Whales' vestigial pelvic bones are located well forward of the flukes, by a foot or more in porpoises and proportionally farther forward in larger cetaceans.
The whales' "vestigial pelvic bones" aren't even attached to the spine!
Darwinists will believe anything ... it's embarrassing.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Whales' vestigial pelvic bones are located well forward of the flukes, by a foot or more in porpoises and proportionally farther forward in larger cetaceans.
The whales' "vestigial pelvic bones" aren't even attached to the spine!
What a completely stupid idiot you are!
The whales' vestigial pelvic bones have nothing whatsoever to do with your entire case of (from your own Message 321):
Sluge writes:
How did the two hind-legs of a land animal evolve into the tail of a whale?
My answer to your incredibly stupid "argument" was that that never did happen. Because the hind legs had nothing whatsoever to do with cetacean flukes. However, they had everything to do with the ancestral pelvis -- have you never ever noticed how in alltetrapods the hind legs attach to the pelvis? Or are you simply just too incredibly stupid to have ever noticed that? And how in those with a tail the vertebrae of that tail extend aft well beyond the pelvic girdle?
Listen! They're singing your song yet again!
Now for the sake of others (since, being such a totally stupid idiot you are a lost cause), I will correct your dishonest act of lifting what I had said out of context (typical creationist dishonesty) by posting what I had written in my Message 399 (here I've added bolding for the paragraph that you quoted out of context):
DWise1 writes:
From one of many sources all saying the same thing (this from Whale Flukes - Enchanted Learning -- item of particular interest in bold):
quote
A whale's tail is composed of two lobes, each of which is called a fluke. There is a notch, a v-shaped indentation where the flukes (or lobes) of a whale's tail meet.
Flukes move up and down to propel the whale through the water. (This is unlike fish tails which move left and right.)
Flukes have no bones in them. They are made of muscles and dense fibrous tissue.
The arteries that supply the flukes with blood are surrounded by veins to maintain the whale's temperature.
That "dense fibrous tissue" is also called "connective tissue". The vertebrae of the spine end before getting to the flukes, so they are not directly attached to the spine.
Whales' vestigial pelvic bones are located well forward of the flukes, by a foot or more in porpoises and proportionally farther forward in larger cetaceans. The hind legs of the ancestral species would have attached to the pelvis, since that is what hind legs do, after all. Hence it is no surprise that, when vestigial limb buds are expressed in rare individuals, those limb buds appear where the hind limbs used to be, the same distance forward of the flukes as the pelvic bones.
Your "How did the two hind-legs of a land animal evolve into the tail of a whale?" is therefore complete and utterly stupid bullshit nonsense. Given its gross ignorance and stupidity, we are within our rights to request where you had gotten the nonsense from? Which creationist source? And also, given that creationists will lie about everything and anything they can, consider that all your creationist sources are lying to you! Even you cannot trust a single word a creationist tells you, just as we know full well that we cannot trust any creationist claim.
So the ancestral hind legs had nothing whatsoever to do with the present-day flukes in direct contradiction of your own claim. And we see that when present-day cetaceans get a mutation that enables their genes for expressing the formation of hind legs -- like the suppressed genes for teeth in chickens, cetaceans would not have genes for hind legs if their ancestors had not had hind legs -- those limb buds are directly associated with the vestigial pelvic bones, just as we would expect in any tetrapod.
Dredge is still a willfully stupid lying evil creationist.
I agree with "stupid" and "creationist" ... but as for the other descriptives, not so much.
No, they apply fully:
"evil":
You yourself admitted in your Message 341 that creationists are evil, therefore since you admit to being a creationist you also admit to being evil:
Dredge writes:
Yes, I agree ... All creationists are evil.
Then you go on to state a reason for creationists being evil:
Dredge writes:
Good people are products of evolution, whereas evil people - such as creationists - are products of evilution.
Please note that "evilution" is a common creationist pejorative, but since what they present as "evolution" isn't (not even in the same galactic quadrant), it certain seems like a good term for creationist caricatures of evolution. As I replied in my Message 368:
DWise1 writes:
But what, oh what, is "evilution" supposed to be? Definitely not evolution. Instead, in my experience that term, a standard puerile creationist pejorative, is more appropriate as a label for creationist misrepresentations (AKA "lies") about evolution and the other sciences. Or more simply, that "evilution" is everything that creationists mean by "evolution" even though it is entirely different from evolution. Again, creationists' "evilution" is nothing more than a pack of lies. And that is where creationist evil comes from. Creationists aren't born evil. Nor were they already evil when they first became creationists. OK, I'm giving creationists the benefit of the doubt, but maybe too much. Maybe some creationists did start out evil, but that is neither here nor there. It is not the initial levels of evil that are important, but rather the far greater levels of evil as they were inevitably corrupted by the false theologies in their religion. False theologies such as "creation science", "Intelligent Design", and really stupid ideas about Divine Creation (which end up telling you that if the Creation is really as it actually is, then that would disprove God, that being an incredibly stupid teaching which is why we cannot understand how creationists could fall for it. Oh, and also that stupid one that if something (like life) were produced by natural processes, the exact same natural processes that a Divine Creator would have created, then that somehow would disprove God. What is wrong with you people?).
So the term, "evil creationist", is redundant. As you yourself agreed to!
"lying":
Lying is another innate characteristic of a creationist. Their position is contrary to reality, so they can never tell the truth, but rather must always lie.
And it gets ever worse as a creationist encounters those who espouse reality and who inform the creationist of the truth. Repeatedly. After that, the creationist knows better and can no longer claim ignorance of the truth. At that point, he must resort to deliberate lying.
As you, Dredge, do every time you repeat the same old claims that have been soundly refuted time after time.
So "lying" most definitely applies.
"willfully stupid":
While you freely admit to being stupid, I cannot tell if you are trying to deny "willfully stupid".
Just being naturally stupid is one thing and I can accept your confession of being stupid considering your self-professed low IQ (9, which is a mid-grade idiot, which is defined as having the mental age of a three-year-old).
However, willful stupidity is another matter. It is the deliberate and willful effort to remain stupid, usually by refusing to learn anything and to willfully ignore any new information, again for fear of accidentally learning something. That is most decidedly what you keep doing.
Therefore, both "stupid" and "willfully stupid" most definitely apply.
So then all the cited descriptives do most definitely apply to you.
with the ancestral pelvis -- have you never ever noticed how in all tetrapods the hind legs attach to the pelvis?
Have you noticed that the whales' mythical "vestigial pelvis" is located nowhere near the spine? Only in the bullshit fantasy-world of Darwinism does a pelvis disconnected from a spine make "sense". LOL!!
"although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22)
Oh do please explain why ... entertain me with another untestable Darwinist fairy tale.
‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’ Dr. Colin Patterson
Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
In Message 343 I made the point that using science to explain evolutionary transitions in the fossil record is pointless unless the explanation can be proven to be correct ... in other words, without that proof, using science in that context is irrelevant.
There's that word "proof" yet again. That you've done this once more and ignored all the people who have told you that science doesn't prove things is more evidence (not proof) that you are a troll.
Why did you do that?
Why are you doing this? Does what you're doing feel like normal behavior to you?
Oh do please explain why ... entertain me with another untestable Darwinist fairy tale.
No.
If you're really interested you will do the research and find out for yourself. It will be a learning exercise for you and will give you insights into how genetic mutation can cause a structure to atrophy from disuse.
The problem you are going to have with this whale pelvis thing, even if you figure out how the mechanism works, will not prove your god exists. Try again.
A pelvis that isn't connected to a spine ... hilarious!
Is parading your ignorance really a good strategy?
Science accepts the evidence as it finds it. There are a number of species of whales today that have pelvises unconnected to any other bones. Recently we've come to understand that the whale's vestigial pelvic bones have been coopted for another purpose, becoming involved in the muscles that control the penis.
Have you noticed that the whales' mythical "vestigial pelvis" is located nowhere near the spjne? Only in the bullshit fantasy-world of Darwinism does a pelvis disconnected from a spine make "sense". LOL!!
Have you noticed that the whales' mythical "vestigial pelvis" is located nowhere near the spjne?
I explained the blowhole to you in Message 120. The vestigial hindquarters are no different. Since there is no longer a need for them to be near the spine, there is no longer a need for them to be near the spine.
Do you even know what "vestigial" means?
Dredge writes:
"although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22)
Describes you pretty well.
"Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
™ Version 4.2
(1)