Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Is evolution a fact?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 114 of 116
 [ 2311 posts ] 
Is evolution a fact?
Author Message
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Bango Skank wrote:I have two (stupid) questions. I prefer simple answers, because i know almost nothing about evolution.

1. Is pregnancy a evolution in hyper speed?

2. Its been said that for example a cat becoming non cat is actually againts evolution, but isn't this what happened with evolution of whale? Whale originated from land living animal, let's call it "James". Isn't a whale still a James or is it a non James?


1. Not really. The code for everything is already there in the zygote. In evolution new traits would have to arise.

2. I'll try to clear this up, but my animals will be lettered. So, let's say you have species A. Mutations and natural selection will work on the population of species A, until enough changes have accumulated for it to not really be practical to call it species A anymore, but species B. A good indicator of speciation would be if the new population of species B could interbreed with A.

Now the same eventually happens to B, and we get species C, then D, and so on. Eventually we reach whales, which I'll letter J.

Not once did species A evolve into species J. Species A evolved into B, B to C, and so on. A itself never did a large jump immediately to J, and no, J cannot be considered A because it was never A in the first place.

Hope that makes sense :)
Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:38 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1185Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Bango Skank wrote:2. Its been said that for example a cat becoming non cat is actually againts evolution, but isn't this what happened with evolution of whale? Whale originated from land living animal, let's call it "James". Isn't a whale still a James or is it a non James?


I think that when creationists say a cat becoming non cat they mean a cat giving birth to an elephant or some such nonsense. If such thing happened it'd be a serious problem for evolution and they think it's what evolution means. This shows how clueless they are about the topic.

I liked the example I saw on the Internet, probably a YT video, which told you to imagine yourself standing and holding hands, left one with your child and right one with your parent. Your parent would hold your grandparent's hand and so on. After many generations you'd come to a person that's not homo sapiens sapiens any more. Then you'd get to reptiles, amphibians, fish and so on, down the "tree" of life. The important thing to notice is that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between any two people/animals standing next to each other.

Changes between generations are tiny but given enough time/generations they amount to what we can see as a new species.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:12 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Bango Skank wrote:2. Its been said that for example a cat becoming non cat is actually againts evolution, but isn't this what happened with evolution of whale? Whale originated from land living animal, let's call it "James". Isn't a whale still a James or is it a non James?


The major problem here is our language. The second problem are the reference points people are referring too when talking about major evolutionary changes and what can be reasonably seen happening in the now.

First, the language problem, and this is not solely the problem of the layperson. For over one hundred years (and still in some schools and wikipedia), people learned the Linnaean taxonomic ordering. In this schema for classifying animals, an organism would be able to evolve out of a classification level if enough changes happened. The reason being is that the Linnaean taxonomic system was created long before evolutionary theory was established. There are some serious problems with this ordering system and biologists came up with a new ordering system based on evolutionary history of organisms known as phylogenetic systematics. In this ordering system, organisms cannot evolve out of their evolutionary history; thus once a whale, always a whale. They are also order by clades, and no clade is equal to another organism’s clade. Now, the problem comes with people still learning the old Linnaean taxonomic system and trying to apply its levels with modern phylogenetic systematics.

Now, the second problem is that people hear that the closest living relatives to whales are hippopotamuses, thus, they ask, “how do you get a whale from a hippopotamus?” Hippopotamuses and whales are equally modern animals and there is no reason to assume either one of them resembles the common ancestor of the other. People also seem to not understand that whale evolution took roughly 45 million years, none of the animals that existed back than would be recognizable today. We can show numerous examples of species happening today, but those would only be small changes that would not impress most people. We can also show dramatic changes when it comes to single cellular life, but again, most people are not impressed with single cellular life.

Now, if we took a modern cat and watched it evolve for 45 million years, we might see an animal that looked fundamentally different on the surface; it might not be recognizable as a cat at all. However, looking at the skeleton, organs, and definitely the DNA of the new animal, we would see that this new animal did not escape its evolutionary history and would still have the fundamental traits that made it a cat. We are able to do the same thing for whales and see the basic structures that made it a land animal some 45 million years ago. This is why whales are still classified as artiodactyls (i.e. whales are still James).
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:03 pm
YIM WWW
Bango SkankPosts: 176Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:15 amLocation: Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Thanks for the answers, itsdemtitans's answer to question 2 was the most understandable for me.

I have tried to read some books about evolution, but honestly the subject is just a bit boring for me, although i understand it's importance.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."
Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:41 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Greetings,

'Tree of life' for 2.3 million species released

Kjndest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:38 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rumraket wrote:I found the publication with the picture of the whale, it is here for anyone who wants to read the original 1921 publication:
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/4849//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/nov/N0009.pdf?sequence=1

It is really old, from 1921 so it's not the best picture.
Image




Here is a picture of a whale hand

Image

But of course, it is not a hand. Just as the whale "leg" is not a leg.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:07 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:
Rumraket wrote:I found the publication with the picture of the whale, it is here for anyone who wants to read the original 1921 publication:
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/4849//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/nov/N0009.pdf?sequence=1

It is really old, from 1921 so it's not the best picture.
Image




Here is a picture of a whale hand

Image

But of course, it is not a hand. Just as the whale "leg" is not a leg.


I see phalanges, metacarpals, carpals, a radius, and an ulna. All those structures make up your hand and wrist. Could you please explain why a whale would have all those same features in their fin? That is an amazing coincidence, do you not agree?

Just like the leg of the whale had most of the structures that make up your leg as well:

Rumraket wrote:
Example 1: Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs

[...]

For example, Figure 2.2.1 shows the bones from the atavistic legs of a humpback whale. 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). The museum's director, Francis Kermode, presented the bones to Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. Andrews reported the findings, along with photographs of the whale from the whaling crew, in American Museum Novitates, the journal of the AMNH.

"
Image


Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale.
A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale.
B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A).
C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A.
(Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)"
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:26 pm
YIM WWW
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:Here is a picture of a whale hand

Image

But of course, it is not a hand. Just as the whale "leg" is not a leg.

I assume you only mean this and the sense Magritte did.
Image
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:29 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1174Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:
Rumraket wrote:I found the publication with the picture of the whale, it is here for anyone who wants to read the original 1921 publication:
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/4849//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/nov/N0009.pdf?sequence=1

It is really old, from 1921 so it's not the best picture.
Image




Here is a picture of a whale hand

Image

But of course, it is not a hand. Just as the whale "leg" is not a leg.

If the whale leg is not a leg, then what is it and why does it have the bones one would find in a leg? What explains their presence other than the fact that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals with legs?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:37 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rumraket wrote:If the whale leg is not a leg, then what is it and why does it have the bones one would find in a leg? What explains their presence other than the fact that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals with legs?


Uh...uh....falldidit!
Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:50 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Is this a whale hand?

Image
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:50 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:Is this a whale hand?
Image

No, it is the digital representation of a photograph. However, the object depicted in the photograph is homologous to a hand.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:36 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:Is this a whale hand?

Image


You tell me. Are hands made up of phalanges, metacarpals, and carpels?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:09 am
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:Is this a whale hand?

Image


You tell me.


Is it a hand yes or no?

You can't answer that?


I already told you what I think, now I'm asking you guys. Hello? Is anyone there??
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:01 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:Is it a hand yes or no?

You can't answer that?


I already told you what I think, now I'm asking you guys. Hello? Is anyone there??

You have had three answers. Feel free to engage with one or more of them and explain why you disagree.

Given your disinclination to carry on discussions in other threads I'm not sure what you are expecting without a bit more sign of investment on your part.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:36 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Since I have your attention now, is there any chance you will return to this thread?


thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:You tell me. Are hands made up of phalanges, metacarpals, and carpels?


Is it a hand yes or no?

You can't answer that?


I already told you what I think, now I'm asking you guys. Hello? Is anyone there??

[Emphasis of what was left out of my quote]


:facepalm:

Still playing dumb, and bonus points for the quote mining of me. Reading your comment with my full text exposes your cheap trick.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I see phalanges, metacarpals, carpals, a radius, and an ulna. All those structures make up your hand and wrist. Could you please explain why a whale would have all those same features in their fin? That is an amazing coincidence, do you not agree?


Feel free to ignore that, just like everything else that has questioned your worldview thus far.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:02 am
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:08 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Rumraket wrote:I found the publication with the picture of the whale, it is here for anyone who wants to read the original 1921 publication:
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/4849//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/nov/N0009.pdf?sequence=1

It is really old, from 1921 so it's not the best picture.
Image





Rumraket wrote:
Example 1: Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs



For example, Figure 2.2.1 shows the bones from the atavistic legs of a humpback whale. 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). The museum's director, Francis Kermode, presented the bones to Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. Andrews reported the findings, along with photographs of the whale from the whaling crew, in American Museum Novitates, the journal of the AMNH.

"
Image


Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale.
A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale.
B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A).
C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A.
(Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)"


How can we call these atavistic leg bones when no animal dead or alive has leg bones that look anything like this? How are a tarsus and metatarsal evident in these pics? The upper part of the top bone in figure A is not suitable for a ball and socket joint. Even if it were, then what would the pelvic bone of such a creature look like? That top part actually resembles more like something you would find on a rib bone. And notice the extreme curvature of these bones, in the first picture, curving inwards.


Sheep rib bone:
Image

Orca whale rib bones:

Image

Dog rib bones?:

Image

Here is a image of an Hippo skeleton, the leg bones are very well displayed. The Hippos are proclaimed by evolutionists to be the closest land dwelling whale relative alive today.
Image

So we have atavistic leg bones that look sort of like rib bones and nothing like leg bones. Far be it from me to ever suspect an evolutionist to take a rib bone, manipulate it and stick in a whales hindquarters (How was it captured, hauled out of the water, transported to the whaling station and maneuvered into the position in the photo with out snapping off the two 31 inch long "legs"?) If it's not a hoax, it's certainly not evidence for legs.

Even the faked legs of the most recently debunked whale ancestors looked nothing like these fake legs. Did they?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:51 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Well, you have never studied anatomy, human or otherwise, if you believe those bones look nothing like what we see in a foot and leg but more like a rib. I will provide Figure 2.2.1. below for easy reference.

Image


thenexttodie wrote:How can we call these atavistic leg bones when no animal dead or alive has leg bones that look anything like this? How are a tarsus and metatarsal evident in these pics? The upper part of the top bone in figure A is not suitable for a ball and socket joint. Even if it were, then what would the pelvic bone of such a creature look like? That top part actually resembles more like something you would find on a rib bone. And notice the extreme curvature of these bones, in the first picture, curving inwards.


Sheep rib bone:
Image

Orca whale rib bones:

Image

Dog rib bones?:

Image

Here is a image of an Hippo skeleton, the leg bones are very well displayed. The Hippos are proclaimed by evolutionists to be the closest land dwelling whale relative alive today.
Image



Now, I will grant you that the femur does not look like a femur (at least from the black and white image). I believe this has a lot to do with the fact that whales are born with the gene for creating legs and those genes are later turned off in utero. That means mutations in the femur have built up more than the other bones (but a good case could be made that all those bones have suffered from nonselective mutations to one extent or another). Honestly, the main reason I would believe it is called a femur (without seeing better images of the bone) has to do with where it was found on the body of the animal. It is in between a tibia and the pelvis of the animal, what else could it be? Do you honestly think random bones (like ribs) can just start growing in random places?

Image


Above is an image of a tibia in a human. Look how similar that is with the tibia shown at the bottom of image B in the figure.

Image


Above is an image of a human foot again. Granted, humans have far more bones, but again, the bottom bone in image C look surprisingly like the metatarsals. Beyond that, from the image alone, the tarsal (the top bone in image C) looks like it could easily be a cuneiform or the cuboid.

Click for Image, I cannot embed it.

Now, unlike you, I will actually very well display the tibia from a hippopotamus above (which is the closest living relative to whales). What a surprise, it looks even more like the tibia from Figure 2.2.1 than a human.

After a quick google image search, I could not find any good images of the feet of hippopotamuses, so I will not be able to compare the two as I did above. However, just a rudimentary look shows that the bones seen in Figure 2.2.1. are analogues to bones found in the legs and feet of modern animals. Once again, why should hippopotamuses, humans, and whales all have these same bones in the same places?

thenexttodie wrote:So we have atavistic leg bones that look sort of like rib bones and nothing like leg bones. Far be it from me to ever suspect an evolutionist to take a rib bone, manipulate it and stick in a whales hindquarters (How was it captured, hauled out of the water, transported to the whaling station and maneuvered into the position in the photo with out snapping off the two 31 inch long "legs"?) If it's not a hoax, it's certainly not evidence for legs.


:facepalm:

Oh, yes. Someone hoaxed the 1921 photo and bones so that almost 100 years later, people on an internet forum can use them as evidence for evolution to trick you into believing in reality.

:lol:

It is amazing how stupid one can act when their worldview is being questioned. Furthermore, your ignorance of anatomy is not an argument.


thenexttodie wrote:Even the faked legs of the most recently debunked whale ancestors looked nothing like these fake legs. Did they?


Citation please. It would be nice to see how and when the transitional fossils for whales were debunked. Oh, and since you cannot tell that these bones do indeed line up with bones in the leg and foot of animals means that your assessment of other bones looking nothing alike will be taken with a large glass of salt.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:54 am
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Greetings,

Thenextrodie, you seem to be missing the fact that these atavistisms could not occur unless the animal had inherited the genes for them.

This is a key point of evolution.

In a similar vein, humans - and other monkeys - are sometimes born with more than two mammary glands along the "milk lines". Why? If a creator was responsible for creating humans, he'd have only created them with two mammary glands - and no possibility of any more. Yet multiple mammary glands occur in monkeys, including primates (which includes us).

Evolution explains this - creationism can't.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:36 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 114 of 116
 [ 2311 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests