Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hopeful Monsters · 02-25-2005, 08:33 AM

Order Cetacea: Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises.

Cetaceans have features which raises some interesting questions:―

Left image: Skeletal remains of a whale flipper. Right image: Flipper of a Pygmy Sperm Whale, Kogia breviceps.

(1) Note the correspondence between the arm and hand bones of homo sapiens sapiens (to take just one mammal to which there is a correspondence) and the pectoral fin (flipper) of cetaceans:—

Left image: Bones of the left flipper of a Sperm Whale. Right image: Internal structure of the kind of appendage utilised to write The Bible.

Cetaceans have one upper flipper bone (the humerus) and two lower flipper bones (the ulna and radius) these in turn connect to a hand-like structure comprising carpals, metacarpals and phalanges.

Which theory explains why there is such a bone structure within the stiff, inarticulate, pectoral fin of cetaceans, given that function of the cetacean flipper is for balance, stability and steering?

The pectoral fin of cetaceans cannot pick things up or hold things. The flipper cannot be wrapped around an object.

So why the hand-like bone structure within the stiff, inarticulate flipper that does not at all function like a hand (or paw/forepaw)?

AND ―

(2) Why do cetaceans have to break the surface of the water to breathe air? Cetaceans live in WATER not on land. How is this explained? Which theory explains it?

:

(3) Why do whales have pelvic bones not attached to the vertebral column?

Image Above: Skeleton of a Right Whale showing that the pelvic bones are not attached to the spinal column ... !

(4) Why do cetaceans have horizontal tale flukes when the caudal fins of fish are vertical?

:

(5) Why do cetaceans give birth to live young and feed them on milk from teats when this is such a challenge in the ocean waters?

The theory and process of evolution presents a persuasive explanation for all of these features.

Is there a more persuasive theory and explanation? So persuasive that it displaces an explanation ― based on descent (from an ancestor common to mammals) with modification over a vast period of time?

And (6) maybe evolution explains why cetaceans can suffer from Decompression Sickness

That's all for now.

Inside that pesky whale flipper.

02-25-2005, 08:51 AM

Well, EscapeVelocity, the other day I was replying to a PM from The Bible Thumper and wanting to check something he had written about the bible, I had occasion to consult the first chapter of the book of Genesis. And there, in black and white, it says that god created whales, along with all other sea creatures, before he created any land animals.

So it would seem that whales were a sort of beta-test version of mammals and he debugged them a bit to get proper land-based mammals. Could this be the solution?????

Oolon Colluphid · 02-25-2005, 08:51 AM

So what? Common design implies a common designer...

Nicely done, EV!

As it's one of my favourite pics, I'll mention this one. Perhaps a similar comparison to yours is in order... (Can anyone find a straightforward pic of a human skeleton?!)

Prince Vegita · 02-25-2005, 08:55 AM

Eeek, is that a vampire?

Hopeful Monsters · 02-25-2005, 09:03 AM

I agree that 'same designer, shared design' gibberish and 'Goddidit' drivel will be the reposte ―

― but as you know*, I am fascinated by Order Cetacea's ability to present morphological and physiological features that are robust challenges to explanatory theories.

While putting this together - I too recalled the bat skeleton-human skeleton comparison!!

*I Posted a diff. version of this over a year ago when I was TruthIsTold

Hopeful Monsters · 02-25-2005, 09:25 AM

What theory and process provides an explanation for the morphological similarities of these two ?

What is the utility and predictive capability of that theory?

Martin B · 02-25-2005, 02:14 PM

It's an interesting problem. I took this up in an earlier thread where I changed the question a bit. We often point out that evolution explains these observations (i.e. vertebrate osteological homology) best. However, Oolon pointed out the age-old creationist clap-trap about "common creator, common design". To me, the clincher is that this is the only possible pattern that evolution could explain.

In short: in order for evolution to be true, we must have examples of homology. In order for creationism to be true, it does not matter. Why then, do we have it exactly the way that accords with evolution? Evolutionists cite particular evidences largely because if it had been any other way evolution would have been falsified.

Cheers,
Martin

Nic Tamzek · 02-25-2005, 08:37 PM

Random question: does the ulna (I think that's the ulna) in the bat arm do anything? It looks reduced and doesn't extend all the way to the wrist.

Oolon Colluphid · 02-26-2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nic Tamzek

Random question: does the ulna (I think that's the ulna) in the bat arm do anything? It looks reduced and doesn't extend all the way to the wrist.

The fibula doesn't look all that useful either. I don't think any of my books are bat-specific enough, though I'll check. Calling chiropterologists!

Oolon

Martin B · 02-26-2005, 01:37 AM

Oh! Oh! Oh! I think I've found the answer! Is it....

?

a)Pakicetus from Thewissen, J.G.M. et al. 2001. Nature, 413: 277-281
b)RhodocetusFrom Gingerich, P.D. et al. 2002. Science, 293: 2239-2242
c)Orca a modern whale.
(the images should be modified enough to avoid any copyright problems)

02-25-2005, 08:33 AM	#1
Hopeful Monsters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: God is a Mind Loop Posts: 1,344	The Riddle (or not) of Order Cetacea... Order Cetacea: Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises. Cetaceans have features which raises some interesting questions:― Left image: Skeletal remains of a whale flipper. Right image: Flipper of a Pygmy Sperm Whale, Kogia breviceps. (1) Note the correspondence between the arm and hand bones of homo sapiens sapiens (to take just one mammal to which there is a correspondence) and the pectoral fin (flipper) of cetaceans:— Left image: Bones of the left flipper of a Sperm Whale. Right image: Internal structure of the kind of appendage utilised to write The Bible. Cetaceans have one upper flipper bone (the humerus) and two lower flipper bones (the ulna and radius) these in turn connect to a hand-like structure comprising carpals, metacarpals and phalanges. Which theory explains why there is such a bone structure within the stiff, inarticulate, pectoral fin of cetaceans, given that function of the cetacean flipper is for balance, stability and steering? The pectoral fin of cetaceans cannot pick things up or hold things. The flipper cannot be wrapped around an object. So why the hand-like bone structure within the stiff, inarticulate flipper that does not at all function like a hand (or paw/forepaw)? AND ― (2) Why do cetaceans have to break the surface of the water to breathe air? Cetaceans live in WATER not on land. How is this explained? Which theory explains it? : (3) Why do whales have pelvic bones not attached to the vertebral column? Image Above: Skeleton of a Right Whale showing that the pelvic bones are not attached to the spinal column ... ! (4) Why do cetaceans have horizontal tale flukes when the caudal fins of fish are vertical? : (5) Why do cetaceans give birth to live young and feed them on milk from teats when this is such a challenge in the ocean waters? The theory and process of evolution presents a persuasive explanation for all of these features. Is there a more persuasive theory and explanation? So persuasive that it displaces an explanation ― based on descent (from an ancestor common to mammals) with modification over a vast period of time? And (6) maybe evolution explains why cetaceans can suffer from Decompression Sickness That's all for now. Inside that pesky whale flipper.

02-25-2005, 09:25 AM	#6
Hopeful Monsters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: God is a Mind Loop Posts: 1,344	Human skeleton and bat skeleton What theory and process provides an explanation for the morphological similarities of these two ? What is the utility and predictive capability of that theory?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2005, 08:51 AM	#2
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Well, EscapeVelocity, the other day I was replying to a PM from The Bible Thumper and wanting to check something he had written about the bible, I had occasion to consult the first chapter of the book of Genesis. And there, in black and white, it says that god created whales, along with all other sea creatures, before he created any land animals. So it would seem that whales were a sort of beta-test version of mammals and he debugged them a bit to get proper land-based mammals. Could this be the solution?????

02-25-2005, 08:51 AM	#3
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	So what? Common design implies a common designer... Nicely done, EV! As it's one of my favourite pics, I'll mention this one. Perhaps a similar comparison to yours is in order... (Can anyone find a straightforward pic of a human skeleton?!)

02-25-2005, 08:55 AM	#4
Prince Vegita Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Merry-land with Iowa on deck Posts: 1,320	Eeek, is that a vampire?

02-25-2005, 09:03 AM	#5
Hopeful Monsters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: God is a Mind Loop Posts: 1,344	I agree that 'same designer, shared design' gibberish and 'Goddidit' drivel will be the reposte ― ― but as you know, I am fascinated by Order Cetacea's ability to present morphological and physiological features that are robust challenges to explanatory theories. While putting this together - I too recalled the bat skeleton-human skeleton comparison!! I Posted a diff. version of this over a year ago when I was TruthIsTold

02-25-2005, 02:14 PM	#7
Martin B Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sweden (via Canada) Posts: 715	It's an interesting problem. I took this up in an earlier thread where I changed the question a bit. We often point out that evolution explains these observations (i.e. vertebrate osteological homology) best. However, Oolon pointed out the age-old creationist clap-trap about "common creator, common design". To me, the clincher is that this is the only possible pattern that evolution could explain. In short: in order for evolution to be true, we must have examples of homology. In order for creationism to be true, it does not matter. Why then, do we have it exactly the way that accords with evolution? Evolutionists cite particular evidences largely because if it had been any other way evolution would have been falsified. Cheers, Martin

02-25-2005, 08:37 PM	#8
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Random question: does the ulna (I think that's the ulna) in the bat arm do anything? It looks reduced and doesn't extend all the way to the wrist.

02-26-2005, 01:37 AM	#10
Martin B Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sweden (via Canada) Posts: 715	Oh! Oh! Oh! I think I've found the answer! Is it.... ? a)Pakicetus from Thewissen, J.G.M. et al. 2001. Nature, 413: 277-281 b)RhodocetusFrom Gingerich, P.D. et al. 2002. Science, 293: 2239-2242 c)Orca a modern whale. (the images should be modified enough to avoid any copyright problems)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.