[_ Old Earth _] Earliest known manatee fossil found

[brother Paul]

Barbarian observes:
I just showed you how scientists know why mammals don't have feathers.

Sadly that was not the discussion, nor the point I had made

Yes, that was the discussion. I pointed out that it was a complete mystery to creationists why there are no mammals with feathers, but it's quite understandable to scientists. Not only is evolution supported by transitional forms, but there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be.

But it is not anymore of a mystery to creationists (many of whom are scientists as well) than to anyone else! Couldn't you just have looked? So the degree it may have been a mystery to some scientists (though I cannot imagine why) has been solved for them. Great! And of course science has confirmed what in many cases we already knew, and often discovers new things we had not known, and yes sometimes proves something predicted (like no insects have bones). But “ALL” that some scientists conclude from what they find is not always void of preconceived beliefs. The human element is very often involved interpretation of the data. It is hard to separate what we believe we will find or sometimes hope to find. And in some areas our scope and vision is still in a dwarf stage (like in genetics).

And neither am I a post-modernist….the creatures you displayed are not even pinnipeds…or are the EBs now blurring that line of definition also, to make it appear to fit their hypothesis? I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater but I do not swallow it whole either.

There are a few similarities in the skull and we see the rib cage is quite similar but there are also many stark differences which should not be ignored (actual feet for one thing) where pinniped rear flippers have some bones but they more resemble those found in hands (and with the manatee contain about the same in number as in human hands)….the fully developed front and rear legs should also be a clue but we mustn’t upset the conflicting compartmentalizations should we…

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that why mammals don't have feathers is a complete mystery to creationists)

But it is not anymore of a mystery to creationists (many of whom are scientists as well) than to anyone else!

Of course it is. If it's all "common design", why not use it for mammals? Creationists can only say "God did it", but evolutionary theory makes it clear why this is so.

Couldn't you just have looked?

You, for example, couldn't explain why.

But “ALL” that some scientists conclude from what they find is not always void of preconceived beliefs.

Sorry. Postmodernism won't work here.

The human element is very often involved interpretation of the data. It is hard to separate what we believe we will find or sometimes hope to find. And in some areas our scope and vision is still in a dwarf stage (like in genetics).

In fact, the predictions of geneticists have been repeatedly validated with regard to common descent. So "it's all a matter of whose interpretation" isn't going to work here.

And neither am I a post-modernist….

Probably not a good idea to use their arguments, then.

the creatures you displayed are not even pinnipeds…

Only if you assert that pinnipeds must not have legs. But this one does. Suppose you argued that birds must not have teeth. Would this be a bird?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperornis

And if that's too much of a jump for you beween terrestrial carnivores and today's pinnipeds:

Enaliarctos, a pinniped, but with legs almost but not quite evolved into flippers. Here's a seal:

As Darwin noted, evolution means it's going to be impossible to draw nice neat lines. If creationism were true, we could do that. But creationism isn't true.

There are a few similarities in the skull and we see the rib cage is quite similar but there are also many stark differences which should not be ignored (actual feet for one thing)[/quote]

Like actual teeth in birds, um?

where pinniped rear flippers have some bones but they more resemble those found in hands (and with the manatee contain about the same in number as in human hands)

Show us that. They have the same number of digits as generalized mammals,and three joints in the phalanges, like generalized mammals. To what are you referring? Here's a seal flipper. Notice, a complete leg with foot. All the bones are present. It's the same bones as those of Puijila, just modified further for swimming.

the fully developed front and rear legs should also be a clue

Like fully developed teeth in birds? Sounds like we're making some special rules for pinnipeds, different than the logic concerning what is a bird.

but we mustn’t upset the conflicting compartmentalizations should we…

Apparently not. But if you look at it without preconceptions, you see a pinniped with legs. Technically, all pinnipeds have legs, they are just greatly modified, having all the usual bones found in the legs of other mammals.

 

[brother Paul]

But it is not anymore of a mystery to creationists (many of whom are scientists as well) than to anyone else!

Of course it is. If it's all "common design", why not use it for mammals?

That is a strawman….the logic does not follow because you have changed from a “common designer” to “common design” which are entirely two different things. Having a designer in common does not limit the designer to the same design for all differing types of creations. I am surprised here, because either you made the switch intentionally, or you suffer the same logic block as some Atheists I have debated (which I do not believe of you)….

Creationists can only say "God did it", but evolutionary theory makes it clear why this is so.

Then according to your idea of evolution why did God do it (IYO of course)?


But “ALL” that some scientists conclude from what they find is not always void of preconceived beliefs.

Sorry. Postmodernism won't work here.

Continue to read the whole context, it includes many plausible scenarios….so have learned to do this which you have mastered I will repeat myself….I said “…science has confirmed what in many cases we already knew, and often discovers new things we had not known, and yes sometimes proves something predicted (like no insects have bones). But “ALL” that some scientists conclude from what they find is not always void of preconceived beliefs.” (indicating that SOMETIMES it is not…beliefs influence interpretation of all sorts of data and events, even those unveiled by science the method, albeit sometimes quite unconsciously)

So no postmodernism there, just honesty….”science” (the method), like the God who made us capable of devising it and using it, is no respecter of persons, but humans (especially the godless) have pride, money, notoriety, and many other motives hidden deep within.

In my five year study of the uses and applications of rhetoric, brainwashing, and propaganda I learned that people once convinced are difficult to change and that many cannot see except through their particular rose colored glasses. And that includes some creationists, as well as some scientists, politicians, teachers, and so on,….they only know what they have been convinced of as truth (though sometimes the program is tainted or one-sided) and though believing they see, they are truly blind! They hear the word of reason and logic, but it falls on deaf ears if it questions their programming.

Only if you assert that pinnipeds must not have legs. But this one does. Suppose you argued that birds must not have teeth. Would this be a bird?

But some birds do have teeth, but now if you told me birds once had arms and hands this would be more of a sound analogy to what I had said, but we know this is absurd don’t we….birds by definition do not necessitate or not, the having of teeth, but pinnipeds however, by definition (the very reason they were called this), do not have fully developed front and rear legs and feet. Or was this just an attempt at a bait and switch?

“There are a few similarities in the skull and we see the rib cage is quite similar but there are also many stark differences which should not be ignored (actual feet for one thing) where pinniped rear flippers have some bones but they more resemble those found in hands (and with the manatee contain about the same in number as in human hands)….the fully developed front and rear legs should also be a clue but we mustn’t upset the conflicting compartmentalizations should we…”

As Darwin noted, evolution means it's going to be impossible to draw nice neat lines. If creationism were true, we could do that. But creationism isn't true.

Ah the other side of the cognitive dissonance once again peeks through….either there was a creator or there was not, but both cannot be true at the same time in the sense.

There are a few similarities in the skull and we see the rib cage is quite similar but there are also many stark differences which should not be ignored (actual feet for one thing)[/quote]

Like actual teeth in birds, um?

Sorry I am not taking the bait so save the switch….it is not unreasonable that some birds could have had or even do have teeth or even a little phalange or two near the apex of their wings…but now if they had NO wings and rather arms and hands….wow!

Like fully developed teeth in birds? Sounds like we're making some special rules for pinnipeds, different than the logic concerning what is a bird.

No once again it is simply that “taxonomic classifications are a man-made system of compartmentalization defining groups on the basis of shared characteristics, and then this outside intelligent force (man) gives names to those groups. The names given like the taxa to which they are assigned are not actually real, but first made up, and then assigned. Organisms with whatever anatomical similarities are grouped together, and then the groups are given rank, so they can be collected to form super groups of alleged higher and higher rank, thus creating the illusion of legitimate hierarchy. From this these outside intelligent forces form opinions that fit their preconceived hypotheses.” The same issue applies here….because they say it is true does not make it true…it COULD BE….it MIGHT BE….but not necessarily…such a find will be explained as if it is a fact however (because they have spent 150 years desperately seeking anything to use as support)

 

[Barbarian]

But it is not anymore of a mystery to creationists (many of whom are scientists as well) than to anyone else!

Barbarian observes:
Of course it is. If it's all "common design", why not use it for mammals?

That is a strawman….

Let's see...

"If not by “mindless evolution” and common ancestry, how can we explain the fact that genes in different organisms are so similar? Though Neil deGrasse Tyson never mentions it, a fully viable explanation or these functional genetic similarities is common design.

Intelligent agents often re-use functional components in different designs, which means common design is an equally good explanation for the very data — similar functional genes across different species — that Tyson cites in favor of common ancestry."
Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin
http://www.godofevolution.com/why-common-design-is-a-bad-argument-for-creationism/

Barbarian observes:
We keep hearing creationists talk about "common design", but then when it's time to look at specifics, they don't want to talk about it.

the logic does not follow because you have changed from a “common designer” to “common design” which are entirely two different things.

See above. Creationists talk about common design constantly, but then when it's time to test that belief, suddenly, they bail.

Barbarian observes:
Creationists can only say "God did it", but evolutionary theory makes it clear why this is so.

Then according to your idea of evolution why did God do it (IYO of course)?

It's not a religious idea. Evolutionary theory points out that feathers aren't going to be found on mammals, because mammals evolved from reptiles that did not have them, and birds have feathers because they evolved from reptiles that did have them. As far as why God uses nature to create things, it seems to me that is the reason He made nature.

But “ALL” that some scientists conclude from what they find is not always void of preconceived beliefs.

Sorry. Postmodernism won't work here.

"science has confirmed what in many cases we already knew, and often discovers new things we had not known, and yes sometimes proves something predicted (like no insects have bones). But “ALL” that some scientists conclude from what they find is not always void of preconceived beliefs.

” (indicating that SOMETIMES it is not…beliefs influence interpretation of all sorts of data and events, even those unveiled by science the method, albeit sometimes quite unconsciously)"

Sorry, there is an objective reality, and we can learn about it, by looking at evidence. It's how we settle disputes between scientists. They gather what they have, show everyone, and eventually one or the other becomes accepted (or possibly something in between).

So no postmodernism there, just honesty

Postmodernists are probably honest in their beliefs. Not surprisingly, given that they agree with your assumptions about reality, they aren't too fond of evolution. It's kinda icky, I guess, and not very politically correct, as Joe Stalin saw it.

….”science” (the method), like the God who made us capable of devising it and using it, is no respecter of persons, but humans (especially those creationists who make up their own revision of Genesis) have pride, money, notoriety, and many other motives hidden deep within.

In my five year study of the uses and applications of rhetoric, brainwashing, and propaganda I learned that people once convinced are difficult to change and that many cannot see except through their particular rose colored glasses.

I know. This isn't to convince you. It's to put the data out there for people who are honestly still on the fence, trying to figure it out.

Barbarian observes:
Only if you assert that pinnipeds must not have legs. But this one does. Suppose you argued that birds must not have teeth. Would this be a bird?

But some birds do have teeth, but now if you told me birds once had arms and hands this would be more of a sound analogy to what I had said

In a way, since birds still have arms and hands, albeit greatly modified and reduced in certain ways. No bird currently has teeth, and the legs of pinnipeds are now too reduced to walk much, but I showed you two different pinnipeds with legs that could walk (albeit the second, more evolved one could walk only slightly better than modern pinnipeds. So you have a point. Birds still have arms and hands, in the sense that pinnipeds still have legs. They are still there, but greatly reduced.

.birds by definition do not necessitate or not, the having of teeth

No bird today has teeth, although they still have inactivated genes for teeth. Would you like to learn about that?

but pinnipeds however, by definition (the very reason they were called this), do not have fully developed front and rear legs and feet.

No pinniped today has them, just as no bird today has teeth. But both of them retain the genes and rudiments of those things. Indeed, pinnipeds have the same bones and structures as those ancient pinnipeds with walking legs.

There are a few similarities in the skull and we see the rib cage is quite similar but there are also many stark differences which should not be ignored (actual feet for one thing) where pinniped rear flippers have some bones but they more resemble those found in hands (and with the manatee contain about the same in number as in human hands)….

Not "about." Take a look:
Show us that. They have the same number of digits as generalized mammals,and three joints in the phalanges, like generalized mammals. To what are you referring? Here's a seal flipper. Notice, a complete leg with foot. All the bones are present. It's the same bones as those of Puijila, just modified further for swimming. And that brings up a devastating question for creationists. Why would God separately create pinnipeds, but then use homology to make their flippers, when it is completely unnecessary?

the fully developed front and rear legs should also be a clue but we mustn’t upset the conflicting compartmentalizations should we…

”

As Darwin noted, evolution means it's going to be impossible to draw nice neat lines. If creationism were true, we could do that. But creationism isn't true. This is one more mystery for creationists. There should be easily dividable "kinds," but they don't exist. This is a huge dilemma for creationists.

Ah the other side of the cognitive dissonance once again peeks through…

Yep. Creationists have problems from both sides. Not only are there no transitionals where there shouldn't be; there are numerous transitionals where the theory predicts them to be.

.either there was a creator or there was not

There is a Creator. It's just that creationists don't approve of the way He does some things.

Barbarian notes that ancient members of many groups are different than modern ones:
Like actual teeth in birds, um?

Sorry I am not taking the bait so save the switch….it is not unreasonable that some birds could have had or even do have teeth or even a little phalange or two near the apex of their wings…but now if they had NO wings and rather arms and hands….wow!

You would just say that they weren't birds because they have arms and hands:

Archaeopteryx, a feathered flying bird with arms and hands.[/QUOTE]

 

[brother Paul]

Barbarian observes:
Of course it is. If it's all "common design", why not use it for mammals?

Again, having a common designer does not necessitate using the same design for all of any type of creature…the logic only follows if one falls for the strawman….(which was apparently an intentional switch on your part). I understand though if you have to do such things to convince yourself…

Perhaps if YOU were the common designer you would have used a “common design” for all mammals. If I were I would not have (each having its own interdependent purpose for its place and time) and apparently He did not either though all mammals do have many characteristics in common (we all have hair, lungs, and feed our young from our own body’s milk, and so on)….

"If not by “mindless evolution” and common ancestry, how can we explain the fact that genes in different organisms are so similar? Though Neil deGrasse Tyson never mentions it, a fully viable explanation or these functional genetic similarities is common design.

I wouldn’t go with him as the cover child just yet, The Consortium of the 447 highly reputable scientists on the Encode project are painting many different pictures, the most important of which (IMO) is that we have barely scratched the surface even as to what constitutes a gene. They are rewriting the definition as we speak. Now all living things have some areas of genetic similarity and for most of them we have zero clue as to why they are there or what they actually do (if anything at all)….some may be there just to separate “what equals being a living creature”. Some parts of what makes us living beings may demonstrate commonality (hence elements of common design) but the number in each case that makes us different is far greater.

We keep hearing creationists talk about "common design", but then when it's time to look at specifics, they don't want to talk about it.

Most of the ID movement's scientists only speak of the indications of design (not a "common" design) and some designs have features in common (like the presence of DNA in all living things to encode FUNCTIONAL proteins) and those who are people of faith believe it to be evidence for a common "designer" (like myself), but who is Tyler Francke? Not the poster boy who represents all "creationists" I would hope, but he does make some good points. However I do not see why you keep pressing the strawman “If there is common design why didn’t God use it in mammals”? It is not even logical…the better question should be why would He since He intended so many different kinds and so many varieties of each?

Creationists can only say "God did it", but evolutionary theory makes it clear why this is so. (why it’s so that God did it?)

Then according to your idea of evolution why did God do it (IYO of course)?

It's not a religious idea.

I know this view is not religious in nature! I have been considering it since long before I believed there was a God. I used to be one of the convinced. But you framed the question in such a way it implies Evolution explains WHY God did it, and when your other, sincerely held yet dissonant, belief comes out, you say Evolution is HOW He did it. And occasional at other times fight against the notion of Him doing it at all. And you clearly totally miss the conflict you walk in. So which is it? Pick a stand and go with that but flip flopping only makes you seem political in purpose.

Only if you assert that pinnipeds must not have legs. But this one does. Suppose you argued that birds must not have teeth. Would this be a bird?

Not even closely relevant! And I would never argue that. This is an attempt to bait and switch but to make a sound analogous argument It would be like me arguing that birds must not have exoskeletons and six legs. A bird by definition is a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, and a beak, that is typically able to fly.

Could a bird have no feathers or wings, be cold-blooded and beakless? Apparently too many EB’s think so…at least at some point in the remote past (again, a huge hypothesis based leap and consensus regarding their provisional interpretation of data)

In a way, since birds still have arms and hands, albeit greatly modified and reduced

Hypothesis based assumption…but if you want to believe wings are a type of arms and hands I guess I cannot persuade you of how utterly ridiculous that is.

but pinnipeds however, by definition (the very reason they were called this), do not have fully developed front and rear legs and feet.

No pinniped today has them, just as no bird today has teeth. But both of them retain the genes and rudiments of those things.

And what are the genes for pinniped fully developed legs and feet to which you are referring? I do not believe we have isolated or identified any such genes with any sense of assurance but I would love to see their best guess….can you show me this?

This was an artistic creation of a kind of raptor. The resultant conclusion is the mythos of homology as it applies to a few (very limited) similarities....if you want to go here (more of the bait and switch) then start a new thread....we are talking about this ancient creature you called a manatee....

 

[brother Paul]

Loved the picture of the hand which you compared to a fully developed leg...to which you add

Why would God separately create pinnipeds, but then use homology to make their flippers, when it is completely unnecessary?

Because they were meant to swim and flippers are obviously superior for this function than separated phalanges....

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Of course it is. If it's all "common design", why not use it for mammals?

Again, having a common designer does not necessitate using the same design for all of any type of creature…

So, we're back to (shrug) "God must have done it that way."

Perhaps if YOU were the common designer you would have used a “common design” for all mammals.

If I were the Creator, I would use the marvelous universe I had created, to make organisms by natural means. Which is what He did.

Now all living things have some areas of genetic similarity and for most of them we have zero clue as to why they are there

The important thing is that genetic relationship always shows common descent. As you learned, the family tree discovered by Linnaeus was confirmed by genetic evidence, which as we now realize, indicates ancestry. We use it today for just that purpose. And it always works.

Even more convincing, evolutionary development has shown how existing genes in primitive organisms have become modified in later organisms to new uses and forms. This is completely incomprehensible to creationists.

Barbarian observes:
We keep hearing creationists talk about "common design", but then when it's time to look at specifics, they don't want to talk about it.

Most of the ID movement's scientists only speak of the indications of design (not a "common" design) and some designs have features in common (like the presence of DNA in all living things to encode FUNCTIONAL proteins)

Let's take a look. From the guys who invented the doctrine of ID:
"Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design"
http://www.discovery.org/multimedia...le-echolocation-genes-point-to-common-design/

"The failure of the tree of life points to common design"
http://www.discovery.org/f/9471

If you'd like me to show you why those two beliefs are hooey, I'd be pleased to do that, but note that "common design" is a key doctrine in their new religious movment.

Barbarian observes:
Creationists can only say "God did it", but evolutionary theory makes it clear why this is so.

Then according to your idea of evolution why did God do it (IYO of course)?

It's not a religious idea. Evolutionary theory points out that feathers aren't going to be found on mammals, because mammals evolved from reptiles that did not have them, and birds have feathers because they evolved from reptiles that did have them. As far as why God uses nature to create things, it seems to me that is the reason He made nature.

But you framed the question in such a way it implies Evolution explains WHY God did it,

No. I merely showed you that science can demonstrate why mammals don't have feathers, and birds do.

and when your other, sincerely held yet dissonant, belief comes out, you say Evolution is HOW He did it.

Anyone who accepts God's word as it is, would realize that evolution is completely consistent with His creation.

Evolutionary theory points out that feathers aren't going to be found on mammals, because mammals evolved from reptiles that did not have them, and birds have feathers because they evolved from reptiles that did have them. As far as why God uses nature to create things, it seems to me that is the reason He made nature.

And you clearly totally miss the conflict you walk in.

It's a conflict only for those who add the man-made doctrine of YE creationism to their beliefs. It's never been a problem for Christian belief.

So which is it?

You can take Christianity as it has always been, or you can add YE creationism to it. Pick a stand and go with that but flip flopping only makes you seem political in purpose.

Barbarian regarding fossil seals:
Only if you assert that pinnipeds must not have legs. But this one does. Suppose you argued that birds must not have teeth. Would this be a bird?

Not even closely relevant!

Precisely relevant. I use it, knowing that creationists have declared Archaeopteryx a bird, even though it has structures not found in birds today. Just as this fossil pinniped has structures not found in pinnipeds today.

A bird by definition is a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, and a beak, that is typically able to fly.

Archaeopteryx lacks a beak, just as Puilija lacks flippers. So you see, it's a very good analogy.

Could a bird have no feathers or wings, be cold-blooded and beakless?

Beakless, yes. Now, if Puijila was cold-blooded, hand no hair, or limbs, I'd agree that it would not be a pinniped. But as you see, it's a pinniped, only without flippers, just as Archaeopteryx is a bird only without a beak.

Barbarian observes:
In a way, since birds still have arms and hands, albeit greatly modified and reduced

Hypothesis based assumption

Observable fact. The same genes, the same structures, the same embryonic development. Homology.

…but if you want to believe wings are a type of arms and hands I guess I cannot persuade you of how utterly ridiculous that is.

See above. Humerous, ulna, radius, metacarpals, phalanges. All from the same genes and structures that make up your arms and hands. No point in denying it.

but pinnipeds however, by definition (the very reason they were called this), do not have fully developed front and rear legs and feet.

No pinniped today has them, just as no bird today has teeth. But both of them retain the genes and rudiments of those things.

And what are the genes for pinniped fully developed legs and feet to which you are referring?

They are the same as for other mammals, modified slightly, as they are for various other lines.

I do not believe we have isolated or identified any such genes with any sense of assurance but I would love to see their best guess….can you show me this?

One example:

Natural selection acts on variation within populations, resulting in modified organ morphology, physiology, and ultimately the formation of new species. Although variation in orthologous proteins can contribute to these modifications, differences in DNA sequences regulating gene expression may be a primary source of variation. We replaced a limb-specific transcriptional enhancer of the mouse Prx1 locus with the orthologous sequence from a bat. Prx1 expression directed by the bat enhancer results in elevated transcript levels in developing forelimb bones and forelimbs that are significantly longer than controls because of endochondral bone formation alterations. Surprisingly, deletion of the mouse Prx1 limb enhancer results in normal forelimb length and Prx1 expression, revealing regulatory redundancy. These findings suggest that mutations accumulating in pre-existing noncoding regulatory sequences within a population are a source of variation for the evolution of morphological differences between species and that cis-regulatory redundancy may facilitate accumulation of such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2192750/

Notice that the same genes operate in all mammals for this. There are three zones for limb formation:
Stylopod (humerus) zeugopod (ulna radius) and autopod (wrist/digits) each has a different set of genes that affect timing.

This was an artistic creation of a kind of raptor.

No. I assume you meant Archaeopteryx. The fact that that bird lacks a beak much as the primitive seal lacks flippers points out the problem creationists have with these homologies. If Archaeopteryx is a bird, then Puijila is a seal. Moreover, I showed you another transitional between Puijila and modern seals, showing a gradual change over time.

The resultant conclusion is the mythos of homology

Homology is a fact, as shown by Owen (who did not accept evolution) coining the term, without realizing the evolutionary implications of such homologies.

as it applies to a few (very limited) similarities....

Bad assumption, that. There are countless homologies in living things. Would you like to learn about some of them?

if you want to go here (more of the bait and switch) then start a new thread....we are talking about this ancient creature you called a manatee....

Because it has all the marks of a manatee, just with legs, it is a manatee, much as Archaeopterix is a bird, even though it has teeth.

 

[Barbarian]

Loved the picture of the hand which you compared to a fully developed leg...

Notice that it has all the structures of a leg.

Why this should be is a deep mystery for creationists, but the fact is predicted by evolutionary theory.

Barbarian asks:
Why would God separately create pinnipeds, but then use homology to make their flippers, when it is completely unnecessary?

Because they were meant to swim and flippers are obviously superior for this function than separated phalanges....

You dodged the question. Why would God make flippers with all the structures of legs, when it was completely unnecessary to do so? Indeed, teleosts have fins with none of that. Why this should be so is a mystery, which creationists try to dodge by simply saying "God did it."

But scientists know how He did it. And that's all the difference.

 

[brother Paul]

Notice that it has all the structures of a leg.

Why this should be is a deep mystery for creationists, but the fact is predicted by evolutionary theory.

Like a humerus perhaps or an ulna and radius? Do you mean a handlike design and not a leg at all? If Evolutionists predicted a leg structure they were incorrect not correct though I suspect they did not actually predict any such thing. Reality trumps hypothesis based interpretation so often I grow weary of pointing it out. But then as Dr. Walter Martin use to say "If they've already made up their minds, why confuse them with the facts?"

You dodged the question. Why would God make flippers with all the structures of legs, when it was completely unnecessary to do so? Indeed, teleosts have fins with none of that.

Why wouldn't they, teleosts are fish? Hand bones and leg bones are not necessary for fish so mammals were not designed to be fish!

Why this should be so is a mystery...

Well perhaps a projected one on your part, but clearly not a real one. I just do not see one here?

In this comparison with a dolphin's front flippers we also see many similarities with the general arm and hand design (not a leg). Why? It is a mammal not a fish...a mammal that depends on the ability to swim (thus a flipper and not separated phalanges)...the two types of creatures (fish and mammals) are very separate and always have been.

No mystery for us....but feel free to repeat yourself if it helps maintain the duality without injuring the ego...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Notice that it has all the structures of a leg.

Why this should be is a deep mystery for creationists, but the fact is predicted by evolutionary theory.

Like a humerus perhaps or an ulna and radius?

Yep. We give the front leg bones different names, but they are genetically the same as those of the hind leg. Hence femur/humerus, ulna/tibia, radius/fibula, carpals/tarsals, metacarpals/metatarsals, and of course both legs have phanlanges.

Do you mean a handlike design and not a leg at all?

Nope. Lacking an opposable thumb, this one is more like a foot. In this case, it's a foreleg.

If Evolutionists predicted a leg structure they were incorrect not correct though I suspect they did not actually predict any such thing.

Since evolutionary theory says that pinnipeds evolved from land carnivores, the expectation would be that they would have the same bones in their limbs that land mammals have. And the prediction was correct. There is no need for this in flippers, but of course, the existing legs were modified to give fins, and so the evolutionary history of pinnipeds is demonstrated in the homology of flippers and legs.

Reality trumps hypothesis based interpretation

In this case, the reality is that all the bones of land mammal legs are found in the flippers of pinnipeds. Why this should be so, is a mystery to creationists. But it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

But then as Dr. Walter Martin use to say "If they've already made up their minds, why confuse them with the facts?"

Barbarian asks:
You dodged the question. Why would God make flippers with all the structures of legs, when it was completely unnecessary to do so? Indeed, teleosts have fins with none of that.

Why wouldn't they, teleosts are fish?

Because mammalian leg bones are not necessary for flippers or fins. Because pinnipeds evolved from land mammals, their flippers are homologous with mammalian legs. Fish show that such structures are not necessary, and therefore they are not the result of design, but rather evidence of common descent.

In this comparison with a dolphin's front flippers we also see many similarities with the general arm and hand design (not a leg).

No, that's wrong. A leg has a single long bone connecting to the body, two bones after that, one of which is placed to rotate about the other, and a series of smaller, roughly cubical bones, before the metatarsals and phananges. Notice that's exactly what the flipper shows. You've perhaps been misled by thinking that front and rear legs are in some way not the same. But they are. Certainly they are modified in many organisms to be different in appearance and even in function. Once more, you've conflated analogy and homology.

Why?

Because the names we happen to give the bones of the front legs and the rear legs are different. But in primitive tetrapods, they are identical.

It is a mammal not a fish...

Yep. That's why it has legs modified to become flippers, not fishlike fins. And that homology makes clear that descent from land animals is the reason.

 

[brother Paul]

Whatever you want to believe about this I guess you will, even if that includes mixing or changing the meaning of terms or whatever else you must do in order to protect the program....I expected nothing less...

that's why it has legs modified to become flippers, not fishlike fins

I didn't make the comparison to teleosts, you did...my observable, demonstrable examples shall suffice for me I do not need to make up a story to fit my belief...

Be at peace, I am out...

 

[Barbarian]

Whatever you want to believe about this I guess you will,

As you have seen, it comes down to facts.

even if that includes mixing or changing the meaning of terms or whatever else you must do in order to protect the program....I expected nothing less...

As you see, the forelegs on mammals have bones which are the humerus, ulna,radius, carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges. They are serially homologous with the same bones on the rear legs, which are the femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges. They are determined by the same genes. This is one consequence of the fact that vertebrate bodies are segmented.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9462855

Barbarian, noting the difficulty creationists have explaining the homology of seal flippers with mammalian legs:
that's why it has legs modified to become flippers, not fishlike fins

I didn't make the comparison to teleosts, you did...

Yep. There's no functional reason why a fin/flipper should have bones that evolved for walking. This homology shows common descent, as you saw earlier. And it has since been verified by genetic analysis, showing the same thing.

my observable, demonstrable examples shall suffice for me I do not need to make up a story to fit my belief...

In science, you need a bit more than "God did it that way." Evolutionary theory can show you why it was done that way.

Be at peace, I am out...

Have a good day.

 

[brother Paul]

Thanks, you as well...