Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 3:11 PM
405 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), caffeine, DrJones*, dwise1, frako, jar, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Taq (9 members, 396 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,132 Year: 16,738/21,208 Month: 2,627/3,593 Week: 94/646 Day: 34/60 Hour: 2/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
30NextFF
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 241 of 443 (782836)
04-29-2016 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid
04-28-2016 5:26 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Hi AOKid,

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

Irrelevant. They are legs. That means they have nothing to do with these appendages that you are so sure aren't legs.

If you want to claim that the whale appendages are not legs, I can't help but wonder what they actually are and why they don't show up in any other animal. Supernumerary limbs have nothing to do with anything here.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-28-2016 5:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 242 of 443 (784222)
05-14-2016 4:24 PM


Moderator Query
Any objections if I drop this into summation mode?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 243 of 443 (795006)
12-03-2016 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dan4reason
01-02-2012 12:36 PM


Of all the nonsense served up by evolutionists, whale evolution is the most hilarious yarn yet - I love it!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dan4reason, posted 01-02-2012 12:36 PM dan4reason has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2016 8:38 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2016 12:46 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 246 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2016 12:21 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 247 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2016 3:10 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5864
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 244 of 443 (795007)
12-03-2016 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dredge
12-03-2016 8:13 PM


Of all the nonsense served up by evolutionists, whale evolution is the most hilarious yarn yet - I love it!

Can you offer any evidence to support your claim?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2016 8:13 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 245 of 443 (795012)
12-04-2016 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dredge
12-03-2016 8:13 PM


Of all the nonsense served up by evolutionists, whale evolution is the most hilarious yarn yet - I love it!

Thank you for sharing with us your precise and detailed analysis of the issue. It must have taken you many years to attain such a complete mastery of the facts, and yet you have managed to express all the relevant information concerning the morphology, genetics, embryology and fossil record of whales in a mere nineteen words, so that one must truly say that you are outstanding not only in your erudite grasp of your subject matter, but also in the concision with which you express your vast learning. Sir, I salute you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2016 8:13 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 4:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 246 of 443 (795045)
12-05-2016 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dredge
12-03-2016 8:13 PM


So, no follow-up?

People, note that this is his first and only post. Apparently he registered with the forum just for that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2016 8:13 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 247 of 443 (795132)
12-06-2016 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dredge
12-03-2016 8:13 PM


... still waiting.

Nothing? Nothing at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2016 8:13 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 248 of 443 (795533)
12-14-2016 11:51 AM


This just in ...
quote:
A Possible Break in One of Evolution's Biggest Mysteries

How they got there, transforming from four-legged, landlubbing also-rans, patrolling Pakistani riverbanks, to the globe-spanning marine colossus of earth’s history is the sort of question that gets people to pursue Ph.D.’s in paleontology in the first place.

“Among mammals, whales really stand out to me for having to have met the most obstacles in their evolution,” says Marx. “They’re really a poster child of evolution.”

... To get a foothold on this dizzying sweep, UC Berkeley Ph.D. candidate Larry Taylor has decided to probe something smaller. Not the whales themselves, but the barnacles that cling to the animals—hitching rides around the planet. As Taylor realized, oxygen isotopes in barnacle shells act as a chemical passport of a whale’s travels, filled with stamps from the world’s various oceans. And humpback-whale barnacles go back millions of years in the fossil record. Taylor hopes to find ancient whale journeys coded in these fossil shells—journeys that could illuminate the evolution of whales and, perhaps even, why some got so preposterously large.

The atomic inscriptions in other humpback barnacles accurately captured an animal moving from California to Baja. But these measurements (undeniably clever as they are) merely confirm what we already know about whale migration. For Taylor, though, this is just a proof-of-concept. He wants to know where whales were traveling hundreds of thousands, even millions of years ago—if they were even traveling at all. Using the isotopes of fossil barnacles stretching back millions of years, and mapping them onto the ancient ocean, Taylor hopes to find out just what the whales of a bygone Earth were up to.

“Gigantism isn’t necessarily something that only occurred in the last 3 million years or so,” says Monash University paleontologist Felix Marx. “But what did change, as far as we can tell, is that all of the little ones suddenly start to disappear. You’ve got a whole range of whales that don’t even exist today.”

“You’ve got all sorts of stuff that’s just a lot smaller—like, three, four, five meters. And about 3 million years ago or so, as far as we can tell, they all disappear.”

If this story is right, it might not have been the only time that the peculiar influence of plate tectonics has guided whale evolution. More than 30 million years ago, when South America divorced Antarctica and the sea spilled over between the two continents, the profound changes to ocean circulation supercharged the ocean with nutrients and plankton, and might have prodded the split between baleen whales and toothed whales—which curiously occurs around the same time. Even further back, 50 million years ago the extremely warm climate of the Eocene might have helped ease the whales’ wolf-like ancestor into the tepid water in the first place (according to Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich). And, before that, 56 million years ago, it might have been deep-sea volcanoes burning through fossil fuels under the North Atlantic seafloor that released enough methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to set off an extreme spike in global temperatures—a heatwave that spawned a new group of animals that today includes deer, camels and giraffes, but that also included the ancestor of all whales. Understanding biology without geology is impossible, and vice versa.


Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by caffeine, posted 12-14-2016 2:18 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 260 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 4:26 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1289
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 249 of 443 (795548)
12-14-2016 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
12-14-2016 11:51 AM


Re: This just in ...
“Gigantism isn’t necessarily something that only occurred in the last 3 million years or so,” says Monash University paleontologist Felix Marx. “But what did change, as far as we can tell, is that all of the little ones suddenly start to disappear. You’ve got a whole range of whales that don’t even exist today.”

“You’ve got all sorts of stuff that’s just a lot smaller—like, three, four, five meters. And about 3 million years ago or so, as far as we can tell, they all disappear.”

Is this supposed to be referring only to mysticetes? There are still a lot of three, four, five, metre whales.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2016 11:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2016 3:14 PM caffeine has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4566
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 250 of 443 (795551)
12-14-2016 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dan4reason
01-02-2012 12:36 PM


The opening message of this topic highlights a serious problem with artwork. Incredibly people still show pictures of Rhodocetus as a fully formed skeleton with a tail fluke. If you look in the following pictures in this thread, you will see they never found those tail vertebrae for Rhodocetus.

Yes, the transitional evidence will scream "evolution" if you turn that evidence into pictures of full skeletons people have drawn with the assumption of evolution in mind, but Phil Gingerich, the founder of Rhodocetus, himself now rejects that it had a tail fluke. Either way, if you believe it did or believe it didn't those pictures are very misleading.

Ambulocetus is also not a full skeleton like shown in the diagram, I think they actually found something like 45% of Ambulocetus, and "add" the rest, by imagination. Conjecturally that is okay if you want to speculate an evolution of whales but like with all of the "transitionals by artwork" they tend to show a very distorted version of the actual facts.

Here is the thread I discussed it, please see message number # 9, remember, I am not attacking evolution as such here, I am just attacking the use of art to mislead people into thinking these fully formed whale-like skeletons are factual, when they simply are not.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6672...

Disclaimer: I'm okay with people saying, "well, this sure looks like it could be an evolution of whales" but I'm not okay with fake drawings of complete skeletons they've never actually ever found, which may well not have had tail flukes and a whale like evolutionary anatomy (or on the way there).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dan4reason, posted 01-02-2012 12:36 PM dan4reason has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by caffeine, posted 12-14-2016 3:58 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 251 of 443 (795576)
12-14-2016 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by caffeine
12-14-2016 2:18 PM


Re: This just in ...
Is this supposed to be referring only to mysticetes? There are still a lot of three, four, five, metre whales.

The impression I got was that the “Gigantism" occurred due to the environmental conditions of the later ice ages and that most of the smaller whales went extinct.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by caffeine, posted 12-14-2016 2:18 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by caffeine, posted 12-14-2016 3:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1289
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 252 of 443 (795582)
12-14-2016 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by RAZD
12-14-2016 3:14 PM


Re: This just in ...
The impression I got was that the “Gigantism" occurred due to the environmental conditions of the later ice ages and that most of the smaller whales went extinct.

Yes, but that's evidently not true, which was why I asked if he was actually talking about mysticetes in particular.

I have answered my own question in the affirmative by finding some of his work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2016 3:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1289
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 253 of 443 (795596)
12-14-2016 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by mike the wiz
12-14-2016 2:32 PM


The opening message of this topic highlights a serious problem with artwork. Incredibly people still show pictures of Rhodocetus as a fully formed skeleton with a tail fluke. If you look in the following pictures in this thread, you will see they never found those tail vertebrae for Rhodocetus.

Rodhocetus is pictured without a tail fluke in message 1.

Now, you are right that it can be a bit misleading when someone pictures a full skeleton as a fossil without indication of which bits are actually known from fossils. That's why you sometimes see skeletal reconstructions like this:

with different shading used to differentiate between the bits known from fossils and the rest; which is the educated guess of the reconstructor.

If you're complaining about artists reconstructions of fossils as living animals, then of course they have to include speculative elements. There's nothing dishonest about this - even the most complete fossil is not going to tell you how an animal looked in life. You have to fill in the gaps with speculation and conjecture; or it would not be possible to make any artist's impressions.

Now, I do find it annoying that a lot of media presentation prefers the artist's impressions to pictures of the actual fossils; but that's not a problem with artwork - it's a problem of what the media thinks people would find more alluring.

Incidentally, I'm not sure how relevant the terminal caudal vertebrae would be to whether Rodhocetus has a tail fluke. Whale vertebrae don't extend into the flukes. And Google images seems to suggest that the majority of artists reconstruct Rodhocetus without a fluke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by mike the wiz, posted 12-14-2016 2:32 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 254 of 443 (803727)
04-04-2017 3:47 AM


The whale tale is one of the funniest yarns concocted by evolutionists: Some land-lubbing, vegetarian deer-like creature supposedly developed a taste for swimming in the ocean and devouring seafood. Its nose somehow ends up on top of its head and its legs somehow turn into flippers. I love it! ... except is reduces the noble pursuit of science to embarrassing quackery. Isn't it interesting what some people are willing to believe?
Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-04-2017 8:38 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 04-04-2017 11:49 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 258 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2017 4:18 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 255 of 443 (803747)
04-04-2017 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dredge
04-04-2017 3:47 AM


Did you forget you already posted to this thread in Message 243? It has several responses, none of which you've replied to.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2017 3:47 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Pressie, posted 04-04-2017 8:49 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 261 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 4:30 AM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
30NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017