Whale Evolution vs. The Fossil Record: The Video

_{Jonathan McLatchie

October 25, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

GinoB:
YOU”RE the one who said atavisms are clear evidence that a feature existed in earlier generations
Wrong again, moron. THAT is the DEFINITION of the word. If you are that stupid- taht you didn't know the meaning of the word "atavism", what are you even doing here?
Humans ARE occasionally born with atavistic tails
How do you know it is an atavistic tail? It could be just a tail- it does NOT have to be atavistic. Or are you that stupid that you cannot grasp that simple fact?Joseph_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Joseph
Obviously you are a moron as YOU are the one who said the human tail was an atavism, not me.
YOU"RE the one who said atavisms are clear evidence that a feature existed in earlier generations, remember moron? Humans ARE occasionally born with atavistic tails, complete with muscles, blood vessels, and nerves. The fact is well documented in the medical literature. Human tails and pseudotails From the abstract: "A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized. The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. You stuck your foot in your mouth on this one and we both know it.GinoB_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

We do not know what makes a whale a whale.
To repeat (since you do) molecular comparison is not interested in what makes an X an X. It compares DNA in an X with the similar DNA in a Y, and evaluates the degree of similarity, without much regard to the organisms they came from, or what the DNA actually does.
And blind, undirected processes is not expected to produce any pattern.
I'm not arguing about the processes involved, I am saying that there IS a pattern, very clearly. How do you think these guys get published? Just make stuff up? Actually, that's obviously what you do think. But can you seriously argue that the ridiculous idea that cetaceans evolved from ungulates might not have to pass some fairly rigorous evaluation before becoming accepted?
Common design explains similarities.
So the presence of a given SINE transposon in hippos and whales, but not in any other organism, is explained by their similarities of design? The presence of another in giraffes, deer, cows, sheep, whales and hippos but not in any other organism - again, totally explicable on the basis of common design?Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Chas: Are you saying that whale proteins resemble a hippo’s because there is a common design requirement in the two species? Joseph: yes hippos spend more time in the water than elephants. Chas: So the entire panoply of genes common to whales and hippos is there because they are both aquatic? Joseph: Only a moron would jump to that conclusion. I was simply wondering if I understood you correctly. You certainly seemed to be suggesting that common design was the explanation for all the genetic similarity data linking whales and hippos, and then introduced the supporting information that they both like a bath - or, to be fair, that hippos do it more than elephants do. Forgive me for raising an eyebrow. Within a species, genetic similarity is accepted to indicate common descent, uncontroversially. Yet between species, according to you, that self-same fact - genetic similarity - only argues for common design. Deer and whale or deer and horse - which pair has the more in common, design-wise? On the genetic data, why are deer and whale more close 'common-design' partners than deer and horse?Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

I told you Joseph wasn't too bright.GinoB_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Joseph
Common design runs through the entire “family” of living organisms. And yes hippos spend more time in the water than elephants.
That sure explains the case of the hyrax, whose closest living relatives are shown by genetic analysis to be elephants and manatees. Must be common design, right Joseph?GinoB_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Umm paternity tests are for the SAME SPECIES.
I know. Remarkable, ain't it? But what would prevent us from extending this method out, other than an a priori assumption that common descent does not happen? Surely we wouldn't want to go assuming stuff?
There isn’t any reason for A) a mistake to become fixed in a population nor B) a mistake to hang around after millions of generations so it ccan be used as a genetic marker.
The existence of these genetic markers rather contradicts your claim. Like I say, if it helps you, let's say they are not mistakes. The fact remains, one can detect their presence or absence, with great precision, within the flanking sequences, and the pattern that emerges - however they actually got there - is indistinguishable from a signal of common descent. Which leads us to wonder why. Because there are millions of possible patterns that could have emerged, and only a tiny percentage of them would give trees of descent. We got one of the tiny proportion of patterns that does indicate common descent. Dumb luck? Confirmation bias? Cheating? When you add datum points, by looking at more sequences, then by looking at non-transposon sequences, or silent substitutions in genes, or intergenic regions, they all do the same thing.
IOW you are a fool.
The UD moderation rules don't appear to extend to insults directed from Christian to "Darwinist", only the reverse. But have at it, if venting your spleen bolsters your position any.
And you still don’t know what makes a whale a whale and without that you don’t have any science.
What makes a whale a whale is a set of diagnostic features that enable its placement in the Cetacea, superfamily Cetartiodactyla. This relies upon extensive morphological, cytological, immunological and multiple-target molecular phylogeny data. What made a whale a whale is a different question. But common descent with even-toed ungulates is writ large in all their genes.Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

ChasD:
So the entire panoply of genes common to whales and hippos is there because they are both aquatic?
Only a moron would jump to that conclusion. And here you are...Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Common design runs through the entire “family” of living organisms. And yes hippos spend more time in the water than elephants.
You're kidding. So the entire panoply of genes common to whales and hippos is there because they are both aquatic? What about deer, then? Their genes are also more like a whale's than they are, say, a horse's. Is that down to their shared fondness for squid?Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Unfortunately for GinoB he isn't discussing any science. Also Intelligent Design Creationists exist only in the minds of the willfully ignorant- and here you are!Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Don't let Joseph get to you. He's not very bright, and doesn't understand the first thing about any of the sciences being discussed here. He's a knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) Intelligent Design Creationists whose only tool is to bellow THERE AIN'T NO DARN EVIDENCE!! ad nauseum. Poke him for a while for amusement if you like, but mostly just ignore him.GinoB_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

ChasD, We do not know what makes a whale a whale. And blind, undirected processes is not expected to produce any pattern. Common design explains similarities.Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

The paper assumes it- it cannot conclude it because there isn’t any way to scientifically test the claim.
One can scientifically determine whether the claim stands up to scrutiny. If it doesn't, you would get a pattern other than the one which is revealed, time and time again. I'd call that testing it. It has been done, thoroughly. No-one needs to know what makes a whale a whale in order to test sequences that are identifiably present in whales and non-whales, for the signal of common descent. Whather it is impossible for a whale to evolve (BY SOME MEANS) from a non-whale is a separate question. I'd say this data argues against that viewpoint, but that is not the point I am addressing.Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Only evotards would think a mistake would hang around for millions of generations so it could be used as a genetic marker. Chas D:
Why would it not?
Why would it? It is up to YOU to produce POSITIVE evidence. BTW it could be a signal of a common design- and evotards are the only people who are fooled.Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Only evotards would think a mistake would hang around for millions of generations so it could be used as a genetic marker. Why would it not? We are constantly reminded how impressively faithful the DNA replication process is - almost as if it were ... well, designed! Which way would you like to play it? It's not a mistake, so that's why it hung around for so long? OK, then. It is still a signal of common descent, because you can use it to construct an unambiguous tree of descent. You cannot do that with a group that is not commonly descended - unless someone designed these sequences specifically to fool us.Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Umm paternity tests are for the SAME SPECIES. There isn't any reason for A) a mistake to become fixed in a population nor B) a mistake to hang around after millions of generations so it ccan be used as a genetic marker. IOW you are a fool. And you still don't know what makes a whale a whale and without that you don't have any science.Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

To recap: GinoB sed that humans have atavistic tails- so I asked what human ancestor had a tail. GinoB the intellectual cowardly liar then tries to put it all on me saying I had to provide that evidence- evidence for something I never claimed. EvoTards are such a clueless lot...Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Your position is nothing but a belief- so it is worthless.
You take your hands from your eyes and ears only long enough to type. If people go to the trouble of doing the work, finding the sequences and the flanking DNA, constructing PCR oligonucleotide primers, amplifying by PCR, passing the amplified sequences through electrophoresis, and then demonstrate, by that means, with photographs of the plates and full disclosure of the method, a clear pattern of relationship, confirming a host of other real studies done by INDEPENDENT means ... that's a belief? Heck of a lot of trouble to go to. I would note that this is precisely the same technique by which paternity tests and forensic DNA analysis are done. Counsel: "I put it to you that this DNA evidence clearly places you at the murder scene.". Joseph: "Your position is only one of belief, and so it is worthless. And anyway, it might indicate common design, or convergent evolution". Counsel: "OK then, we'll let you off. Just don't do it again. Say hello to OJ for me".
And BTW with common descent all traces of one parnt can be wiped out in two generations. IOW there isn’t any reason to expect any pattern given sexual reproduction. Or are you too stupid to understand how that works?
Oh Joseph, Joseph. The patterns we can investigate in surviving genes are the patterns in those genes that haven't been wiped out. It does not matter about DNA that no longer exists; one cannot do phylogenetic analysis on it. This study used DNA sequences that exist. The DNA either side of the transposon is used to determine the precise location in the genome that we wish to target. That location exists in every species, whether it contains a transposon insert or not. Or are you ... no, no, I mustn't!Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

GinoB, Obviously you are a moron as YOU are the one who said the human tail was an atavism, not me. Do you really think your ignorance means something? Really?Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Joseph
I will ask YOU AGAIN: What alleged human ancestor had a tail? If you cannot answer that would mean what you posted is not an atavism- duh
LOL! Time once again for the Joseph Defense! "THAR AIN'T NO DARN EVIDENCE!!!" Face it, you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again. That's the problem when you toss out BS answers (i.e atavism show whales once had hind fins) without researching or thinking through the ramifications. If you accept atavisms as showing an evolutionary history, then you accept that human ancestors once had tails. You don't get to pick and choose which cases to accept. You're too funny Joseph. Amazingly ignorant and predictable, but funny.GinoB_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

ChasD- Your position is nothing but a belief- so it is worthless. And BTW with common descent all traces of one parnt can be wiped out in two generations. IOW there isn't any reason to expect any pattern given sexual reproduction. Or are you too stupid to understand how that works?Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

The paper assumes it- it cannot conclude it because there isn't any way to scientifically test the claim. Only evotards would think a mistake would hang around for millions of generations so it could be used as a genetic marker. What common ancestry lacks is no one knows what makes a whale a whale, a hippo a hippo nor can anyone link the required genetic changes to the required physiological and anatomical changes. No one even knows if such a transformation is even possible.Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Common design runs through the entire "family" of living organisms. And yes hippos spend more time in the water than elephants.Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Well Chas D- the one thing you cannot do is provide exclusive evidence for common ancestry- you don't even know what makes a whale a whale- IOW your enture position is an unscientific belief system. And BTW all similarities are evidence for a common design and guess what? Cladistics, ie common ancestry, is based on similarities- phylogenies are based on similarities. What YOU don't have is genetic data that links to the physiological and anatomical differences.Joseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

GinoB, I will ask YOU AGAIN: What alleged human ancestor had a tail? If you cannot answer that would mean what you posted is not an atavism- duhJoseph_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

And I can take your “evidence” for common ancestry and use it for a common design OR convergent evolution.
I'm prepared to believe you can do anything in the name of denial. I do wonder how you could take the SINE data, or whole-genome DNA hybridisation studies between whales and hippos, as evidence of convergent evolution (evolution, you say???), or common design! LOL, as they say. But you can have a go if you like.Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

A common design = a common origin
Blink. Did you read the post? I said:
It really isn’t clear why Artiodactyls would need respiration genes that are more like a whale’s than like a horse’s or an elephant’s. Nor why whales would need such genes that are more like Artiodactyls’ than seals’, or penguins’, say.
Are you saying that whale proteins resemble a hippo's because there is a common design requirement in the two species? More than that between, say, hippos and elephants? That argument might fly for similar species, but you can hardly extend it to this level.Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Joseph, What's all that about? It does not matter whether transposons move by chance or not. And any scientific argument that contains the phrase "I find it hard to believe that..." is worthless. OK, so let us take on board what you quoted, and let us say that the movement of a transposon is a precisely-controlled, organismally relevant event. Nonetheless, if it is present at one location in one set of species, but absent from that same location in another species, we have a binary switch, on or off, present or absent. 1) Here is a sentence. 2) Here is a seTR1ntence. 3) Here is TR2a seTR1ntence. 4) HerTR3e is TR2a seTR1ntence. 5) HerTR4e is a sentence. Each member of the above set was created by copying and pasting one of the sentences above it, with deliberate insertion of a TR according to a nonrandom rule. As a simple logical exercise, it should be possible to determine the order in which I did things, and hence the branching of the 'tree' that represents the (actual) common descent of the sentences. Try and do the same on this set. 1) Here is a sentenTR1ce. 2) Here is a senteTR1nce. 3) Here is a seTR2ntence. 4) HeTR4re is a sentence. 5) Here iTR3s a sentence. This contains NO signal of common descent. If you were to pass the two sets through a simple, blind, non-assumptive algorithm that attempts to see IF common descent is displayed, the first would clearly say "common descent"; the second would not. This is exactly what the research did. It took a data set that contained a completely unkown signal wrt common descent, and demonstrated very clearly that not only was there common descent, but the precise order of branching could be determined with an extremely high degree of certainty. Confirming entirely the INDEPENDENT lines of reasoning that obtain from looking at whole-genome hybridisation and multiple gene sets. There are DOZENS of papers placing whales in the Artiodactyla, each one using a different technique. You take denial to new heights!Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

The paper assumes common ancestry.
No it doesn't. It CONCLUDES it. By the same technique, they could have shown no signal of common ancestry, if the data did not contain one. This is simply a way of evaluating whether a set of data contains a signal that would be expected from common ancestry. Bingo! It does. A signal inexplicable by any other paradigm. Am I allowed a brief show of exasperation? AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHH! There. Much better, thanks.Chas D_{October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

Joseph
GinoB: "You think that atavistic tails on human babies means that humans were designed with tails but later evolved them away." What alleged human ancestor had a tail? Fossils, timeframe, the usual, please…
You tell me. You're the one who just said atavisms are sure evidence that a previous ancestor had the feature. Which human ancestor had a tail Joseph, and when? Or are you going to flip-flop your story yet again?GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply