Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 4:44 AM
450 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 449 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,213 Year: 6,819/21,208 Month: 2,580/2,634 Week: 243/525 Day: 2/74 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 52 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 166 of 253 (782195)
04-20-2016 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
04-20-2016 7:13 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
I'm happy to see you(r words), Faith!

The point I was making is that the orientation of the bones doesn't make a difference: they look like legs no matter which way you display them, and that particular museum's display mistakes have no bearing on my appraisal of the evidence.

That said, I would personally prefer it if they were displayed properly, so I would be happy to contact the museum myself and request the change, if you think it's necessary.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 7:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by 1.61803, posted 04-20-2016 12:02 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 5:03 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2664
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 167 of 253 (782204)
04-20-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Blue Jay
04-20-2016 11:09 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Fuck it, lets find a 3D printer and replicate a walking whale and be done with it!

Oh wait we have cows.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Blue Jay, posted 04-20-2016 11:09 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 168 of 253 (782206)
04-20-2016 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Blue Jay
04-19-2016 8:03 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
First, I was expecting something a bit bigger than "a museum displays the bones the wrong way." It's not the first time a museum has gotten something wrong, and it won't be the last. Send them an email, and maybe they'll fix it.

Why were you expecting something bigger? This paper is foundational, and I told you I wasn't arguing against the paper. Regarding the museum fraud, the problem is much larger than that. If you go back to my first mention of fraud, it was because Percy posted this picture...


Letter c in the picture indicates the undeveloped hind legs of a baleen whale

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!


Features of a sperm whale skeleton

Percy also posted this one. It is not fraudulent, but I think the pelvis bone could have been better drawn.


Sperm whale skeleton. Richard Lydekker 1894

Percy also posted this one. Note how the bones face away from the centerline and outwards or downwards. This stuff is all over the web and in the Biology books. It's fraudulent misrepresentation.

It's not the first time a museum has gotten something wrong, and it won't be the last. Send them an email, and maybe they'll fix it. While you're at it, send these guys an email too, and explain to them that displaying humans and dinosaurs co-existing when there is no evidence of such co-existence constitutes "fraud."

Well I beg to disagree on this. The creation museum presents plenty of evidence that man and dinos coexisted. Non of this evidence would be considered "scientific", but there are many types of evidence including testimonial evidence. Look at the next paper I will be examining. It is mostly a "story" presented by some whalers. I will examine that story for credibility. I think you also will find it lacking when I present my evidence. And furthermore you have presented an argument basically saying "absence of evidence is evidence of absence'. That's not very rational especially considering there are a minuscule amount of dino fossils from the middle east as a whole.

Second, in response to your ongoing comments about the corpus cavernosum, I would like to draw your attention to the temporalis muscle of primates. In humans, the temporalis's origin is in the temporal fossa (on the side of the head). In most other mammals, however, the origin of the temporalis is at the sagittal suture (on top of the head). This example is only to make it clear that muscle attachment sites are not always conserved: they can move around between different taxonomic groups. So, you can't rule out an ilial homology just based on corpus cavernosum attachment sites.

I think you are full of bull on this one. The temporalis muscle is completely homologous in humans and primates ( in evo terms). I fail to see any analogy to the corpus cavernosum in cetacea. You will see the importance of this later


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Blue Jay, posted 04-19-2016 8:03 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-20-2016 5:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 181 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 11:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 169 of 253 (782209)
04-20-2016 4:19 PM


A Whale of a Tale!
Andrews, Roy Chapman. A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale. By order of the Trustees of The American Museum of Natural History, 1921.

Remarkable indeed! First it is clear that this paper is basically an announcement paper from the museum. Note Blue Jay, you have already confirmed that museums sometimes get things wrong. No big deal! huh?

This paper is foundational to atavism argument in whales. It is the most remarkable evidence of whales with legs, if indeed it is trustworthy. So let's examine the evidence.

The year is 1919. Darwin published in 1859 and people all over the world are hunting for evidence to confirm his theory. Darwin hypothesized about whales descending from bears and people were now looking for whales with legs because of the amazing work of Struthers showing a P-bone, a F bone and a T cartilage deep within the belly of large cetaceans. Also, just a few years prior, Piltdown Man was discovered!

So here goes the story...

quote:
In July 1919, a female Humpback. Whale (Megaptera nodosa) with two remarkable protrusions on the ventral side of the body, pos­teriorly, was captured by a ship operating from the whaling station at Kyuquot, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

I added the arrow to the picture. Convincing, Isn't it? That's legs right there protruding from the genital area. Remarkable! ¿

quote:
One of the protrusions was cut off by the crew of the vessel but the other was photographed in situ by the superintendent of the Station.
Oh what a shame! We only have one of the "legs" ¿

quote:
Mr. Sidney Ruck and Mr. Lawson, officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company, appreciated the importance of the discovery and presented the skeletal remains of the attachment to the Provincial Museum,
Victoria, B. C.

So the whaling company bosses recognize the importance of this discovery, and they innocently present this to the museum which sometimes gets thing wrong as Blue Jay admits!

quote:
At my request, Mr. Francis Kermode, Director of the Provincial Museum, very courteously submitted the bones to me with permission to
publish upon the result of my examination.

Does anyone detect some anxiousness to publish this find of "whale legs" before examination of the evidence?

quote:
Under date of March 4, 1920, Mr. Ruck writes to Mr. Kermode as follows:

I enclose herewith three photographs showing the unusual development of the pelvic Rudiments in a whale captured at the Kyuquot Station last July, of which you have the bones. It is to be regretted that better pictures in evidence of this unprecedented development were not obtained.

I have been connected with the Whaling Industry for 22 years and during my time have come in contact with prominent Naturalists such as Professor True of the Smithsonian Institute, Professor Lucas of the Natural History Museum, Brooklyn,1 and Professor Andrews of the Natural History Museum, New York, and neither in their experience or mine have the protrusion of the pelvic bones beyond the body ever been seen or heard of.

This particular whale was a female humpback of the average length with ele­mentary legs protruding from the body about 4 feet 2 inches, covered with blubber about one-half an inch thick.

As shown in the best photograph these legs protruded on either side of the genital opening; the left leg was cut off by the crew of the vessel and lost, and the point at which it was cut off is clearly shown in the photograph. The end of the leg seen in the picture terminated in a kind of round knob like a man's clenched fist.

The two bones of the leg which you have are connected by cartilage which I was informed had shrunk about 10 inches, and possibly more by this time. At any rate the total length of the leg before it was cleaned of the blubber and flesh was, as before stated, about 4 feet, 2 inches, from the body.


Now I have to go for today, but does anyone notice anything wrong with the picture based on the claims presented in this letter? Tomorrow, I will reveal.


Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2016 5:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 8:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 170 of 253 (782211)
04-20-2016 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Blue Jay
04-20-2016 11:09 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
The point I was making is that the orientation of the bones doesn't make a difference: they look like legs no matter which way you display them, and that particular museum's display mistakes have no bearing on my appraisal of the evidence.

Enough said. As I said earlier, it's horrible to not see the trees for the forest. They don't function as legs, and they aren't an appendage by any definition, bu they will always be legs to you. I understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Blue Jay, posted 04-20-2016 11:09 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 171 of 253 (782212)
04-20-2016 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 1:37 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
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...


Letter c in the picture indicates the undeveloped hind legs of a baleen whale

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 1:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 5:40 PM Percy has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 172 of 253 (782213)
04-20-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 4:19 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Shouldn't we expect more sexual dimorphism in these bones if they evolved to control the penis?

Why would a female have them like this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 4:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 6:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 173 of 253 (782214)
04-20-2016 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
04-20-2016 5:09 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Percy writes:

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.

Percy, You must agree that I am not arguing anything about the homology of these bones in this recent excercise. In fact, I was clear that this argument was strictly about atavisms. I claimed that there is no scientific evidence of cetacean atavism. I can accept the homology of these bones and still make that argument. That is why I am using the designation p bone , f bone and t cartilage for clarity even though I don't agree with this inference.

In regards to the fraud, I am not misusing the term.

quote:
(1) a representation was made; (2) that was false; (3) that when made, the representation was known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth;
The museum presents these bones a findings from Struthers. The orientation is known to be totally different, because Struthers wrote the paper from which the museum is advertising. If they used the right orientation as I showed, no one in their right mind would be able to visualize "legs". Only an evo mind can comprehend this. You do have some non-evo minds reading this forum.

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.

I repeat. I do not agree with the homology inference, but I am not arguing against it at this point. Later, I might when we have more evidence presented, but not right now. 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.

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.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-20-2016 5:09 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 04-21-2016 7:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 174 of 253 (782215)
04-20-2016 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by New Cat's Eye
04-20-2016 5:15 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Shouldn't we expect more sexual dimorphism in these bones if they evolved to control the penis?

Well I don't accept the premise that they evolved, so I can't effectively answer your question. Figures 16,17,and18 from this paper show the female arrangement. There is quite a variation from the males, but a very similar function to anchor the muscles related to the genitalia.

Why would a female have them like this?

Because her designer knew that she would need muscles in this area of her body, and they would need anchoring points. My wife has muscles in this area. They are very useful! I thank God for them!

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added the God stinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2016 5:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 10:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 175 of 253 (782216)
04-20-2016 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 6:04 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
I've been reading a book by Jonathan Sarfati which touches on the supposed "vestigial hind legs" of whales, doesn't spend much time on it but does say that there is a difference in the shape of the bones between the male and the female. A designed difference of course, not an evolved difference.

Also, in case it hasn't been posted already, here's an article on the sexual purpose of the bones

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 6:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 6:33 PM Faith has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 176 of 253 (782217)
04-20-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
04-20-2016 6:10 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
hi Faith,

Thanks for chiming in. That article is why I revived this old thread. I cited it in my first post Message 78

Yes, the function of these bones is clearly to support and function with the genitalia. However the function of a normal hip is also the same, (like yours and mine), but not the femur and tibia! They are for a different primary function and they are not used to support genitalia function.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:47 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 177 of 253 (782219)
04-20-2016 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 6:33 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Seems open and shut to me. There's only the hip component there, seems pretty clear legs were not the idea. But evolutionism will find legs anyway as you say.

ABE: Ooookay, I went back to your Message 78 and see there was quite a discussion I missed about what bones they are supposed to be. You say not hip bones. Are they pubic bones, pelvic bones, what? In any case they aren't leg bones, they are clearly in the pubic area and the article clearly associates them with muscles connected to the genitalia.

So I should just let you carry on.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 6:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 6:53 AM Faith has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 178 of 253 (782227)
04-21-2016 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
04-20-2016 6:47 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Faith,

Yes, eventually I will get back to the pubis bone. In the creo hypothesis God is the designer and He uses similar designs throughout nature. The cetacean genitalia bones are unique in nature. Evolution has to make many changes to the bones for the theory to work. They struggle with this. God however, does have other creatures with a similar bone which He used in the cetaceans. We'll talk about this much later after I wade though all the problems with these so-called "science papers".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 04-21-2016 11:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 179 of 253 (782228)
04-21-2016 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 5:40 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
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:
Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 5:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 1:18 PM Percy has responded
 Message 187 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2016 4:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 180 of 253 (782234)
04-21-2016 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 6:04 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Well I don't accept the premise that they evolved, so I can't effectively answer your question.

No, that's a cop-out. I don't believe that Santa Clause magically poofed whales into existence ex nihilo, but I could answer questions about what kind of ramifications I would expect from that.

Figures 16,17,and18 from this paper show the female arrangement. There is quite a variation from the males, but a very similar function to anchor the muscles related to the genitalia.

Sure, but if penis control is the "purpose" of these bones existing in whales, then it really don't make sense for the females to have them.

Because her designer knew that she would need muscles in this area of her body, and they would need anchoring points.

That's a non-answer that could be a response to any question.

Why is the sky blue? Because the designer knew that the sky would need to be blue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 6:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 2:21 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017