Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 200 of 443 (782281)
04-21-2016 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by AlphaOmegakid
04-21-2016 9:07 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
Read again. Four times this claim is made in this paper. Each time it is stated "protruding from the body about 4 feet 2 inches". It is rare such a fact gets repeated so often in such a short expose'.
And what exactly do you think you can glean from the fact that it was repeated four times? The publication is at least a third-hand source about the living whale's dimensions: if the information was wrong at the primary source, it will be wrong every time it's repeated after that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 9:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-22-2016 12:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 201 of 443 (782282)
04-21-2016 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by AlphaOmegakid
04-21-2016 9:14 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
The claim of the paper is it is covered with blubber.
You specifically said, "they covered it with blubber," as if it were some type of treatment they applied to it to enhance the photo. But, the blubber was just the natural tissue on it.
Here's how Roy Chapman Andrews described it:
quote:
Mr. Ruck says that the end terminated in a "kind of round knob like a man's clenched fist," that the total length was about four feet and two inches, and that it was covered with blubber about one-half inch thick. I infer from Mr. Ruck's description that the connective tissue and blubber were essentially the same as in the flipper, or fore limb, of cetaceans.
This led me to believe that it was covered by typical soft tissues, not that it was a freak bone protruding from the skin with some random blubber smeared all over it. So, the blubber wouldn't have been the outermost tissue layer.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 9:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 206 of 443 (782383)
04-22-2016 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid
04-22-2016 12:42 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.
I agree that your hoax hypothesis is valid. But, you still seem to believe that imperfection makes data invalid.
How about you get your son to rerun the parallax with the suggestions offered by myself, Cat Sci, and 147...4... that number guy? If the new result is consistent with the original claimed measurements, your arguments are pretty well invalidated.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-22-2016 12:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-23-2016 11:08 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 208 of 443 (782449)
04-23-2016 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by AlphaOmegakid
04-23-2016 11:08 AM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi AOkid.
AOkid writes:
Now, if you are honest, when you look at the whale, the "leg" appears parallel in our brains also. That's probably because it is, based on parallax
So, in a nutshell, the three of us who have said that the leg looks closer to perpendicular are just being dishonest?
I realize that eyes can get things wrong, like that whole meme with "the dress" from last year; and observer biases can distort images, which probably explains most Bigfoot sightings and wild claims from amateur birdwatchers... but you're pushing credibility when insist that everybody except you must have just got it wrong.
AOkid writes:
The box around the "leg" has a three dimensional relationship to the "leg" that has nothing to do with it appearing to be parallel to the whale, or the parallax grid. Within the software it is just floating in space
Right. But, look at the box that was drawn. The base of the box is not resting at the base of the limb: it's sitting at a shadow line. That's a red flag. And the shadow line is quite strongly curved, which would mean either that the cross section of the leg is approximately circular from our perspective (suggesting that the limb is nearly perpendicular to us), or the shadows are being elongated by a very low angle of incident light. Low incident light is not consistent with the rest of the shadows in the image, so the better explanation is the circular cross section.
And there's still the matter of the flukes, which 14174 pointed out are measured by this analysis as outside the normal range for humpback whales, despite this being described as a typical-sized specimen.
To me, these observations in combination cast reasonable doubt on the software's results. And now your son's response basically sounds like, "welp, that's what the software said, and I can't anything about that." He's telling us that there's no way to manually set the angle to what we think it is, and calculate length based on that? If the result of something like that comes out close to 4'2", that would kind of tie all the bits of evidence together, wouldn't it?
Using the "fishiness" test you used to initiate this investigation, I might be saying things like, "isn't that convenient? The software won't let you test our alternative hypothesis, so I guess the only thing we can do is accept the analysis that supports your hypothesis."
-----
I also want to make one more concession here. I think the color of the"leg" is very odd. I guess it's possible that an atavistic limb could be unpigmented, but now I wonder if you were right that there was something done to it to make it that bright.
And I still think somebody should look into that phalanges hypothesis you mentioned.
To your knowledge, has this case ever been subjected to a serious hoax investigation before?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-23-2016 11:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2016 2:41 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 215 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 12:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 216 of 443 (782517)
04-25-2016 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 12:20 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
In the meantime, don't you think if the leg was coming out at 90 degrees from the body that you could see shadowing from the end of the "leg"?. It is a cylindrical element.
I was going to argue for something more like 70 degrees, with a subtle backwards curvature to it.
-----
I want to reiterate, once again, that I still think the hoax hypothesis is valid. But I feel like an even halfway competent hoaxer would have gotten the measurements right, especially if they planned to be so specific with their claims, so it seems strange to base a hoax allegation on inconsistent measurements. Certainly a "fish story" allegation would be appropriate here, but "hoax" goes a bit beyond what this measurement evidence supports.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 12:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 3:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 221 of 443 (782531)
04-25-2016 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 3:12 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
Well if you notice, Andrews forces 15" of the cartilage femur back inside the whale, because he recognizes the story doesn't add up.
You have a habit of inferring things that you shouldn't. You don't really know what Andrews recognized: you're assigning him a motive that's consistent with your overall narrative, and nothing more. Any academic peer reviewer or half-competent lawyer would have called you on this.
That said, I had noticed that Andrews' and Ruck's claims differed in that regard: Andrews seems to be assuming that 4'2" was the measurement of the total limb, rather than the measurement of the limb's extension from the body, and that the "femoral cartilage" was, in fact, entirely internal.
A deliberate hoax is only one of many plausible explanations for this disparity.
AOkid writes:
At death, the cartilage goes limp, especially with no muscles or tendons attached. If this were a single leg hanging out from the sheer weight alone it would fall with gravity, before rigor mortis set in. This leg is holding against gravity with the whale on its back / side this doesn't seem reasonable as well.
This is another good point that I hadn't considered. I know very little about post-mortem (?) behavior of vertebrate carcasses, so I can't really raise any specific arguments here at all. I'm going to need to do some reading before I'm willing to proceed with this aspect of the discussion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 3:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 5:54 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 229 of 443 (782601)
04-26-2016 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 5:54 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.
You sure spend a lot of time expounding on irrelevant details.
Did you notice the part in that post where I agreed with you? This part:
Blue Jay writes:
That said, I had noticed that Andrews' and Ruck's claims differed in that regard: Andrews seems to be assuming that 4'2" was the measurement of the total limb, rather than the measurement of the limb's extension from the body, and that the "femoral cartilage" was, in fact, entirely internal.
I really don't understand what's going on here: you keep interpreting everything I say as if I'm just out to get you and pull the wool over your eyes, even when I directly and clearly say that I agree with you.
Let me say it a little more directly: Andrews clearly thought Mr Ruck was wrong about the entire limb being 4' 2" from the body.
In fact, let me reiterate where I said this exact thing in the first full post I wrote about the Andrews paper:
Blue Jay writes:
I actually find this argument to be at least somewhat compelling. The photographed bones seem to be consistent with humpback phalanges in size and shape, and the leg seems shorter than the claimed 4' 2".
Message 192
Blue Jay writes:
That said, I wouldn't guess that this "leg" is much longer than three feet. It's possible that the 4' 2" was not measured from the body, but from the base of the "leg" that was buried inside the body; in which case the claimed measurements would be perfectly consistent with the reported measurements from Roy Chapman Andrews; but it's pretty much impossible to verify that.
Message 192
And how many times have I repeated that I find the hoax hypothesis plausible? I agree that the limb is shorter than Mr Ruck claimed. I agree that Andrews thought it was too short. And I agree that the whalers might have been pulling a hoax.
Where I diverge from you is in how strong I believe that case for your hoax hypothesis is. Consider this alternative scenario:
Mr Ruck, whaling boss, is writing his letter to Francis Kermode, BC museum director, about his find. He looks over his shoulder at the man behind him, and says, "Hey, Ralph, how long did you say this thing was before it shrunk?"
Ralph responds, "I don't know, but the guys on the dock measured it. They said it stuck out four foot two inches from the body."
Mr Ruck says, "Oh yeah, that sounds right: I remember that number."
And so Mr Ruck writes that the limb stuck out 4' 2" from the body, when in fact the measurement had been the total length of the limb.
Of course, our intrepid Dr Roy Chapman Andrews (aka Indiana Jones) examines the bones and decides that it is more likely that 4' 2" is the measurement from the pelvic attachment, not from the body wall. However, he only alludes to this fact obliquely in his manuscript, possibly because he is a post-Victorian gentleman who is friends with and partially indebted to Mr Ruck, and does not wish to offend him by being more direct; or because he considers it too minor a point to dwell on in a manuscript about a frickin' whale with legs.
See, it's not hard to interpolate hypothetical motives and narratives from the available evidence. The facts can be quite harmoniously fit together in several different ways. Your insistence on one specific narrative --- specifically, the one that validates your conspiracy theory --- is a clear indicator of your pre-existing bias, a nothing more. Good luck convincing the hypothetical jury that your conspiracy inference is superior to the alternative inferences.
AOkid writes:
There's an old saying...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! Blue Jay you should be shamed.
I feel like I've done a pretty bang-up job at being objective here. Sure, I've been a jerk at times; but I've also admitted several mistakes I've made, conceded to you when I was wrong or when I didn't know how to answer your arguments, and have clearly and repeatedly stated that my preferred hypothesis may not be correct.
On the other hand, you have never (as far as I'm aware) admitted even the slightest possibility that you might be wrong about even the most insignificant details, have repeatedly accused everyone else of incompetence and dishonesty when they disagree with you, and have now gone off on a condescending and insulting tirade when you apparently failed to recognize that I had agreed with you.
And yet, somehow you think I'm the one who's more likely to have been deceived and misled?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 5:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-26-2016 11:51 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 231 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-26-2016 11:56 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 232 of 443 (782607)
04-26-2016 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
04-26-2016 6:56 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Hi, Percy.
Percy writes:
It also makes no sense that you think no one would "have a clue" what is in that image. It has bilateral symmetry of two long bones with what look like shoulder blades or a clavicle or a pelvis, so most people are going to guess front or rear legs.
I don't know, Percy: this seems overly optimistic. If the bones are presented out of context, it may be quite a lot to expect of your average layperson to recognize such extensively modified leg bones.
But, if presented in context (i.e., in the proper position and orientation on a complete whale skeleton), there's certainly a better chance: a high percentage of people who put a minimum of effort into their examination are likely to guess "leg bones."
But, without any actual data, it's really hard to say.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 04-26-2016 6:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 04-26-2016 3:15 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 233 of 443 (782609)
04-26-2016 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by AlphaOmegakid
04-26-2016 11:56 AM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
My apologies if I offended you.
I'm not offended: I just wanted to reassure you that this is an honest debate, and to be given similar reassurance in response.
AOkid writes:
My claim is not that it is a hoax, or a fraud, but there is no scientific evidence regarding atavism here.
I can certainly acknowledge this point. However, a hoax is really the only viable alternative hypothesis for you. If the extra appendage on the whale and the bones are legitimate, you can't seriously believe that there is a biological explanation that's better than atavism, can you? The coincidences there would be astounding: an appendage that looks like a leg, growing right where a leg should be, given the consensus views on the evolution and homology of whale skeletons. That's the point Andrews was making when he said:
quote:
I am well aware that zoologists are inclined to accept reported instances of reversion with extreme reluctance and that, at first sight, the tendency will be to consider this a teratological case of no reversionary significance, but the evidence is so strong that I can not interpret it in that way.
I agree with his assessment: the only viable hypotheses are (1) atavism, and (2) hoax. Anything other hypothesis begs far too many questions to be granted equal status with these two.
AOkid writes:
The evidence doesn't hold up to scrutiny and at a minimum it is untrustworthy.
I'd say, at a minimum the evidence is imperfect. I don't think you've really made the case that this evidence is untrustworthy: you've raised a couple of "perhapses" that I'm not qualified to fully refute, but I still think these alternatives are less plausible than a simple "game of telephone" error.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-26-2016 11:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 236 of 443 (782668)
04-27-2016 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Granny Magda
04-27-2016 7:35 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Granny's back!
Granny Magda writes:
Which raises an interesting question; do we see these totally-not-atavistic-leg-bones in any tetrapod other than those with reduced or absent limbs? Because if we did see this phenomenon in, say, cats, it would provide superlative evidence for AOKid's theory. But we don't.
That may be more difficult to prove than you're thinking, though. I mean, what would a cat with this trait look like? It doesn't have any skeletal structure equivalent to a whale's rudimentary pelvis, that could readily develop into aberrant growths or appendages, so it's hard to imagine how this could happen in a cat.
As one approach, I tried googling "six-legged cat," and there were a couple things like these:
They call it "polymelia": growing supernumerary (extra) limbs; and it happens in practically all vertebrates, I think.
The task of supporting your argument involves demonstrating that this kind of deformity is distinguishable from presumed atavistic limbs in whales. There are some distinctions in overall patterns --- for example, the general anatomy of the extra growths is consistent across most cats, but it's variable in whales; while the position on the body is variable in cats, but consistent in whales.
But, in a venture like this, it can get a little tough to tell where the line between distinction and obfuscation lies. That line is kind of where AOkid has been residing: he's arguing that we can't cleanly distinguish atavisms from any other deformity or aberration, and that means we have to dismiss large chunks of data about whale atavisms because of this.
I tried telling him several times that a consistent pattern in data trumps the low quality of the individual data points, but he wasn't buying that: he thinks it's better to look at trees than at the whole forest. So, I'm following him on his tree-hunt for awhile to see what comes of it. We haven't even gotten past the first tree yet!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 04-27-2016 7:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Granny Magda, posted 04-27-2016 12:22 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 240 of 443 (782830)
04-29-2016 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by AlphaOmegakid
04-28-2016 5:22 PM


Re: Last comments on Andrews...
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
My claim is not as Blue Jay indicates, that this is a "hoax", or as Percy complains about my using the word "fraud". My claim is that there is no scientific evidence of whale hind limb atavism. Now I will examine that claim relative to Andrews' "evidence" from which he can see no other explanation but reversion or atavism.
Your dedication to rigorous methodology is commendable, but I think you're completely overlooking a huge chunk of the philosophy of science. One of the main rules is that abstention isn't allowed. It's okay to say, "I don't know" when you legitimately don't know something, but the entire purpose of the scientific method is basically to allow us to make decisions when we don't really know the right answers. Everything is tentative, but nothing is left at "I don't know."
So, I'm making a decision here about this whale. Is this an atavism, or is it a hoax, or what? I don't know. But, now that we've established that I don't know, the next step is to decide what we're going to do. You advocate dismissing the evidence as if it never existed: I advocate using reason to find the best available explanation, and stick with that until another explanation becomes better.
I can think of three possible hypotheses:
  1. Atavism
  2. Hoax
  3. Other deformity that resembles an atavism
Basically, my task is to decide which of them should be my "null hypothesis," or the explanation I default to in the absence of other evidence. Remember, abstention isn't allowed: I can't just pretend this evidence doesn't exist, because it clearly exists, and requires an explanation.
So, how do I decide?
Well, Occam's razor gives me an a priori reason to prefer "atavism" over "other deformity that resembles an atavism," so clearly "other deformity that resembles an atavism" cannot be my null hypothesis: I would need some real compelling evidence to explain why a non-atavistic deformity just happens to look like an atavism.
It's a little more difficult to decide between "atavism" and "hoax": both are viable, and neither is inherently preferable in terms of Occam's razor; so I need to look in a little more detail here.
So, what evidence can we find for the "atavism" hypothesis? Well, the general morphology of the whale's growth is consistent with an atavistic leg, and an expert identified it as probably atavistic. And aberrant pelvic-region growths seem to occur repeatedly in cetaceans (and in other vertebrates that lack hind limbs). This is all circumstantial, but it does lend some weight.
What is the evidence for the "hoax" hypothesis? Well, the whalers' reported measurement was apparently wrong. And you claim that whalers sometimes played practical jokes on naturalists. And, Roy Chapman Andrews was a bit of a showman. Oh, and two non-experts think the bones look a bit like whale phalanges. Clearly, none of this evidence is smoking-gun quality either. In fact, it's all pretty damn weak.
On balance, the "atavism" hypothesis looks like the best explanation to me, even though the evidence isn't exceptionally great. But, if I were forced to decide (like someone had a gun to my head or something), I'd feel marginally safer betting on atavism at this point. So, that's my null hypothesis.
And, that's science. Yay!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
You will notice that the lengths of the "hind limb rudiments" have been manually marked through signifying an "inaccuracy." Kukenthal reeks of the essence of Haeckel. Kukenthal claims that these embryos at stage I have a hind limb length of 12mm and at stage II 9mm and at stage III the rudiments are back to a "papillae">
Well, we now know this is false. Is was a lie from the beginning and a damned lie at that.
Lots of people are wrong about stuff without lying, AOkid. Can you please stop immediately concluding "lie" or "fraud" every time you find something that's wrong? There are a lot of explanations for things like this:
  1. Kkenthal lied.
  2. Andrews lied.
  3. Kkenthal made a mistake.
  4. Andrews misread or misquoted Kkenthal's paper.
  5. A typesetter accidentally left out a decimal point.
Incidentally, I was able to access the Kkenthal source here. Would you like to know what it says? Well, so would I, but I can't read German. But, here's a line that looks a little promising:
quote:
Die Lnge jeder Anlage betrgt 1,2 mm, ihre Breite an der Basis 0,9 mm.
Google offers this translation:
quote:
The length of each plant is 1.2 mm, the width of the base 0.9 mm.
I can't actually vouch for the accuracy of Google's German here, but this really doesn't sound like a comparison of the lengths of limb buds in Stadium I and Stadium II embryos. The words "embryo," "Stadium I" and "Stadium II" do appear in the paragraph, and the numbers "12 mm" and "9 mm" do not appear anywhere in the source; so my guess is that Andrews simply misreported these numbers. Maybe he didn't know that Europeans use commas for decimal places, or maybe his typesetter thought it was an error and "corrected" it.
At any rate, there's no evidence of fraud or dishonesty here, and it obviously wasn't on the part of Mr Kkenthal anyway. So, you apparantly just impugned the integrity and insulted the odor of a competent scientist, all because of your own failure to look things up.
But, aside from all that, you've once again missed the forest for the trees. The reason Andrews mentioned this at all is because it shows that whale embryos have hind limb buds like any other mammal embryo, and that the buds disappear at a very early stage. This offered a very plausible hypothesis for the abnormal growth from Mr Ruck's whale: abnormal hind limb buds that didn't disappear like normal, but partially developed into leg-like growths. Evidence of such hind-limb buds really strengthens the case for the atavism hypothesis relative to the teratology hypothesis, which is why Andrews prefers atavism for this example.
It was a pretty straightforward argument, with a lot of internal consistency, and the exact dimensions of the buds was extraneous detail, largely irrelevant to the point being made. But you got too close to the topic and made a big deal out of nothing. Here's something Percy said upthread:
Percy writes:
There is much that isn't clear about the whale in that image. The recent detailed examination can only yield meaningless speculation.
These words are resonating very loudly right now.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-28-2016 5:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024