Is evolution a fact?

[he_who_is_nobody]

What does it take to get you to give evidence?

It is a good thing that we know exactly what it would take for AronRa to give evidence:

AronRa[/url]"]In order to prove evolution to you, you first have to understand what it is. You failed step one. After that, step two would have been to get you to name the sort of facts you would accept as being indicative of or concordant with that. Once you've done that, then we can move on to step three, where I show you exactly what you asked to see.

Now stop acting like a child and honor your agreement.

 

[Rumraket]

I tried to draw on the picture where, from what I can understand from the paper, the other leg would have been attached:

Both of these legs had bones inside of them, and were attached to long pieces of cartilage extending into the body of the whale when it was still alive.

They are legs produced by old, degraded genes for making legs. From a time, over 20 millions year ago, when the ancestors of these whales had fully functional legs. These genes have probably been degrading for a long time, but in the lineage of this particular specimen, there has been an accumulation of mutations that happens to have reactivated part of these genes for making legs. Given that these genes are not fully functional, the resulting legs obviously look equally degraded and rudimentary. But they are clearly legs nevertheless, they have the bones and sit in the right position, extending into the body and attach to the pelvic bone.

This is evidence for evolution that cannot rationally be denied.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Uhm... You are not getting it.... It was not given me. A skeletal structure of a whale showing some bones does not equal a whale with legs. That's called a skeleton... And what you are claiming are legs actually exists inside the whale... Now we are talking about legs outside of the whale...

You guys really believe anything don't you? Whales with legs. Unbelievable.

Rum racket had to correct you guys,
He's looking for the picture..... Should be interesting, if he can't find it.

So since I put something out there how about you guys?
That's why I was wondering what made you believe in evolution?

As has been noted, these leg bones are vestigial - they are evidence of a animal that returned from the land to the sea and gradually lost the hind legs.

They're not whales evolving legs (to walk) - but devolving legs.



Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rando]

And the goalpost has shifted!

See Rum you need a whale with fully formed legs, not just bones and flesh. Now to satisfy our creationist the "legs" need knees and joints, maybe even toes. Maybe, just to be safe, you should teach the whale to Can Can and get it a Broadway show, maybe, just maybe, Bernie will count that as evidence of evolution.

 

[Rumraket]

From first glance... It is not a leg.. Merely a protrusion of sorts.

Second glance a cylindrical protrusion that is in no way shaped like a leg.. More like a tusk.

I see no foot, I see no knee. Nothing but a cylindrical white oddly shaped tusk.. to consider that a leg... No it isn't.

No digits, like nothing...

Sorry I do not consider it a leg.

Can I ask you to speculate, why is there two cylindrical potrusions on the underside of the whale, in the exact spot where legs should be if they were legs, with actual articulated bones inside of them, connected to the pelvic bone through a large piece of cartilage?

Nobody said these legs were functional, fully developed legs as if the whale was capable of walking and foot-sex.

Some people are born without feet on their legs, they still are legs just because there is not a foot attached, right? So what's different in this whale to a person born with misdeveloped legs that lack feet? Why would the legs of such a person be considered legs, but the potrusions on this whale not?

Does this person have legs? They are lacking feet, and kinda look like oddly-shape cylinders. "No digits, like nothing..."

So this is a legless person?

 

[Rumraket]

To claim it's a leg is because of the explaination... Not the picture.

But what other explanation could there be, when there are actual bones inside of them, when they are located where they are on the whale body, and are attached to the pelvic bone as legs would be?

What other single explanation can you offer for all of these particular features:

They attach to the pelvic bone.
There are bones inside of them, with several articulations.
They are in the position where legs should be.

?

Is it not a totally rational inference that these are maldeveloped rudimentary legs, given these facts?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

1:45 of video. " reconstructed the skull to what it might of looked like". That's not science... That's imagination. So yeah that's really all you need to hear.

There are none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.

If you watch the video in full, it shows that whales evolved from land animals - that's why they have hearing like mammals.

It also deals with further fossil finds which showed that early whales had legs, which is why sometimes whales (and dolphins) are born with vestigial hind legs, as well as how nostrils migrated further back on the skull.

[And it's "might've".]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

In your picture rum racket I see a knee...

So if I cut off your kneejoint, your feet, and then attach your shins directly to your thighs, what is left should not be considered the remnant of a leg?

I would say it is still a leg, it clearly still has features expected of a leg, even if it has become rather fucked up.

 

[tuxbox]

evolutionary religion.

WTF! :roll:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No dragon glass.. I heard " what skull might of looked like " and realized that we went out of the realm of science and into evolutionary religion.

What you hear and what people are actually saying are not necessarily the same thing.

And if your education wasn't so poor, you'd know what the spelling should be.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Can I stand on what's left?

Does a paralyzed person have legs?

 

[Rumraket]

You skipped my question rum racket but I'll answer yours yes.

Okay but, a paralyzed person cannot stand on his legs. So it doesn't seem to be the case, according to your answer, that being able to stand on them is required for them to be considered legs.

That also makes total sense. Why would it be required? There are many circumstances where one might stop being able to walk, yet still have their legs attached to their body. Clearly they don't stop being legs in the mean time.

Could you stand on a pair of legs without knees and feet? I don't know, probably with some effort and training you might. Perhaps not very well, but I imagine it would be a bit like walking on stilts.

 

[Rumraket]

To claim it's a leg is because of the explaination... Not the picture.

But what other explanation could there be, when there are actual bones inside of them, when they are located where they are on the whale body, and are attached to the pelvic bone as legs would be?

What other single explanation can you offer for all of these particular features:

They attach to the pelvic bone.
There are bones inside of them, with several articulations.
They are in the position where legs should be.

?

Is it not a totally rational inference that these are maldeveloped rudimentary legs, given these facts?

 

[tuxbox]

Could you stand on a pair of legs without knees and feet? I don't know, probably with some effort and training you might. Perhaps not very well, but I imagine it would be a bit like walking on stilts.

 

[Rumraket]

To then claim the dictionary definition of leg is an issue is ridiculous.

But we just agreed there are circumstances where the dictionary definition does not apply. Such as being paralyzed. You can't stand on your legs if you are paralyzed, but they are still legs. We agreed on that.

A dictionary denotes how words are commonly used, it does not dictate reality. See what I mean?

 

[Rumraket]

But what other explanation could there be, when there are actual bones inside of them, when they are located where they are on the whale body, and are attached to the pelvic bone as legs would be?

What other single explanation can you offer for all of these particular features:

They attach to the pelvic bone.
There are bones inside of them, with several articulations.
They are in the position where legs should be.

?

Is it not a totally rational inference that these are maldeveloped rudimentary legs, given these facts?

No from your list you can simply infer a tail.

Tails attach to the spine.

 

[tuxbox]

 

[Rumraket]

So let's recap: your whale..

No knees, no feet, can't stand on them, can't walk with them. .....

Not seeing legs but you are?

I once saw a man who had half his legs blown off by a landmine. His legs stopped right above the knees, they were basically just thighs and nothing else. Those were his legs. No knees, no feet, couldn't stand on them or walk with them. I still saw legs.

With regards to the whale: They attach to the pelvic bone, the only other limb known to attach there in symmetrical pairs is legs. There are bones inside of them and they have several articulations. That's also true for legs.

What other explanation can you give for all of these facts? We already know what physiological entity satisfies all of these conditions. In fact there is only one known: Legs.

They might be missing knees and feet, maleveloped legs some times do. Even in species that normally have functional legs. Does it not make all the more sense that, should some unfortunate individual be born with legs several million years after your species lost them, they won't be fully formed and functional, because the genes have mutated a lot in the mean time?

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Rando]

Anyone else having flashbacks of Nephilimfree? "It needs to be a change in form and structure."

 

[Rando]

How about you provide us with your metric for "information?" Give us the step by step calculations for "information." I know I'm not the only one who wants it...