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 74 of 75
 [ 1494 posts ] 
Is evolution a fact?
Author Message
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: 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: 3498Joined: 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: 3210Joined: 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
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2995Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:Is this a whale hand?

Image

I think it's Popeye's arm

Sent from my HTC Desire 510 using Tapatalk
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:13 am
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

he_who_is_nobody wrote: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.


Is there any known animal which you suppose whales evolved from that had a foot and leg that would look like that? Seriously? What, with only one toe and a femur that looks like that strange thing in the picture that looks like a part of a rib?

@ DraganGlas

Obviously whales DNA contain information for producing long, connecting bones. HWIN says the reason why these bones are called leg bones is because they are found near the pelvis. I agree with him. If we found an extra set of bones like this growing closer to front of the body, we might call them extra flippers.

Animals are sometimes born with extra bones, extra organs and other deformities. They have nothing to do with atavistism. If a woman(or a man!) was born with an extra nipple you would call it an atavism. But when a cow is born with an extra leg (an actual leg) what would you call that? Or if a person is born with an extra bone in his foot?
“..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 Nov 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3210Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: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.


Is there any known animal which you suppose whales evolved from that had a foot and leg that would look like that? Seriously? What, with only one toe and a femur that looks like that strange thing in the picture that looks like a part of a rib?

@ DraganGlas

Obviously whales DNA contain information for producing long, connecting bones. HWIN says the reason why these bones are called leg bones is because they are found near the pelvis. I agree with him. If we found an extra set of bones like this growing closer to front of the body, we might call them extra flippers.

Animals are sometimes born with extra bones, extra organs and other deformities. They have nothing to do with atavistism. If a woman(or a man!) was born with an extra nipple you would call it an atavism. But when a cow is born with an extra leg (an actual leg) what would you call that? Or if a person is born with an extra bone in his foot?

You are confusing a number of things here.

Vestigial organs are ones that are "left-overs", which may or may not have functions different from normal - flightless birds with wings is one example. Ostriches use their vestigial wings for courtship displays instead of flight.

Atavisms occur where the genes have been passed down through the evolutionary process but in a "silenced" state, which are then "turned on" in the particular specimen - like a whale with legs.

Mutations occur where a specimen is born with new trait(s) due to one or a combination of genes.

If whale legs were simply a mutation, then its parents and ancestors would not have these genes - the fact that they do, in a silenced form, shows that these are inherited through evolution.

No species of fish has pelvic bones - cetaceans (whales, porpoise, and dolphins) do.

Why??

Why would a water-based creature require pelvic bones?

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
Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:29 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Dragan Glas wrote:Vestigial organs are ones that are "left-overs", which may or may not have functions different from normal - flightless birds with wings is one example. Ostriches use their vestigial wings for courtship displays instead of flight.


Not to nitpick here but I didn't say anything that implied "vestigial organs". And wings aren't organs.

Dragan Glas wrote:Atavisms occur where the genes have been passed down through the evolutionary process but in a "silenced" state, which are then "turned on" in the particular specimen - like a whale with legs.

Mutations occur where a specimen is born with new trait(s) due to one or a combination of genes.

If whale legs were simply a mutation, then its parents and ancestors would not have these genes - the fact that they do, in a silenced form, shows that these are inherited through evolution.


Son of a BITCH! You mean we can actually test for silent genes, prove they are atavistic, know their function and can determine them apart from mutated genes?

Dragan Glas wrote:No species of fish has pelvic bones - cetaceans (whales, porpoise, and dolphins) do.

Why??

Why would a water-based creature require pelvic bones?


Well certain water based creatures don't have any bones at all. So we know that some water based creatures can exist without a pelvic bone.

Maybe you didn't know this but the pelvic bone of a whale, doesn't look anything like the pelvic bone of a human or any land mammal. Some say it is needed for mating. If these bones are connected to muscles then obviously they do something.
“..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 Nov 08, 2015 10:06 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3210Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Vestigial organs are ones that are "left-overs", which may or may not have functions different from normal - flightless birds with wings is one example. Ostriches use their vestigial wings for courtship displays instead of flight.

Not to nitpick here but I didn't say anything that implied "vestigial organs". And wings aren't organs.

I mentioned them as you appear to be confusing several related terms.

You read the word "organ" literally: most vestigial parts are organs, not all - such as wings, and third eyelids, to give another example.

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Atavisms occur where the genes have been passed down through the evolutionary process but in a "silenced" state, which are then "turned on" in the particular specimen - like a whale with legs.

Mutations occur where a specimen is born with new trait(s) due to one or a combination of genes.

If whale legs were simply a mutation, then its parents and ancestors would not have these genes - the fact that they do, in a silenced form, shows that these are inherited through evolution.

Son of a BITCH! You mean we can actually test for silent genes, prove they are atavistic, know their function and can determine them apart from mutated genes?

We can test for atavistic genes since they'd exist in the parents, and earlier generations - thus we can distinguish these from mutations in a given specimen, since they won't exist in the parents or earlier generations.

Is this not clear to you?

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:No species of fish has pelvic bones - cetaceans (whales, porpoise, and dolphins) do.

Why??

Why would a water-based creature require pelvic bones?

Well certain water based creatures don't have any bones at all. So we know that some water based creatures can exist without a pelvic bone.

The point I'm making is that cetaceans are mammals, because they are descended from land-based mammals. Fish are solely water-based - their ancestors never went on land.

Of course there are water-based creatures without any bones at all - that is irrelevant to the point I was making.

thenexttodie wrote:Maybe you didn't know this but the pelvic bone of a whale, doesn't look anything like the pelvic bone of a human or any land mammal.

I'm fully aware of this, given its ancestor is a quadruped.

thenexttodie wrote:Some say it is needed for mating. If these bones are connected to muscles then obviously they do something.

The pelvic bone is vestigial - it performs another function from its original one in whales' land-based ancestors.

The leg bones that sometimes occur in whales, and other cetaceans, are atavistic - silent genes that are turned on in a individual whale.

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
Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:31 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: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.


Is there any known animal which you suppose whales evolved from that had a foot and leg that would look like that? Seriously? What, with only one toe and a femur that looks like that strange thing in the picture that looks like a part of a rib?


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote: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).


As you can read, I do not believe these bones resemble any ancestral state. My point is that three of the four bones are easily identifiable (from the poor quality photos) as leg and foot bones. Beyond that, I guess you think horses are strange for having only one toe. However, remember, the legs of the whale in the photo have had several mutations that had no selective pressure placed on them since the genes turn off (the genes for created legs still exist, they just do not express in life). In addition, your ignorance is not an argument; the femur in the old poor quality photo looks nothing like a rib.

thenexttodie wrote:HWIN says the reason why these bones are called leg bones is because they are found near the pelvis. I agree with him.


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote: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?


Again, as anyone can plainly read, I did not say they are leg and foot bones because of their location. I said judging from that old and poor quality photo, I could not conclude if it was a femur or not. I conclude that since it is between a tibia and the pelvis, what else could it be? I asked if you thought bones could just randomly appear, which you refused to answer. However, the rest of your comment leads me to believe that you do think random bones can appear randomly on an organism. Once again, you display your ignorance of anatomy and demonstrate why you have no real objection, only appeals to your personal incredulity.

Now, instead of skimming my comments, perhaps you could actually read what I am saying.

Dragan Glas wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:Son of a BITCH! You mean we can actually test for silent genes, prove they are atavistic, know their function and can determine them apart from mutated genes?

We can test for atavistic genes since they'd exist in the parents, and earlier generations - thus we can distinguish these from mutations in a given specimen, since they won't exist in the parents or earlier generations.

Is this not clear to you?


Which has already been pointed out to thenexttodie. However, it will go ignored much like everything else that questions his worldview.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:59 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Dragan Glas wrote:Atavisms occur where the genes have been passed down through the evolutionary process but in a "silenced" state, which are then "turned on" in the particular specimen - like a whale with legs.

Mutations occur where a specimen is born with new trait(s) due to one or a combination of genes.

If whale legs were simply a mutation, then its parents and ancestors would not have these genes - the fact that they do, in a silenced form, shows that these are inherited through evolution.

thenexttodie wrote:Son of a BITCH! You mean we can actually test for silent genes, prove they are atavistic, know their function and can determine them apart from mutated genes?


Dragan Glas wrote:We can test for atavistic genes since they'd exist in the parents, and earlier generations - thus we can distinguish these from mutations in a given specimen, since they won't exist in the parents or earlier generations.

Is this not clear to you?


I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this whale had offspring and that his parents genes were tested for whatever the hell it is you are talking about. That must have been quite a feat back in 1921.
“..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 09, 2015 1:04 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3210Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Atavisms occur where the genes have been passed down through the evolutionary process but in a "silenced" state, which are then "turned on" in the particular specimen - like a whale with legs.

Mutations occur where a specimen is born with new trait(s) due to one or a combination of genes.

If whale legs were simply a mutation, then its parents and ancestors would not have these genes - the fact that they do, in a silenced form, shows that these are inherited through evolution.

thenexttodie wrote:Son of a BITCH! You mean we can actually test for silent genes, prove they are atavistic, know their function and can determine them apart from mutated genes?


Dragan Glas wrote:We can test for atavistic genes since they'd exist in the parents, and earlier generations - thus we can distinguish these from mutations in a given specimen, since they won't exist in the parents or earlier generations.

Is this not clear to you?


I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this whale had offspring and that his parents genes were tested for whatever the hell it is you are talking about. That must have been quite a feat back in 1921.

This is not the only whale - or, indeed, animal (including humans) - in which this has occurred.

And you're still not understanding the implications of the difference between vestigial, atavism, and mutation.

You could do worse than read Theobald's article.

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 09, 2015 1:30 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Okay, some clarification is needed (I feel) for everyone in this thread. So right here I'm going to try and explain just what the's genes are and how we can trace them back to originating from cetacean evolution and not just some mutated flipper in the wrong spot.

One curious feature of cetacean development is that they start by making perfectly respectable hindlimb buds, at about the fifth week of gestation. Like all vertebrates, they go through a period of phylotypy where their embryos resemble the embryos of other vertebrates, and they initiate the formation of the full four limbs. What happens next, though, is that the hindlimbs regress and their remnants become imbedded in the body wall.

There are two signal zones in limb development: AER and ZPA. The AER, or apical ectodermal ridge, is one of the earliest signs of limb formation. It is a ridge of thickened tissue that demarcates the far margin of the forming limb, and is a signaling center for specific enzymes in limb formation. The ZPA is the zone of polarizing activity. It’s another signaling center that forms on the posterior margin of the limb, is important in setting up the polarity of the limb, but it’s also important in maintaining the tissue. In ZPA the Hand transcription factor is expressed early and this is when you'll see shh (sonichedgehog genes. Who thought of that name?) be expressed.

Scientists montitored the development of limbs in a small number of river dolphin (Stenella attenuata) embryos. A total of four were used, partially because dolphin embryos are not commonly used or easy to come by. However, it was sufficient to come up with a straightforward picture of the differences in molecular development.

Cetaceans form the AER for both the fore- and hind-limb. They express Fgf8. This is the normal tetrapod pattern.
Its seen in all four legged vertebrates during development, to the best of my knowledge.

Cetaceans form a ZPA for the forelimb. Hand2 is expressed broadly at first, and then is restricted to just the posterior part of the fore-limb; Shh is expressed in a perfectly ordinary fore-limb ZPA.

Hand2 is not expressed in the hind limb region. Shh is never activated. No ZPA forms for the hind limb, and the structure arrests and ultimately regresses.

The genes for forming the hind limbs are still present. However, different genes managing expression have been altered so as to stop the development of these hind limbs.

Now what does one see as they look down the line of transitional whale fossils? You see the hind limbs gradually become smaller and smaller, eventually becoming absorbed into the body. Likewise, here is a look at the vestigial hips of several modern whales:

Image

Look at the right whale hip in particular. There's a very distinct ball and socket joint.

The study on gene expression basically allowed us to figure out why whales gradually lost their legs. It was due to a persistantly lower and lower expression of Hand2 and shh genes in the rear limb buds, thus shrinking the limbs until eventually they've faded away from view (unless you cut a whale open, of course. Please don't do that)
Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:38 am
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this whale had offspring and that his parents genes were tested for whatever the hell it is you are talking about. That must have been quite a feat back in 1921.


Ah, the dying gasp of the creationist's argument. The "You Weren't There..." defense.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:27 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Dustnite wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this whale had offspring and that his parents genes were tested for whatever the hell it is you are talking about. That must have been quite a feat back in 1921.


Ah, the dying gasp of the creationist's argument. The "You Weren't There..." defense.


What thenexttodie is also failing to realize is that all whales have these genes (as pointed out by itsdemtitans above), they turn off in utero. This whale happened to have a mutation to the gene(s) that turn leg development off and that is why the legs were expressed in the phenotype.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:54 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

itsdemtitans wrote:
Image

Look at the right whale hip in particular. There's a very distinct ball and socket joint.


I don't understand what this has to do with what we were talking about.

itsdemtitans wrote:The study on gene expression basically allowed us to figure out why whales gradually lost their legs
.

No. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/22/8414.full This is the study I think you are talking about and it did nothing to show that whales once had legs long ago and then lost them.


itsdemtitans wrote:It was due to a persistantly lower and lower expression of Hand2 and shh genes in the rear limb buds, thus shrinking the limbs until eventually they've faded away from view


Are you on LSD?
“..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 16, 2015 8:09 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:
itsdemtitans wrote:It was due to a persistantly lower and lower expression of Hand2 and shh genes in the rear limb buds, thus shrinking the limbs until eventually they've faded away from view


Are you on LSD?


In other words, he is saying he can't explain this away so he's going to personally attack you.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:13 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

Dustnite wrote:
In other words, he is saying he can't explain this away so he's going to personally attack you.


What are you? His Mom?
“..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 16, 2015 9:49 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1224Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:
Dustnite wrote:
In other words, he is saying he can't explain this away so he's going to personally attack you.


What are you? His Mom?


So this is your exit strategy? I doubt anyone's surprised.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:14 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

thenexttodie wrote:
I don't understand what this has to do with what we were talking about.


It was tying into the fact that throughout the fossil record we see the hind limbs shrinking smaller and smaller and there are still internal vestiges today.

thenexttodie wrote:No. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/22/8414.full This is the study I think you are talking about and it did nothing to show that whales once had legs long ago and then lost them.


Yes, that's the study I'm referring to, and it's purpose was not to show that whales had legs long ago. That was established a while ago with fossil evidence and the vestigial ball and socket joints we still see in some living whales. The purpose of the study was to figure out why these animals, which we still see grow limb buds for a few weeks before they stop and get reabsorbed, prevent limb formation in the first place and what biochemical pathways cause this.

thenexttodie wrote:Are you on LSD?


Nope. See below diagram and quote from the paper.

Image

The phylogeny of Eocene cetaceans is stable at the family level, and relatively complete skeletons are known for most families. The fossil record shows that cetaceans originated ≈50 million years ago, and their hind limbs retained the original patterning of a complete limb skeleton with four toes and three phalanges each for the next 9 million years. However, there is a gradual reduction in relative limb length during this period, even before the fluke develops see also supporting information, which is published on the PNAS web site. This reduction closely matches locomotor function: Initially the thigh and leg reduce in relative length, but the foot remains large. This reduction leads to shortened lever arms, with retention of a large propulsive surface in ambulocetids and protocetids, functioning as an oar. Subsequently, the entire limb reduces as the tail comes to dominate propulsive function in basilosauroids. These cetaceans are the oldest that display osteological evidence for a fluke. This phase of hind-limb reduction did not involve a major developmental overhaul and followed a gradual microevolutionary pattern of reduced ontogenetic growth. Approximately 41 million years ago, tail-propelled basilosauroid cetaceans display some loss of patterning of the distal hind limb: They lose one metatarsal and several phalanges . The resulting foot is very similar to that in some skinks, where the shorter duration (in developmental time) of Shh expression in the ZPA results in the formation of fewer digits. Shh plays a central role in hind-limb loss in cetaceans and skinks, and we propose that the duration of Shh expression in the basilosauroid hind limb may have been an important factor determining their hind-limb patterning. Development of the most anterior digit, digit 1, is independent of Shh, and digit 2 is specified by a low dose of Shh signal. The formation of digits 3 to 5 is determined by a temporal mechanism: the duration of exposure to Shh. Our hypothesis that early whales underwent a temporal shift in the duration of Shh exposure is consistent both with these experimental results and the patterns of hind-limb reduction seen in the whale fossil record.


(citations removed)

The data presented in the paper clearly allows us to infer the biochemical pathways that caused the limb reduction.
Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:28 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Is evolution a fact?

WarK wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:What are you? His Mom?


So this is your exit strategy? I doubt anyone's surprised.


Well, as a self professed Christian, thenexttodie has an inherit martyr complex. Unfortunately for him, this forum always allows the dogmatists enough rope to hang themselves. That means thenexttodie's general rudeness is not enough to earn a ban, like at most forums. That means he has to step it up (or down) to outright insults to earn the ban he so desperately seeks. Than he can take his new ban and show all his Christian friends how persecuted he was knowing full well that none of them will check and see his behavior at this evil atheist website.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:40 pm
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 74 of 75
 [ 1494 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rumraket and 11 guests
cron