions to the "freak show," so capitalism won in the end! Donald Trump would be proud!-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Blue Jay writes: How about "location" + "gene expression"? That evidence would be confirming. Let's see how you do?
In 2006 (a few months before the four-limbed dolphin was found), Thewissen et al. showed that the hind "limb buds" of dolphin embryos display the same morphology as the embryonic limb buds of other mammals: specifically they develop an apical ectodermal ridge (AER), which plays an important role in downstream genomic signals that regulate the development of the bud into a true limb. The AER in dolphins also expresses the developmental gene Fgf8, which is expressed in the same way in mammalian limbs, and helps initiate the process of limb development. Just like the good evo you are, you present the evidence that supports your position. So lets examine the evidence. About week 5 the bud and AER appear. About one to two weeks later the bud disappears from the remainder of gestation.. That's a blip on the cetacean gestational period of 52 weeks plus. In contrast, terrestrial hind limb buds appear about the same time and produce the hind limbs of the organism throughout gestation. So homology doesn't exist in embryological anatomy. So what could cause such a thing? Could it be non-similarities in gene expressions rather than similarities?....Let's see.
They note that the dolphin limb bud fails to develop a proper "zone of polarizing activity" (ZPA), which prevents the bud from developing into a full leg, and triggers its later atrophy. They "note' this? This is the whole focus of the paper. They are trying to hypothesize why this happens genetically. This paper is identifying things that are different from terrestrial hind limb buds. The differences discussed are significant! Now I will note, that not one time does Thewissen claim homology on the hind limb buds or their gene expression even though I know he believes they are homologous.
1. The location of the putative "limb bud" is consistent with it being the same limb bud that, in other animals, develops into the hind limb.
Granted, but just for one week or so of gestation! In all other weeks of gestation there is no bud! That's significantly non-homologous.
2. The putative "limb bud" displays anatomical similarities to the limb bud that, in other animals, develops into the hind limb. Really? Again this paper is identifying the non-similarities. You have already identified the absence of the ZPA. Is that not a significant anatomical difference? Myogeneic cells responsible for muscle creation also do not present in these buds. Another significant difference, yet we know that significant musculature is attached to the "innominate" bone in dolphins.
3. The putative "limb bud" displays similarities in gene-expression patterns with similar-stage limb buds from animals in which it goes on to develop into the hind limb.
Again, I would suggest you re-read this paper you cited. Yes, a couple of genes are expressed similarly, yet many are not! In fact Thewissen says:
quote:This bud is not homologous to hind limb buds in gene expression. 4. Several examples of individual cetaceans showing an apparently atavistic trait that is consistent with the development of hind "limb buds" into rudimentary hind limbs. Show your cards. I have reviewed all the published literature here, and at best the evidence is anecdotal, and potentially fraudulent. I want to see the "several" cases. Percy's dolphin certainly doesn't count. There is zero evidence of atavism there.
5. Similarities in muscle attachment and functionality between a terrestrial mammal's pelvis and a cetacean's "mystery bone."
Again Really? No one can even definitively identify this bone relative to the muscles attached. That's why this bone is still controversial in the literature. At best the muscles attached relate to the penis and female genitalia. No other muscles in cetacea correlate with terrestrial animals in this area.
A cetacean pelvic fossil of Miocene age that indicates homology of putative "pelvic" bones of modern cetaceans with the pelvic bones of other mammals. You'll have to enlighten me here. I don't know what you are referring to.
To me, that seems like a pretty damn good collection of evidence in support of the hypothesis that the putative "pelvis" and "limb buds" actually are the vestiges of the mammalian pelvis and hind limbs. To me, the evidence shows significant non-homologous characters in both morphology and embryological development. PS. I'm glad you share my consternation about AO-4's lack of evidence, but this is evidence that the previous claims were unfounded. Otherwise the Japanese would be quite famous for finding the "walking dolphin"!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There is zero evidence of atavism there. Are you saying it is more likely that this is a case of independent birth defects that resulted in two additional dorsal fins coincidentally growing in exactly the places we would expect to find hind limb buds growing into flippers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes: About week 5 the bud and AER appear. About one to two weeks later the bud disappears from the remainder of gestation. That's a blip on the cetacean gestational period of 52 weeks plus. In contrast, terrestrial hind limb buds appear about the same time and produce the hind limbs of the organism throughout gestation. So homology doesn't exist in embryological anatomy. You don't assess homology by examining a whole suite of characteristics and deciding what proportion of them match up: you assess homology by examining specific, individual characteristics that indicate an evolutionary relationship. That's literally what the term "homology" is supposed to imply: that a specific characteristic is shared by two species. In whales and terrestrial mammals, the same genes are found to govern hind limb bud formation during the early stages of fetal development, and the bud starts out forming in the same way. Then, at a relatively early stage, it stops forming in whales, and continues forming in terrestrial mammals. The conclusion is that early embryonic stages are homologous, because gene expression is similar. Later stages are not homologous, because gene expression and subsequent bud development changes.
AOkid writes: Blue Jay writes: 1. The location of the putative "limb bud" is consistent with it being the same limb bud that, in other animals, develops into the hind limb. Granted, but just for one week or so of gestation! In all other weeks of gestation there is no bud! That's significantly non-homologous. Reciprocally granted.
AOkid writes: Blue Jay writes: 2. The putative "limb bud" displays anatomical similarities to the limb bud that, in other animals, develops into the hind limb. Really? Again this paper is identifying the non-similarities. You have already identified the absence of the ZPA. Is that not a significant anatomical difference? This is a really numbskull argument, Kid. Think a little harder about how the word "evolution" relates to the word "difference," and you may suddenly realize why pointing out differences is not a very promising approach for combating evolutionary arguments.
AOkid writes: Blue Jay writes: 3. The putative "limb bud" displays similarities in gene-expression patterns with similar-stage limb buds from animals in which it goes on to develop into the hind limb. Again, I would suggest you re-read this paper you cited. Yes, a couple of genes are expressed similarly, yet many are not! Wow, you mean animals that I think evolved in different ways are different from one another? Wait, that sounds internally consistent, doesn't it? What do you propose it is, this thing I've been calling a "hind limb bud"? I say it's a tiny vestige of a limb which ultimately fails to develop into a functional limb because of mutations that have occurred in the patterns of gene expression just prior to the ZPA stage. Before that stage, it seems pretty much indistinguishable from any other limb bud from any old mammal embryo. But, what say you?
AlphaOmegakid writes: Blue Jay writes: 4. Several examples of individual cetaceans showing an apparently atavistic trait that is consistent with the development of hind "limb buds" into rudimentary hind limbs. Show your cards. I have reviewed all the published literature here, and at best the evidence is anecdotal, and potentially fraudulent. I want to see the "several" cases. Percy's dolphin certainly doesn't count. There is zero evidence of atavism there. I'm baffled by your obstinacy on this issue. I used the phrase "apparently atavistic" to signify that these are structures that look like what we think atavistic structures should look like, even if we can't completely demonstrate that they are, in fact, atavisms. Here is a link to the reference list of the short article on AO-4, which contains links to at least half a dozen other reports of cetaceans with rudimentary hind limbs. It's really irritating that nobody took the opportunity to publish any useful data on AO-4, but those are the breaks. The data is imperfect, and it always will be: so we have to look at the forest, rather than the trees. You can nitpick the individual data, but when a few dozen different sets of imperfect data converge on a common explanatory framework, their imperfections matter a lot less than their agreement.
AOkid writes: Blue Jay writes: 5. Similarities in muscle attachment and functionality between a terrestrial mammal's pelvis and a cetacean's "mystery bone." Again Really? No one can even definitively identify this bone relative to the muscles attached. That's why this bone is still controversial in the literature. Not all uncertainty is controversy, Kid; and not all unknowns signify desperation and chaos in the evolutionary sciences. Upthread, Percy linked to a manuscript that provides much better resolution on the exact identities of the specific bones in the whale pelvis. You may notice that the paper has only been cited one time since 2014, which should give you some perspective on how insignificant this "controversy" actually is. Uncertainty is a constant companion in science: it doesn't mean we're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off, it just means we wish we had more data. But, in regards to this specific topic, there is broad agreement that the putative "pelvis" in a whale is an actual pelvis, and that the muscles that attach to it are homologous to the muscles that attach to the pelvis in other mammals.
AOkid writes: Blue Jay writes: A cetacean pelvic fossil of Miocene age that indicates homology of putative "pelvic" bones of modern cetaceans with the pelvic bones of other mammals. You'll have to enlighten me here. I don't know what you are referring to. That's the manuscript Percy linked to in Message 110, "Naming an Innomimate..."
AOkid writes: To me, the evidence shows significant non-homologous characters in both morphology and embryological development. And I agree. We have a word for the tendency of animals to break homology with their ancestors.
Hint: it starts with "E" and rhymes with "shmevolution." AOkid writes: PS. I'm glad you share my consternation about AO-4's lack of evidence, but this is evidence that the previous claims were unfounded. Otherwise the Japanese would be quite famous for finding the "walking dolphin"! I think you're overestimating the prestige value of evolutionary discoveries. Besides, these weren't scientists who discovered the dolphin: they were fishermen and animal exhibitors. Edited by Blue Jay, : Some clean-up needed Edited by Blue Jay, : More clean-up.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined:
|
Hey folks, sorry for the delays,but I have been quite busy. I am preparing a rebuttal with plenty of evidence. I am having to create several images, so it may be a bit more time.
I must say, the images will be worth the wait in exposing this fraud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Ok, so let me make my claim clear....
There is no scientific evidence of terrestrial hind leg atavism in cetacea.
Blue Jay writes: I'm baffled by your obstinacy on this issue. I used the phrase "apparently atavistic" to signify that these are structures that look like what we think atavistic structures should look like, even if we can't completely demonstrate that they are, in fact, atavisms. I see you recognize that this is all anecdotal evidence. Ergo, maybe you can see why I am so obstinate about this issue. We are teaching the kids that this stuff is fact, and apparently many in this forum have bought the bridge in Brooklyn. The problem is that all of these anecdotes become the foundation for later scientific papers. I'm not sure what you think cetacean atavisms should look like, but your imagination in this area is potentially fraught with confirmation bias. The only way to overcome this is with the scientific method. This is exactly what is missing in these papers.
Blue Jay writes: Here is a link to the reference list of the short article on AO-4, which contains links to at least half a dozen other reports of cetaceans with rudimentary hind limbs. It's really irritating that nobody took the opportunity to publish any useful data on AO-4, but those are the breaks. The data is imperfect, and it always will be: so we have to look at the forest, rather than the trees. You can nitpick the individual data, but when a few dozen different sets of imperfect data converge on a common explanatory framework, their imperfections matter a lot less than their agreement. Except we have no data points for Atavism. We have very little photographic evidence of abnormalities in cetacea, and we have a whole lot of anecdotes and unjustified speculation. Evos have a strong bias to prove vestiges from TOE that unfortunately causes unusual morphologies to all be interpreted as atavisms! Let's take a detailed look at your link and the so-called data points. This is the citation you provided about AO-4 and I pulled the paper: Ohsumi, Seiji, and Hidehiro Kato. "A bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) with fin‐shaped hind appendages." Marine mammal science 24.3 (2008): 743-745. In it Ohsumi claims:
quote: Then he cites the seven references. I will start with his last two:
quote: Here are the citations: Barthelmess, Klaus, and Joachim Mnzing. Monstrum horrendum: Wale und Waldarstellungen in der Druckgraphik des 16. Jahrhunderts und ihr motivkundlicher Einfluss. Kabel, 1991.Horrible Monsters: Whale and whale representations in printed graphics from the 16th century and their influence. Slijper, Everhard Johannes. Walvissen. Amsterdam: Centen, 1958. So here we have a copper engraving from the 1600's which is unclear regarding the whale's body shape. The author admits that this is unscientific evidence and anecdotal at best. So now we are down to 5 data points. The next citation I will deal with is:
quote: Sleptzov, M. M. "On some particularities of birth and nutrition of the young of the Black Sea porpoise Delphinus delphis." Zoologicheskii zhurnal 19 (1940): 297-305 Now clearly the title has nothing to do with atavism or hind limbs. If anything, This paper might have something to do with a birth defect, but we don't have access to this old foreign paper. The claim of atavism or hind limbs here is post hoc and there is no scientific claim of atavism. So now we are down to 4 data points. The next three citations are all from the Japanese dolphin/whaling industry. Ogawa, Teizo, and Toshiro Kamiya. "A case of the cachalot with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Scientific Report, Whales Research Institute 12 (1957): 197-208. Nemoto, Takahisa. "New records of sperm whales with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst 17 (1963): 79-81. Ohsumi, Seiji. "A dolphin (Stenella caeruleoalba) with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Scientific Report, Whales Research Institute 19 (1965): 135. Please note that all of these come from the infamous Whales Research Institute which is basically front organization to allow the whaling industry to continue in Japan. This organization self-publishes and has little credibility. Each paper claims the same find of "rudimentary hind limbs". Clearly there's an agenda here, and these papers have probably as much scientific evidence as the original paper on AO-4. Now we are down to one paper from Andrews 1921, and I will address this in my next post. This one will require some artwork and real scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Ok, so let me make my claim clear.... There is no scientific evidence of terrestrial hind leg atavism in cetacea. Ah, denial. It's not really a good substitute for being right, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Let's go through this again.
Your claim comprises the title of your post: atavisms is Cetacea don't exist. My claim is that atavisms do occasionally happen in cetaceans. The evidence available to us is a number of reports that look like atavistic limbs. You have so far rebutted this evidence with the following:
Again, I plead with you to stop missing the forest for the trees. Why do whale embryos develop structures that look and behave like hind limb buds if they are not going to develop hind limbs?Why do aberrant whales sometimes have superfluous appendages that look like partially developed hind limbs? In my mind, my options are:
Of the two, the first seems the more rational option.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Blue Jay writes:
How do you know? Most of these papers are specious. Take the AO-4 paper you cited. We have clear visual evidence of hind fins. That's all. There is no claim anywhere, that these are anything other than an extra set of fins. There is absolutely no claim that these are atavisms in this paper. Only in the headlines of the "science news" which I have already exposed as fraudulent misrepresentation. There are clearly other anatomical/medical interpretations which are just as valid as an atavism. The mere fact that one "atavistic interpretation" is regarding "fins", and another is regarding "actual legs" protruding from the body should cause you to have some skepticism. No?
The evidence available to us is a number of reports that look like atavistic limbs. One report was too old to verify from visual reproductions Actually, there are two reports here cited. OK....? So the report is not good scientific evidence. Right????? Even the author of the AO-4 paper said so as I quoted earlier. So do you, or do you not agree that there is no scientific evidence regarding atavisms within these documents? That's two down.
One report didn't specifically use the term "atavism" in its title And it is not cited by one subsequent paper that mentions "hind limbs" or "atavisms" regarding cetaceans. And there are plenty of those papers. Unless you can show otherwise, I will continue to disregard this as having any scientific value as evidence in regards to cetacean atavisms. That's three down.
Three other reports were provided by an institution that has been heavily criticized for its morality (but not, as far as I am aware, for its scientific rigor) Maybe you should have read the wiki article I cited. Here is the section on their Scientific Research Controversy. Now granted much of this is post these papers, but it is the same organization. Also these papers are "Scientific Reports" papers. They are likened to the AO-4 paper you cited which is just an announcement paper. There is no research in these papers, just pictures and drawings of other cetacean abnormalities. So unless you can demonstrate otherwise, this rational person will question anything coming from any organization that has little scientific credibility, self publishes its own papers, and doesn't open their data for scientific review (which includes doctoring of photos etc.). I just can't imagine a scientist doing that. Oh I don't have to imagine. I can list multiple examples of scientific frauds. Actually, I find it quite irrational to accept this data. But the faith is strong in Darwin's church, so I do understand why some do.
And, when people had an opportunity to study a four-limbed cetacean, nobody tested the alternative hypothesis that it was actually a freak birth defect that just happens to look like an atavism Ummmm... actually atavisms are freak birth defects! I am only aware of two types of birth defects in this category. One being atavism and one being polymelia. AO-4 has all the earmarks of polymelia which would then mean this has nothing to do with evolution.
Again, I plead with you to stop missing the forest for the trees. Well, Blue Jay, I am pleading with you to show me some trees first, and then we can talk about the forest. At best, so far, you have provided seven citations from the AO-4 paper. Six of which have no scientific credibility. I will also address the seventh upcoming. It also is not credible, and I will demonstrate this.
Why do whale embryos develop structures that look and behave like hind limb buds if they are not going to develop hind limbs? Because they are not hind limb buds, they are genitalia structure buds. The naming of these structures is just semantics. They build the bones and musculature related to the support of genitalia function.
In my mind, my options are: Accept that these are atavismsDeny that they are atavisms through some combination of anality, conspiracy theory, and/or deliberate obtuseness Of the two, the first seems the more rational option. Well unfortunately for people with limited minds, they can only see the two options you presented. So much for rationality!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024