Summations Only

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

What fatuous drivel you talk, to be sure.---"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin." --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)."Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy." --- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research."The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept." --- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well I'll take my "fatuous drivel" over your fallacious, and enormous cut and pastes, any day. I guess VIP's are allowed large cut and pastes??

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. Note I use the term "genital" to describe these bones, because that is their purpose to support the muscular attachments related to the penis and female genitalia. This is established in a multitude of papers and confirmed by the paper I cited.To demonstrate that homology has not been established I will quote from this paper...

quote:

---

Within the pelvic region, odontocetes and mysticetes possess a few small cartilages and/or bones, imbedded in musculature and unconnected to the vertebral column. At their fullest development, they consist of three bones joined by a ligament but without a symphysis or acetabular cavity. Establishing the homology of vestiges or rudiments is not a trivial problem (Hall in press). To quote from an analysis of cetacean thermoregulation and reproduction: To date, the exact identity and development of the elements of the pelvic vestige of extant cetaceans [i.e., are they ischium, ilium or pubis] have not been established. Such identification is critical to fully understanding the events underlying the evolution of the cetacean pelvis (Pabst et al. 1998, p. 393). These pelvic bones remain cartilaginous long after birth (Arvy 1979), although this conclusion was based on their failure to appear in x-rays of older embryos, an absence that may indicate lack of mineralization at that stage rather than a persistent cartilaginous nature. They do mineralize later in life (Fig. 3, D and E). Each bone has only one ossification center and is supported by the superficial cutaneous muscles that support the urogenital orifice and penis, although, according to Howell (1970), it is almost impossible to homologize cetacean cutaneous muscles with those of terrestrial mammals, in part because the nerves (from which muscle homology is usually most reliably obtained) are so greatly altered in cetaceans. The bones are sexually imorphic,
being heavier in males but slightly longer and more slender in females. They are thought to function in mating and in birth (Howell 1970).

​

Bejder, Lars, and Brian K. Hall. "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss." Evolution & development 4.6 (2002): 445-458.

---

Sure it has, because some whales have more pelvic bones than others, like this Wikipedia image of a baleen whale skeleton:

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

You've again misunderstood a reference. Certainly the authors wouldn't agree with your conclusions. Where it says this:

quote:

---

Establishing the homology of vestiges or rudiments is not a trivial problem (Hall in press). To quote from an analysis of cetacean thermoregulation and reproduction: To date, the exact identity and development of the elements of the pelvic vestige of extant cetaceans [i.e., are they ischium, ilium or pubis] have not been established. Such identification is critical to fully understanding the events underlying the evolution of the cetacean pelvis (Pabst et al. 1998, p. 393).

---

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:

---

As a result, a traditional view of a cetacean innominate as containing vestiges of all three pelvic bones and acetabulum is corroborated by new data and interpretations.

---

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

If you prefer fatuous drivel to evidence, that is of course entirely up to you.Are you by any chance a creationist?

No, not even a chanceBut in the evo world, that means it's possible!

Percy, I intend to show that this picture is fraudulently represented. 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?Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

You''re not a creationist? You do seem awfully keen on creationist-style bullshit. How would you describe yourself? Perhaps you should concentrate on lying about whales rather than just lying about stuff at random.

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:

Features of a sperm whale skeleton

Sperm whale skeleton. Richard Lydekker 1894

olphin reveals an extras set of legs]http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/tok10311050719.grid-4x2.jpg[/img]-->

D-->olphin reveals an extras set of legs

--Percy

Yes, sure. I will start with the dolphin, because it's and easy one: Really? Legs? Only an evo could imagine such things! It sure doesn't look like a leg, does it Percy? Does it look any thing like a fin? Maybe? Just a little?In fact, that's what your article claims...an extra set of fins. There is no claim of legs, only wishful, faithful, hope dreams and beliefs. This dolphin was discovered in 2006. Since then .................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................silence.It's real simple to do an Xray at this museum where it was housed. And DNA tests. Ten years have passed, but the faithful disciples follow the fraud.No legs. Just fins. Probably Polymelia. A much better explanation scientifically.

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

Hand waiving! I need evidence. Where is your skeletal evidence of this dolphin to support your claims? You don't have any. You just can't claim homology, you must demonstrate it with evidence. 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"? 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..But there is visual evidence of polymelia of the front fins. 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.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. 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.

I appreciate the alert but it wasn't really necessary. When your main arguments are semantic games which pretty much concede the point it's pretty clear that your claim to have "proof" was thoroughly fraudulent.

Everything in these forums is a semantic game, but some are better than others at it. How are you fairing?Picture===>fins===>hind legs===> nothing but evo semantics