|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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
|
Getting back on topic, your original point in Message 78 was that what evolutionists think is a vestigial pelvis in whales is actually an unrelated structure for supporting "the tendons and muscles for the penis in male whales." In Message 80 and subsequent messages Coyote described how the ischiocavernosus muscles mentioned in your quote from your reference attach to the ischium in mammals, one of the three bones of the innominate that is part of the pelvis. This same muscle exists in whales and attaches to its pelvis, as your reference states (Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones):
quote: And your reference seems quite certain that whales have a pelvis:
quote: You seem peeved at Coyote for not treating your opinion that whales have no pelvic bones with more respect, but what can you expect when even your own reference disagrees with you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: And actually, my citation doesn't disagree with me...
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: I am confused. This is Dr. A's citation, so how could it be my bare link? Yes, there was no bare link in your post. You didn't even bother with a link. You just told me to "Try reading "Dr.A's citation" and asked, "Does anything pop out to you?" That's even worse than a bare link with no description. "Dr.A's citation" (again, 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) is 35 pages long. If you think something in it supports your position then summarize what it says in your own words and where in the reference I should look. We understand your position. You think the pelvic bones in whales are not vestigial and are not related to the pelvis in other mammals. But your arguments seem very contrived and unconvincing, are not based upon any evidence, and given that you accept rapid evolution don't even make sense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Yes, that's correct. To be vestigial, homology must first be established. These bones are falsely called "pelvic", because homology is assumed. That is circular reasoning. Homology has never been established on these genital bones. Sure it has, because some whales have more pelvic bones than others, like this Wikipedia image of a baleen whale skeleton:
You've again misunderstood a reference. Certainly the authors wouldn't agree with your conclusions. Where it says this:
quote: They're only saying that they don't know the specific details of the homology. They know it corresponds to some bone in the pelvis, just not which one or ones of the ischium, ilium or pubis. They seem to be closing in a bit more on the exact homology, Naming an Innominate: Pelvis and Hindlimbs of Miocene Whales Give an Insight into Evolution and Homology of Cetacean Pelvic Girdle:
quote: But even worse, your rejection of vestigial status for the whale pelvis makes no sense given that you accept rapid evolution. Rapid evolution means that an organism could quickly lose so much of a structure as to make it very difficult to recognize or even non-existent. How can you rationally reject this possibility for whales? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: I need to understand your rules. If a scientific copy righted paper is readily available in pdf format on the web, can I extract images from it and use them on your site? There is no rule in the Forum Guidelines concerning copyright. Copy away. If you run afoul of someone's copyright we'll take it down. While you're at it you can prove these frauds, too:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dolphin front flippers are homologous to mammal front legs, and the rear flippers on this particular dolphin are homologous to mammal rear legs. Hind limbs form during early fetal development in whales and dolphins and are subsequently absorbed. Obviously they were not absorbed during this dolphin's fetal development, and so are expressed as a birth defect. Applying the term Polymelia to this dolphin is fine.
Your rejection of vestigial status for the whale pelvis makes no sense given that you accept rapid evolution. Rapid evolution means that an organism could quickly lose so much of a structure as to make it very difficult to recognize or even non-existent. On what basis do you reject this possibility for whales? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi AlphaOmegakid,
All the evidence you discuss is in favor of atavisms, not polymelia. The limbs that occasionally appear in dolphins, whales and snakes always appear where limbs would appear. Fetal development of limbless creatures reveals limb buds that are usually reabsorbed. The evolutionary relationship of life was obvious before genetics, and impossible to deny after. That you personally aren't convinced, and further that your position makes no sense, isn't particularly persuasive to anyone else. Rather than just denying what the evidence clearly indicates you must instead show how the evidence indicates something else. Until you can do that the only person you'll convince is you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Struthers, J.-1881-The Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). This is readily available on the web in pdf format. Just google scholar search it and all I'm sure all will devour the details! Why not just provide the link yourself? Here, I did it for you: ON THE BONES, ARTICULATIONS, AND MUSCLES OF THE RUDIMENTARY HIND-LIMB OF THE GREENLAND RIGHT-WHALE (Balaena mnysticetus). By JOHN STRUTHERS, M.D., Professor of Anatomy in the University of Aberdeen. I will address what's missing in a later post, but you ought to see if you can recognize what's missing. Why in a later post? What's wrong with now?
You will be extremely happy that I will not argue with the data presented in this paper which I think is a fine piece of scientific work, but I will comment on some terminology. A whale hind limb by any other name would smell as sweet. If you have a point, then the point is better made in a single post rather than spread across several like some kind of mystery writer turning in installments - if you have a point. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Well, I have researched all of these and they are on my PC, and I just didn't want to have to search it again. HTML is not my second language. More about your PC later. Use dBCodes. A URL using dBCodes is this simple:
[url=http://www.google.com]Link to Google[/url] Which looks like this: Link to Google Typing is also slow. Understandable if English is a second language and you're typing on something with a small form factor like a smartphone. Mobile devices are for staying in touch, not maintaining a discussion. Wait until you're in front of your PC.
Images are at a snails pace. Not usually. Say more.
I know how to do most of this stuff, it just takes me three times as long. Because you're on a mobile device? Some other reason?
I need to produce images. That's all. Dreadfully slow. You mean you're creating images from scratch? If so, why? Or do you mean including an image in a message is "dreadfully slow"? Again, if so, why, since entering images is easy, e.g.:
[img=50]http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/Google.png[/img] Which looks like this: Patience please?. The data came in over the period of 130 years. The interpretations changed over those 130 years. I need to show this progression to show what I believe to be the errors from the beginning. We already know what you're trying to say, and you're obviously and self-evidently wrong. You could only be drawing things out to avoid admitting this to yourself. Whales, dolphins a snakes occasionally have hind limbs where hind limbs would normally be expected, no errors there. Fetal development includes hind limb buds that are later absorbed, no errors there. Genetic studies indicate that whales, dolphins and snakes still have hind limb genetic information, explaining why it is occasionally accidentally expressed in the phenotype. The interrelationship of all life was obvious before genetics was discovered, and became bloomin' obvious after.
The old Japanese papers previously referred are not available anywhere on the web. But I have them. I can post them, but I don't think that's kosher. Should I just cut and paste from them? I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting the papers. They are important to this discussion. The titles of the Japanese papers all mention "protruded rudimentary hind limbs" - what evidence for your position could you possibly hope to find in these papers? In any case, unsupported claims should be avoided. Quote the relevant portions if you can't make the papers available. If you send me PDF's or Word documents of the papers I can make them available on the web. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024