[_ Old Earth _] Article of Whale and Dolphin Evolution

[lordkalvan]

For example, vestiges of the pelvic bones, tibiae and femora; olfactory nerves; muscles devoted to external ears which no longer exist.

"...For example, vestiges of the pelvic bones..."

Come on, LK, you know darn well these are penis girders that are very much functional.

Allow me restate my previous comments when you made this assertion before:

Sperm whales with visible, protruding hind limbs indicate that these features are vestigial and at some point in the animal's evolutionary past played a part very much to do with locomotion. You should maybe refer to John Struthers' dissection of Greenland Right whales more than a century ago. The Wiki reference you cite also notes that whales are known to develop what it calls 'miniature legs'. Genital muscles always attach to the pelvis, so claiming that vestigial hind limbs (which also attach to the pelvis) are actually an important part of the reproductory system is simply a misrepresentation. Do you regard your pelvic girdle and upper limbs as intended to function primarily as a 'penis girder'?

Can I also refer you again to these two references which further discuss these features:

Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of
evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss by
Lars Bejder and Brian K. Hall, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4J1 at http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:pI ... en&ct=clnk

The Emergence of Whales by J.G.M. Thewissen (ed.), Dept of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA at http://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=& ... JY#PPR9,M1

And to quote Hans Thewissen on the subject again (a reference you did not respond to when origially posted):

'To say that a pelvic remnant does not qualify as a limb remnant because it is not [a] limb is technically correct. Anatomists would call it the limb girdle, but that is just semantics, limbs are always attached to limb girdles. Anyway it does not even matter in your case if humpbacks have femoral remnants as well. It is also silly to say that it can't be [a] pelvis because genital muscles attach to the bone. The genital muscles attach always to the pelvis, including in humans and artiodactyls (whales' relatives). That argument would actually support the homology of the bone to the pelvis..'

Source: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

So, come on yourself.

 

[Crying Rock]

"...To say that a pelvic remnant does not qualify as a limb remnant because it is not [a] limb is technically correct. Anatomists would call it the limb girdle, but that is just semantics, limbs are always attached to limb girdles..."

Come on, LK, there is no direct evidence that penis girdles were ever limbs. That's mere evolutionary assumption. The only direct evidence we have is penis girdles are penis girdles. Show me direct evidence that animals walked on their penis girdles.

 

[Crying Rock]

Sperm whales with visible, protruding hind limbs indicate that these features are vestigial and at some point in the animal's evolutionary past played a part very much to do with locomotion.

Show me these "protruding hind limbs" in situ. If you can even accomplish this, explain how these bones could propel a whale on land. If you can't do this then your reference is mere speculation.

 

[lordkalvan]

"...To say that a pelvic remnant does not qualify as a limb remnant because it is not [a] limb is technically correct. Anatomists would call it the limb girdle, but that is just semantics, limbs are always attached to limb girdles..."

Come on, LK, there is no direct evidence that penis girdles were ever limbs. That's mere evolutionary assumption. The only direct evidence we have is penis girdles are penis girdles. Show me direct evidence that animals walked on their penis girdles.

Animals don't walk on 'penis girdles', they walk on legs; there are no such thing as 'penis girdles': what you are referring to is more properly described anatomically as the pelvic girdle; if you doubt me, type in penis girdle into Google and consider the 'hits' you get - not much to do with your argument there. The pelvic girdle serves as the structure which connects the spine to the femurs; the location of the reproductive organs mens that they are also associated with the pelvic girdle: this does not mean that the sole function of the pelvic girdle is to serve a reproductive function. Your contention is quite simply wrong.

 

[lordkalvan]

Sperm whales with visible, protruding hind limbs indicate that these features are vestigial and at some point in the animal's evolutionary past played a part very much to do with locomotion.

Show me these "protruding hind limbs" in situ. If you can even accomplish this, explain how these bones could propel a whale on land. If you can't do this then your reference is mere speculation.

This is a strawman: neither I nor any palaeontologist or marine biologist that I am aware of has ever suggested that vestigial limbs could (or would have) 'propel[led] a whale on land'; whales are not amphibious animals. The vestigial remnants are evidential support for the hypothesis that species ancestral to whales were land-dwelling mammals. If you disagree with this description of the origins of whales, perhaps you would like to provide your own hypothesis for the origin of whales? Are you arguing that they evolved directly from sea-dwelling species that have no ancestral terrestrial roots?

Oh, and what do you mean by 'in situ'? Perhaps you will find the discussion here interesting and informative:

http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lb/Bejde ... 20Hall.pdf

A relevant quote is appended below; there is more detail in the complete paper:

An atavism is the reappearance of an ancestral character in an individual within a descendant population (Hall 1984, 1995, 2002, in press, b). Atavistic skeletal elements, distinguishable from the rudiments of the pelvic girdle, have been documented in adult sperm and humpback whales (Andrews 1921; Berzin 1972; Hall 1984, 1999), the incidence in sperm whales being 1:5000 adults. Atavistic skeletal elements can be surprisingly complete; 79 cm long bones in 125 cm long left and right “hindlimbs†in a female humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, when normally only a cartilaginous femur is present (as in the sperm whale; Deimer 1977). Estimates of the time by which mammals could no longer redevelop a lost limb element are of the order of 107 generations, assuming a rate of mutation for major genes involved in limb development of 107 mutations/locus/generation (Lande 1978; see Marshall et al. 1994 for reactivation of developmental programs after some half million years of gene silencing).

Source: Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss, Lars Bejder and Brian K. Hall, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4J1 in EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 4:6, 445–458 (2002), p. 452.

 

[Crying Rock]

This is a strawman: neither I nor any palaeontologist or marine biologist that I am aware of has ever suggested that vestigial limbs could (or would have) 'propel[led] a whale on land'; whales are not amphibious animals. The vestigial remnants are evidential support for the hypothesis that species ancestral to whales were land-dwelling mammals. If you disagree with this description of the origins of whales, perhaps you would like to provide your own hypothesis for the origin of whales? Are you arguing that they evolved directly from sea-dwelling species that have no ancestral terrestrial roots?

Strawman? What's your definition of a whale? Do you agree with this scenario:

http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/20 ... -graph.jpg

Pure fantasy.

Oh, and what do you mean by 'in situ'? Perhaps you will find the discussion here interesting and informative:

How does this answer my question?

 

[lordkalvan]

This is a strawman: neither I nor any palaeontologist or marine biologist that I am aware of has ever suggested that vestigial limbs could (or would have) 'propel[led] a whale on land'; whales are not amphibious animals. The vestigial remnants are evidential support for the hypothesis that species ancestral to whales were land-dwelling mammals. If you disagree with this description of the origins of whales, perhaps you would like to provide your own hypothesis for the origin of whales? Are you arguing that they evolved directly from sea-dwelling species that have no ancestral terrestrial roots?

Strawman?

Indeed.

What's your definition of a whale?

Not an animal that 'propels' itself on land with legs, although ancestral species may have.

Do you agree with this scenario:

http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/20 ... -graph.jpg

There is evidence to support it.

Pure fantasy.

Saying it is so does not make it so. Where is your argument?

[quote:3nzwbgwd]Oh, and what do you mean by 'in situ'? Perhaps you will find the discussion here interesting and informative:

How does this answer my question?[/quote:3nzwbgwd]
Well, I rather thought it did. There is unmistakable evidence that legs are vestigial, atavistic features of modern whales and that in some instances these limbs can develop to the point where they are visible. You have yet to do anything to cast doubt on this evidence.

In passing, I also note that you still decline to share with us your hypothesis on the origins of whales and the evidence that supports this hypothesis.

 

[Crying Rock]

CR wrote: What's your definition of a whale?

LK wrote: Not an animal that 'propels' itself on land with legs

CR wrote: Do you agree with this scenario:

http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/20 ... -graph.jpg

LK wrote: There is evidence to support it.

Didn’t you just claim: “Not an animal that 'propels' itself on land with legs.â€

LK wrote: There is unmistakable evidence that legs are vestigial, atavistic features of modern whales and that in some instances these limbs can develop to the point where they are visible. You have yet to do anything to cast doubt on this evidence.

And you’ve done nothing to support your claim with direct evidence. Only evolutionary based theory.

http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/20 ... -graph.jpg

 

[lordkalvan]

Didn’t you just claim: “Not an animal that 'propels' itself on land with legs.â€

Which does not make all ancestral species of whales whales, in the same way that if I pointed out that some ancestral species of humans had prehensile tails, I would still identify humans as a species of animal that did not have a prehensile tail. You can play linguistic games for as long as you want, but these are not effective substitutes for argument.

[quote:16qkm5js]LK wrote: You have yet to do anything to cast doubt on this evidence [that legs are vestigial, atavistic features of modern whales and that in some instances these limbs can develop to the point where they are visible].

And you’ve done nothing to support your claim with direct evidence. Only evolutionary based theory.[/quote:16qkm5js]
Well, I rather think I have. Insofar as you have failed to share with us either your position as to what you would regard as persuasive evidence that whales evolved from land-dwelling animals, or why you regard the evidence presented as unsatisfactory, or even the hypothesis you think explains the origin of whales and the evidence that supports it, it seems to me that your arguments are devoid of any substance at all and can safely be disregarded.

 

[Crying Rock]

Didn’t you just claim: “Not an animal that 'propels' itself on land with legs.â€

Which does not make all ancestral species of whales whales.

So if they're not whales why do you contend that they are whales?

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="Crying Rock":22k2mhob]Didn’t you just claim: “Not an animal that 'propels' itself on land with legs.â€

Which does not make all ancestral species of whales whales.

So if they're not whales why do you contend that they are whales?[/quote:22k2mhob]
I think this is a definite wtf? moment. Some of the species ancestral to modern whales are also whales, but not all species ancestral to modern whales are whales. Can you point me to the post where I contended that all species ancestral to modern whales are whales? Have you no better argument to put forward than this? Just to be even more clear: not all species ancestral to modern apes are apes, although some of them are; not all species ancestral to modern horses are horses, although some of them are; and so on....

 

[Barbarian]

I think at this point, it's necessary to get C.R. to say what the definition of "whale" should be, and then work with that.

Unfortunately, he has been very reluctant to say. I won't speculate on his reasons, but I think we could clear this up rather quickly if he did.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think at this point, it's necessary to get C.R. to say what the definition of "whale" should be, and then work with that.

I agree.

Unfortunately, he has been very reluctant to say. I won't speculate on his reasons, but I think we could clear this up rather quickly if he did.

Which may be why he appears so reluctant....

 

[Crying Rock]

Which does not make all ancestral species of whales whales.

[quote:2atlfg5c]
So if they're not whales why do you contend that they are whales?

I think this is a definite wtf? moment.

Indeed!

...Just to be even more clear: not all species ancestral to modern apes are apes, although some of them are; not all species ancestral to modern horses are horses, although some of them are; and so on...

[/quote:2atlfg5c]

So says you. You have made the claims and are therefore responsible for backing them up, scientifically.

Your claim is that whales came from land-dwelling mammals. I'm waiting on a scientifically sound explanation. You've failed to accomplish this.

Remember your quote:

Which does not make all ancestral species of whales whales.

 

[Barbarian]

If you want this to go forward, it's time for you to tell us what you think a whale is, with a testable definition.

 

[lordkalvan]

If you want this to go forward, it's time for you to tell us what you think a whale is, with a testable definition.

Indeed. As best as I can I have summarized and given links to the evidence that indicates whales are descendant from ancestral land-dwelling mammals. CR has failed to explain why he finds this evidence unpersuasive (other than the fact that he does), what evidence he would find persuasive, what his own model for the origin of whales might be and even, as you have pointed out, what a whale is.

 

[Crying Rock]

You, Sir, have the onus of proving whales evolved from land dwelling mammals.

The defendants' evidence has so far proved little.

 

[Barbarian]

Given the fact that Crying Rock is unwilling or possibly unable to come up with a testable definition of whale, that's probably the best admission we can get that he's unable to support his argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

Given the fact that Crying Rock is unwilling or possibly unable to come up with a testable definition of whale, that's probably the best admission we can get that he's unable to support his argument.

I agree: his argument against the presented evidence amounts to little more than saying that it doesn't satisfy him, without either saying exactly why it doesn't satisfy him or what evidence would satisfy him. I think it is reasonable to conclude therefore that he has no argument to offer beyond nay-saying.

 

[lordkalvan]

You, Sir, have the onus of proving whales evolved from land dwelling mammals.

I have provided compelling evidence and links to compelling evidence. If you want 'proof' you need to go elsewhere.

The defendants' evidence has so far proved little.

Saying so does not make it so. What is your explanation for the origin of whales? I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this question and you have resolutely avoided answering it. Why is this?