Summations Only

You've straw manned my position and not summarized it at all. You're creating a fictitious argument that I do not present. The problem is, I can read just fine, I just can't find the words that you attribute to me in your strawman mind like the ones you just presented. That's why I asked you for evidence, because those are not my words, or my arguments. I assumed they were yours. They are unrecognizable related to anything I have said. No I'm purposefully showing how inconsistent your arguments are.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. Of course! I understand completely.Actually, I think it is a racing stripe!(sarcasm intended!)

Ya think? HMMMMMM. Let's look at the evidence.....Mr. Ruck writes in his letter: He clearly emphasizes "from the body". At the end of the letter he states again: Now that's twice in the letter that this is restated and emphasized!Now Andrews says: He clearly recognizes the difference in length which he attributes to shrinkage of the cartilage. That's a valid inference, but notice he left off "from the body" in the length description which was emphasized twice in the letter. Once again Andrews conveniently leaves out "from the body".There's an old saying...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! Blue Jay you should be shamed. Twice, while quoting Mr. Ruck on certain facts regarding the length of these "Legs" Andrews conveniently leaves out the specific claim of Mr. Ruck that the length is from the body.Now put that in any court of law and the jury can easily see that either Andrews is willingly ignorant of the facts as stated or he is trying to white wash them away. I stand by my claim that Andrews recognizes the problems, and I will add that any academic peer review would have called Andrews on this. It doesn't add up!It stinks to dead whale high heaven! Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added a few words for clarity

I agree 100%. If you presented this picture to random people and asked what the bones are, I doubt anyone would have a clue: Yet you say: and: I don't think either look like legs, but somehow you think legs are easily recognized in one picture, but not in the other. I doubt you can recognize the inconsistency with that.?Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : corrected some spellingEdited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Because I do!.I know you don't like what I say. And you want to rework it into something that works for you. But please stop distorting my words. I can't make this any clearer. I said I agree 100%. No one is going to think "legs" when they look at that picture of a whale. Once again you imply a strawman without citing my words, but interjecting you own. That's your deficient logic and poor reading skills, not mine. My guess is the vast majority. Yes, of the length. Nothing else. The length can be ascertained from the image. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that. Blurry camera images are used in forensics all the time to identify various important features. A length of 2 foot versus 4 foot can be unequivocally identified on blurry images. That's an error of 100%. Your logic isn't very good on this. Continuing with your baseless claims I see. Let the brainwashing continue!Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Admonishment acknowledged.

My apologies if I offended you. My claim is not that it is a hoax, or a fraud, but there is no scientific evidence regarding atavism here. The evidence doesn't hold up to scrutiny and at a minimum it is untrustworthy. Someone is wrong, and it could be both Andrews and the whalers. Either way, this paper doesn't pass the smell test of "scientific peer review and integrity".

This will be my summary regarding the evidence that Andrews presents regarding atavism in a humpback whale. These are his words.... 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. Well the physical evidence is two bones and two cartilages which are all connected, and one picture. The physical evidence of the bones is not symmetrical. The picture also just shows one "leg". The physical evidence of the picture does not warrant a symmetrical claim. So there is no physical evidence of symmetry.So now we are down to the testimony of the whalers. I have shown by pure geometry that the image does not represent the claim of the whalers that the leg is "4 feet 2 inches long from the body." (I will present more on this in the future). Apparently Andrews also does not deem this testimony accurate or trustworthy, because two times he infers that the physical "leg" only sticks out 35 inches from the body and 15 inches is inside.So regarding the whalers claim of symmetry, there is no scientific evidence to warrant this claim. This claim refers to the only paper that Andrews cites, from Professor Kukenthal. I have supplied the actual image from the pdf file from Andrews' paper, because there are some manual edits here by the AMNH NY. 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 lim 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. It was a lie from the beginning and a damned lie at that. A lie that led poor unskeptical Mr. Andrews to a false inference. At most these embryos have a bud beside the genital which is 1-2 mm long maximum. This is much like the dolphin. No limbs ever form. The bud eventually decreases in size.A study of humpback whale embryos was published in 1960 by Stump et al.This paper provides about 70 images of embryos and parts of embryos. From this image you can see the hind bud. This embryo is ESN57 and it is 30 mm long. The bud is about 1.5mm long. Never does the bud form limbs just like in the dolphin embryos. There is also an image showing how the p-bone cartilage starts forming substantially internal to the bud.So the evidence shows that Kukenthal's embryos were fictitious like Haeckel's. Therefore, Andrews inferences regarding these embryos is also false. Even the AMNH NY realizes this, and to my knowledge, no other paper cites Kukenthal. . There is no scientific evidence of whale embryonic hind limbs forming. Oh really? Where is it? Here is what Andrews says... There is no evidence that these bones were attached to the p-bone of the humpback whale. Only wild inferences from circular reasoning used by Andrews. The only evidence is his wild imagination. Doubtful, why? If this was polymelia, since humpback whales do not have hind legs, we would fully expect the bones to be homologous with the front flippers. What would be doubtful, is that the bones and cartilage would look almost identical to the phalanges in a humpback whale this size! And this is where the "hoax" hypothesis comes from. However, It is unreasonable to assume that there is no other explanation if these really were bones forming homologous to the front flippers. This is a silly inference from Andrews and it comes from extreme confirmation bias. Unfortunately, all the evidence Andrews sees in his mind is from extreme confirmation bias, because he has not shown one ounce of critical thinking regarding the whaler's story, the picture, and the analysis of the "legs". This is a clear case of confirmation bias, where there is literally no physical evidence of atavism, and the testimonial evidence is highly questionable.

Hi Granny, I think if you look closely at the first cat, the legs are most likley not forming from the pelvis.