Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 9:31 PM
434 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coyote, jar, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes (5 members, 429 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,135 Year: 6,741/21,208 Month: 2,502/2,634 Week: 165/525 Day: 80/60 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 181 of 253 (782236)
04-21-2016 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 1:37 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Hi, AOkid.

I've had a little chance to look over the paper, and I still think you're inflating the significance of your find. The only thing you've uncovered is that a museum displayed its bones in the wrong order: the rest is complete conjecture and conspiracy theory on your part.

AOkid writes:

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!

Nonsense. It's just a depiction of the bones extended for better viewing, no more egregious than this:


This pose might actually be rather uncomfortable for a living butterfly

And it isn't the orientation of a museum display that led people to think these bones were homologous with the hind limbs. Even after your correction, it's still pretty clearly a hind limb. Here's Struthers' description from the paper you cited:

quote:
If the ordinary mammalian femur, much shortened, be flexed, adducted, and rotated outwards, it will be brought into the position of the femur in Mysticetus. More exactly, if the pelvis and femur of a seal be taken in the hands and so manipulated, the correspondence becomes evident, and it is seen that this tubercle is the trochanter major. It is situated generally at about the junction of the proximal and middle thirds of the bone, but may be somewhat to either side of that point.

This really doesn't seem like a real difficulty here. Basically, the whale femur, in its correct orientation, looks like a typical mammalian femur tucked up and turned slightly.

I think your intense desire to see evolution go down in flames has made you see things that aren't there.

AOkid writes:

Blue Jay writes:

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.

In what way am I "full of bull"? Are you disputing the well-known fact that other mammals, such as gorillas and tigers, have a sagittal crest, which serves as the origin for the temporalis muscles? Or, are you disputing the well-known fact that the human temporalis muscle attaches to the temporal bone on the side of the skull, with a maximum extent at the temporal line?

I agree that the temporalis muscle is completely homologous in all mammals (all amniotes, actually). But, it clearly moves around a little bit with evolution. That's kind of the theme of evolution: evolution changes things, and we don't get to decide a priori what things it might change.

This is probably one of the reasons why cetologists have not yet reached full consensus on the homologies of the cetacean pelvis: because they aren't sure exactly what types of changes are possible or most likely. Struthers seems to have thought that the entire pelvis was an ischium with an unusual shape, but the other paper Percy cited proposed that all three pelvic bones are present.

---

After this, you still haven't presented any credible reason to doubt that these bones are actually pelvic and hind-limb bones. All you have is overblown accusations and confirmation biases.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


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 191 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 5:53 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23987
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 182 of 253 (782237)
04-21-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid
04-21-2016 6:53 AM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
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 is a bit confusing, AOK. These bones are "unique" but on the other hand there are other creatures that have a similar bone?

This isn't a subject I've spent time on though I'd be happy to be of help if I could. It would be on the order of a miracle if a creationist was able to help another creationist. Normally we work our own favorite issues in complete isolation.

So the evo side is trying to prove these bones represent former hind limbs and there do seem to be enough components that normally belong to limbs to make the case, although of course extremely out of scale. But I'd suppose the creationist argument has to be that those components are being used for something else in the whale, all as part of the genitalia muscle system then. Of course the evo side has to assume that natural selection has eliminated a huge amount of bone over the usual millions of years, enough to support the enormous body of the whale on land. They "know" that's what happened of course. But of course a creationist must assume that the bones have a purpose specific to the whale, at their present size and orientation (barring some kind of disease process due to the Fall). The usual battle of interpretations of the same facts.

But I don't want to interfere with the line of thought you are pursuing so if that's the case please ignore.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 6:53 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 1:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 183 of 253 (782246)
04-21-2016 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
04-21-2016 7:14 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Percy writes:

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.

Percy, I hate to prove you wrong, but if you look at Message 132 the first lines are:

AOK writes:

Ok, so let me make my claim clear....

There is no scientific evidence of terrestrial hind leg atavism in cetacea.

I was out of the conversation from 3/18-4/12 and just returning. We were talking about the dolphin fin "atavisms". I complained about all of these papers including the Japanese, and then I decided I would have to show and debunk each paper in sequence to make my case rather than try and fight the elephant hurls against me. We are now on the first paper about atavisms to be debunked. Struthers paper was good science and was for building the foundation of the argument.

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.

That's fine. I expect you and Bluejay to hold strongly to your "perhaps...." even though you provide no evidence for them. I on the other hand did provide evidence that the University of Aberdeen from which Struthers was from, cites selected quotes from his papers and misrepresents his bones. I also firmly believe that after Struthers presented some 18 or so extensively detailed drawings that he would be ashamed at the museums presentation. There have been many frauds in science over the years. Especially in this time frame. Perhaps..., perhaps..., perhaps... for all of those too.

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. If all of those atavism papers fall, then that throws homology back into question. The p-bone must be homologous to a terrestrial hip bone with ilium, ischium and pubis bones. Struthers punts on this in his paper. Later, other scientists address this, but they also use as evidence all the atavism papers. These are the papers that I claim don't pass the smell test. If there are no atavisms, the evos absolutely must show the homology of the p-bone to warrant the justified conclusion of "hind legs". Otherwise, they are unique, non-ancestral genitalia bones. In the end, I will show how their attempts fail. But I must do it one paper at a time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 04-21-2016 7:14 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 04-22-2016 8:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 184 of 253 (782249)
04-21-2016 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
04-21-2016 11:52 AM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
This is a bit confusing, AOK. These bones are "unique" but on the other hand there are other creatures that have a similar bone?

I'll explain this later after I debunk whale atavism. The assembly is unique, the pubis bone is not unique.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 04-21-2016 11:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 185 of 253 (782250)
04-21-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2016 10:16 AM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
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.

Not to you of course. But if a male whale needs to manipulate his penis left and right just a little bit, wouldn't it make sense for the female to maneuver her vagina a little bit to accommodate her mate. It happens in a multitude of other organisms. The whales just don't have any real legs to do this...only the "hidden ones"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 4:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11184
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 186 of 253 (782252)
04-21-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by AlphaOmegakid
04-21-2016 2:21 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Not to you of course.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

But if a male whale needs to manipulate his penis left and right just a little bit, wouldn't it make sense for the female to maneuver her vagina a little bit to accommodate her mate.

Depends on what you're talking about. It wouldn't make sense for a designer that wasn't a complete idiot to make it that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 2:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 187 of 253 (782253)
04-21-2016 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
04-21-2016 7:14 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
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.

I agree with you on this point. One creationist theme is to claim that scientists have manipulated museum displays and textbooks in an attempt to deceive the public about the strength of the evidence for evolution. For people who feel that way, it is of little use to explain the scientific insignificance of what is likely just an error, because they believe that the entire issue is about attempts to inflate scientific possibilities and speculation to the point of certainty.

AOK's presentation is of exactly the same as is the incessant whining about Haekels embryos and Piltdown man. And the response to the presentation is exactly the same. 1) here is what the real science says and 2) did you not instead promise to present contrary evidence and not some kind of belittling of current evidence?

Unfortunately, this stuff is the only game in town. As I recall, that fellow named Aaron did a much more credible job of presenting his ideas on whale evolution about five years ago. While he did not convince many evolution proponents, he seemede to have the respect of all participants. AOK does not measure up.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 04-21-2016 7:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 188 of 253 (782258)
04-21-2016 4:52 PM


FRAUD #2 REVEALED
OK, I guess there really are no skeptics in this forum. They see the picture of a whale with legs, the are told they are legs, and their confirmation bias forces them to believe that they are legs without question.

Well if you check out a few things, you just may discover something different.

quote:
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.

Notice how the whaling bosses are quite familiar with the term "pelvic rudiments". And isn't it a shame that the pictures aren't very good! Especially since this is such an "unprecedented development". Only one picture is even "good enough" to include in the paper. Sounds fishy already to me!

quote:
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.

Now isn't that interesting? The whaling boss is hobnobbing around with major Naturalists of his time era. And one of them just so happens to be the author of this paper. I guess this is how he is so familiar with these "rudiments" and he has his whalers on the lookout for anything unusual.

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.

There he goes calling these protrusions "legs". Yes, of course he is trained to make that assessment????? Now we have two important facts here presented. It's a female humpback of average length. That means about it's about 42 feet long (this will be important later). And the legs protrude about "4 feet 2 inches" "from the body".

quote:
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 left leg is gone?! What a shame! Especially for such an "unprecedented development".

quote:
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.

Ok. There he goes again with the "4 feet, 2 inches, from the body". The whaling boss is trying to establish the original in situ length as compared to their shrunken status as they are shipped to the museum. That's fair enough.

______________________________________________________________

So Let's do a little forensics on this photo. I gave everyone some time for something that I noticed right off the bat, simply because the story sounds "fishy". Are the "legs" really 50" long outside the body in situ in the photo?

Well we have a fine looking whaler standing beside the whale which provides us a scale factor. He looks pretty average height which is 70" or so. Usually a man this height has an inseam about 30" or so. So I made a 30" scale and compared it to the "leg" and the "leg" was much shorter! Oh my!?!? By my estimation it was 16-18" long.

So I sent the picture to one of my CG Nuke experts to see if he could adjust for parallax and get a measurement. Here is is the image he sent back...

Now, the deck boards and structures provide the perfect alignment for the parallax grid as shown. He used 6' or 72" for the man's height to obtain a scale measurement of the "leg". As you can see the in situ "leg" is only 24" outside the body. At most the leg is 1/3rd the man's height however tall he is. That means for this "leg" to be 50" long, the this man is 150" tall (12.5 feet).

Now I know that evos like to whale (pun intended) on creos about giants, but this is proof that men were giants! Or maybe it is proof that this whole whale of a tale is fraudulent. It could be the whalers hoaxing their biased bosses, or it could be the bosses looking for some fame. The irrefutable evidence is that the most important facts of this find are falsified! The in situ "legs" in this picture aren't even half as long as they need to be!

So, what are those bones and cartilage then that was presented to the museum and Andrews? Normally I would leave you till tomorrow, but Percy is fussing at me.

I make no specific claim here, because I cannot examine them. However, based on the information in Andrews examination, I would hypothesize that they are phalanges from the front flippers of this lady. Her flippers are probably 14-15 ft long. The longest in all cetaceans. The phalange portion alone would be about 6 foot long. The phalange bones are the exact shape of the bones in the pictures provided, the cartilage matches, and the sizes of the ossified bones are pretty close.

Who knows for sure? But what I do know for sure is that this whale of a tale is false!


Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by 14174dm, posted 04-21-2016 10:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 204 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2016 11:11 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 189 of 253 (782260)
04-21-2016 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2016 4:06 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Depends on what you're talking about. It wouldn't make sense for a designer that wasn't a complete idiot to make it that way.

Not to you of course!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 5:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11184
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 190 of 253 (782262)
04-21-2016 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by AlphaOmegakid
04-21-2016 4:54 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Stop being an idiot, ya dingus.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 4:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 191 of 253 (782267)
04-21-2016 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Blue Jay
04-21-2016 11:25 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
BlueJay writes:

This really doesn't seem like a real difficulty here. Basically, the whale femur, in its correct orientation, looks like a typical mammalian femur tucked up and turned slightly.

Evidence please? Please show me a picture of any "typical mamalian femur" that looks anything like any of the f-bones that Struthers has provided images of.

I think your intense desire to see evolution go down in flames has made you see things that aren't there.

There's a saying somewhere about a pot calling the kettle black??

In what way am I "full of bull"? Are you disputing the well-known fact that other mammals, such as gorillas and tigers, have a sagittal crest, which serves as the origin for the temporalis muscles? Or, are you disputing the well-known fact that the human temporalis muscle attaches to the temporal bone on the side of the skull, with a maximum extent at the temporal line?
In the way that your red herring is in any way comparable to changing the attachment end on a p-bone of a cetacean. I won't respond to this intentional red herring again. There is no valid comparison.

his is probably one of the reasons why cetologists have not yet reached full consensus on the homologies of the cetacean pelvis:

Yet amazingly, 100% have concluded that the posterior end of the p-bone is the ischium, because of the fact of the attachment of the corpus carvernosum. And none of them hypothesize that the posterior end is the ilium. Why is that?

because they aren't sure exactly what types of changes are possible or most likely.

Nope, its, because they cannot reconcile the transition from semi-terrestrials to Basilosaurus to modern cetaceans. It has nothing to do with your claims. You will see this later if you read all of the papers I will be discussing.

Struthers seems to have thought that the entire pelvis was an ischium with an unusual shape

Yes, but Struthers knew nothing of Basilosaurus' p-bone..

but the other paper Percy cited proposed that all three pelvic bones are present.
As do all the current hypotheses, yet they misrepresent the bones. I will get to these later, that's why Struthers anatomy is so important!

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added "p-bone" to Basilosaurus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 11:25 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 8:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 192 of 253 (782272)
04-21-2016 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by AlphaOmegakid
04-20-2016 4:19 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.

AOkid writes:

Now isn't that interesting? The whaling boss is hobnobbing around with major Naturalists of his time era.

Where do you think the naturalists got their whale specimens from? Every naturalist interested in marine mammals would have maintained a network of contacts among commercial whalers and fishermen. That's considered normal scientific practice.

AOkid writes:

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?

No, I don't detect any anxiousness, and nobody talked about publishing before examination of the evidence. Roy Chapman Andrews (an expert on whale anatomy) heard about this unusual whale from his friend, the whaling boss Sidney Ruck, and asked Francis Kermode (not an expert on whale anatomy) if he could examine the bones and publish a paper on them. This sort of thing happens all the time in museums: it's kind of like asking "are you going to finish that?"

AOkid writes:

There he goes calling these protrusions "legs". Yes, of course he is trained to make that assessment?????

For someone with no qualifications, you're awfully picky about other peoples' qualifications, aren't you?

AOkid writes:

So Let's do a little forensics on this photo. I gave everyone some time for something that I noticed right off the bat, simply because the story sounds "fishy". Are the "legs" really 50" long outside the body in situ in the photo?

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". Still, I have little doubt that Roy Chapman Andrews was significantly better qualified than I to identify whale bones, and I imagine he would have recognized phalanges if he had seen them; so, until I have good reason to doubt him, I will defer to his professional judgment.

And, I do have a few quibbles with your methodology.

First, you have a CG expert on hand? That sounds suspicious to me, so I'm going to do a little forensics on the work of your alleged "expert."

To begin, if you look at the photograph, the putative leg appears to be longer than your friend's scale bar: the baseline he seems to have measured from is a shadow line, not the actual juncture of the leg with the body. It's difficult to tell how much of the leg is in the shadow, but the line at the end of the light section is definitely not the base of the leg.

Then, I also notice that your "expert" seems to have reconstructed the limb as pointing mostly backwards (toward the right side of the photo), at no more than 20° relative to the whale's body. But, the stark contrast in lighting between the limb and body, suggests that the leg and body are much closer to perpendicular than that.

Also, the shadows on the man's face and underneath the whale suggest that the main light source is coming from above and to the left side of the photo. So, the leg would have to be sticking out at quite a significant angle to be so brightly illuminated while the body is not. So, your "expert" probably underestimated the foreshortening of the leg.

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.

The photo also shows a protrusion on the opposite side of the whale's vulva, and I’m curious to know what you make of that.

AOkid writes:

Who knows for sure? But what I do know for sure is that this whale of a tale is false!

I think your standards for "knowing for sure" are too low, but I certainly agree that "hoax" is a valid hypothesis for this evidence. I tend to lean away from "hoax" at this point, but my mind isn't fully made up yet.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


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 193 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 8:40 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 194 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 8:52 PM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 196 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 9:00 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 197 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 9:07 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 193 of 253 (782273)
04-21-2016 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Blue Jay
04-21-2016 8:20 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Blue Jay writes:

First, you have a CG expert on hand? That sounds suspicious to me, so I'm going to do a little forensics on the work of your alleged "expert."

Yes, I paid for his schooling. He is my son who is a compositing supervisor in New York City. Percy can verify this behind the scenes if you like. He is my Jr. Percy can google his name and verify that he is at a high level in his field. Please keep this private.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 8:20 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 194 of 253 (782274)
04-21-2016 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Blue Jay
04-21-2016 8:20 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Then, I also notice that your "expert" seems to have reconstructed the limb as pointing mostly backwards (toward the right side of the photo), at no more than 20° relative to the whale's body. But, the stark contrast in lighting between the limb and body, suggests that the leg and body are much closer to perpendicular than that.

Also, the shadows on the man's face and underneath the whale suggest that the main light source is coming from above and to the left side of the photo. So, the leg would have to be sticking out at quite a significant angle to be so brightly illuminated while the body is not. So, your "expert" probably underestimated the foreshortening of the leg.

The brightness of the "leg" has nothing to do with lighting. They covered whatever is was with white blubber. It is contrasted with the dark side of the whale. Most likely this blubber came from the flipper also where itis relative thin and bright white.

While your at it, research Roy Chapman Andrews. He has quite a reputation and was quite a marketing schemer in the fundraising for research and museums.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 8:20 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 9:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 195 of 253 (782275)
04-21-2016 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by AlphaOmegakid
04-21-2016 5:53 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Hi, AOkid.

AOkid writes:

Evidence please? Please show me a picture of any "typical mamalian femur" that looks anything like any of the f-bones that Struthers has provided images of.

Touche. I should have said, "I looks like a misshapen mammalian femur tucked up and turned slightly." It was supposed to be a restatement of Struthers' words, not an original claim of my own.

AOkid writes:

Blue Jay writes:

In what way am I "full of bull"? Are you disputing the well-known fact that other mammals, such as gorillas and tigers, have a sagittal crest, which serves as the origin for the temporalis muscles? Or, are you disputing the well-known fact that the human temporalis muscle attaches to the temporal bone on the side of the skull, with a maximum extent at the temporal line?

In the way that your red herring is in any way comparable to changing the attachment end on a p-bone of a cetacean.

So, muscles migrating across a head are not comparable to muscles migrating across a pelvis. I'll try to remember that for future discussions.

I only brought it up as an example of the strange and unexpected things that sometimes occur in animals, which mean you don't get to just say things like, "Gee, this seems a bit hard to explain, so we might as well just give up on Evolution." Since that's the entire basis of your arguments that deal with pelvic-bone homologies, I hoped it was a pretty good illustration of why your argumentation is weak and pathetic. Obviously, I went wrong somewhere.

AOkid writes:

Nope, its, because they cannot reconcile the transition from semi-terrestrials to Basilosaurus to modern cetaceans. It has nothing to do with your claims.

My claim was that they can't figure out how the modern cetacean pelvis evolved from a terrestrial mammal's pelvis, because something weird happened there. You've basically just restated that in a condescending and accusatory way.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-21-2016 5:53 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017