|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Eventually members will be able to upload, but not yet. Anything you'd like uploaded to the website, whether PDF's or Word documents or images or whatever, just attach to an email and send to admin@evcforum.net.
But I suspect, and I think Blue Jay and Dr Adequate feel the same, that you're only deceiving yourself. For the atavistic view to be wrong would require multiple errors along multiple lines of analysis. You're being forced to retreat into more and more obscure (and thereby less and less significant) evidence, and you're ignoring all the strong evidence for atavisms, and this should be setting off alarm bells in your head that you're on the wrong path. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi AlphaOmegakid,
When I said "retreat" I didn't mean that you'd abandoned prior positions. I meant that you've retreated from the evidence we keep briefly describing, and from the rational inferences that follow, instead issuing unsupported accusations of fraud, deception, incompetence and gullibility. By the time you finally get to your "evidence" I hope we still remember what this was all about. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Regarding the museum fraud,... You're still misusing the word "fraud." They're still a pelvis and hind legs, regardless of orientation. It isn't the orientation that tells us they're a pelvis and hind legs. Evolutionary change can affect structure and attachment points and size and orientation. A museum would have no motivation for purposefully misorienting the bones.
the problem is much larger than that. If you go back to my first mention of fraud, it was because Percy posted this picture...
Blow it up and see the fraudulent misrepresentation of the "hind legs". You've been duped. The genitalia bones do not orient this way in baleen whales. It's a Lie! Even at full size the pelvis and leg orientation isn't obvious to me, but even if wrong, the orientation isn't a consideration in concluding that they're a pelvis and legs. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: In fact, I was clear that this argument was strictly about atavisms. The word "atavism" does not appear in your recent string of messages that I replied to (Message 161, Message 162, Message 163 and Message 168), so no, you were not clear that your "argument was strictly about atavisms." And since your messages were about whales that normally have pelvis and limb bones, you are incorrect to claim those messages were "strictly about atavisms" because they obviously were not. You didn't return to the topic of atavisms until Message 169, when you shifted from discussing the Struthers paper to a different paper. In regards to the word "fraud," you are using it "recklessly without knowledge of its truth." Perhaps you are mistaken that the museum display is incorrect. Perhaps it is an honest mistake. Perhaps they know about the mistake and do not have the funds to update it. Perhaps the mistake was made so long ago that the mistake itself has become a part of history that they are reluctant to alter. Until you know that the display was configured to mislead, your charge of fraud is itself fraudulent.
If they used the right orientation as I showed, no one in their right mind would be able to visualize "legs". That's pretty odd that you think legs can't be visualized just because the bone orientation is changed.
Only an evo mind can comprehend this. You do have some non-evo minds reading this forum. No, that's incorrect. Most normal people can recognize objects even when they're in unfamiliar orientations. It is very strange of you to claim that they look like legs in one orientation and not another.
Atavisms are used as a main supporting evidence for the homology and vestigiality. The evidence of atavisms must be dealt with first, before I can effectively discuss the homology of these bones. The Struthers paper was not about atavisms. It was about hind limb rudiments that appeared in all ten right whales that he dissected. To him they were obviously hind limbs, quoting from On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-limb of the Greenland Right Whale:
quote: Do you notice anything wrong with the picture? Take off you evo glasses, and rationally access the claims of the letter. It's obvious if you are skeptical. Now you're referring to the image in your Message 169, which *is* about atavisms. The picture is of such poor quality that it is difficult to make out much. I can see the large bulk of the whale, the tail on the right, and the white bone sticking out near mid-picture. You said you had to go yesterday and would tell us what was wrong with the picture later, but then you kept posting anyway, revealing that you didn't have to go and actually had plenty of time. I suggest you cease your cryptic approach, be accurate, honest and upfront, and make your arguments in full. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Percy, I hate to prove you wrong, but if you look at Message 132 the first lines are: You are seriously confused. Message 132 is more than thirty messages before your Message 168 that was about the Struthers paper and that was the message I replied to.
That's fine. I expect you and Bluejay to hold strongly to your "perhaps...." even though you provide no evidence for them. You've provided no evidence of fraud. At best you've found a mistake, at worst it is you who is mistaken.
The Struthers paper was not about atavisms. It was about hind limb rudiments that appeared in all ten right whales that he dissected. To him they were obviously hind limbs, quoting from On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-limb of the Greenland Right Whale: Granted, I never said it did. I said it lays foundational facts for future papers about atavism. No you didn't, and no it doesn't. The word "atavism" doesn't even appear in those posts from you. And the Struthers paper is about standard morphology of right whales, not atavisms. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: When is this going to stop with you Percy. It will stop telling you you're wrong when you begin getting things right.
Yes, I did! [talk about atavisms] No, you didn't. The post I replied to (Message 168) never mentioned atavisms, was not about atavsims, and neither was the Struthers paper that it referenced. Yes, in other messages you talked about atavisms, but not in Message 168 that I replied to. You're just talking nonsense to claim that because Message 132 and Message 145 mentioned atavisms that Message 168 must also be about atavisms. It wasn't. I only made a couple brief points when I replied to your Message 168, and neither had anything to do with atavisms:
I can only guess that you keep ranting on that you were really talking about atavisms to distract from your more significant errors. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
AlphaOmegakid,
In your own mind your arguments tie together in ways making no sense to anyone else, in particular your belief that the Struthers paper that contains indisputable evidence of right whale pelvis and hind limb bones is foundational to proving that such bones are not atavistic when they appear in other whales that don't normally possess them. Everyone else is interpreting your Struthers evidence opposite from you. As I've said, I had only two brief points when you went began nonsensically claiming your Message 168 about the Struthers paper was somehow related to your atavism arguments:
I may as well also comment that examining this poor quality image at this level of detail makes no sense. Here it is blown up a bit to show what a blurry ambiguous mess the whale portion really is:
There is much that isn't clear about the whale in that image. The recent detailed examination can only yield meaningless speculation. You're obviously going to sift through every report of whale atavisms and call them frauds, but you call everything you disagree with a fraud. Your conspicuous lack of anything resembling objectivity is going to convince most people of the opposite of what you say. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: percy writes:
Please provide evidence for this claim. Something more than "perhaps" will be nice. In your own mind your arguments tie together in ways making no sense to anyone else, in particular your belief that the Struthers paper that contains indisputable evidence of right whale pelvis and hind limb bones is foundational to proving that such bones are not atavistic when they appear in other whales that don't normally possess them. I summarized *your* position (and characterized it as making no sense), not mine. You're in essence asking me to "provide evidence" that I summarized your position correctly, which is a silly thing to ask. If you think I summarized your views incorrectly and that they *do* make sense then just provide corrections. But I think if you give what I wrote another read you'll see I've got it right and you're just misinterpreting plain English again.
You're still misusing the word fraud. You seem to think anything you disagree with a fraud. I have answered this accusation more than once from you, and you have provided nothing but "perhaps". I think you have problems with both language and logic.
Every single element of the definition of fraudulent misrepresentation is there. Except the important ones: conclusive evidence it's wrong, and purposeful intent.
I have agreed to this multiple times now. I am not arguing the homology of these bones now. So your point is????????????????????????????????????????? You claimed that if the bones were instead oriented in what you consider the proper position that no one would mistake them for a pelvis and limbs. That is incorrect. They look like a pelvis and limbs regardless of orientation, and others besides me have also corrected you on this point. It's the most important reason the museum display couldn't be fraud, because there's no advantage to misdisplaying the pelvis and hind limbs.
Yet this is the evidence that evos claim as evidence of atavism. Thank you for making my claim that there is no Scientific evidence of atavism in this paper from Andrews it is nothing more than "meaningless speculation". What I actually said was, "There is much that isn't clear about the whale in that image. The recent detailed examination can only yield meaningless speculation." These words can only be interpreted as referring to recent posts about the image, not to the Andrews paper. You're either purposefully engaging in misrepresentation of what I said, or you're again displaying your problem with language.
You are obviously incorrectly speculating. I assume you read the Japanese papers already (that I sent you to post) No, I haven't read them, but I will be upload them to the site soon. I'm making a fair effort helping you make your points, the least you could do is exert some effort interpreting English correctly. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: At death, the cartilage goes limp, especially with no muscles or tendons attached. I very much doubt that "cartilage goes limp" at death.
If this were a single leg hanging out from the sheer weight alone it would fall with gravity, before rigor mortis set in. Rigor mortis is a temporary condition beginning shortly after death and lasting only around a couple days. The paper doesn't seem accessible right now, at least not to me, so I can't check the details of what you claim the paper said (A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale). If it becomes accessible later I'll upload that, too, so we don't lose access again. AbE: Paper just became available again, I'll upload it to the site when I get a chance. --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: That's why I asked you for evidence, because those are not my words, or my arguments. I assumed they were yours. So when I referred to it as "your belief" you thought I was talking about my belief? You know, you can't hide your problems with language. It's not like they're subtle.
No I'm purposefully showing how inconsistent your arguments are. Not so far.
So the fact that the image is bad means we can't interpret anything regarding the length of the "leg, but of course we can accurately ascertain that it is indeed a leg. If you presented this picture to random people and asked what the red arrow was pointing at, I doubt anyone would have a clue:
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AllphaOmegakid writes: Percy writes: If you presented this picture to random people and asked what the red arrow was pointing at, I doubt anyone would have a clue:
I agree 100%. Why are you saying you agree when you obviously don't? Despite that the whale in the image is a blurry mess (how many people would even make out the flukes), you did this to it and embarked upon a detailed analysis:
If you presented this picture to random people and asked what the bones are, I doubt anyone would have a clue:
The point about your whale image is that you're overanalyzing it because it is very blurry. This image is labeled with very good clarity and so is not subject to that problem. 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. And if you inverted the orientation so it looked like this or anything similar:
Still legs. Your problems with language and logic are displaying themselves again. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Trying to convince people through evidence and argument is exactly the right approach, but you're mixing in heavy doses of language confusion, illogic and attempted mockery. This makes resolving even simple issues so impossible that people eventually throw up their hands and walk away. Walking away for now...
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Blue Jay writes: 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. Well, I guess it's often safe to bet against "your average layperson," but it seemed obvious to me because there are no other bilaterally symmetric pair of long bones in your normal quadruped, are there? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Did you forget you already posted to this thread in Message 243? It has several responses, none of which you've replied to.
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: I don't know what happened there; as far as I know I only posted it once... Every message is numbered and time stamped - it is pretty clear "what happened." You joined EvC Forum on 6-Sep-16, posted Message 243 as your very first message on 3-Dec-16, ignored the four responses, then posted Message 254 on 4-Apr-17. After I brought the earlier responses to your attention in my Message 255 you responded to one of them.
...and it is only one sentence from my original post. What you're referring to as your "original post," Message 254, is actually your second post to this thread. Your first post was Message 243. They share no sentence beyond "I love it!" The topic of this thread is the evidence for whale evolution, not evolution generally. You should probably review the thread so that you're familiar with the evidence. By the way, though evolution is the most important unifying concept in natural history and is essential to our understanding in myriad ways, there is no requirement that knowledge be of pragmatic use to human beings to be true. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024