Just to clear up a misconception, vestigial doesn’t necessarily mean functionless, it just refers to something that no longer serves its original primary purpose. For example, the 12 volt plug you use to plug in the USB adapter and charge your phone in your car is awkward and bulky, and of poor design for a low voltage plug, but functions in that role. It is that way because it is a leftover vestige (thus vestigial) from its initial design as a cigarette lighter. Much the same as the pelvis in whales.
5 Likes
Are you capable of learning basic maths (arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry) and laboratory technique (using a microscope, a telescope, a multimeter)? Are you capable of making observations, taking measurements, and keeping notes? Are you capable of cross-checking one set of results against another to see if they match up? Because if so then you have the core set of skills needed to understand the basics of both “observable” and “historical” science.
Yes, some of the skills involved in “historical” science may have complexities of their own and differences from “operational” science, but there is still a core of basic fundamentals that is common to both of them. That’s why the “were you there?” argument does not work.
2 Likes
Let’s look at the meaning of the word
biology Vestigial of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
There is nothing in the meaning about something that loses it’s original function and it becomes repurposed for another function, especially something so vital for species survival.
I’m glad people who accept evo aren’t in control of it.
Lets work things backwards. How long do you think a whale can keep reproducing before those important bones start changing back into flippers and legs?
These are the stories of evo That causes me to say I can only accept and believe.
Theirs your misconception
What animation? This is a necropsy of a dead modern whale off the coast of Ireland. Did you even watch the video? I don’t think you did.
I’m talking about vestigial leg bones, not pelvic bones, which are totally encased in the body. Where is the link to your article?
What does the bible say about whale sex and whale penises? Please provide references. And you are free to believe that whales are ancient sea-faring kangaroos if you wish.
I completed year 10 and cheated in my finals. I’m a domestic house cleaner, so the shoe fits. I did however learned music theory and wrote songs and produced music video’s for my songs, not to any high levels, but I was starting to function in at least those area’s.
I have very basic maths skills, so trigonometry,algebra, geometry were never part of my education, if it was I was probably staring outside the window.
Depending on what I’m observing and suppose to take notes of, but I’ll say yes to that.
Scientist in this field based on the interpretation of the evidence will usually will agree with each other. Eg Pakicetus has a set of fossils and ambulocetus has it’s own set of fossils. There is approx a 1-2 million year gap between them so you have a massive amount of missing information there, so this is where the agreement comes in. Yes it maybe true that there is a link between the 2, I don’t deny that possibility, but I also would have to accept and agree with this conclusion. That is the belief, it isn’t a fact. You can’t compare that eg with 2 modern day animals breeding eg lion and a tiger that produces a liger. No-one needs to agree with each that, that is what you will get breeding 2 different species together. It is an observable fact. That I am confident with, the other eg I’m not.
Here is the paper…
Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones
This study provides evidence that sexual selection can affect internal anatomy that controls male genitalia. These important functions may explain why cetacean pelvic bones have not been lost through evolutionary time…
Across the cetacean phylogeny, both size and shape of pelvic bones are evolutionary correlated to relative testes mass, a strong indication of the strength of post-copulatory sexual selection…One unifying hypothesis is that cetaceans that experience strong sexual selection have evolved relatively large penises, which require relatively large muscles and pelvic bones to serve as anchor sites for genital control. Sexual selection also appears to favor divergence in shape, perhaps allowing males to maneuver their penises in novel ways. Importantly, our study rejects a common assumption (mostly among non-cetacean biologists) that cetacean pelvic bones are “useless vestiges” and instead suggest they are a critical component of male, and possibly female, reproductive fitness.
Note that creationists, as usual, were not involved and made no discovery or progress to understanding whale physiology. YEC is useless and never contributes anything worthwhile.
2 Likes
You don’t even know your own video.
Start at 27.35. You will see the animation. Sorry, I don’t consider animation factual.
Sorry I didn’t write that out correctly. it’s actually common knowledge these days.
Just a quick search and you’ll find it.
Whale sex: It's all in the hips | ScienceDaily.
let’s sought out the vestigial bones issue first before we get into that answer.
I don’t really care about yec or old age theories and assumptions, whether people are right or wrong… I’m only interested in what I can see as fact or what I have to believe. If it is something I have to accept and believe than I will make that choice. It is a very simple way of avoiding dogmatic beliefs whatever they may be, which most people suffer from, without knowing it. I see plenty of dogmatic thinking in people who believe in creation in many different area’s. I’m just doing my best to steer clear of most of it, so I treat both evo and creation basically on the same level in this regard, but I do investigate both sides in r/e to whatever the topic maybe that I’m looking into and see if It is possible for me to prove the claim myself or if i can only accept and believe it. Currently I can only accept and believe in whale evo, regardless of it being true or not and how much evidence there is to support it. Evidence can only add support to a claim it doesn’t verify or prove it.
If you’re happy with the amount of evidence that you can research and have decided that it is true, than I don’t have any issue with that.
How do I verify that paper is correct? or do you accept and believe it to be true. Which I do accept it could be, but I don’t know. For me I can only accept and believe it.
semantics. The lighter socket is functionless in lighting cigarettes, and the pelvis is functionless in supporting legs and walking, but both have other uses. Our tailbones do not support a functional tail, but stuff still attach there.
2 Likes
Semantics?. That’s from the dictionary.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
vestigial
/vɛˈstɪdʒɪəl,vɛˈstɪdʒ(ə)l/
adjective
1.
forming a very small remnant of something that was once greater or more noticeable.
“he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night”
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
You will noticed it says nothing about repurposing a bone or bones into another use.
Despite its small size, the coccyx has several important functions. Along with being the insertion site for multiple muscles, ligaments, and tendons, it also serves as one leg of the tripod—along with the ischial tuberosities—that provides weight-bearing support to a person in the seated position. Sitting down maybe an issue without it.
That’s the link to the report from nlm National library of Medicine.
Coccydynia: An Overview of the Anatomy, Etiology, and Treatment of Coccyx Pain - PMC.
There is a bit of animation to make a point, but for the most part it is is live-action showing real scientists working hard to understand the natural world. And under difficult circumstances–the odor of rotten flesh and bitter cold must have been overwhelming. Creationists do nothing except pass Kentucky windage.
So animating a Bible story makes the story non-factual.
We can discuss both at the same time.(Leg bones are not pelvic bones, anyway.) So what does the bible say about whale sex and whale penises? I know Ezekiel talks about donkey genitals and horse ejaculation.
The bible is a belief. The fact remains, It may not be true, that is what comes with it. That is the difference. If they make animation for it, it doesn’t change that fact it is a belief and you have the right to reject it if you so wish. That is the difference and it is that part that I like. I’m free to choose between accepting and rejecting. It’s in my hands. That is freedom to me.
Ok, so what about it?
The difference being that there is no basis in the text for claiming a global flood.
I’m not talking about translations, I’m talking about the text – the Hebrew.
That’s a misleading translation – the Hebrew says “the land”. Making it “the earth” is due to meaning shifts from Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin, and then English, and human tradition. In the context, “the land” means the land where Noah was living, or possibly the known word at that time.
Make the Bible false? Since the Bible doesn’t indicate a global flood, the odds of proving one are essentially zero. Proving a local flood wouldn’t make the Bible false, because that fits with the text.
…
Do you have that rare disability that makes charts/graphs incomprehensible? There was a guy like that in my volcanology class; it made things really hard for him. The rest of us put effort into trying to act out or demonstrate what various charts or graphs showed (I chuckle at one memory that on one of the field trips a demonstration involved buying a dozen different kinds of beer in bottles and using
the colors and opacity to make points about lava types).
Strangely he could use data from lab work to make his own charts, but he could never make sense out of one he hadn’t made.
1 Like
It says nothing about whale genitalia. Where in the Bible is that referenced?
Irrelevant to science. Show us the whole Oxford definition, please. I sense a suspicious cut.
I see that point. It’s like the guy in my volcanology class; since those charts we acted out meant nothing to him, he could only trust that we were demonstrating for him what the charts really said.
It’s like when I was a kid and got on the Tilt-A-Whirl ride at the county fair with my dad. My brother and I wanted to know how it worked; our dad said he trusted that the guys who designed it, built it, and maintained it knew how it worked.
(So of course we had to find the guy who maintained it and ask how it worked!)
You are a suspicion one aren’t you? Fair enough there are plenty of rogue teachings going on out there. That’s why I focus in on what I can verify and what requires belief. You can search this yourself as well. Mine was from a google search. I also looked up the oxford one as well. Nothing about repurposing bones into new functional bones.
Is it suppose to?
The bible isn’t a book on biology it is about saving your soul for eternity. Whales genitalia isn’t really relevant for that. Sorry. Just search for people who deal in whale genitalia that have verifiable facts, without drawings and cartoons.
You referenced it, I just provided the link to the original study.
Yes, they are good examples’. It is very easy to be easily led. I have been one of those easily led people.
Just remember, I’m not stating that anything that people say in this forum is incorrect, As I don’t know, It may very well all be true, but for me personally, I’m like the doubting Thomas who has to place my fingers into the wounds to see for myself.
If you’re not sure who doubting Thomas is, he was from Jesus time who didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead until he touched his wounds, then he knew it was him.
Thanks for your comment.
You’re not understanding me. How do I verify the information in that original paper. What are the processes? or do I have to trust, accept and believe it as it is written?