CMI and Whale Leg Genes

[T_aquaticus]

Perhaps it would be better to say that whales with atavistic hind limbs are a great example of macroevolution. It’s legs appearing out of nowhere. Here is a pic of the actual bones from atavistic hind limbs from a humpback whale:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

Here is a pic of the actual bones from atavistic hind limbs from a humpback whale

its probably atavistic hind flipper:

(image from bbc news)

[Timothy_Horton]

@scd

@T_aquaticus

Here is a pic of the actual bones from atavistic hind limbs from a humpback whale

its probably atavistic hind flipper:

When did humpback whales ever have hind flippers?

[scd]

@Timothy_Horton

When did humpback whales ever have hind flippers?

in its whale ancestor.

[Timothy_Horton]

How long ago was that and why don’t humpbacks have hind flippers now?

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

its probably atavistic hind flipper:

From the caption at Talkorigins:

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.)
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

Those are bones for a mammalian hindlimb.

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

Those are bones for a mammalian hindlimb.

so? they can fit to hind flippers too, as we can see in my image above.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

they can fit to hind flippers too, as we can see in my image above.

Yeah, a flipper with leg bones in them . . .

[Timothy_Horton]

@scd

so? they can fit to hind flippers too, as we can see in my image above.

How long ago did humpback whales have hind flippers and why don’t they have them now?

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

Yeah, a flipper with leg bones in them

@Timothy_Horton

How long ago did humpback whales have hind flippers and why don’t they have them now?

the supposedly whale ancestor (Basilosaurus) had these structures too, and it indeed use it for hind flippers:

(image from wiki)

[Timothy_Horton]

@Timothy_Horton

How long ago did humpback whales have hind flippers and why don’t they have them now?

You dodged the question. You said humpback whales once had hind flippers. Not their ancestors of a different species. Humpback whales.

How long ago did humpback whales have hind flippers and why don’t they have them now?

Are you agreeing Basilosaurus was the ancestor of humpback whales?

[T.j_Runyon]

@scd

the supposedly whale ancestor ( Basilosaurus ) had these structures too, and it indeed use it for hind flippers:

Thanks for bringing up an animal that I work on EVERY DAY. Basilosaurus hind limbs are nothing like modern flippers. And they were also way too small to really assist with swimming. And goodness they werent even attached to the rest of the body.

[AlanFox]

@T.j_Runyon

And goodness they werent even attached to the rest of the body.

Pops out of lurk-mode

Not attached?

[T.j_Runyon]

@AlanFox

Pops out of lurk-mode

Not attached?

No real firm connection to the rest of the skeleton. Pelvis not attached. The limbs had some pretty strong muscle attachments. Probably used in reproduction. But they would not have been too useful in locomotion.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

We had this exact same useless argument back in april:

Food for thought on whale evolution

its not a leg but probably a degenerated flipper: [image] (image from bbc news)

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Ask yourself, why should an organism with that particular mix of transitional features have existed in the first place? Blowhole appears to have shifted halfway to the top of the skull, compared to extant whales, and even further than it appears on older fossils, where it is closer to the nose. Why are there layers of rock in relatively close chronological proximity, that contain fossils of speciments with variations on these traits, that are either more whale-like, or more terrestrial-like?
Why would any of this be the case if evolution did not occur, and the whale did not in fact evolve from terrestrial ancestors? God just decided for the to play later geologists and paleontologists a prank, by independently creating organisms that look like they’re either partially or fully aquatic?

Why even design an ocean-going mammal, instead of just another large fish? And why make it look like it’s blowhole is on some stage of an evolutionary journey from the tip of the snout, to the top of the skull? Why give it bony articulations that look like they derive from a mammalian load-bearing limb? Why create a whole host of them, with various stages of aquatic and semi-aquatic adaptations, and then bury them all in sedimentary layers in close chronological proximity?

The whole thing is ridiculous. It’s a transitional organism, it shows that whales evolved.

[AlanFox]

OK. Your remark seemed to me open to the literal interpretation. And we see where literalism takes us.

[AlanFox]

@Rumraket

We had this exact same useless argument back in april:

Thanks for the link. Nothing changes!

[scd]

@Timothy_Horton

How long ago did humpback whales have hind flippers and why don’t they have them now?

because the whale lost them. when? under the old earth scenario probably around 30-35 my ago.

@Timothy_Horton

Are you agreeing Basilosaurus was the ancestor of humpback whales?

it might be possible. yes.

@T.j_Runyon

Basilosaurus hind limbs are nothing like modern flippers

ok, but we are talking about hind flippers.

@Rumraket

Why are there layers of rock in relatively close chronological proximity, that contain fossils of speciments with variations on these traits, that are either more whale-like, or more terrestrial-like? Why would any of this be the case if evolution did not occur, and the whale did not in fact evolve from terrestrial ancestors?

there are two problems with this argument:

1. the majority of fossils are actually “out of place”(and thus dont show a progression), as i showed here:

How many fossils are "out of place"?

one way to test it is to take a group of fossils and check if they fit with their phylogeny. now, take a look at this figure: [pil] (image from “Molecules consolidate the placental mammal tree”) as you can see- about 50% of the cases in the phylogeny that base on the morphological data arent fit with the their position that base on the molecular data. now, take a look at this tetrapod evolution (image from wiki): [image] remember that this series is base on morphology since we dont have genetic data from these fossils. it means that about 50% of the fossils in this figure arent realy fit with their supposedly real phylogeny that base on the molecular data, and thus are “out of place” actually (so a primitive fossil can appeare after more modern fossil). and this is even when we ignore the “out of place tracks” in the bottom left. remember that this is a single group out of many, so we actually have hundreds of out of place fossils.

so fossils dont support whale evolution.

2. we can find “transitional forms” in designed objects too. for instance a jeep is a “transitional” between a car and a truck. but of course that they didnt evolved from a common descent. the same is true for whale fossils.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@scd

the majority of fossils are actually “out of place”(and thus dont show a progression), as i showed here:

You didn’t show that at all. The fact that some relationships can be hard to resolve, does not mean fossils are “out of order”.

@scd

2. we can find “transitional forms” in designed objects too. for instance a jeep is a “transitional” between a car and a truck.

Prove it. Derive (key word, derive, instead of enforce) a nested hierarchy from a significant number of real vehicles, using a significant number of randomly chosen characters, and show that classic examples of “jeep” are really placed as basal “transitional” vehicles between “clades”.

Work that you continue to refuse to do. As we can see by how you responded to this:

Independent Patterns and Homology

It is not just that A groups together with B, it’s that different subsets of characters reproduce the same or highly similar nesting hierarchies consistently. You have no reason to expect this with vehicles, as one set of characters will produce one hierarchy, and another set of characters can yield an entirely different one. It is the consistency of the hierarchy across different, randomly picked, and independent sets of characters(of a significant number, not just a handful ). If you compile a huge list of characters (the more the better, hundreds preferably) and construct a matrix for many many different vehicles(20, 50, 100 or even more different types and models, bikes, motorcycles, scooters, cars, vans, trucks, buses and so on from dusins of manufacturers and periods of time), and draw random samples from it and derive a hierarchy for each of them, then if you really are correct and vehicles also form an objective nested hierarchy (which you have still not shown, and continue t…

And to this:

A YLC is Bemused At Others Engaging Evidence

Vehicles have many “easily” quantifiable, and distinguishable attributes. They have distinct components, and those components have attributes too. Type of material they’re made, size, weight, etc. etc. You need to compile a significant set of characters and do the actual work of determining which vehicles have these characters or not, and then you can try working out whether there is any significant amount of nesting hierarchical structure in that dataset. Randomly pick ten extant and historical cars across manufacturers, ten vans, ten trucks, ten motorcycles, ten bikes, ten trains, ten airplanes, ten boats and ships, and so on. Then decide on a substantial set of attributes, for example: Wheels? Yes/No How many? (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Inflatable Tires? Yes/No. Rubber tires? Yes/No. Reinforced with metal wires? Yes/No. Spoked? Yes/No. Made of what? Wood(what type?), metal(what type?), plastic(what type?), etc. Rear wheel drive? Yes/No. Front wheel drive? Yes/No. Steering on all…

Until you do this work, you are basically lying when you say vehicles form a nested hierarchy, because you are making you claim you know you don’t have evidence for. Claiming to know something that you know that you don’t, is in fact a form of lying.