Summations Only

Well first of all, these bones are not a "hip" and are not a "pelvis". These terms are just ad hoc evo jargon to claim evolutionary "facts" that can't be substantiated.The facts are that these bones support the tendons and muscles for the penis in male whales. Knowing this, from an evolutionary standpoint, they should be the pubic bones. That's all.Europe PMCAs far as being "vital" for reproduction, I think if you talk to Dory, she would tell you that yes, any whale would agree that these bones are vital for reproduction.

quote:

---

Furthermore, the anatomy of cetacean pelvic bones reveals important roles in male reproductive function. The paired pelvic bones anchor the genitalia and the paired ischiocavernosus muscles, which control the penis.

---

Well throughout history scientists have been pretty easily tricked into believing bizarre things. It was the devil though, and not God! But seriously, did you read the paper? The bones don't look like a pelvis at all.

Yes, no need for a pelvis in a whale. No legs, no hip joint, and no attachment to the vertebral column. But a vital need to have sexually related muscles and tendons attached to an anchoring bone. Well in cetaceans they attach to the two bones shown in multiple species in the paper. The paper calls those bones...."reduced pelvic bones". Now, of course that is just an evo interpretation of the data. The bones themselves are the actual data.The facts are that in all terrestrial, pelvic mammals, these muscles would attach to the pubis and the ischium. However, they would not attach to the ilium! Hmmm, so much for civil discourse! All opinions have some worth. And I suggest that you do take my opinion, because your credibility on this matter is zilch. The ischium is the smaller of the pelvic bones, the ilium is the much larger bone. However after your "years of experience" you somehow conclude that the ischium is about "2/3 of the pelvis". Any Anatomy 101 student would know better. Are you one of Dr. A's easily tricked scientists? You should not listen to the devil. Well, my argument came from the perspective of a hot air balloon. And it is now rising with the flames. Your argument came rom the perspective of your authority and your flames have been dowsed with water!

Clearly I do see what he is saying, but I'm afraid you don't. The pubic bones and ischium combined only make up about 1/3 of any terrestrial mammals pelvis. The ilium makes up about 2/3 of the pelvis.So I have proven that not only can I read well, but you like Coyote do not know very much about anatomy. Yes, and my balloon continues to rise as you an Coyote are drowning in wet ashes. Please cite some sources here.

Well you're getting better at your wiki searches, but you're not quite there yet.Again, twice you mistakenly refer to the pelvis as you try and squirm out of your conundrum. Any educated person in anatomy knows that the pelvis has more bones than two sets of three bones which you mention above. They also know that the innominate and the pelvis are not the same things. But I will let you continue with your research, you may eventually learn this.So to be clear, the pubis and ischium do not in any way make up 2/3 of the number of bones in a pelvis, nor do they make up 2/3 of the pelvis by approximate size. And the pelvis and innominate have two different definitions, and they are not the same group of bones. So in summary, your "expert" claims are grossly lacking expertise.I submitted a peer reviewed paper for your review. You ignored it. If you had read and understood it, you wouldn't be making these mistakes, because all of the bones within the pelvis are mentioned at different times and in an evolutionary framework. Maybe you shouldn't assume that creos are so uneducated.

Hi Percy,I address your concerns in my first post. I recognize that all published evo literature is going to call these "pelvic" bones. Meaning from their perspective that these bones devolved from a once terrestrial pelvis equipped ancestor.My argument is that this is all ad hoc evo interpretations and not facts. Whales have two relatively very small bones that are crucially required to properly support their genitalia in both sexes. The fact that two bones exist for this purpose alone in cetacea do not warrant the interpretation that the bones are "pelvic". The interpretation that these are vestigial is even more specious considering that they are vitally important for any evolutionary chain which begs the reduced function question.Whale evolution as you know has a fairly short evo time span going back to land animals. The terrestrial animals had hips and pelvis'. The "amphibious animals had hips and pelvis' . The fully aquatic animals have two bones to support the genitalia. There are no transitions in between. The pelvis in all the hipped animals is usually eight bones, not all of which are found in the fossils I assume. However, cetacea only have two bones. No transition in-between. It's ad hoc imagination, not evidence. The same applies to so-called whales with legs etc.And actually, my citation doesn't disagree with me...

quote:

---

Cetacean pelves no longer share a symphysis at the sacrum, no longer contact the vertebral column, have lost their acetabulum and obturator foramen, and evolved to such small size that there is still no general consensus as to which of the three fused bones found in their terrestrial ancestor (ischium, ilium, and pubis) they
derive from (Cuvier 1823; Abel 1907; Lonnberg 1911; Lonnberg
1938; Yablokov et al. 1974; Tajima et al. 2004).

---

No one know the evolutionary history of these bones. We only know their function which is highly important. Therefore, the assumption of evolution forces the interpretation that these bones are "pelvic". The evidence does not warrant this.

And my main point which you and Coyote continue to miss is that the pelvis in most terrestrial mammals is made up of three distinct paired bones plus the sacrum and coccyx. The pelvic girdle or innominate is three paired bones fused together, the pubis, ischium and ilium. The ischiocavernosus muscle which controls the penis in males and various genitalia functions in females attach to the pubis and the ischium. Not the ilium! This from a size perspective is a very small part of the pelvis.Now in cetacea, you have one set of paired bones to which these muscles attach. That set of bones are:

quote:

---

devoid of distinguishing land- marks (Fig. 1C), hampering traditional morphometric techniques.

---

Meaning there is no fusion evidence. So they are just one bone that supports genitalia function. Anatomically there is nothing to justify calling these "pelvic" bones at all.This is the evidence or facts. The rest is inference. Evolutionist are just assuming the consequence of their theory with this phraseology of "pelvic".From a design perspective, this one bone in proportional size and shape to the animals genitalia looks like the pubis bone alone. But that's just a name. It could be named anything in cetacea, because it is clearly a unique anatomy. You are correct that they refute my argument, but their inference begs the question. The evidence does not support that reasoning from the anatomy. So I reject the inference which is not evidence. You clearly do not. I, like informed creos, do not in any way view life as unrelated separate creations. That's a strong strawman. In fact we believe in a whole bunch of evolution which is pretty rapid. And we believe in a common designer which uses repeated design features. So I reject your assertion.

Why yes, evolutionism has gone from weakness to strength. Only centuries ago it was merely a faint idea in biology, but from these humble beginnings it has risen to become the sectarian dogma of a crackpot religious cult whose proudest legitimate boast is that most of them aren't actually flat-Earthers. Except of course for the leader of the Flat Earth Society!

The reason I point to this fact is that the ischiocavernosus muscle attaches to this single bone in cetacea.The evo hypothesis of a reduced pelvis causes them to think that this bone is a reduced pelvis which is a combo of ilium and icshium and pubis. But there's no evidence of any fusion, so what they are doing is reasoning circular to find what they predict. See the OP post.So what we have is a very small bone in multiple species which fits the relative size needed to support the genitalia of the animal. It does not fit at all with a pelvis, so they force the inference of a pelvis to agree with their theory. Really? What I see is anatomically it is located where the genitalia are. The pelvis spans from the vertebral column to the genitalia. And the muscles that attach are the muscles for the genitalia. Simple design, not forced inferences. Yes, I have heard of this, and read most of the literature on it including Dr.A's citation. What do you have? I will respond. Try reading Dr.A's citation with one ounce of skepticism. Does anything pop out to you?

Just trying to have a conversation. You made a claim about hind legs and I asked for your input, so I could combine it with my response to Dr. A. If you don't want to read the citations, that is your right as well.

Hi Percy,My apologies for being delinquent for awhile, but my occupation does not afford me the time for daily interaction. Sometimes, I will disappear and jump back in.I think if you reread my original post Message 78, you will see that I am not posting a bare link in any sense of the word. I am clearly answering the old OP writer's request... The article provided answers this question clearly and I provided a quote from the article. Here it is again...

quote:

---

Furthermore, the anatomy of cetacean pelvic bones reveals important roles in male reproductive function. The paired pelvic bones anchor the genitalia and the paired ischiocavernosus muscles, which control the penis.

---

These bones, whatever you call them anchor the genitalia for both male and female organisms. That is the evidence from this article as well as previous citations within the article.Now that makes these bones critical for evolution to even take place. In fact these bones must have been critical in every evolutionary step in between in the evo history. Each organism in the hypothesized evo chain of whales have the genitalia muscles and tendons anchored to bones. These bones are in other organisms, the pubis and the ischium. Never the ilium. Therefore, my secondary argument is that these particular bones cannot be vestigial in any sense of the word, because there is no reduced function.In every organism, these bones are critical for evolution to even begin. They were used for sexual procreation in any imagined ancestor, and they are used for sexual procreation in extant whales and dolphins.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

I am confused. This is Dr. A's citation, so how could it be my bare link?I know I mentioned it in a reply to you, and I am preparing a response with my claims, but I don't see how I broke any forum rules here? Can you please clarify?

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.

---

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