|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you saying that it is more likely that the dolphin is a case of independent birth defects that resulted in two additional dorsal fins coincidentally growing in exactly the places we would expect to find hind limb buds growing into flippers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi AlphaOmegakid,
All the evidence you discuss is in favor of atavisms, not polymelia. The limbs that occasionally appear in dolphins, whales and snakes always appear where limbs would appear. Fetal development of limbless creatures reveals limb buds that are usually reabsorbed. The evolutionary relationship of life was obvious before genetics, and impossible to deny after. That you personally aren't convinced, and further that your position makes no sense, isn't particularly persuasive to anyone else. Rather than just denying what the evidence clearly indicates you must instead show how the evidence indicates something else. Until you can do that the only person you'll convince is you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes: Blue Jay writes: The evidence available to us is a number of reports that look like atavistic limbs. How do you know? Most of these papers are specious. How do I know that these reports look like atavistic limbs? It's an organism that displays a trait (four limbs) associated with its purported evolutionary ancestors. That's the epitome of "looks like an atavism," isn't it? Or, did you mean to ask, "How do I know it is an atavism?" I didn't say, "I know it's an atavism," did I? Look, we both agree that four-finned cetaceans do exist and have existed in the past. You don't seem to be arguing that the reports were falsified: you seem to only be arguing that I can't prove that they're atavisms. Nevertheless, the alternative explanations are pretty absurd. My explanation for this evidence is that cetaceans retain some elements of the genetic infrastructure for producing hind limbs, and that this infrastructure can sometimes be partially activated by mutations or developmental aberrations, resulting in an animal with the rudiments of hind limbs. Your explanation is... well, I'm not actually clear on this. Upthread, you mentioned polymelia, but polymelia is a phenotype, not a mechanism. Polymelia can be caused by a variety of genetic and developmental mechanisms, and isn't mutually exclusive with atavism; so that's not really an alternative explanation. Your only real recourse for an alternative is going to have to invoke some remarkable coincidences in one way or another: either limbs coincidentally appear where hind limbs would have appeared in the putative evolutionary ancestors, or abnormal growths coincidentally look like limbs, or embryonic buds coincidentally resemble hind limb buds, etc. This does not bode well for the parsimony or falsifiability of whatever your alternative explanation turns out to be. Here's a quick run-down on my reasoning. Extra limbs develop when pre-existing genetic infrastructure is activated in an atypical region of an embryo. When that atypical location is recurrent, and not arbitrary (i.e., the extra limbs consistently grow in the same location), it's difficult to argue that the location isn't part of the pre-existing genetic infrastructure. It's that location-specific genetic infrastructure that points to atavism as the best explanation. When you also observe that cetacean embryos develop temporary hind limb buds, it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots: gee, maybe these pre-existing buds, which are usually deactivated early in cetacean embryonic development, can be reactivated by a mutation or developmental abnormality, and caused to develop into rudimentary hind limbs. It seems pretty obvious that this is the most rational explanation for the data. Your rebuttals about reports not using the word "atavism" or coming from an agency associated with shady whaling practices* do not dethrone atavism as the most reasonable explanation for this data. Combined with the fossil evidence mentioned upthread, and the many other evidences allying whales with mammals, atavism seems like a no-brainer. But, like I've been saying, you can't let yourself see the forest for the trees. And nothing I say is apparently going to change that. -----
By the way, the three reports of four-finned cetaceans came from the 1950's and 1960's, decades before the controversial Institute for Cetacean Research even existed. What existed in Japan at this time was a bunch of private commercial whaling fleets and the Whales Research Institute, which was an agency that compiled statistics from commercial records. In the mid-1980's, when commercial whaling was outlawed internationally, there were no longer any commercial records to compile; so, WRI folded, and the private whaling fleets merged to form ICR as a "research" operation. There is no reason to apply the controversies regarding ICR to the records compiled by WRI: they are separate entities, served completely different purposes, and were founded under different pretenses. Edited by Blue Jay, : "denying": tee-hee, wrong word-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Cat Sci writes: Are you saying that it is more likely that the dolphin is a case of independent birth defects that resulted in two additional dorsal fins coincidentally growing in exactly the places we would expect to find hind limb buds growing into flippers? I'm not sure what you mean by "independent birth defects". What I am saying is terrestrial animals have hips and legs. This dolphin has fins. An atavism is a throwback to a supposed evo ancestor. Meaning that if this were an atavism, it must be in some way homologous with legs and hips. You certainly cannot ascertain that from the picture evidence. I am also saying that polymelia can explain this in two ways. If the fins are fibrous, which they look like, they can be polymelia from the dorsal fin. I suspect this is the case, because if they had bones, then the evidence would be on the front pages everywhere. Remember, there are other reports of actual "hind legs" and "femurs" and "tibias". If these appendages have bones, then they can be polymelia to the front flippers or they can be atavistic. Either way, a simple x-ray would confirm all of this. Yet none are provided after more than ten years. Phase one and phase two of Encode took less time. What gives??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I am also saying that polymelia can explain this in two ways. If the fins are fibrous, which they look like, they can be polymelia from the dorsal fin. Right, so the dolphin has a birth defect that causes another dorsal fin to grow on a different part of its body. Coincidentally, that dorsal fin grew in exactly the place we would expect a bud to grow into a rear flipper. And this happened twice, once on each side. You find that to be more likely than the buds just failing to be reabsorbed and then growing into flippers like they naturally would?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Cat Sci.
CS writes: Right, so the dolphin has a birth defect that causes another dorsal fin to grow on a different part of its body. Coincidentally, that dorsal fin grew in exactly the place we would expect a bud to grow into a rear flipper. And this happened twice, once on each side. ...in multiple different individual whales. ...and none have ever been reported with dorsal fins growing in other locations on the body, as polymelia would typically do.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hey, stop confusing the issue with facts!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr A.
Oh hey, that one wasn't even on the list! But. the black stuff in that photo kind of looks like fibrous material to me. Or, even if it is bone, how do you know it isn't just polymelia (the non-atavistic kind) of the forelimbs? And, how do you know that the photograph is actually of the hind limb? If you ask me, it looks like an x-ray of the forelimb of a juvenile whale, and they just said it was a hind limb so they could prove evolution. Evolutionists do that, you know. Their faith is too strong to let them be honest about things like that. In fact, that could be anything: misshapen vertebrae, a remarkably smooth compound fracture of the not-pelvis... maybe it's actually a tribal taboo describing the whale's exploits in battle, or possibly the dog tags of a Russian marine the whale swallowed back in 1956. If you kind of... cross your eyes a little, it could even be the face of a bad guy from an old Mario Bros video game. It doesn't prove a thing.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Hi Bluejay,
Blue Jay writes: But. the black stuff in that photo kind of looks like fibrous material to me. Or, even if it is bone, how do you know it isn't just polymelia (the non-atavistic kind) of the forelimbs? And, how do you know that the photograph is actually of the hind limb? If you ask me, it looks like an x-ray of the forelimb of a juvenile whale, and they just said it was a hind limb so they could prove evolution. Evolutionists do that, you know. Their faith is too strong to let them be honest about things like that. In fact, that could be anything: misshapen vertebrae, a remarkably smooth compound fracture of the not-pelvis... maybe it's actually a tribal taboo describing the whale's exploits in battle, or possibly the dog tags of a Russian marine the whale swallowed back in 1956. If you kind of... cross your eyes a little, it could even be the face of a bad guy from an old Mario Bros video game. It doesn't prove a thing. You are quite funny with your parody. The only problm is it doesn't represent anything I've done. You may want to notice though what is missing from Berzin's x-ray. And it is very important to the interpretation of these bones. You underestimate my knowledge in this area. I have all of these documents and the images. I will address what's missing in a later post, but you ought to see if you can recognize what's missing. All you are doing is adding to the confusion of terms regarding polymelia, atavism, rudiments, hind limbs, hind legs, fins, and flippers etc. So I will take another approach. I will start at what I believe to be the beginning. A paper ... Struthers, J.-1881-The Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). This is readily available on the web in pdf format. Just google scholar search it and all I'm sure all will devour the details! This paper establishes accurately the anatomy of large modern whales which have a two bone and one cartilage arrangement with muscles attached and tendons and ligaments all very nicely detailed. I will present some images from this paper, because it establishes many facts and data points about large whales. You will be extremely happy that I will not argue with the data presented in this paper which I think is a fine piece of scientific work, but I will comment on some terminology. Once this foundation is built, then I will discuss each paper in historical sequence as the data points grow....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are quite funny with your parody. The only problm is it doesn't represent anything I've done. Quite so. You would never mention polymelia, or deny the probatory nature of evidence. Or make any other incompetent efforts to evade reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Blue Jay writes: ...it could even be the face of a bad guy from an old Mario Bros video game. I see a snifit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Kid.
AOkid writes: You are quite funny with your parody. The only problm is it doesn't represent anything I've done. Well, it was a parody, which means it was a mean-spirited hyperbole. But, I thought it was an effective expression of my main point, which is that you're going to absurd lengths to find any explanation for the evidence other than evolution. I rather arrogantly thought my masterful parody could convince you to engage in some introspection and realize how your pursuit of evolution's downfall has become entirely obsessive. I mean, you take issue with literally every single piece of evidence that anybody talks about. It's like you think all scientists everywhere are so incompetent or brainwashed that none of them has ever done anything right, and we're all in need of your expert and genius guidance to put us all right. That might just qualify as a Messiah complex. And you're still doing the same thing: when the evidence goes against you, you just dig in deeper. You put out polymelia as a possible explanation (even though, as Cat Sci pointed out, it's a pretty flimsy hypothesis), and you talked about lacking x-rays and probably having no bones. Dr A showed a case where an x-ray existed and bones were found. Now, you've got some other idea to discredit this one. You've got no consistent narrative here except, "I will keep looking for alternative explanations, no matter how obscure, because I refuse to accept that evolution is the most rational explanation." So, something that looks like a limb bud may not actually be a limb bud because it doesn't develop into a full limb, something that looks like a pelvis may not actually be a pelvis because scientists can't decide exactly what pieces of the pelvis it is supposed to be, and now an atavistic hind limb may not actually be an atavistic hind limb because something (that I am supposed to figure out on my own) is missing. What are the chances, Kid, that all of these different things would line up with the evolutionary explanations, but actually be caused by a convoluted assortment of unrelated explanations that have no mutual cohesiveness? You're missing the goddamn forest for the trees.
AOkid writes: You may want to notice though what is missing from Berzin's x-ray. Well, I can see a lot of things that are missing. There don't seem to be any phalanges or metatarsals, and there doesn't seem to be differentiated tibiae and fibulae, patellae, etc. This doesn't really surprise me, because the hypothesis is that some elements of the ancestral genetic infrastructure remain sufficiently intact in the whale genome to be partially reactivated. So, an atavistic feature is never really expected to be a complete product. Beyond that, I have no idea what you think is missing from this x-ray, and I eagerly await your the grand enlightenment you can bestow upon me, oh wise guru.
AOkid writes: You underestimate my knowledge in this area. No, I don't underestimate that. Autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder run in my family, so I am very familiar with obsessive behavior, and in fact I know not only what it looks like, but also what it feels like. You get an idea in your head, and you can't look away from it, and you read literally everything you can get your hands on in an effort to prove your side of the story. I've done that exact thing with dozens of different topics of personal interest to me. Whenever somebody challenges me on one of those topics, it becomes a matter of personal pride or personal stress. The main reason I've historically been one of your most tenacious opponents on EvC is because I have an obsessive-compulsive personality, and have a difficult time recognizing when a debate is pointless. You're obsessed with disproving evolution: if there's any tiny, obscure fact that may exist at the slightest cant from the expectations of some evolutionary hypothesis, you're the man who's going to find it. You're a man on a mission, and there is no possible way that I'm going to be able to match your determination, because you are absolutely hell-bent on being the one who knows more about cetacean atavisms than anyone else on the planet; while I just find it somewhat interesting. But, you're obsession is also going to blind you to your own stupidity. Something about evolution just "feels wrong" to you, and you're going to keep digging until you find that obscure, but crucial bit of information that nobody else is seeing. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You're too obsessed with burning the forest down to ever see it clearly.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Well, I can see a lot of things that are missing. There don't seem to be any phalanges or metatarsals, and there doesn't seem to be differentiated tibiae and fibulae, patellae, etc. This doesn't really surprise me, because the hypothesis is that some elements of the ancestral genetic infrastructure remain sufficiently intact in the whale genome to be partially reactivated. So, an atavistic feature is never really expected to be a complete product. Beyond that, I have no idea what you think is missing from this x-ray, and I eagerly await your the grand enlightenment you can bestow upon me, oh wise guru. Patience my friend, In due time, I will get to this data. If you would get off your evo high horse and stop your preaching about forests and trees, maybe you could see that the most important tree in the forest is missing. So maybe you should look at your compass and find your way out of the dark forest by navigating some trees. I will be looking at trees. Data points. We will see how many of these trees fall with the weight of evidence when we apply just an ounce of skepticism. Especially Berzin's. (the real evidence might just point to polymelia) It's right there in front of you, but you can't see the trees because of the forest. It's just as bad, and equally obstinate.
something that looks like a pelvis may not actually be a pelvis because scientists can't decide exactly what pieces of the pelvis it is supposed to be, Here's a good example. No cetacean "pelvis" looks at all like a pelvis of any known terrestrial animal. (But it does look like some pubis bones, as I've claimed from the beginning, more on this later) But your forest won't let you see that. That's a shame. A damned forest is a terrible thing to be lost in. Get out and enjoy the trees! Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : corrected typos etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Struthers, J.-1881-The Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). This is readily available on the web in pdf format. Just google scholar search it and all I'm sure all will devour the details! Why not just provide the link yourself? Here, I did it for you: ON THE BONES, ARTICULATIONS, AND MUSCLES OF THE RUDIMENTARY HIND-LIMB OF THE GREENLAND RIGHT-WHALE (Balaena mnysticetus). By JOHN STRUTHERS, M.D., Professor of Anatomy in the University of Aberdeen. I will address what's missing in a later post, but you ought to see if you can recognize what's missing. Why in a later post? What's wrong with now?
You will be extremely happy that I will not argue with the data presented in this paper which I think is a fine piece of scientific work, but I will comment on some terminology. A whale hind limb by any other name would smell as sweet. If you have a point, then the point is better made in a single post rather than spread across several like some kind of mystery writer turning in installments - if you have a point. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024