[_ Old Earth _] Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

[lordkalvan]

...... gaps are unexplained from an evolutionistic standpoint, you will not be able to reason the gaps (gaps that even evolutionists confirm are there!) when others, more familiar with this area than you, haven't been able to. And that is precisly my point, there are gaps; gaps can't be explained by evolution and evolution can't explain the gaps. The skulls are NOT proof.

This is nonsense. Gaps in the fossil record are inconvenient, but by no means the inexplicable conundrum for evolutionary theory that you seem to think. Gaps are entirely understandable and entirely predictable; what makes you think that these 'gaps can't be explained by evolution and evolution can't explain the gaps'? Quote-mining evolutionary scientists is not the best way to go about establishing evidence for your assertion. Consider this statement from the excellent Berkeley resource on evolution and evolutionary theory:

The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.

Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.

Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/m ... gaps.shtml

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

Agreed, no contest concerning AMH. I was merely pointing out that Penon Woman III and Texas skulls don’t look like modern Europeans’. If some expert geneticists and osteologists are correct Horn Shelter, Wilson-Leonard and Penon Woman III are of South Asian origin (mtDNA B and possibly A).

The Barbarian wrote:

Hmm…what do modern Europeans have to do with it?

Your claim:

The oldest New World human remains I know about are about 12,000 years old, and their skulls look less like Neandertals than those of most modern Europeans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

The Barbarian wrote:

And your link shows other skulls even less Neandertalish. I don't see any evidence at all for them in the New World, as cool as that might be to imagine.

We don’t have any skeletal or DNA evidence for Clovis, period. You have to remember these skulls are younger than Clovis. So the Neanderthal option is still open. Neanderthals pushed as far east as the Altai region in Siberia by 43kya. Until ca. 24kya the ice-free corridor into the lower 48 and further south would have been open. The Altai region is where many archeologists and geneticists think a significant portion of Native Americans were derived, with a significant portion also coming from South Asia.

We know both Clovis and Neanderthals were successful big game hunters. And there is no evidence against both using thrusting spears. Both are known to have built stone floors. Both are known to have made leaf-shaped (lanceolate) biface spear tips. Etc…

As I said before, this is not confirmation that Neanderthals made it to the Americas, but there is no evidence that they did not.

The Barbarian wrote:

As far as the South Asian connection is concerned, neolithic peoples from South Asia explored the Pacific, and established societies as far as Easter Island, near South America. It seems perfectly reasonable that some of them made it to the mainland.

Except coprolites dated to ca. 14kya have been recovered in Oregon and mtDNA Hgs A and B have detected in the specimens. These are the hgs that are thought to be of South Asian origin. 14kya in Oregon doesn’t jive with a Neolithic, transpacific migration route. It does jive with a Paleolithic East Asian/ west American coastal migration or a Paleolithic transpacific migration route. And though there were significantly more exposed islands during the late ice age, I personally think an East Asian/ west American coastal migration is more plausible.

Here’s an image depicting the migration route possibilities:

http://www.archaeology.org/9911/etc/thumbnails/map2.gif

Anyway, I think we’ve beaten this issue to death for the time being. Perhaps we can revisit the issue when more data becomes available.

 

[Crying Rock]

LK quoted:

"...there are fossils of transitional organisms between...and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors..."

I've never seen good evidence (IMO) of this proposed transition.

You don't happen to have handy images of the proposed transitional fossils between terrestrial mammals and whales?

Thanks,

CR

 

[lordkalvan]

LK quoted:

"...there are fossils of transitional organisms between...and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors..."

I've never seen good evidence (IMO) of this proposed transition.

You don't happen to have handy images of the proposed transitional fossils between terrestrial mammals and whales?

Thanks,

CR

If you don't think that the evidence generally available is not good, I'm not sure that any images I could post would serve to convince you otherwise. The sequence of transitional types that palaeontologists find persuasive is :

Sinonyx

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Rodhocetus

Basilosaurus

Dorudon

Morphological similarities between fossil whales and modern ungulates also contributes to the conclusions concerning the evolutionary history of whales. Amongst other strands of evidence, molecular biological, embryological and vestigial evidence adds to the confidence about the evolution of whales. The burden of evidence in support of the conclusion that whales evolved from land mammals appears overwhelming.

 

[Crying Rock]

Just my opinion, but the leap from Rodhocetus to Dorudon is rather large:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric ... ruskel.jpg

And, as the image caption says:

Pakicetus skull from Gingerich et al. (1983). Terrestrial interpretation is pure speculation.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric ... Whales.htm

To what vestigial structures do you refer?

 

[lordkalvan]

Just my opinion, but the leap from Rodhocetus to Dorudon is rather large...

It is my understanding - though I may well be wrong as I am not a palaeontologist - that it is not proposed that Rhodocetus is directly ancestral to Dorudon; there is no 'leap', only evidence of transitional features amongst the various remains. You are falling into the common error that, because a fossil species is identified as displaying transitional features between earlier and later species, that species must in some ways be a descendant of the one and ancestral to the other.

And, as the image caption says:

[quote:2t7prlmc]Pakicetus skull from Gingerich et al. (1983). Terrestrial interpretation is pure speculation.

[/quote:2t7prlmc]
But also based on diagnostic features of the skull, and the rest of the caption does indicate that what skeletal information there is resembles Rhodocetus.

To what vestigial structures do you refer?

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

 

[Crying Rock]

CR wrote:

Just my opinion, but the leap from Rodhocetus to Dorudon is rather large...

LK wrote:

It is my understanding - though I may well be wrong as I am not a palaeontologist - that it is not proposed that Rhodocetus is directly ancestral to Dorudon; there is no 'leap', only evidence of transitional features amongst the various remains.

CR wrote:

O.K. then, demonstrate, with physical evidence, that an evolutionary relationship exists between Elomeryx, Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and Dorudon. If you can’t do this, then we’re dealing with conjecture, not science.

LK wrote:

You are falling into the common error that, because a fossil species is identified as displaying transitional features between earlier and later species, that species must in some ways be a descendant of the one and ancestral to the other.

CR wrote/ quoted:

So the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution aren’t even directly related, according to current theory? That just makes the case weaker, IMO. If this is the case then we don’t even have the weak skeletal evidence, just conjecture to a higher order:

“…In reality, it is most likely that these "transitional forms" were only "collateral" (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their "cousins" that did evolve into modern whales…â€Â

Likely found in their imaginary cousins? The case seems to be progressing from weak to weaker.

“…10. CAUTION: Unfortunately, students may come away from this lesson with the mistaken conclusion that each of the intermediate whale forms were in the direct (lineal) line of descent between the land-dwelling tetrapods and fully aquatic whales. IN REALITY, it is most likely that these "transitional forms" were only "collateral" (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their "cousins" that did evolve into modern whales. This subtle distinction may seem unimportant, but to assume that fossils generally fit into a lineal (direct) line of descent conveys the erroneous impression of the long-outdated "Ladder of Evolution" concept. Rather, students should recognize that what we are seeing are the vestiges of many side branches in a diverse BRANCHING TREE of evolution…â€Â

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

As the following reference points out, there are contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out failures of the molecular data to provide a clear picture of phylogenetic history and common descent (Tree of Life):


“…As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023)…â€Â

“…For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change…â€Â

“…More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either. "There are problems even in that little corner," says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches…â€Â

“…the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary...â€Â

“…The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century…â€Â


Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

CR quoted:

And, as the image caption says:

“…Pakicetus skull from Gingerich et al. (1983). Terrestrial interpretation is pure speculation…â€Â

LK wrote:

But also based on diagnostic features of the skull, and the rest of the caption does indicate that what skeletal information there is resembles Rhodocetus.

CR wrote:

Resembles Rhodocetus, which isn’t even the direct descendent of Pakicetus, but are only related via an imaginary cousin?

I don’t know, all those question marks makes the proposition appear even weaker:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric ... ruskel.jpg

This creature is extinct, so who knows what the body looked like.

CR wrote:
To what vestigial structures do you refer?

LK wrote:
For example, vestiges of the pelvic bones, tibiae and femora;

CR wrote/ quoted:

I assume you’re referring to “penis girdersâ€Â:

“…whale hind parts are internal and reduced, and they serve as anchor for the muscles of the genitalia…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetaceans

Penis Girders:

http://www.darwinisdead.com/HMPBK02.JPG

Basilosaurus "vestigal hind limbs" look like the bones to which muscles attach that regulate lateral movement of the penis in modern whales:

http://bps-al.org/files/links/Basilo_ce ... 3diag1.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/paleoArt/His ... saurus.jpg

These "vestigal hind limbs" play a very important role in modern whales, and they have nothing to do with locomotion.

LK wrote:

…olfactory nerves…

CR wrote/ quoted:

“…The olfactory (smell) lobes of the brain and olfactory nerves are absent in all toothed whales, indicating a lack of smell…â€Â

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Kille ... seskw.html

“…During the foetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs, but they are greatly reduced in the adult brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

http://bcarchives.bc.ca/School_Programs ... ty-17.html

“…Scientists are still learning about a whale’s sense of smell. The olfactory nerves and bulbs are greatly reduced in the adult baleen whale’s brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

http://www.aquarium.org/documents/Whalebackground.pdf

If scientists haven’t figured out if baleen whales olfactory nerves and bulbs are functional then they haven’t figured out if they’re vestigial or not.

LK wrote:

…muscles devoted to external ears which no longer exist.

CR wrote:

Will you point me to a good academic reference addressing these alleged vestigial external ear muscles.

 

[lordkalvan]

O.K. then, demonstrate, with physical evidence, that an evolutionary relationship exists between Elomeryx, Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and Dorudon. If you can’t do this, then we’re dealing with conjecture, not science.

You need to define what you mean by 'evolutionary relationship'. If you mean that you want to see evidence that each of the animals you list is directly and irrevocably related by an unbroken chain of descent so that, for example, Rodhocetus is directly ancestral to Dorudon, Pakicetus directly ancestral to Rodhocetus, etc, I imagine you are well aware that this is not possible. Would you argue that if I propose that, because of shared traits, you are related in some way to Ramesses II of Egypt, but yet because I cannot show with physical evidence that a direct ancestral relationship exists between you and Ramesses II, then the claim of relatedness through shared traits is conjecture rather than science?

So the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution aren’t even directly related, according to current theory? That just makes the case weaker, IMO.

Again, what do you mean by 'directly related'? In the case of currently living species, do you suppose that skeletal evidence can be used to determine a degree of relationship amongst the primates? If yes, why? If no, why not? Does the skeletal evidence suggest to you that you are directly related to Ramesses II? Does it suggest that you may be related in any other way at all to Ramesses II? Why might this be so? What would the implications of your conclusion be for relatedness amongst other animals with similar skeletal features?

If this is the case then we don’t even have the weak skeletal evidence, just conjecture to a higher order:

“…In reality, it is most likely that these "transitional forms" were only "collateral" (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their "cousins" that did evolve into modern whales…â€Â

Likely found in their imaginary cousins? The case seems to be progressing from weak to weaker.

You are only voicing the common complaint that gaps in the fossil record are sufficient cause to invalidate any suggestions of evolutionary relationships that bridge those gaps. Are there people to whom you are related of whom you are unaware? Does the fact that these ‘cousins’ are unknown to you and ignorant of you make them imaginary? Step back several generations. Are there individuals unknown to you but with whom you can reasonably suppose that you have a relationship, even though those individuals are unknown to you? If you can answer any of these questions in the affirmative, why do you suppose that such postulated – but unknown – ‘cousins’ can be inferred for yourself, but not between particular species that demonstrate similar characteristics?

As the following reference points out, there are contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out failures of the molecular data to provide a clear picture of phylogenetic history and common descent (Tree of Life)…

None of your carefully selected references invalidates the molecular biological evidence that establishes relatedness amongst modern whales and ungulates.

You might have continued your quotations from Dupré and Bapteste by including these comments which are also attributed to them in the Lawton article:

"Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages." (Dupré)

"The tree of life was useful. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on." (Bapteste)

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -life.html

So not so much a renunciation of evolution, its implications and the discerned relationships amongst different species, but rather an acknowledgment that, as knowledge expands, ideas and understanding are refined and adapted to take account of that knowledge. The article criticizes the essentially simplistic model of the tree of life and contrasts it to the much messier realities of the real world.

Resembles Rhodocetus, which isn’t even the direct descendent of Pakicetus, but are only related via an imaginary cousin?

I don’t know, all those question marks makes the proposition appear even weaker….

You appear obsessed with the need to establish a direct relationship amongst species that display transitional or intermediate features between earlier and later species. Humans and chimpanzees display many shared traits, physical and social, but that does not mean that either humans are directly descended from chimpanzees or chimpanzees from humans. Does this in and of itself – that neither is the ‘direct descendant’ of the other - make the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees are related invalid? If yes, why? If no, why not?

I assume you’re referring to “penis girdersâ€Â:

“…whale hind parts are internal and reduced, and they serve as anchor for the muscles of the genitalia…â€Â

…..

These "vestigal hind limbs" play a very important role in modern whales, and they have nothing to do with locomotion.

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.

“…The olfactory (smell) lobes of the brain and olfactory nerves are absent in all toothed whales, indicating a lack of smell…â€Â

You omitted to refer to the fact that while olfactory sense organs are wholly lacking in adult odontocetes, in the animal’s early embryonic development the olfactory sense organ is present, but lost in later stages of foetal development.

“…During the foetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs, but they are greatly reduced in the adult brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

“…Scientists are still learning about a whale’s sense of smell. The olfactory nerves and bulbs are greatly reduced in the adult baleen whale’s brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

If scientists haven’t figured out if baleen whales olfactory nerves and bulbs are functional then they haven’t figured out if they’re vestigial or not.

Not all whales are baleen whales. Again, the reduction in olfactory systems from the foetal to adult stage is indicative of the evolutionary past of these animals’ ancestors.

Will you point me to a good academic reference addressing these alleged vestigial external ear muscles.

What do you call a ‘good academic reference’? Does this meet your criteria?

‘Vestigial auditory features also exist in modern whales, including a closed-off exterior opening of the ear canal and small muscles for nonexistent external ears, which were probably used to function for moving the ears in directional hearing, a feature that is used today by most land mammals.’

Source: The Evolution of Whales, Nancy Steckler, Bellarmine University at http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Secre ... halesr.doc.

 

[Barbarian]

We know that the vestigial pelvic bones are just that, because from time to time, whales actually have well-formed hind limbs, complete with long bones, and these are attached in the proper place on the vestigial pelvis.

http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/4849

BTW, "vestigial" means "no longer has the original function", not "useless." There are, of course, structures that are both useless and vestigial, but they don't have to be so.

The unique whale ear structure with the sigmoid bone support goes back to the land-living Pakicetus.

BTW, while horizontal gene transfer (often by viruses or parasites) is not unknown, I'm not familiar with a case where it is so prevalent in an organism as to affect DNA phylogenies. I asked before, but I'll ask again; can you show us such a case?

 

[Crying Rock]

O.K. then, demonstrate, with physical evidence, that an evolutionary relationship exists between Elomeryx, Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and Dorudon. If you can’t do this, then we’re dealing with conjecture, not science.

Would you argue that if I propose that, because of shared traits, you are related in some way to Ramesses II of Egypt, but yet because I cannot show with physical evidence that a direct ancestral relationship exists between you and Ramesses II, then the claim of relatedness through shared traits is conjecture rather than science?

You’re comparing human to human. The point here is that you propose land dwelling mammals evolved into very able marine creatures. I’m sure you understand the difference between micro and macroevolution, but for those following along:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

CR wrote:

So the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution aren’t even directly related, according to current theory? That just makes the case weaker, IMO.

Again, what do you mean by 'directly related'?

Like make a convincing case that the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution are well grounded in the scientific method:

“…I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena…â€Â

CR wrote/ quoted:

If this is the case then we don’t even have the weak skeletal evidence, just conjecture to a higher order:

“…In reality, it is most likely that these "transitional forms" were only "collateral" (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their "cousins" that did evolve into modern whales…â€Â

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html


Likely found in their imaginary cousins? The case seems to be progressing from weak to weaker.

LK wrote:

You are only voicing the common complaint that gaps in the fossil record are sufficient cause to invalidate any suggestions of evolutionary relationships that bridge those gaps.

CR wrote:

Common complaints that point out the fact that an evolutionary relationship between land mammals and whales has not been established: AKA conjecture.

LK quoted:

"The tree of life was useful. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on." (Bapteste)

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -life.html

CR wrote:

The tree of life “WAS†useful. The next statement is too funny:

“…It helped us to understand that evolution was real…â€Â

LOL! A theory that lies in shambles helped us to understand that evolution was real! I guess ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny also helped us to understand that evolution was real.

CR quoted:

And, as the image caption says:

“…Pakicetus skull from Gingerich et al. (1983). Terrestrial interpretation is pure speculation…â€Â

LK wrote:

But also based on diagnostic features of the skull, and the rest of the caption does indicate that what skeletal information there is resembles Rhodocetus.

CR wrote:

Resembles Rhodocetus, which isn’t even the direct descendent of Pakicetus, but are only related via an imaginary cousin?

I don’t know, all those question marks makes the proposition appear even weaker:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric ... ruskel.jpg

This creature is extinct, so who knows what the body looked like.

We can speculate, but is that science?

LK wrote:

You appear obsessed with the need to establish a direct relationship amongst species that display transitional or intermediate features between earlier and later species.

Yeah, I want hard evidence, not conjecture about some imaginary cousins that were the direct ancestors of today’s whales.

CR wrote:

I assume you’re referring to “penis girdersâ€Â:

“…whale hind parts are internal and reduced, and they serve as anchor for the muscles of the genitalia…â€Â

These imaginary, "vestigal hind limbs" play a very important role in modern whales, and they have nothing to do with locomotion.

LK wrote:

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.

1893? I don’t recall Struthers discussing protruding hind limbs.

Maybe you’re referring to:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

However, I’ve never been able to find anything except a drawing of one the putative legs already detached from the whale. Supposedly the fishermen cut the two structures from the whale, gave one to a museum and kept the other as a souvenir:

“…These bones are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919. Two officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company were understandably impressed by this discovery, and they removed one of the legs and presented the skeletal remains to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, B.C. (The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship)…“

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

Note the caption for Figure 2.2.1:

“…the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale…â€Â

Arranged as found in situ by whom?

We all know fishermen are known to tell whoppers. ;)

I can’t find a single image of the imaginary legs attached to the whale, or even the whale from which they came.

Were these imaginary legs even external:

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

Using this as “evidence†is laughable. The whole process was uncontrolled and unobserved by anyone but the crew. How convenient:

“…The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship…â€Â

“…This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966, after sixty years of uncontrolled human predation had decimated the population…â€Â

Oops, no repeatability.

LK wrote:

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.

Are you referring to these structures:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK04.JPG

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/PLTWHL02.JPG


How does claiming that these imaginary “vestigial hind limbs†are actually an important part of the reproduction system qualify as a misrepresentation?

“…The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis…â€Â

James G. Mead, Ph.D.
Curator of Marine Mammals, MRC 108
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
P.O. Box 37012
Washington, DC 20013-7012
mead.james@nmnh.si.edu

CR quoted:

“…The olfactory (smell) lobes of the brain and olfactory nerves are absent in all toothed whales, indicating a lack of smell…â€Â

LK wrote:

You omitted to refer to the fact that while olfactory sense organs are wholly lacking in adult odontocetes, in the animal’s early embryonic development the olfactory sense organ is present, but lost in later stages of foetal development.

Reference? Fetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs but I haven’t read that fetal stage, toothed whales do.

CR wrote/ quoted:

“…During the foetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs, but they are greatly reduced in the adult brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

“…Scientists are still learning about a whale’s sense of smell. The olfactory nerves and bulbs are greatly reduced in the adult baleen whale’s brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

If scientists haven’t figured out if baleen whales olfactory nerves and bulbs are functional then they haven’t figured out if they’re vestigial or not.

LK wrote:

Not all whales are baleen whales. Again, the reduction in olfactory systems from the foetal to adult stage is indicative of the evolutionary past of these animals’ ancestors.

Are you claiming ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in baleen whales? Surely you know this is a completely falsified theory.

CR wrote:

Will you point me to a good academic reference addressing these alleged vestigial external ear muscles.

LK wrote:

What do you call a ‘good academic reference’? Does this meet your criteria?

‘Vestigial auditory features also exist in modern whales, including…small muscles for nonexistent external ears, which were probably used to function for moving the ears in directional hearing, a feature that is used today by most land mammals.’

Source: The Evolution of Whales, Nancy Steckler, Bellarmine University at

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Secre ... halesr.doc.

Nonexistent external ears? Probably = Conjecture.

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian wrote:

BTW, while horizontal gene transfer (often by viruses or parasites) is not unknown, I'm not familiar with a case where it is so prevalent in an organism as to affect DNA phylogenies. I asked before, but I'll ask again; can you show us such a case?

“…As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023)…â€Â

“…For a while, this allowed evolutionary biologists to accept HGT without jeopardising their precious tree of life; HGT was merely noise blurring its edges. We now know that view is wrong. "There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups," says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine…â€Â

Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

Crying rock quoted:

When speaking to the public, evolutionists are infamous for overstating the evidence for universal common ancestry. For example, when speaking before the Texas State Board of Education in January, 2009, University of Texas evolutionist biologist David Hillis cited himself as one of the “world’s leading experts on the tree of life†and later told the Board that there is “overwhelming agreement correspondence as you go from protein to protein, DNA sequence to DNA sequence†when reconstructing evolutionary history using biological molecules. But this is not accurate. Indeed, in the technical scientific literature, one finds a vast swath of scientific papers that have found contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out failures of the molecular data to provide a clear picture of phylogenetic history and common descent.

A list of references were provided:

[2.] Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) (emphasis added).

[3.] Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009).

[4.] W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, Vol. 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).

[5.] Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009).

[6.] Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krueger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).

[7.] Carl Woese "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95:6854-9859 (June, 1998) (emphasis added).

[8.] Lynn Margulis, “The Phylogenetic Tree Topples,†American Scientist, Vol 94 (3) (May-June, 2006).

[9.] Antonis Rokas & Sean B. Carroll, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," PLOS Biology, Vol 4(11): 1899-1904 (Nov., 2006) (internal citations and figures omitted).

[10.] Antonis Rokas & Sean B. Carroll, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," PLOS Biology, Vol 4(11): 1899-1904 (Nov., 2006) (internal citations and figures omitted).

[11.] Antonis Rokas & Sean B. Carroll, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," PLOS Biology, Vol 4(11): 1899-1904 (Nov., 2006) (internal citations and figures omitted).

Get to work falsifying the claims made by Casey Luskin.

The Barbarian wrote:

And I don't see where DNA phylogenies have been overturned in any of your links. Why not tell us about it, and I'll check? If you can't find it in the links either, what makes you think it's there?

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

As the following reference (the first one cited) points out, there are contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out failures of the molecular data to provide a clear picture of phylogenetic history and common descent (Tree of Life):


“…As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023)…â€Â

Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

The Barbarian wrote:

“…your sources I checked was about horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes. Can you show that there is significant gene transfer in any vertebrate?â€Â

Crying Rock wrote:

See above.

Crying Rock quoted:

“…The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse…â€Â

“…For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change…â€Â

Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

The Barbarian wrote:

I think we certainly can show errors in any science, but it would be absurd to deny that the evidence for common descent by DNA analysis is not overwhelming.

Crying Rock quoted:

“…So what happened? In a nutshell, DNA. The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology. Here, at last, was the very stuff of inheritance into which was surely written the history of life, if only we knew how to decode it. Thus was born the field of molecular evolution, and as techniques became available to read DNA sequences and those of other biomolecules such as RNA and proteins, its pioneers came to believe that it would provide proof positive of Darwin's tree of life. The basic idea was simple: the more closely related two species are (or the more recently their branches on the tree split), the more alike their DNA, RNA and protein sequences ought to be…â€Â

“…For a while, this allowed evolutionary biologists to accept HGT without jeopardising their precious tree of life; HGT was merely noise blurring its edges. We now know that view is wrong. "There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups," says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine…â€Â

“…This genetic free-for-all continues to this day. The vast majority of eukaryote species are unicellular - amoebas, algae and the rest of what used to be known as "protists" (Journal of Systematics and Evolution, vol 46, p263). These microscopic beasties have lifestyles that resemble prokaryotes and, according to Jan Andersson of the University of Uppsala in Sweden, their rates of HGT are often comparable to those in bacteria. The more we learn about microbes, the clearer it becomes that the history of life cannot be adequately represented by a tree…â€Â

“…More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either. "There are problems even in that little corner," says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches…â€Â

“…the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary...â€Â

“…The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, andfacing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century…â€Â



Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37116&start=15

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think "the whalers were lying" is a sufficient answer. Fact is vestigial limbs sometimes show up on cetaceans. A pair of vestigial rear fins recently was documented on a dolphin. We see it in various primitive whales. The genes for legs are still there, albeit largely suppressed by other genes now.

UF scientist honored who found genes for legs, flippers, fins
http://www.gainesville.com/article/2009 ... ppers-fins

 

[lordkalvan]

You’re comparing human to human. The point here is that you propose land dwelling mammals evolved into very able marine creatures.

You seem better at asking questions than answering them. My point was directed at determining whether you can address and understand diagnostic features that allow you to draw conclusions about your relatedness or otherwise to Ramesses II. For example, what diagnostic features allow you to decide that, when comparing yourself to Ramesses II, you can conclude that you are comparing human to human. The diagnostic features that are effective in this case can be applied with equal effectiveness amongst different species to determine their degree of relatedness. If you are unwilling to address this simple fact, then this discussion is going nowhere.

I’m sure you understand the difference between micro and macroevolution….

A distinction which is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. As you presumably read the Berkeley article to which you linked, I am sure you noted this observation as well:

Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

Please show me what mechanism acts to prevent the micro-evolution you refer to from becoming macro-evolution.

Like make a convincing case that the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution are well grounded….

You must first address the question of diagnostic features and how these are indicative of relationships amongst species. Again, what diagnostic features allow you to determine your degree of relatedness to Ramesses II? How would you apply these diagnostic features to determining relatedness amongst different species. If you are really interested in the scientific evidence that explores the evolution of cetaceans, you could start by considering these references:

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

Google Scholar will give you many thousands of results for any searches you conduct for whale evolution.

Common complaints that point out the fact that an evolutionary relationship between land mammals and whales has not been established: AKA conjecture.

That you choose to regard the evidence that has been presented concerning the evolutionary relationship between land mammals and whales as not establishing that relationship does not mean that the evidence does not exist, nor that the understanding derived by palaeontologists and marine biologists from that evidence is incorrect. What alternative model do you have for the origin of whales and what evidence supports your model? In fact, do you even have an alternative model?

The tree of life “WAS†useful. The next statement is too funny:

“…It helped us to understand that evolution was real…â€Â

LOL! A theory that lies in shambles helped us to understand that evolution was real!

The theory does not lie in shambles. A particular model that helped further understanding of the theory has been shown to be a less than satisfactory explanation in terms of developed understanding and knowledge. The only lol required is in respect of your simplistic and conclusion-driven assessment of the thrust of the Lawton paper. A model of the atom that derives from the structure of the Solar System is often used in introductory physics courses. The model is useful for introducing concepts and developing understanding; this does not mean that it either is or must be an accurate representation of the atom.

I guess ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny also helped us to understand that evolution was real.

It was a hypothesis that has been shown to be incorrect. Whether evolution is real or not does not depend on the accuracy or otherwise of this particular hypothesis. Your ideological slip is showing.

We can speculate, but is that science?

This is not imaginative speculation; it is a hypothesis driven by an examination and comparison of shared traits and the consequences of particular diagnostic features. As you appear ignorant of the purpose and usefulness of both shared traits and diagnostic features in helping to determine and understand levels of relatedness amongst different species, it is scarcely surprising that you demonstrate this level of misunderstanding.

Yeah, I want hard evidence, not conjecture about some imaginary cousins that were the direct ancestors of today’s whales.

Continual use of the term ‘imaginary’ does not mean that such ‘cousins’ did not and do not exist. Why do you not regard the molecular biological evidence, morphological evidence, embryological evidence and vestigial evidence as something other than ‘hard’? Again, if this evidence is not convincing from your point of view, what model for the origins of cetaceans do you hold to and what evidence can you present that supports it?

1893? I don’t recall Struthers discussing protruding hind limbs.

Maybe you’re referring to:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

No.

Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint as firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures.

Source: John Struthers, On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of The Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus), Journal of Anatomy and Physiology (London), Vol. 15, 1881 at http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/struthers/hind_limbs.hti

However, I’ve never been able to find anything except a drawing of one the putative legs already detached from the whale.

‘The’ whale? There has been more than one such observed occurrence.;

There has, however, been one specimen of humpback whale described (Andrews, 1921) which had much more completely developed hind limbs extending 4 feet 2 inches outside the body, and containing bones identified as tibia, tarsus and metatarsal, in addition to the femur.

Source: http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-B ... dy-d5.html

In June 1962, V. 1. Borisov observed a sperm whale with well-developed protuberances on the ventral region of the body, while working in the whale factory at Skalistii (Central Kuril Islands). One of these protuberances could even be X-rayed.

Source: Alexander Yablokov, Variability of Mammals quoted at http://ncseweb.org/cej/3/4/true-vestigi ... s-dolphins

In a nearly adult female Cachalot captured in November of 1956, off Kinkwazan in Japan, a pair of budlike vestigial hind limbs were present. The height of the protuberance was 5.35 cm on the right side and 6.56 cm on the left side. Upon examining the interior of the left limb, three partially cartilaginous ones were found. They corresponded to pelvis, femur, and possibly to tibia, but no joints exist between them. Pretty strong muscles connect between pelvis and femur, while two weak muscles are extended between femur and tibia...

Source: Tezio Ogawa and Toshiro Kamiya, A Case of the Cachalot with Protruded Rudimentary Hind Limbs quoted ibid.

We all know fishermen are known to tell whoppers.

Argument by libel?

I can’t find a single image of the imaginary legs attached to the whale, or even the whale from which they came.

And because you can’t ‘find’ such images naturally means that all reports about such limbs are a priori false and that the limbs must be wholly imaginary?

How does claiming that these imaginary “vestigial hind limbs†are actually an important part of the reproduction system qualify as a misrepresentation?

There’s that ‘imaginary’ again. Why do you think marine biologists are so incompetent that they continually misidentify 'penis girders' as vestigial limbs? Do your hind limbs (aka legs) function as an ‘important part of [your] reproduction system’? Is this their primary function?

“…The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis…â€Â

The suggestion in your earlier observation was that the vestigial hind-limbs were ‘penis girders’, served as ‘anchor points’ for the genital muscles and had nothing to do with locomotion (i.e. were not hind limbs at all). Your reference does not support this claim: your pelvic bones also ‘serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males’ and for muscles and bones that form part of your legs. You have linked to Edward Babinski’s material; perhaps you noticed this comment from Hans Thewissen in the course of your research, but decided to ignore it:

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

Reference? Fetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs but I haven’t read that fetal stage, toothed whales do.

You can find references to this in Cell biology of Olfaction by Albert Fardman:

Adult toothed whales (odontocetes) have no peripheral olfactory sense organ at all. It is present during early embryonic development, but is lost in later fetal stages.

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=74Vv2L ... t&resnum=7

And also in Marine Mammal Biology by A. Rus Hoelzel:

In toothed whales both the olfactory tracts and bulbs exist only in the fetal stage of development.

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=uNJAJA ... &resnum=10

Are you claiming ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in baleen whales? Surely you know this is a completely falsified theory.

No, I am not claiming that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in baleen whales, or any other animals for that matter. Look up evolutionary developmental biology.

Nonexistent external ears? Probably = Conjecture.

Actually, ‘probably’ means ‘almost certainly’. What alternative explanation do you have for these vestigial muscles? Do you regard the source I gave you as a ‘good academic reference’ at all? What is your definition of a ‘good academic reference’?

 

[Barbarian]

A more interesting question is "why do whales still have genes for hind legs?" Adding up the evidence from vestigial legs sometimes found on whales, fossil record, genetics, and so on, isn't it time to make some kind of peace with reality?

 

[Crying Rock]

CR wrote/ quoted:

I’ve never been able to find anything except a drawing of one the putative legs already detached from the whale. Supposedly the fishermen cut the two structures from the whale, gave one to a museum and kept the other as a souvenir:

“…These bones are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919. Two officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company were understandably impressed by this discovery, and they removed one of the legs and presented the skeletal remains to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, B.C. (The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship)…“

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

Note the caption for Figure 2.2.1:

“…the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale…â€Â

Arranged as found in situ by whom?

We all know fishermen are known to tell whoppers.

I can’t find a single image of the imaginary legs attached to the whale, or even the whale from which they came.

Were these imaginary legs even external:

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

Using this as “evidence†is laughable. The whole process was uncontrolled and unobserved by anyone but the crew. How convenient:

“…The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship…â€Â

“…This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966, after sixty years of uncontrolled human predation had decimated the population…â€Â

Oops, no repeatability.

The Barabarian wrote:

I don't think "the whalers were lying" is a sufficient answer.

Only one of many possibilities. People are known to forge things for a profit. A set of bones, not in situ, and the other purported set missing doesn’t make for solid evidence of whale evolution from land mammals or whales with legs. There are no images of the whale from where these bones were supposedly removed. And there are no images of where these bones were supposedly removed on the whale.

The Barabarian wrote:

A pair of vestigial rear fins recently was documented on a dolphin.

You’re begging the question. How do you know these rear fins are vestigial?

Are these extra heads vestigial:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ed_big.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/310249/2_ ... _heads.jpg

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/5791 ... abybs3.jpg

How about these extra limbs:

http://www.photosfan.com/images/girl-wi ... -legs1.jpg

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/08/03/seven-leg-lamb.jpg

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ ... 25_ssh.jpg

And remember, you're claiming vestigial fins, not legs.

The Barabarian wrote:

We see it in various primitive whales

We do? Show me vestigial legs in primitive whales. No begging the question now. ;)

The Barabarian wrote:

The genes for legs are still there, albeit largely suppressed by other genes now.

UF scientist honored who found genes for legs, flippers, fins

http://www.gainesville.com/article/2009 ... ppers-fins

“…His group has discovered the evolutionary origin of the genetic program for fin development, has shown how this program was modified to form fingers and toes, and has identified the molecular basis for loss of legs during the evolution of the whale…â€Â

All this is just begging the question: “…identified the molecular basis for loss of legs during the evolution of the whale…†is not the same as ¬œloss of legs during the evolution of the whaleâ€Â. Note that “loss of legs during the evolution of the whale†is already assumed to be true.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this tread to shreds.

I'm ready to move on to a new thread (2 is my max).

 

[lordkalvan]

....Anyway, I think we've beaten this tread to shreds.

I'm ready to move on to a new thread (2 is my max).

How can it be beaten to shreds when there are several questions concerning your own understanding that remain unanswered? I would be very interested in your model for the origin of whales and the evidence that supports it. I am beginning to suspect that you have no such model or evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

Only one of many possibilities. People are known to forge things for a profit. A set of bones, not in situ, and the other purported set missing doesn’t make for solid evidence of whale evolution from land mammals or whales with legs.

It might be interesting to see if there's recoverable DNA in those limb bones. But it would seem that a whole shipload of people would be unlikely to keep a conspiracy like this going. Someone always talks eventually.

The Barabarian wrote:
A pair of vestigial rear fins recently was documented on a dolphin.

You’re begging the question. How do you know these rear fins are vestigial?

They no longer serve as legs.

The Barabarian wrote:
We see it in various primitive whales

We do?

Yep.

Show me vestigial legs in primitive whales.

Sure. From the primitive whale Basilosaurus:

Notice it retains all the bones of a hind limb, but was tiny and no longer capable of supporting the whale at all.

Here's a photo of part of the skeleton, with the vestigial legs:

Barbarian observes:
The genes for legs are still there, albeit largely suppressed by other genes now.

UF scientist honored who found genes for legs, flippers, fins

“…His group has discovered the evolutionary origin of the genetic program for fin development, has shown how this program was modified to form fingers and toes, and has identified the molecular basis for loss of legs during the evolution of the whale…â€Â

All this is just begging the question: “…identified the molecular basis for loss of legs during the evolution of the whale…†is not the same as “loss of legs during the evolution of the whaleâ€Â.

The fact that the genes for legs are there, and the molecular processes by which the genes for legs were modified so that they were not expressed in modern whales were found is sufficient. Reality trumps anyone's feelings.

Note that “loss of legs during the evolution of the whale†is already assumed to be true.

That hypothesis was tested and confirmed. Assumptions had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this tread to shreds.

That's what scientists usually do with creationists. Beat them down with a thousand bits of evidence. Very effective.

I'm ready to move on to a new thread (2 is my max).

Sounds like fun. What do you want to talk about, next?

 

[Crying Rock]

Anyway, I think we've beaten this tread to shreds.

That's what scientists usually do with creationists. Beat them down with a thousand bits of evidence. Very effective.

Aren't you nice. ;)

I'm ready to move on to a new thread (2 is my max).

Sounds like fun. What do you want to talk about, next?

I'm open to ideas. I'll think about some myself.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm open to ideas. I'll think about some myself.

I would be very interested in your model for the origin of whales and the evidence that supports it. I really do suspect that you have no such model or evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's what scientists usually do with creationists. Beat them down with a thousand bits of evidence. Very effective.

Aren't you nice. ;)

Scientists do it with each other, too. Read about the row within ornithology on the origin of birds. Rough game, but it works better than anything else we can do to learn about the world.

I second Lord K's suggestion; tell us about your model for the origin of whales.