Beware Evos being funny about Whale Bones…

[rainee]

Beware Evos being funny about Whale Bones…

I mean shouldn’t we?

The science news for the past few days has been littered with articles abounding with humorous remarks and sexy quips about whale hip bones, did you notice?
Even their headlines make it difficult for me to post links here at a family friendly forum.

But I had to ask myself why they are so frisky sounding about whale hips – even if the topic is reproduction related. And the answer I came up with is not a nice one.

Macroevolution as an accepted science theory had some items listed as supportive of itself.

And the whale with its “useless” and free-floating hip bones was a major player in that scenario.

It was all about atavism and vestigial remnants and predictions in evo theories.

Why did the whale have those pointless hip bones?

Because at one time it walked the earth on legs and feet – so said the popular science theory. And then they went to the water.


But now they have been hoisted by their own petard it seems – the evo theorists, not the whales!

A couple of evo scientists studied the hip bones and found them increasing in size over time rather than getting smaller.

Which goes against a major prediction in evolutionary theory: If you don’t use it – you lose it.

They thought to themselves: “Fear not! These animals are increasing in size all over! It’s logical that even their vestigial remnants would increase in size too!”

But the rib bones when studied had not increased in size. Indeed only the useless hip bones had grown.

Where do you go after that if you are an evo scientist?

You make whale sex jokes. Why? Because the male whale hip bones may be used actively during their reproductive act in their watery world.

Are they useless? Turns out, no they are not.

Does the mean they had to be attached to legs and feet at one time?

Well no evo scientist worth their salt will let go of that easily – but they have compromised…
Those hip bones did double duty apparently and while they didn’t need legs anymore they kept their hip bones for another purpose.

Unlike the other examples listed as evidence of macroevolution. So far.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Evolutionists.

 

[TracerBullet]

Why did the whale have those pointless hip bones?

Because at one time it walked the earth on legs and feet – so said the popular science theory. And then they went to the water.


But now they have been hoisted by their own petard it seems – the evo theorists, not the whales!

A couple of evo scientists studied the hip bones and found them increasing in size over time rather than getting smaller.

Which goes against a major prediction in evolutionary theory: If you don’t use it – you lose it.

...

Because the male whale hip bones may be used actively during their reproductive act in their watery world.

Are they useless? Turns out, no they are not.

Does the mean they had to be attached to legs and feet at one time?

Well no evo scientist worth their salt will let go of that easily – but they have compromised…
Those hip bones did double duty apparently and while they didn’t need legs anymore they kept their hip bones for another purpose.

Unlike the other examples listed as evidence of macroevolution. So far.

so whales vestigial pelvis is being repurposed. Something evolution does all the time

 

[Angel4Truth]

It was all about atavism and vestigial remnants and predictions in evo theories.

They used to claim the appendix and tonsils were vestigal parts, now they know better.

:mock: Evolutionists

 

[TracerBullet]

They used to claim the appendix and tonsils were vestigal parts, now they know better.

:mock: Evolutionists

Vestigial structures are structures that have lost their original function, but have gained new functions.

Creationists mistakenly think that vestigial means 'useless' :dunce:

 

[rainee]

so whales vestigial pelvis is being repurposed. Something evolution does all the time

Hi there TB,

I appreciate you posting here on my thread. And I appreciate you trying to minimize what this latest discovery has done.

However, didn't you read any of the articles?

Here are some headlines:

Long-forgotten secrets of whale sex revealed – Washington Post
By on September 9, 2014

(Don't you see the term "long-forgotten" is trying to cushion you some, dear? Or if not you - plenty of others.)

Whale sex revealed: 'Useless' hips bones are crucial to reproduction - and size really matters, study finds - By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline
Published: 05:45 EST, 10 September 2014

(Oh and please do not blame me for so many using the term "useless"
regarding whale hip bones - I certainly had nothing to do with it and have been merely quoting the popular term.)

Why Do Dolphins and Whales Still Have Pelvic Bones? To Please the Ladies
(iflscience) September 10, 2014 | by Janet Fang

(Shouldn't I stop here? Ok, one more!)

Useless? No - Whale Hips Play Sexy Role
By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor | September 10, 2014 12:10pm ET

 

[rainee]

Vestigial structures are structures that have lost their original function, but have gained new functions.

Creationists mistakenly think that vestigial means 'useless' :dunce:

"Everyone's always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear," study researcher Matthew Dean, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Southern California, said in a statement. "But it appears that's not the case."

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm:

Evolutionism turns people into morons.

 

[Alate_One]

Well they've sure shrunk from the LEGS they used to be.

Spoiler

:mock:YECs

Oh noes they didn't disappear completely . . . I guess evolution must be wrong . . . oh wait . . . :doh:

Science is not an all or nothing game. Scientific ideas are always subject to revision and correction. Because a small extrapolation of an idea might be wrong, does not mean the larger base on an idea is wrong, especially when there's plenty of evidence to support it. In the case of whales, fossils, DNA, development etc. And that's only one case! There are plenty of other examples of evolutionary change over time.

Do you also think seals and penguins didn't evolve from land living animals?

 

[Huckleberry]

Scientific ideas are always subject to revision and correction. Because a small extrapolation of an idea might be wrong, does not mean the larger base on an idea is wrong...

But it allows for it. And so science allows for it. Because...

Science is not an all or nothing game.

And that is why evolutionists are generally ridiculous and worthy of :mock:. They're almost always ideologues, the bane of science.

 

[rainee]

With all due respect, Scientists, I remember being taught something like
whale hip bones "are vestigial (not serving a purpose biologically), and are remnant from a time when early early ancestors of whales were..."
And the picture above was used as supportive evidence for such.

And now will a picture of the skel of an alligator or some such creature
make me forget?

Whales used to have legs? Prove it Please

 

[Stripe]

Does anyone know what she is talking about? :idunno:

 

[Lighthouse]

Well they've sure shrunk from the LEGS they used to be.

:mock:YECs

Oh noes they didn't disappear completely . . . I guess evolution must be wrong . . . oh wait . . . :doh:

Science is not an all or nothing game. Scientific ideas are always subject to revision and correction. Because a small extrapolation of an idea might be wrong, does not mean the larger base on an idea is wrong, especially when there's plenty of evidence to support it. In the case of whales, fossils, DNA, development etc. And that's only one case! There are plenty of other examples of evolutionary change over time.

Do you also think seals and penguins didn't evolve from land living animals?

Translation: We were wrong so we backtracked.

 

[Alate_One]

With all due respect, Scientists, I remember being taught something like
whale hip bones "are vestigial (not serving a purpose biologically), and are remnant from a time when early early ancestors of whales were..."

They are remnants of early ancestors. That doesn't necessarily make them "purposeless". And that's a side issue. The point isn't whether they have a purpose or not. The question is, does it make more sense to claim whales were created as they are from scratch? Or does it make more sense to say whales clearly evolved from a land living ancestor.

And the picture above was used as supportive evidence for such.

And now will a picture of the skel of an alligator or some such creature
make me forget?

Let me guess, you think this is an alligator?

THIS is an alligator . . .see the difference?

Spoiler

Reptiles, like alligators, have more than one bone in their lower jaw, and are almost always homodonts (all of their teeth are the same). Most mammals are heterodonts - their teeth are specialized into different shapes. Modern whales are mostly homodonts (or toothless) but still have a single bone in the lower jaw. Dorudon is still a heterodont (along with the single jawbone) marking it clearly as a mammal.

Whales used to have legs? Prove it Please

You don't prove things in science. That's something for Math. But there is lots of evidence to support the idea that whales evolved from land animals.

1. Whales breathe air, give milk all things in common with mammals and mammals are nearly always found on land with four limbs.

2. The flippers of whales still have fingers and all the bones of a land creature's arm.

3. Cetacean embryos have lower limb buds that do not develop into full limbs.

4. Right Whales when dissected have not only pelvis remnants, but femurs (thigh bones)

5. Fossils of primitive whales have hind legs.

6. DNA evidence links whales with land living animals, specifically artiodactyls - whales even have multiple chambered stomachs like a cow.

At some point you have to recognize that there's plenty of evidence that whales descend from land mammals, and that is only one piece of evidence for evolution as a whole.

Denying evolution is denying reality.

 

[rainee]

I already know you are very smart and well educated.
I don't actually want to offend you.

But please know - everything I think will probably be offensive or irritating to you.

Also could you avoid posting those big images? Is there anything smaller?

I don't mind having the biggest fattest thread this site has ever seen -
but it is a bit tricky reading and what you post.


Next I will answer your questions.

But tell me truly - is the theory of evolution the only way you can seeing going in your thinking?

 

[Alate_One]

I already know you are very smart and well educated.
I don't actually want to offend you.

But please know - everything I think will probably be offensive or irritating to you.

I don't really get offended or irritated at this point.

Also could you avoid posting those big images? Is there anything smaller?

I don't mind having the biggest fattest thread this site has ever seen -
but it is a bit tricky reading and what you post.

I've looked. It's hard to find small ones that show what I want - but I put in spoiler tags. Yell at Lighthouse for quoting all of my images.

But tell me truly - is the theory of evolution the only way you can seeing going in your thinking?

I don't really see any other good explanations. "God just made it that way" doesn't really make sense given the evidence.

I don't see any problem with God creating through evolution.

 

[rainee]

They are remnants of early ancestors. That doesn't necessarily make them "purposeless".

I am afraid I must remind you that in the past these "remnants" were not purposeless to hundreds if not thousands of evolutionists.

These little floating bones served as evidence of "useless" remains of legs and feet from long ago.

Even today we can find the claims, here is one that makes it simple to understand. The title shows its message: "Why Evolution is True - The hind legs of whales"

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/the-hind-legs-of-whales/


So those little bones have come down in importance since they are no longer only a poster child as remnant remains left over from the deterioration of a previous past prowler.

... The point isn't whether they have a purpose or not.
The question is, does it make more sense to claim whales were created as they are from scratch?
Or does it make more sense to say whales clearly evolved from a land living ancestor.

I believe they were created as whales.
I don't know their size was always the same and

I believe they temporarily grew what they needed to board the Ark and then went back to the water.

So really I may be closer to the evos about change being possible than maybe some?

Let me guess, you think this is an alligator?

Well, I admit it reminded me of one.

So I looked up whale evolution and found the one who thought it was an early ancestor of whales. No ears with bone growing over the place where ears would be was one major reason.

Are you really satisfied with that thinking?

...You don't prove things in science.

In some things you do, yes?
But I agree - the past and the universe could both be difficult to nail down.

...But there is lots of evidence to support the idea that whales evolved from land animals...

You gave a great list of examples after this above statement,
but for the sake of brevity let's quote what you say it amounts to:

At some point you have to recognize that there's plenty of evidence that whales descend from land mammals, and that is only one piece of evidence for evolution as a whole.

Denying evolution is denying reality.

Now let me show you something please.

Here is list that should impress any evolutionist:

0 hours - fertilization of the egg

1 hours - formation of the gray crescent due to pigment migration
3.5 hours - early cleavage
4.5 hours - blastula stage(coeloblastula with eccentric blastocoel

26 hours - gastrulation
26 hours - early crescent shaped dorsal lip
34 hours middle semicircular blastoporal lip
42 hours late circular blastoporal lip
50 hours - neurulation
50 hours - early medullary plate
62 hours - middle neural folds converging
67 hours - late neural tube formed and ciliation of embryo

84 hours - tail bud stage(early organogeny)
96 hours - muscular response to tactile stimulation
118 hours - early heart beat, development of gill buds
140 hours - hatching and gill circulation
162 hours - mouth opens and cornea becomes transparent
192 hours - tail fin circulation established

216 hours - degeneration of external gills, formation of operculum, development of embryonic teeth

240 hours - opercular fold over brachial chamber except for spiracle and internal gills
255 hours - prolonged larval stage with refinement of organs

270 hours - development of hind limbs, internal development of forelimbs in opercular cavity
275 hours - projection of forelimbs through operculum, left side first

280 hours - absorption of the tail and reduction in size of the gut

How do you like that?
84 hours after conception it grows a tail bud. At 192 hours it has tail fin circulation. And at 280 hours after conception the tail is absorbed.

What is all of that? Evolution on speed dial?

And what about those gills??

Wow a whole lot coming and going during this development,
till finally:

284 hours - metamorphosis complete, emergence from water as miniature, air breathing frog

No, I do not accept macroevolution and I think y'all are short changing yourselves when you fail to see His amazing work in time.

 

[Alate_One]

So those little bones have come down in importance since they are no longer only a poster child as remnant remains left over from the deterioration of a previous past prowler.

They're still just as much of a poster child. Clearly, they aren't used for walking and yet that's clearly their original purpose, that's the point. Whether they may or may not be useful for something else now isn't really much of a point.

I believe they were created as whales.
I don't know their size was always the same and

I believe they temporarily grew what they needed to board the Ark and then went back to the water.

So really I may be closer to the evos about change being possible than maybe some?

Talk about extra miracles.

Well, I admit it reminded me of one.

So I looked up whale evolution and found the one who thought it was an early ancestor of whales. No ears with bone growing over the place where ears would be was one major reason.

You're pretty nonspecific here. . . . too many pronouns.

In some things you do, yes?
But I agree - the past and the universe could both be difficult to nail down.

No. Nothing is every proven 100% in science. Science is a human endeavor and will always reflect that. But science gets better with time and experimentation. The modern theory of evolution is far better than what Darwin proposed and what is evolutionary theory 20+ years from now will be better than what we have now.

You gave a great list of examples after this above statement,
but for the sake of brevity let's quote what you say it amounts to:
What is all of that? Evolution on speed dial?

And what about those gills??

Wow a whole lot coming and going during this development,
till finally:

Frogs are amphibians. Amphibians were the first group to branch off from fish ancestors. They still have a lot of fish-like traits. You act as if metamorphosis disproves evolution somehow. That really makes no sense.

No, I do not accept macroevolution and I think y'all are short changing yourselves when you fail to see His amazing work in time.

No. I think it's you that shortchanges God to say He has to work in the way you think He did.

 

[Lighthouse]

They are remnants of early ancestors. That doesn't necessarily make them "purposeless". And that's a side issue. The point isn't whether they have a purpose or not. The question is, does it make more sense to claim whales were created as they are from scratch? Or does it make more sense to say whales clearly evolved from a land living ancestor.

Oh, yes, clearly they evolved. There is absolutely no possible way there could be another answer.

Let me guess, you think this is an alligator?

Spoiler

I think you're as fake as crocodile tears.

THIS is an alligator . . .see the difference?

Spoiler

Well, clearly one evolved from the other, or they had a common ancestor, or something. It's so obvious I'm surprised you don't see it.

Reptiles, like alligators, have more than one bone in their lower jaw, and are almost always homodonts (all of their teeth are the same). Most mammals are heterodonts - their teeth are specialized into different shapes. Modern whales are mostly homodonts (or toothless) but still have a single bone in the lower jaw. Dorudon is still a heterodont (along with the single jawbone) marking it clearly as a mammal.

Well, you're clearly not a homo don't, you hetero don't.*

You don't prove things in science. That's something for Math. But there is lots of evidence to support the idea that whales evolved from land animals.

Translation: Science can't prove anything, so it just makes claims and it doesn't matter whether or not it's right, because it can't be proven either way.

Or

:blabla:

1. Whales breathe air, give milk all things in common with mammals and mammals are nearly always found on land with four limbs.

2. The flippers of whales still have fingers and all the bones of a land creature's arm.

3. Cetacean embryos have lower limb buds that do not develop into full limbs.

4. Right Whales when dissected have not only pelvis remnants, but femurs (thigh bones)

5. Fossils of primitive whales have hind legs.

6. DNA evidence links whales with land living animals, specifically artiodactyls - whales even have multiple chambered stomachs like a cow.

At some point you have to recognize that there's plenty of evidence that whales descend from land mammals, and that is only one piece of evidence for evolution as a whole.

Denying evolution is denying reality.

According to evolution everything evolved from the same thing, all the way back in the beginning of life on Earth, so this is just a lot of hot air. Especially in light of the fact that the theory is that sea creatures evolved to the point of being able to move to and live on land. So, isn't it feasible that whales did not evolve from land mammals, but are rather a remnant of those sea creatures that became land mammals but their branch never left the water?

*That means you're gay.

 

[Alate_One]

I think you're as fake as crocodile ears.

Crocodiles have ears, just not external ones so . . .

Well, clearly one evolved from the other, or they had a common ancestor, or something. It's so obvious I'm surprised you don't see it.

Well, they are both vertebrate tetrapods.

Here's something that would have shared a common ancestor much longer ago.

and here's something that split off even farther back

DNA supports this pattern as well.

Well, you're clearly not a homo don't, you hetero don't.*

I think you might want to leave the humor to the professionals . . .

Translation: Science can't prove anything, so it just makes claims and it doesn't matter whether or not it's right, because it can't be proven either way.

Nope. There are levels of certainty and Evolutionary theory is about as certain as you can get in science.

According to evolution everything evolved from the same thing, all the way back in the beginning of life on Earth, so this is just a lot of hot air. Especially in light of the fact that the theory is that sea creatures evolved to the point of being able to move to and live on land. So, isn't it feasible that whales did not evolve from land mammals, but are rather a remnant of those sea creatures that became land mammals but their branch never left the water?

The last vertebrate group that was still wholly aquatic were amphibians and whales are clearly not amphibians.

So no, whales are mammals. Their characteristics (not to mention DNA) are closest to that of other mammals that live on land. They must have had land living ancestors. Honestly, even when I was a young earth creationist, I accepted that much.