Jump to content


Photo

Vestigial Organs


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:03 AM

What the article fails to tell us is that about 1 in 100,000 people are born without an appendix and they exhibit normal bacteria and gut flora levels.  This coupled with the removal of the appendix during serious infection clearly shows that the appendix may have served a purpose in our past and may serve some little purpose now but will not and does not affect our lifestyles after it is removed or if it is non-existent from birth.  I've pointed this out in other threads on here.

View Post


No, what you fail to realize is that the article is not talking about your church views or mine. It's simply discussing the diliberate ignorant position trying to prove nothing more than an unscientific philosophical worldview which wasted decades of efforts at true scientific discovery which could have saved lives and benefitted mankind in general. Your continuing ongoing position of being able to live without out an appendix is as rediculous as comparing it to an amputee being able to live and survive without a hand, arm or leg or all of those things given the right set of caregiver circumstances. It HAS a PURPOSE and is a necessary engineered piece of equipment. This article and others are expossing the idiocy and purposed arrogance of those who way back when had no clue of what many things in the body had a function for. Rather than admitting any ignorance on their part and coupled with the need to prove an evolutionary worldview which allows them to make things up as they go along, they invented this irresponsible terminology like "Junk DNA & Vestigial Organs" to cover up the facts that they had no clue to it's purpose and shackled them to a dogma that has actually stifled and set back real scientific discovery.

Humans have continued to degenerate from the beginning to the point now that basic survival on this planet is at stake and who's fault is that ????? Particularly those in the Scientific community employed by their big business Pimps with the initials Phd, etc that they love to flaunt under everyone's nose every opportunity they get. So you give us an example of people born without one. Today it is common for young girls to be born with testicles where ovaries should be. It is common today for a male fish's testes to produce eggs instead of sperm. It is common to find g*y seagulls on the same nest and not being able to reproduce. The genetic informational programming has being messed with by chemicals developed by the Green Revolution gang since the 1950s. So your people being born without appendix example rings hollow not only in the absence of any of your own links, but also your continuing to hold to the vestigial/Junk dogma is not only an unscientific stance, but it actually makes you anti-science for continued insistance of it.

Here's that website again on the worldwide degenerative effects of ignorant scientific pseudo-understanding of numerous things which are bringing our natural world's health down to it's knees. I have posted it before and I doubt any claiming to be a Christian has really looked at this, let alone any Atheist here. But here it is again. It should seriously take anybody even remotely interested a good couple months to really digest the peer reviewed research in there. Last year there were two major articles in the scientific press cheering and celebrating how naturally common h*m*s*xuality is throughout nature. This is a totally fabricated and well orchestrated lie. These groups of researchers (Our Stolen Future Group) have been warning people since the 1980s what was happening way back then with abnormal H*mos*xual behavior being introduced into the natural world through mankind's chemical inventions and dispersal of dangerous chemicals since the 1950s and it's effects on the delicate genetics of the endocrine system of developing festuses in all creatures. Now we see the effects of purposed arrogance of ignoring such so-called alarmist research as many of the worldwide extinctions are now being directly attributed to this greed and selfishness of pseudo-science that the Green Revolution has brought us all this time.

"Our Stolen Future"

#22 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:14 AM

Evolutionist Dr George Johnson

View Post


Next time put your quotes outside of my quotes so that it doesn't appear I put it there. I haven't posted philosophical worldview links like you have. :huh:

#23 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 20 May 2010 - 10:31 AM

Your starting to see the concept I'm putting forth ! They would have been a hindrance only after the tail and fins were functional, but on the other hand while the tail and fins were forming, they would have been a hindrance to the transition animals. So selection works against this change.

View Post

I don’t quite understand your point. On land, there’s usually a selective pressure towards long, muscular legs. In the water, it’s advantageous to be as streamlined as possible. If there’s a trend over the generations of spending more time in the water, then the selective pressure will be towards streamlined bodies and therefore smaller limbs. And as their limbs get smaller, they will spend less and less time on land. It’s like a feedback loop.

You claim that legs “...would have been a hindrance only after the tail and fins were functional” but that’s not true. I already explained how vertical undulation, not fins, are required for swimming. So the animal could already be spending the majority of it’s time underwater even before fins start to appear. Check out this video of an otter swimming, and you’ll see what I mean by vertical undulations: http://www.arkive.or...a/video-06.html

As for tails, those have advantages both on land and in the water. On land, they help with balance and reduce strain on the vertebral column. In the water the help with swimming.

Dorudon was a species of whale with little tiny bones they wish was a pelvis. Probably supported fins.

View Post


...Which means that it had pelvic fins, a trait we don’t see in modern whales.

#24 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 20 May 2010 - 10:52 AM

No, what you fail to realize is that the article is not talking about your church views or mine. It's simply discussing the diliberate ignorant position trying to prove nothing more than an unscientific philosophical worldview which wasted decades of efforts at true  scientific discovery which could have saved lives and benefitted mankind in general. Your continuing ongoing position of being able to live without out an appendix is as rediculous as comparing it to an amputee being able to live and survive without a hand, arm or leg or all of those things given the right set of caregiver circumstances. It HAS a PURPOSE and is a necessary engineered piece of equipment. This article and others are expossing the idiocy and purposed arrogance of those who way back when had no clue of what many things in the body had a function for. Rather than admitting any ignorance on their part and coupled with the need to prove an evolutionary worldview which allows them to make things up as they go along, they invented this irresponsible terminology like "Junk DNA & Vestigial Organs" to cover up the facts that they had no clue to it's purpose and shackled them to a dogma that has actually stifled and set back real scientific discovery.

Humans have continued to degenerate from the beginning to the point now that basic survival on this planet is at stake and who's fault is that ?????  Particularly those in the Scientific community employed by their big business Pimps with the initials Phd, etc that they love to flaunt under everyone's nose every opportunity they get. So you give us an example of people born without one. Today it is common for young girls to be born with testicles where ovaries should be. It is common today for a male fish's testes to produce eggs instead of sperm. It is common to find g*y seagulls on the same nest and not being able to reproduce. The genetic informational programming has being messed with by chemicals developed by the Green Revolution gang since the 1950s. So your people being born without appendix example rings hollow not only in the absence of any of your own links, but also your continuing to hold to the vestigial/Junk dogma is not only an unscientific stance, but it actually makes you anti-science for continued insistance of it.

Here's that website again on the worldwide degenerative effects of ignorant scientific pseudo-understanding of numerous things which are bringing our natural world's health  down to it's knees. I have posted it before and I doubt any claiming to be a Christian has really looked at this, let alone any Atheist here. But here it is again. It should seriously take anybody even remotely interested a good couple months to really digest the peer reviewed research in there. Last year there were two major articles in the scientific press cheering and celebrating how naturally common  h*m*s*xuality is throughout nature. This is a totally fabricated and well orchestrated lie. These groups of researchers (Our Stolen Future Group) have been warning people since the 1980s what was happening way back then with abnormal H*mos*xual behavior being introduced into the natural world through mankind's chemical inventions and dispersal of dangerous chemicals since the 1950s and it's effects on the delicate genetics of the endocrine system of developing festuses in all creatures. Now we see the effects of purposed arrogance of ignoring such so-called alarmist research as many of the worldwide extinctions are now being directly attributed to this greed and selfishness of pseudo-science that the Green Revolution has brought us all this time.

"Our Stolen Future" 

View Post

Wow, so not really so sure why you seem to be angry all of a sudden. Maybe it's just me misinterpreting the tone of your post which is entirely plausible. What I was implying when I said "failed to mention" was that even though they're showing a purpose for the appendix that ANYONE could survive without one. I mean, if it were true that it is absolutely necessary for us live with an appendix then all of the numerous operations to remove diseased and infected appendixes coupled with the individuals who are born sans appendix should accordingly be dead. I wasn't mentioning anything about churchviews or worldviews but simply stating the above. I never once said that the appendix did not serve a purpose.

I also find it offensive that you state my position as ignorant when there is literature out there describing such instances of life without an appendix post surgery or being born without an appendix. If you need such literature I will gladly post a link here, but I would respectfully ask to not state such positions as ignorant as it seems an ad hominem and beneath your intellect.

I've also stated in another thread that the term "junk dna" is a provisional label for the portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function has been identified.(1) This is not saying that there is NO function, but meerly stating that no function HAS been found. The term is currently, however, a somewhat outdated concept, being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications, and may have slowed research into the biological functions of noncoding DNA.[8] Several lines of evidence indicate that many "junk DNA" sequences have likely but unidentified functional activity, and other sequences may have had functions in the past.(1) I believe it is a misunderstanding that biologists absolutely say that this "junk dna" serves no purpose. It would be be completely ignorant for them to claim such a thing without knowing absolute knowledge of the genome and all proteins.

I disagree that humans have degenerated due to the scientific community. Science has given us some truly terrible things, but it as also given us some truly amazing things. Without science, our way of life would degenerate. One way science is helping us right now is by growing flu vaccines in tobacco plants to not only decrease the cost (taxpayer money) but also increase the speed at which these vaccines can be used on the public. The current way to get the vaccine is through chicken eggs which is costly and time consuming. I will agree that hasty decisions have been made with scientific discoveries such as pesticides and chemicals, but remember it is also scientists and medical practioners with Phd's that verified that these compounds are in fact harming us and using their intellect to try and stop it. I havn't had the misfortune to have anyone with a Phd flaunt it under my nose so I can't comment on that. I also don't understand why you're referring to them (scientists, or people born without appendixes?) as my people. They are biologicially the same as you and me except for the absence of an appendix. I continue my stance on "junk dna" or "non coding dna" only in the sense that is misinterpreted in what it actually means. It was probably easiser to classify as "junk" rather than classifying it as "dna to which we have not measurably found a purpose for but are not claiming it as definately not having a purpose". Now, was it a hasty decision to classify it as "junk"; probably.

I'll have to look through that website before I make any comments, but I would like to state that h*m*s*xuality has been around since the dawn of man so I'm not sure how they are equating chemicals since the 1950's to h*m*s*xuality now.

(1)http://en.wikipedia....i/Noncoding_DNA

#25 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 May 2010 - 11:06 AM

That requires one to assume evolution int he first place to believe. Why couldn't it have been created that way?
Non-Marine mammals, as far I remember, use their limbs to swim and not their bodies.

View Post


Did you watch the Olympics last summer??? Swimmers use the dolphin kick all the time. It's so useful that its use is heavily regulated during races. You're not supposed to use it at all when in the breast stroke and you can only use it for the 1st 15m in a backstroke race.

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 20 May 2010 - 05:09 PM

I don’t quite understand your point. On land, there’s usually a selective pressure towards long, muscular legs. In the water, it’s advantageous to be as streamlined as possible. If there’s a trend over the generations of spending more time in the water, then the selective pressure will be towards streamlined bodies and therefore smaller limbs. And as their limbs get smaller, they will spend less and less time on land. It’s like a feedback loop.

You claim that legs “...would have been a hindrance only after the tail and fins were functional” but that’s not true. I already explained how vertical undulation, not fins, are required for swimming. So the animal could already be spending the majority of it’s time underwater even before fins start to appear. Check out this video of an otter swimming, and you’ll see what I mean by vertical undulations: http://www.arkive.or...a/video-06.html

View Post

That's a nice point. Now you are going toward a model. Unfortunately, the fossils don't include any otter-like animals. There are two skulls between the footed land mammals and the extinct whale.

You also need to give a pressure--like was there no food on land for millions of years, and it changed it's diet from rodents to fish. It stayed in the water hunting, and the smaller streamlined animals were stronger in the water.

But then we have a fusing of legs (?) or an extension of the backbone? Obviously it is an extension of the backbone and the evolution of the tail. Can you think how this happened? If it is just an extension without a tail it is deformity. The generations had to keep having mutations until they had a tail. Alot of deformed creatures and transitions should be out there somewhere? Why do we only have two skulls?

#27 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 20 May 2010 - 10:54 PM

That's a nice point. Now you are going toward a model. Unfortunately, the fossils don't include any otter-like animals. There are two skulls between the footed land mammals and the extinct whale.

View Post

Ambulocetus seems to be rather otter-like in terms of body proportions. I suspect it would’ve swam in almost exactly the same way.

You also need to give a pressure--like was there no food on land for millions of years, and it changed it's diet from rodents to fish. It stayed in the water hunting, and the smaller streamlined animals were stronger in the water.

View Post

The food hypothesis is certainly a possible one. If for some reason food was difficult to come by on the land, it would be advantageous to seek out food in the water. As the generations pass, the animals begin to spend less and less time hunting on the land until finally their diet consists only of aquatic food. Or perhaps certain predators could be avoided by taking refuge in or near water. Or maybe these animals lived in a habitat that was prone to flooding, and it became necessary to swim once in awhile.

There are many environmental factors that could have caused the selective pressure. I don’t know enough about this topic to tell you which is the most likely, but if I had to guess, I’d say it was a combination of several.

But then we have a fusing of legs (?) or an extension of the backbone? Obviously it is an extension of the backbone and the evolution of the tail. Can you think how this happened? If it is just an extension without a tail it is deformity. The generations had to keep having mutations until they had a tail.

View Post

I haven’t done much research on that, but I think the number of vertebrae is controlled by Hox genes during development. A Hox gene mutation could cause an extra vertebra to form, lengthening the tail or spinal column (it’s not impossible: even humans can be born with an extra vertebra). But the tail would’ve been pre-existing, even before the transition into water.

Alot of deformed creatures and transitions should be out there somewhere? Why do we only have two skulls?

View Post

Fossil formation is rare, which means we’re lucky to have any, let alone several. There are probably some fossils that have yet to be found, and perhaps there are some animals that never lived in conditions where fossilization was possible.

#28 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 May 2010 - 12:48 AM

Ambulocetus seems to be rather otter-like in terms of body proportions. I suspect it would’ve swam in almost exactly the same way.

View Post

The pictures don't even look close to an otter to me.


Isabella
Fossil formation is rare, which means we’re lucky to have any, let alone several. There are probably some fossils that have yet to be found, and perhaps there are some animals that never lived in conditions where fossilization was possible.

Actually there are billions of fossils--they are mostly marine, and planktonic. The planktonic fossils (limestone, chalk, marble) are in thick strata on land and sea. This fits nicely into deluge models.

At any rate, I prefer to think that you don't have fossil support because whale evolution never happened, and the little bones found on the spinal column of some whales are a far cry from a pelvis bone. I'll leave it with that, as endless debate will never resolve anything.

#29 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 21 May 2010 - 07:35 AM

I love vestigial organs.

View Post


Why do you "love" them?

#30 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2010 - 08:22 AM

I can't speak for Mr. Razorblades, but it is probably because he loves to learn.
I certainly do.

#31 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 21 May 2010 - 08:40 AM

Why do you "love" them?

View Post

Tomato was correct, I just really love learning (learning can also be taken as OCD) about anatomy since a field I'm currently pursuing is Medical Illustration.

#32 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 21 May 2010 - 12:58 PM

The pictures don't even look close to an otter to me.

View Post

The skull doesn’t look similar at all, but the post-cranial skeleton has a few similarities. The length of the limbs in proportion to the body, the long tail, the feet, the spine, ect.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#33 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2010 - 01:32 PM

I also find it offensive that you state my position as ignorant when there is literature out there describing such instances of life without an appendix post surgery or being born without an appendix.  If you need such literature I will gladly post a link here, but I would respectfully ask to not state such positions as ignorant as it seems an ad hominem and beneath your intellect.




Please, you know exactly what was meant. Those phrazes and terminologies were diliberately invented to promote an atheistic worldview agenda by individuals who to arrogant to admit they had no clue as to functions of various organs and DNA. The mature responsible thing would have been to humbly admit something like this. "You know, at this time we don't really know it's function, but we are still going to do continued and ongoing research and find out exactly what it's purpose is. With the information available now it has proven that all of those supposed evolutionary holdovers "Vestigial Organs" are in reality nothing of the sort. There are no evolutionary leftovers, it's a farce. And anyone who continues to insists like the statement of the OP of this thread that there are any such things as "Vestigial Organs" - "Junk DNA" as being proof of evolution IS setting themselves up as not only unscientific, but anti-science in view of the known information today. The terms were coined by people pushing through a worldview which stifled science for decades.


I've also stated in another thread that the term "junk dna" is a provisional label for the portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function has been identified.(1)  This is not saying that there is NO function, but meerly stating that no function HAS been found.  The term is currently, however, a somewhat outdated concept, being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications, and may have slowed research into the biological functions of noncoding DNA.[8] Several lines of evidence indicate that many "junk DNA" sequences have likely but unidentified functional activity, and other sequences may have had functions in the past.(1)  I believe it is a misunderstanding that biologists absolutely say that this "junk dna" serves no purpose.  It would be be completely ignorant for them to claim such a thing without knowing absolute knowledge of the genome and all proteins.



Then let me ask you a question if you really believe what you just printed above. Why didn't you correct Ms O.P. "Advent" when she incorrectly promoted this dogma as proof for her worldview ????????? And I wonder why she hasn't attacked your position here above in view of it's conflict with hers. Maybe it's her youth. You have a penchant for bringing up Cata's age and correcting him by reminding him of his inexperience of youth. Call it both ways.

BTW, here's an interesting side point brought out just this month from Canada on the appendix. :blink:

"Ottawa to study whether smog inflames appendices" (Toronto Star - May 07 2010)



I disagree that humans have degenerated due to the scientific community.  Science has given us some truly terrible things, but it as also given us some truly amazing things.  Without science, our way of life would degenerate.  One way science is helping us right now is by growing flu vaccines in tobacco plants to not only decrease the cost (taxpayer money) but also increase the speed at which these vaccines can be used on the public.  The current way to get the vaccine is through chicken eggs which is costly and time consuming.  I will agree that hasty decisions have been made with scientific discoveries such as pesticides and chemicals, but remember it is also scientists and medical practioners with Phd's that verified that these compounds are in fact harming us and using their intellect to try and stop it.  I havn't had the misfortune to have anyone with a Phd flaunt it under my nose so I can't comment on that.  I also don't understand why you're referring to them (scientists, or people born without appendixes?) as my people.  They are biologicially the same as you and me except for the absence of an appendix.  I continue my stance on "junk dna" or "non coding dna" only in the sense that is misinterpreted in what it actually means.  It was probably easiser to classify as "junk" rather than classifying it as "dna to which we have not measurably found a purpose for but are not claiming it as definately not having a purpose".  Now, was it a hasty decision to classify it as "junk"; probably.



You can disagree all you want, but Marxian/Capitalistic science is taking the leading role in destroying our Earth's environment. Who else ????? I don't see the average Joe/Jane Q citizen out there inventing distructive technology when it comes to Green Revolution chemicals. Unfortunately for all of us we are shackled to the way the system works and to be honest there is no other answer (in human terms) for correcting the situation. What's now going to happen will happen dispite any well meaning Eco-green efforts to battle against it. I have an easy position to be in. All I have to do is point to this world's News Reports 24/7 any channel any country and view one disasterous failure after another. You should also expect these things to continue to excellerate before it's all said and done.



I'll have to look through that website before I make any comments, but I would like to state that h*m*s*xuality has been around since the dawn of man so I'm not sure how they are equating chemicals since the 1950's to h*m*s*xuality now.



That's not the point of the information on that site. H*mos*xual behavior is not natural to nature, it's destroying it today. Scientists working for Big Business are destroying our natural world through their chemical inventions and hiding the facts about it's side effects and yes of course h*m*s*xuality has been around for milleniums, etc, but today it's not necessarily a choice as it is genetically altered through damaged genetic information.

#34 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2010 - 04:43 PM

Let the discussion not forget about the other indications of human vestigiality ;) There's more to it than the appendix.

#35 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 May 2010 - 06:45 PM

Ambulocetus seems to be rather otter-like in terms of body proportions. I suspect it would’ve swam in almost exactly the same way.


Ambulocetus had large ear bones, but there is no evidence that it was aquatic or aligned with cetaceans. Many terrestrial animals have large ear bones for hearing low frequency sounds.

Scientists have already shown that elephants, like whales, giraffes, hippos and other animals, have the ability to communicate using subtle vocalizations that are below the human range of hearing. This is called infrasound, and it travels through the air (or in the case of whales, through water) as low-frequency waves.

But it is also known that some animals use seismic communication, which is when low-frequency waves travel through the ground. Researchers had already studied small animals and insects like blind mole rats, kangaroo rats, spiders and scorpions using seismic communication, but until recently, the theory of elephants communicating with seismic waves had not been tested...Like whales, elephants have large middle-ear bones that are designed to detect very low frequency sounds. They can use their unique ear structure along with other body features to detect subtle vibrations. O’Connell observed elephants in a “tiptoeing posture,” or shifting their weight onto the tips of their toes or rocking back on the heel, just before a group would run off in alarm. She later concluded that fatty pads in their feet helped conduct vibrations from their toes, through the body, up to their ears. This is possible through what she calls “bone conducted hearing.”

Like whales, elephants have large middle-ear bones that are designed to detect very low frequency sounds. They can use their unique ear structure along with other body features to detect subtle vibrations. O’Connell observed elephants in a “tiptoeing posture,” or shifting their weight onto the tips of their toes or rocking back on the heel, just before a group would run off in alarm. She later concluded that fatty pads in their feet helped conduct vibrations from their toes, through the body, up to their ears. This is possible through what she calls “bone conducted hearing.”


Whales have large fat pads in the back of their jaws and the "alledged" whale ancestors do not have them.

Arguments for this theory hinge on whether Pakicetus had the hearing of a land-dwelling or a marine mammal. Newly recovered jaw and middle-ear bones strongly indicate that Pakicetus was not well adapted for underwater hearing, says paleontologist Hans Thewissen of Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C. Thewissen discussed the new Pakicetus fossils and their implications at last week's meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Toronto, Canada...

A decade ago, paleontologist Phillip D. Gingerich at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor first described Pakicetus. Based on a reconstruction of the creature's skull, Gingerich determined that Pakicetus did not seem to have the necessary equipment for underwater hearing. Also, the whale ancestor's remains were found with those of land mammals. This evidence suggested that Pakicetus had an amphibious life-style.

The new fossils strongly confirm Gingerich's theory. They show that Pakicetus had very narrow channels in the back of its jaw, making it quite unable to accommodate the large fat pads characteristic of cetaceans, explains Thewissen. The structure of the middle-ear bones -- the first recovered for Pakicetus -- are also decidedly uncetanean, Thewissen notes.



Basilosaurus was much more elongated and slimmer than modern whales, its length was primairly due to its exceptionally long vertebrae, and its slimline apperance because it lacked the thick blubber layer which is a hallmark of modern whales and restricted Basilosaurus to living in warmer shallow waters.

Because it lacked a number of features present in modern whales such as a proper dorsal fin, and had a very small fluke at the end of its tail, it appears that it would have propelled itself more like an eel; horizontal rather than ungulating like a mammal.

It also lacked a blowhole, which would have forced it to raise its head out of the water for air like other marine reptiles.

Its reduced limbs were also useful reproductive claspers that snakes have. This all means that the only part of Basilosaurus that was'nt reptilian was its teeth.





Thanks.

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 May 2010 - 12:00 AM

I took and made 2 posts invisible, I suggest you guys cool it. and quit trying to derail the thread.

#37 Advent

Advent

    Troll from a troll forum.

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Somewhere in the cosmos

Posted 24 May 2010 - 08:05 AM

Let the discussion not forget about the other indications of human vestigiality ;) There's more to it than the appendix.

View Post


Thats the thing tho creationist forget or ignore the other parts of science that show that their bubble is an illusion

#38 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 08:55 AM

Thats the thing tho creationist forget or ignore the other parts of science that show that their bubble is an illusion

View Post



You've opened this thread and you've yet to post proof that there are such things as Vestigial organs or Junk DNA. The only thing you copied and pasted is a link with junk from an atheist hate website with it's religious philosophical material. Then you hijacked my post and inserted a link to make it look like I put it in there from an Atheistic preacher named Mr George Johnson and I had nothing to do with that link.

There is no such thing as vestigial organs , it's a hoax and a fraud. This is old school garbage that most respectable journals and researchers don't even touch anymore unless they have an atheistic agenda.

#39 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 24 May 2010 - 09:43 AM

You've opened this thread and you've yet to post proof that there are such things as Vestigial organs or Junk DNA. The only thing you copied and pasted is a link with junk from an atheist hate website with it's religious philosophical material. Then you hijacked my post and inserted a link to make it look like I put it in there from an Atheistic preacher named Mr George Johnson and I had nothing to do with that link.

There is no such thing as vestigial organs , it's a hoax and a fraud. This is old school garbage that most respectable journals and researchers don't even touch anymore unless they have an atheistic agenda.

View Post

Here's some vestigial parts, and remember, the defintion for vestigial is:

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution.(1)

This definition states that it could be loss of all functionality or loss of most functionality. Here's some more vestigial organs:

Darwins point
Subclavius muscle
Palmaris muscle
Erector pili
Appendix
Plantaris muscle
Thirteenth rib
Male uterus
Pyramidalis muscle

I'd be happy to supply any information on any or all of these.

(1) Vestigial

#40 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 24 May 2010 - 11:35 AM

Let the discussion not forget about the other indications of human vestigiality ;) There's more to it than the appendix.

View Post


Goose bumps are my favourite vestigial trait. The creationist explanation is that it helps our skin secrete more oil when we’re cold (although why that would make you warmer is beyond me). According to a study conducted at the University of I Live in Canada and Our Winters are Freezing, my skin usually gets extremely dry after I spend a few hours outside with goose bumps on my arms and legs. I’m certainly not drenched in oil.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)