Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 151 of 443 (782071)
04-15-2016 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
04-15-2016 7:48 AM


Re: Quite funny strawman
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.
Why in a later post? What's wrong with now?
I need to produce images. That's all. Dreadfully slow.
If you have a point, then the point is better made in a single post rather than spread across several like some kind of mystery writer turning in installments - if you have a point.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 04-15-2016 7:48 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 152 of 443 (782072)
04-15-2016 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
04-15-2016 7:48 AM


Japanese paper
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 04-15-2016 7:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 04-15-2016 12:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 153 of 443 (782081)
04-15-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid
04-15-2016 7:30 AM


Re: Quite funny strawman
Hi, AOkid.
AOkid writes:
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.
There's certainly nothing wrong with examining individual data points. In that respect, your crusade is at least partially reasonable. But, from what I can tell, your search has turned up little more than an eclectic assortment of excuses to dismiss evidence that's inconvenient for you. From my perspective, your excuses so far have amounted to misunderstanding or misapplication of scientific concepts like homology, exaggeration of the disagreements within the scientific community, completely superfluous alternative hypotheses, and aspersions cast on the wrong whaling research institution. There's no cohesive picture at all: it's just a grab-bag of excuses to deny that there's a real pattern there.
Your metaphor of choice is that you are making trees in the forest fall down, and thereby destroying the illusory forest of evolution that's casting a shadow that blocks the light of Truth from reaching the world. It's a rather heroic depiction of your valiant efforts to defeat evil.
My metaphor of choice is that you are pedantically trying to argue that the trees are not in fact trees, because they don't meet this or that criterion of an obscure technical definition of "tree." It's a rather comical depiction of your pathetic efforts to not be wrong about anything.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-15-2016 7:30 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 154 of 443 (782082)
04-15-2016 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by AlphaOmegakid
04-15-2016 9:10 AM


Re: Japanese paper
AlphaOmegakid writes:
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.
More about your PC later. Use dBCodes. A URL using dBCodes is this simple:
[url=http://www.google.com]Link to Google[/url]
Which looks like this: Link to Google
Typing is also slow.
Understandable if English is a second language and you're typing on something with a small form factor like a smartphone. Mobile devices are for staying in touch, not maintaining a discussion. Wait until you're in front of your PC.
Images are at a snails pace.
Not usually. Say more.
I know how to do most of this stuff, it just takes me three times as long.
Because you're on a mobile device? Some other reason?
I need to produce images. That's all. Dreadfully slow.
You mean you're creating images from scratch? If so, why? Or do you mean including an image in a message is "dreadfully slow"? Again, if so, why, since entering images is easy, e.g.:
[img=50]http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/Google.png[/img]
Which looks like this:
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.
We already know what you're trying to say, and you're obviously and self-evidently wrong. You could only be drawing things out to avoid admitting this to yourself. Whales, dolphins a snakes occasionally have hind limbs where hind limbs would normally be expected, no errors there. Fetal development includes hind limb buds that are later absorbed, no errors there. Genetic studies indicate that whales, dolphins and snakes still have hind limb genetic information, explaining why it is occasionally accidentally expressed in the phenotype. The interrelationship of all life was obvious before genetics was discovered, and became bloomin' obvious after.
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.
The titles of the Japanese papers all mention "protruded rudimentary hind limbs" - what evidence for your position could you possibly hope to find in these papers? In any case, unsupported claims should be avoided. Quote the relevant portions if you can't make the papers available. If you send me PDF's or Word documents of the papers I can make them available on the web.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-15-2016 9:10 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-15-2016 12:51 PM Percy has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 155 of 443 (782088)
04-15-2016 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Percy
04-15-2016 12:04 PM


Re: Japanese paper
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 04-15-2016 12:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 04-15-2016 4:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 156 of 443 (782090)
04-15-2016 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid
04-15-2016 12:51 PM


Re: Japanese paper
Eventually members will be able to upload, but not yet. Anything you'd like uploaded to the website, whether PDF's or Word documents or images or whatever, just attach to an email and send to admin@evcforum.net.
But I suspect, and I think Blue Jay and Dr Adequate feel the same, that you're only deceiving yourself. For the atavistic view to be wrong would require multiple errors along multiple lines of analysis. You're being forced to retreat into more and more obscure (and thereby less and less significant) evidence, and you're ignoring all the strong evidence for atavisms, and this should be setting off alarm bells in your head that you're on the wrong path.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-15-2016 12:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-16-2016 10:51 AM Percy has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 157 of 443 (782104)
04-16-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
04-15-2016 4:19 PM


Re: Japanese paper
Thank you Percy, I will send you the Japanese papers. I will host my own modified photos so that they won't get taken down sometime in the future.
But I suspect, and I think Blue Jay and Dr Adequate feel the same, that you're only deceiving yourself. For the atavistic view to be wrong would require multiple errors along multiple lines of analysis. You're being forced to retreat into more and more obscure (and thereby less and less significant) evidence, and you're ignoring all the strong evidence for atavisms, and this should be setting off alarm bells in your head that you're on the wrong path.
Well I suspect and know for a fact that none of you have ever actually read any of the Japanese papers and actually examined any of the Japanese evidence. They are sophomoric, anecdotal, and don't supply evidence of atavism at all. I also suspect that you and all the others have been fraudulently deceived and bought, hook line and sinker, that these are atavisms. I also suspect, that because of your faithfulness that you still will argue for atavism when the data shows otherwise. The data examination will begin next week. And I haven't retreated from anything. My previous positions will still be held when we all look at the actual evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 04-15-2016 4:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 04-16-2016 11:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2016 2:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 158 of 443 (782106)
04-16-2016 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
04-16-2016 10:51 AM


Re: Japanese paper
Hi AlphaOmegakid,
When I said "retreat" I didn't mean that you'd abandoned prior positions. I meant that you've retreated from the evidence we keep briefly describing, and from the rational inferences that follow, instead issuing unsupported accusations of fraud, deception, incompetence and gullibility. By the time you finally get to your "evidence" I hope we still remember what this was all about.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-16-2016 10:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 443 (782129)
04-17-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
04-16-2016 10:51 AM


Re: Japanese paper
My previous position will still be held when we look at the actual evidence
Seriously, AOK, messages like this do not serve your cause very well. You predict that everyone here is a fool who argues against the evidence, and then you tell us that you plan to maintain your position prior to a discussion of the evidence.
We are 156 posts into this thread and to date your presentation has been quite poor. So far, you, and not your detractors, are the party who has exhibited the ability to disregard evidence. I fully expect that once your supposed evidence has been ripped into, you will be the fool still hanging onto his preconceived notions. You will hang onto any ambiguity as total vindication. That has been your behavior so far, and thus my statement is not a prediction so much as an observation. You are utterly incapable of conceding any point or even of acknowledging that your opposition has a point.
There has been some evidence of atavism presented in this thread. What do you think will be gained from showing he insufficiency of some other evidence? Weak, sophomoric, anecdotal evidence won't contradict a current opinion that is not based on that evidence; only evidence contrary to atavism will do that.
I'm anxiously awaiting to see what you have. But your characterizations of your opponents are ridiculous.
Edited by NoNukes, : You're vs your. Ugh.

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 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-16-2016 10:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-18-2016 1:12 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 160 of 443 (782145)
04-18-2016 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
04-17-2016 2:21 PM


Japanese paper
here has been some evidence of atavism presented in this thread. What do you think will be gained from showing he insufficiency of some other evidence? Weak, sophomoric, anecdotal evidence won't contradict a current opinion that is not based on that evidence; only evidence contrary to atavism will do that.
Bingo, and that is exactly what you will see. The evidence for atavism is a "house of cards" The evidence against is strong. Be patient. It's coming! I will start today and tomorrow with Struthers 1881. Read up! This is good solid evidence that won't be refuted, but will establish the foundation for fraudulent misrepresentations later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2016 2:21 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 161 of 443 (782164)
04-18-2016 7:24 PM


The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
This post will establish just what is really inside of the whale / cetacean genitalia area.
Struthers, John. The Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). Journal of anatomy and physiology 15.Pt 2 (1881): i1.
John Struthers a professor of Anatomy took on the monumental task of dissecting ten baleen Right Whales. These dissections took over three years. Can you even imagine the task? We are indebted to his perseverance in this endeavor.
So what did he find?
These are the left side bones from several whales. Struthers refers to these as the pelvis bone (P), the femur bone (F), and the Tibia cartilage (T). I will refer to these as P, F,and T as we proceed through these discussions.
I will not cite everything unless challenged, so you will have to verify my claims from this paper. From this image we learn...
Fact 1: The anterior part of the P bone is smaller than the posterior part.
Fact 2: The bones lie in a lateral plane approximately parallel to the belly of the whales.
Fact 3: There is an acetabulum between the P bone and the F bone. (this will be important later)
Fact 4: Male bones are bigger than female on average and slightly different in shape to to differences in genitalia function.
Fact 5: The term "rudiment" meant vestige in this time period.
The second image shows more clearly the function of these bone in the males...
I took the liberty of adding Struther's image comments to the picture. We can glean these facts from the image..
Fact 6: The left right movements of the penis are controlled by this bony mechanism. This is strategically important for large cetaceans which have a penis up to 10 feet in length and one foot in base diameter. This mechanism helps find the sweet spot when there are no eyes and hands or reduced legs like on basilosaurus. I don't think any other mammals have left right control over the penis.
Fact 7: The bone arrangement is curved towards the centerline of the whale/penis. The angular part is away form the centerline.
Fact 8: The bones have substantial musculature, tendons, and ligaments attached which all control the pivot of the genitalia. The certainly are not functionless.
Fact 9: There is substantial functionality of this bone arrangement which is essential for evolution to even start to take place.
Fact 10: The P and F bones are ossified and the T is cartilage
FRAUD #1 REVEALED!
This image comes from the very museum that Struther's bones are housed. The bones are fraudulently misrepresented to deceive the viewer to envision these bones pointing away from the centerline as a normal pelvis and leg arrangement would be. This is a shameful misrepresentation and Struthers would probably roll over in his grave if he saw this. This image and variations, is scattered on evo websites across the web like the one Dr. A likes to reference.
Somehow it is much harder envision "legs" when the bones are in their proper orientation.
more to come......

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Blue Jay, posted 04-19-2016 8:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 162 of 443 (782171)
04-19-2016 10:23 AM


Struthers continued......
Fraud Corrected!
Now this is the way that the museum should have presented Struthers' bones, so that the they would be factually represented. It's a little harder to see the infamous imaginary legs this way. When they aren't legs at all functionally, they are genitalia control mechanisms.
However, I suppose that if you rotated these bones approximately 90 degrees so that the F bone was on the outside, then it could be possible that the F bone and T cartilage could grow towards the underbelly area of the whale. But that would leave one inconvenient fact...
Fact 11: If these bones rotate outward approximately 90 degrees, the F bone and T cartilage could grow towards the underbelly (genital opening area) of the whale. This would leave the angular part facing dorsally (this will be important later)
Homology....Struthers identifies these bones as homologous to prior ancestors and calls them rudiments or vestiges. I will not argue against this at this point, but I will provide more data later that calls the homology into question. I will note that Struthers recognizes this in the examination of the P bone to which he says...
quote:
The use of the terms ischial, iliac, and pubic, applied to the different processes of the pelvic bone, diverging from the acetabulum, would be convenient and would simplify the names of the muscles and ligaments, but, as there is no evidence that the pelvic bone is developed from more than one centre of ossification, these terms are apt to mislead. The term innominate for like reason is objectionable.
So I will abort the discussion of homology now until more data is sequentially and historically presented.
The next post will be about a "whale with actual legs". Oh goody. The evos have their evidence now! That's a house built with four aces! Lets see how this tornado blows on that house!
The next paper is :
Andrews, Roy Chapman. A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale. By order of the Trustees of The American Museum of Natural History, 1921.
Read up! The winds are starting to blow!

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 163 of 443 (782181)
04-19-2016 5:02 PM


more from Struthers...
I forgot a key fact...
Fact 12: The corpus cavernosum attaches to the posterior end of the P-bone. In establishing homology of this bone, this end could be the ishium, or pubis, but not the illium.
Figure 11 from Struthers shows this...

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 164 of 443 (782183)
04-19-2016 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid
04-18-2016 7:24 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Hi, Kid.
I'm still working through this, but here's a couple immediate thoughts.
First, I was expecting something a bit bigger than "a museum displays the bones the wrong way." It's not the first time a museum has gotten something wrong, and it won't be the last. Send them an email, and maybe they'll fix it. While you're at it, send these guys an email too, and explain to them that displaying humans and dinosaurs co-existing when there is no evidence of such co-existence constitutes "fraud."
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.
That said, I'm still not entirely clear why this is such a sticking point for you, and I'm not entirely clear how this specific issues is supposed to relate to evolution at all.
I'll keep going over your posts and I may have more to say at some point later.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-18-2016 7:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 7:13 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-20-2016 1:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 443 (782190)
04-20-2016 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Blue Jay
04-19-2016 8:03 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Gollygosharoony birdman, even I, science-challenged though I am, had to blink at your strange attempt to deny the obvious here. If the museum placed the bones in the wrong orientation to suggest hind limbs, while the true orientation doesn't suggest hind limbs, and that gets corrected, there goes the evolutionist claim that they represent a transitional form from a terrestrial to an aquatic mammal. What does this have to do with evolution? It blows it out of the water, birdy.
Never mind, I'm not here.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Blue Jay, posted 04-20-2016 11:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024