Summations Only

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.

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.

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.

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

Well, I'm not sure how you interpret the evidence which is just a picture of this particular dolphin. Previously you posted a caption that said "Dolphin reveals an extras set of legs". To which I say "FRAUD"!There is nothing that looks like legs in that picture. I know evos want them to be legs, but surely that wasn't the case, because an x-ray and a paper would have confirmed leg homology and the evidence would be very strong. Instead, it's been ten long silent years since this dolphin was discovered and no x-rays or papers or Jack Squat. Just Fraudulent headlines in the previous reports.Now it appears, you may think these ar fins........? a failed attempt at humor. Initials are B.S. which stands for many things. I understand. However, the term "limb bud" in embryology comes from the realization that limbs form from the buds. In cetatcea, no limbs grow from the bud. The bud disappears early in gestation. This begs the question of the fraudulent naming of the "bud" . You cannot draw homology from location alone. And that presumption is not warranted from the pictorial evidence provided. A simple x-ray would provide the warrant. But somehow, amazingly, after ten long, arduous years the warrant still doesn't exist. The presumption was false. It's a fraud. I understand this quite well, I'm not sure you do. Sure if they are polymelia to the front fins/ flippers then they attest nothing about evolution. That's my point. It is simply a duplication/ genetic abnormality. They probably are fibrous inside and are polymelial to the dorsal fin. That's why no x-rays have ever been published.For these structures to attest to evolution, they must be hind legs and must be homologous to terrestrial hind legs. Here they would be atavistic and not polymelial.

That evidence would be confirming. Let's see how you do? Just like the good evo you are, you present the evidence that supports your position. So lets examine the evidence. About week 5 the bud and AER appear. About one to two weeks later the bud disappears from the remainder of gestation.. That's a blip on the cetacean gestational period of 52 weeks plus. In contrast, terrestrial hind limb buds appear about the same time and produce the hind limbs of the organism throughout gestation. So homology doesn't exist in embryological anatomy. So what could cause such a thing? Could it be non-similarities in gene expressions rather than similarities?....Let's see. They "note' this? This is the whole focus of the paper. They are trying to hypothesize why this happens genetically. This paper is identifying things that are different from terrestrial hind limb buds. The differences discussed are significant! Now I will note, that not one time does Thewissen claim homology on the hind limb buds or their gene expression even though I know he believes they are homologous. Granted, but just for one week or so of gestation! In all other weeks of gestation there is no bud! That's significantly non-homologous. Really? Again this paper is identifying the non-similarities. You have already identified the absence of the ZPA. Is that not a significant anatomical difference? Myogeneic cells responsible for muscle creation also do not present in these buds. Another significant difference, yet we know that significant musculature is attached to the "innominate" bone in dolphins. Again, I would suggest you re-read this paper you cited. Yes, a couple of genes are expressed similarly, yet many are not! In fact Thewissen says:

quote:

---

We report that the molecular cascade that controls limb development deviates from that described for other tetrapods.

---

This bud is not homologous to hind limb buds in gene expression. Show your cards. I have reviewed all the published literature here, and at best the evidence is anecdotal, and potentially fraudulent. I want to see the "several" cases. Percy's dolphin certainly doesn't count. There is zero evidence of atavism there. Again Really? No one can even definitively identify this bone relative to the muscles attached. That's why this bone is still controversial in the literature. At best the muscles attached relate to the penis and female genitalia. No other muscles in cetacea correlate with terrestrial animals in this area. You'll have to enlighten me here. I don't know what you are referring to. To me, the evidence shows significant non-homologous characters in both morphology and embryological development.PS. I'm glad you share my consternation about AO-4's lack of evidence, but this is evidence that the previous claims were unfounded. Otherwise the Japanese would be quite famous for finding the "walking dolphin"!

Hey folks, sorry for the delays,but I have been quite busy. I am preparing a rebuttal with plenty of evidence. I am having to create several images, so it may be a bit more time.I must say, the images will be worth the wait in exposing this fraud.

Ok, so let me make my claim clear....There is no scientific evidence of terrestrial hind leg atavism in cetacea. I see you recognize that this is all anecdotal evidence. Ergo, maybe you can see why I am so obstinate about this issue. We are teaching the kids that this stuff is fact, and apparently many in this forum have bought the bridge in Brooklyn. The problem is that all of these anecdotes become the foundation for later scientific papers.I'm not sure what you think cetacean atavisms should look like, but your imagination in this area is potentially fraught with confirmation bias. The only way to overcome this is with the scientific method. This is exactly what is missing in these papers. Except we have no data points for Atavism. We have very little photographic evidence of abnormalities in cetacea, and we have a whole lot of anecdotes and unjustified speculation. Evos have a strong bias to prove vestiges from TOE that unfortunately causes unusual morphologies to all be interpreted as atavisms!Let's take a detailed look at your link and the so-called data points.This is the citation you provided about AO-4 and I pulled the paper:Ohsumi, Seiji, and Hidehiro Kato. "A bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) with fin‐shaped hind appendages." Marine mammal science 24.3 (2008): 743-745.In it Ohsumi claims:

quote:

---

Historically, there have been seven known reports including photographs and descriptions of vestigial of hind appendages in other cetaceans

---

Then he cites the seven references. I will start with his last two:

quote:

---

In addition, there was an old drawing in which fin-shaped appendages appeared near the genital opening of a pilot whale stranded on the Dutch coast in 1594 (Slijper 1958, Barthelmess and Munzing 1991). However, this was based on a copper engraving published by Goltzius in 1617 and there is uncertainty in representation of the body shape.

---

Here are the citations:Barthelmess, Klaus, and Joachim Mnzing. Monstrum horrendum: Wale und Waldarstellungen in der Druckgraphik des 16. Jahrhunderts und ihr motivkundlicher Einfluss. Kabel, 1991.
Horrible Monsters: Whale and whale representations in printed graphics from the 16th century and their influence.Slijper, Everhard Johannes. Walvissen. Amsterdam: Centen, 1958.So here we have a copper engraving from the 1600's which is unclear regarding the whale's body shape. The author admits that this is unscientific evidence and anecdotal at best. So now we are down to 5 data points.The next citation I will deal with is:

quote:

---

common dolphin, Delphinis delphis, Sleptsov 1940;

---

Sleptzov, M. M. "On some particularities of birth and nutrition of the young of the Black Sea porpoise Delphinus delphis." Zoologicheskii zhurnal 19 (1940): 297-305Now clearly the title has nothing to do with atavism or hind limbs. If anything, This paper might have something to do with a birth defect, but we don't have access to this old foreign paper. The claim of atavism or hind limbs here is post hoc and there is no scientific claim of atavism. So now we are down to 4 data points.The next three citations are all from the Japanese dolphin/whaling industry.Ogawa, Teizo, and Toshiro Kamiya. "A case of the cachalot with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Scientific Report, Whales Research Institute 12 (1957): 197-208.Nemoto, Takahisa. "New records of sperm whales with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst 17 (1963): 79-81.Ohsumi, Seiji. "A dolphin (Stenella caeruleoalba) with protruded rudimentary hind limbs." Scientific Report, Whales Research Institute 19 (1965): 135.Please note that all of these come from the infamous Whales Research Institute which is basically front organization to allow the whaling industry to continue in Japan. This organization self-publishes and has little credibility. Each paper claims the same find of "rudimentary hind limbs". Clearly there's an agenda here, and these papers have probably as much scientific evidence as the original paper on AO-4.Now we are down to one paper from Andrews 1921, and I will address this in my next post. This one will require some artwork and real scientific evidence.

How do you know? Most of these papers are specious. Take the AO-4 paper you cited. We have clear visual evidence of hind fins. That's all. There is no claim anywhere, that these are anything other than an extra set of fins. There is absolutely no claim that these are atavisms in this paper. Only in the headlines of the "science news" which I have already exposed as fraudulent misrepresentation. There are clearly other anatomical/medical interpretations which are just as valid as an atavism. The mere fact that one "atavistic interpretation" is regarding "fins", and another is regarding "actual legs" protruding from the body should cause you to have some skepticism. No? Actually, there are two reports here cited.OK....? So the report is not good scientific evidence. Right????? Even the author of the AO-4 paper said so as I quoted earlier. So do you, or do you not agree that there is no scientific evidence regarding atavisms within these documents?That's two down. And it is not cited by one subsequent paper that mentions "hind limbs" or "atavisms" regarding cetaceans. And there are plenty of those papers. Unless you can show otherwise, I will continue to disregard this as having any scientific value as evidence in regards to cetacean atavisms.That's three down. Maybe you should have read the wiki article I cited.Here is the section on their Scientific Research Controversy. Now granted much of this is post these papers, but it is the same organization. Also these papers are "Scientific Reports" papers. They are likened to the AO-4 paper you cited which is just an announcement paper. There is no research in these papers, just pictures and drawings of other cetacean abnormalities.So unless you can demonstrate otherwise, this rational person will question anything coming from any organization that has little scientific credibility, self publishes its own papers, and doesn't open their data for scientific review (which includes doctoring of photos etc.). I just can't imagine a scientist doing that. Oh I don't have to imagine. I can list multiple examples of scientific frauds.Actually, I find it quite irrational to accept this data. But the faith is strong in Darwin's church, so I do understand why some do. Ummmm... actually atavisms are freak birth defects! I am only aware of two types of birth defects in this category. One being atavism and one being polymelia. AO-4 has all the earmarks of polymelia which would then mean this has nothing to do with evolution. Well, Blue Jay, I am pleading with you to show me some trees first, and then we can talk about the forest. At best, so far, you have provided seven citations from the AO-4 paper. Six of which have no scientific credibility. I will also address the seventh upcoming. It also is not credible, and I will demonstrate this. Because they are not hind limb buds, they are genitalia structure buds. The naming of these structures is just semantics. They build the bones and musculature related to the support of genitalia function. Well unfortunately for people with limited minds, they can only see the two options you presented. So much for rationality!

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent birth defects". What I am saying is terrestrial animals have hips and legs. This dolphin has fins. An atavism is a throwback to a supposed evo ancestor. Meaning that if this were an atavism, it must be in some way homologous with legs and hips. You certainly cannot ascertain that from the picture evidence.I am also saying that polymelia can explain this in two ways. If the fins are fibrous, which they look like, they can be polymelia from the dorsal fin. I suspect this is the case, because if they had bones, then the evidence would be on the front pages everywhere. Remember, there are other reports of actual "hind legs" and "femurs" and "tibias".If these appendages have bones, then they can be polymelia to the front flippers or they can be atavistic. Either way, a simple x-ray would confirm all of this. Yet none are provided after more than ten years. Phase one and phase two of Encode took less time. What gives??

Hi Bluejay, You are quite funny with your parody. The only problm is it doesn't represent anything I've done.You may want to notice though what is missing from Berzin's x-ray. And it is very important to the interpretation of these bones. You underestimate my knowledge in this area. I have all of these documents and the images. I will address what's missing in a later post, but you ought to see if you can recognize what's missing.All you are doing is adding to the confusion of terms regarding polymelia, atavism, rudiments, hind limbs, hind legs, fins, and flippers etc.So I will take another approach. I will start at what I believe to be the beginning. A paper ...Struthers, J.-1881-The Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus).This is readily available on the web in pdf format. Just google scholar search it and all I'm sure all will devour the details! This paper establishes accurately the anatomy of large modern whales which have a two bone and one cartilage arrangement with muscles attached and tendons and ligaments all very nicely detailed. I will present some images from this paper, because it establishes many facts and data points about large whales.You will be extremely happy that I will not argue with the data presented in this paper which I think is a fine piece of scientific work, but I will comment on some terminology.Once this foundation is built, then I will discuss each paper in historical sequence as the data points grow....

Patience my friend, In due time, I will get to this data. If you would get off your evo high horse and stop your preaching about forests and trees, maybe you could see that the most important tree in the forest is missing. So maybe you should look at your compass and find your way out of the dark forest by navigating some trees.I will be looking at trees. Data points. We will see how many of these trees fall with the weight of evidence when we apply just an ounce of skepticism. Especially Berzin's. (the real evidence might just point to polymelia) It's right there in front of you, but you can't see the trees because of the forest. It's just as bad, and equally obstinate. Here's a good example. No cetacean "pelvis" looks at all like a pelvis of any known terrestrial animal. (But it does look like some pubis bones, as I've claimed from the beginning, more on this later) But your forest won't let you see that. That's a shame. A damned forest is a terrible thing to be lost in. Get out and enjoy the trees!Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : corrected typos etc.

Well, I have researched all of these and they are on my PC, and I just didn't want to have to search it again. HTML is not my second language. Typing is also slow. Images are at a snails pace. I know how to do most of this stuff, it just takes me three times as long. That's all. I will try and link if it is available in the future. I need to produce images. That's all. Dreadfully slow. Patience please?. The data came in over the period of 130 years. The interpretations changed over those 130 years. I need to show this progression to show what I believe to be the errors from the beginning.Don't you like mysteries? I think your non-member audience may.

Percy,The old Japanese papers previously referred are not available anywhere on the web. But I have them. I can post them, but I don't think that's kosher. Should I just cut and paste from them? I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting the papers. They are important to this discussion.

Can I load images to your dropsite? If so, please tell me how?Also tell me how to send the Japanese papers. They make my case well! Once you see them, you'll understand why I have made comments about them.I am using images from these papers and then adding arrows and textual comments so people can understand the anatomy better. That's all. That takes time. As far as the typing goes, I'm a hunt and pecker with a very busy work schedule that sometimes knocks me off line for several days, because I just don't have the time. My apologies, but that's my world.