// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A whale of a tale

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    It looks to me like manatees are protosirens that have lost their hind limbs. Not so much of a challenge to ID, as in the case of blind cave fish.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    There is considerably more to it than just losing their hind limbs.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Yet Behe and Snoke is a general paper, with a general result, and they apply their equations to Behe and Snoke's scenario, to derive another general result.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      You left science here; Yet Behe and Snoke . . . and wandered off into the Land Oz.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        It looks to me like manatees are protosirens that have lost their hind limbs. Not so much of a challenge to ID, as in the case of blind cave fish.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        Intelligent Design is unable to explain anything, because they lack a falsifiable hypothesis to test their religious beliefs.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          There is considerably more to it than just losing their hind limbs.
          Well, it seems that is the main difference:

          Source: Wikipedia

          Unlike extant sirenians, Protosiren had hind limbs. Although the limbs were well-developed, they were small and the sacroiliac joint was weak. Consequently, Protosiren is thought to have been mainly aquatic, rarely venturing on to land.

          Source

          © Copyright Original Source


          And according to your source, Protosirens had nostrils at the top of their head, and solid ribs, like the manatee.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

            Intelligent Design is unable to explain anything, because they lack a falsifiable hypothesis to test their religious beliefs.
            The hypothesis that an intelligent agent designed X is falsifiable, by showing that natural causes could have produced X.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Well, it seems that is the main difference:

              Source: Wikipedia

              Unlike extant sirenians, Protosiren had hind limbs. Although the limbs were well-developed, they were small and the sacroiliac joint was weak. Consequently, Protosiren is thought to have been mainly aquatic, rarely venturing on to land.

              Source

              © Copyright Original Source


              And according to your source, Protosirens had nostrils at the top of their head, and solid ribs, like the manatee.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              Their thick pachyostotic ribs act as ballast.

              Moreover, a manatee also has toenails on its flippers indicating that the flippers evolved from legs like we see on terrestrial mammals.

              Their limbs are also homologous with those of other terrestrial mammals including one bone in the upper limb, two in the lower part, a cluster of bones comprising a wrist and five digits.

              Much like many whales, modern manatees don't have hindlimbs (although your source shows that their early ancestors did) but they still have tiny, atrophied, rudimentary pelvis. And these pelvis vestigial hip sockets for non-existent femurs.

              More evidence that modern manatees evolved from terrestrial ancestors to go along with the fossil record showing that the oldest ancestors (such as, say, Potamosiren) had full-sized hindlimbs while those that followed (such as Protosiren that you mentioned) clearly demonstrate that the hindlimbs continued to decrease in size until they "withered away" completely by the time we get to the extant species. Exactly what we'd expect to find if they evolved from a terrestrial creature.










              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                The hypothesis that an intelligent agent designed X is falsifiable, by showing that natural causes could have produced X.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                Which is usually done only to get excuses about how it would be "unlikely." The thing about deep time is that nature gets a LOT of chances at doing it making "unlikely" a lot more probable.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  The hypothesis that an intelligent agent designed X is falsifiable, by showing that natural causes could have produced X.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  This would negate the Intelligent Design hypothesis, because Natural Law and natural processes adequately falsify and demonstrate the complexity of life through evolution and abiogenesis..

                  The hypothesis for Intelligent Design would require there to be complexity in life and the origins of life that X could not be explained and demonstrated by Natural Laws and natural processes.

                  Intelligent Design is indeed aa 'Whale of a Tall Tale.'
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-25-2020, 04:50 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Yet Behe and Snoke is a general paper, with a general result, and they apply their equations to Behe and Snoke's scenario, to derive another general result.
                    It is a general paper - generally wrong. As demonstrated once again by the paper you apparently now like.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      The hypothesis that an intelligent agent designed X is falsifiable, by showing that natural causes could have produced X.
                      Do we really have to relitigate the Dover decision here? This false dichotomy was rejected there for good reasons, which are discussed extensively in the decision.

                      In any case, that hasn't practically been true. Biologists have continued to show how various things could have formed naturally, and the vast intellectual might of the ID movement basically responds with "nuhuh".
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                        This would negate the Intelligent Design hypothesis, because Natural Law and natural processes adequately falsify and demonstrate the complexity of life through evolution and abiogenesis..
                        As far as I'm aware, evolution is beyond reasonable doubt but abiogenesis is a field which is a lot more tentative. I haven't research in years though. Do we now know for a fact how the ''first cell'' came about?
                        Last edited by Seeker; 09-26-2020, 02:05 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Their thick pachyostotic ribs act as ballast.

                          Moreover, a manatee also has toenails on its flippers indicating that the flippers evolved from legs like we see on terrestrial mammals.

                          Their limbs are also homologous with those of other terrestrial mammals including one bone in the upper limb, two in the lower part, a cluster of bones comprising a wrist and five digits.

                          Much like many whales, modern manatees don't have hindlimbs (although your source shows that their early ancestors did) but they still have tiny, atrophied, rudimentary pelvis. And these pelvis vestigial hip sockets for non-existent femurs.

                          More evidence that modern manatees evolved from terrestrial ancestors to go along with the fossil record showing that the oldest ancestors (such as, say, Potamosiren) had full-sized hindlimbs while those that followed (such as Protosiren that you mentioned) clearly demonstrate that the hindlimbs continued to decrease in size until they "withered away" completely by the time we get to the extant species. Exactly what we'd expect to find if they evolved from a terrestrial creature.
                          I should have noted that not all manatees have vestigial toenails on their paddle-like flippers. The exception is the Amazonian manatee who's species name "inunguis" (Latin for "without nails") even highlights this difference.

                          Here is a photo of them
                          manateenails.jpg
                          Very reminiscent of those seen on an elephant's foot. Probably just a coincidence that one of the manatees closest living relatives are elephants
                          No. One did not descend from the other but rather they share a common ancestor.





                          Oh, and as an aside, I probably should have mentioned that the tiny pelvis they still have is, much like the ones found in whales, no longer attached to the backbone

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Seeker View Post

                            As far as I'm aware, evolution is beyond reasonable doubt but abiogenesis is a field which is a lot more tentative. I haven't research in years though. Do we now know for a fact how the ''first cell'' came about?
                            It helps to understand the history of the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis to understand the status of the research on abiogenesis. Sixty to seventy years all the fossil evidence for evolution of primates could fit n a card board box, but the consistent predictable nature of the hypothesis for evolution lead to it being accepted beyond any reasonable doubt. Going back to Darwin's writings he realized what was missing from the evidence and made excellent predictions as to what scientist need to find to falsify evolution. Scientists will never say 'we know as a fact' concerning either evolution nor abiogenesis. The problem is whether there is any alternative hypothesis for abiogenesis that has the necessary consistent predictive value as the current hypothesis for the origins of life. The answer is no.

                            Scientists have determined the time frame when abiogenesis occurred at the time continental drift began and the mid ocean ridges formed, and the volcanic islands that began to form relatively permanent land. The Mid Ocean ridges and tidal environments of volcanic islands are the most likely candidates for the nursery of life and have been shown to have the chemistry necessary for the formation of the earliest life forms.. They have demonstrated how the necessary chemicals necessary formed in these environments just as they are present in mid-ocean ridge environments today. The processes and environments of the formation of the basic organic chemicals such as amino acids have been solved. They have determined many possible mechanisms how the first RNA formed including the possible role of iron minerals, There are still many unresolved problems with how the first living cells formed, but the key is that scientist have made many predictions as to what is needed to falsify abiogenesis, and the research has successfully achieved confirmation of these predictions..

                            It is not an issue as to whether all the processes and steps of abiogenesis are known, but that the on going research and discoveries have demonstrated the consistency and predictability of the research and discoveries have progressed. I and some others have posted much of the most important ongoing research and discoveries on the subject.

                            The earliest simplist known single celled life has been found in rocks formed in mid ocean ridges.

                            I follow the published research on the subject, and there are more peer reviewed research than I can keep up with.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-26-2020, 09:50 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                              Do we now know for a fact how the ''first cell'' came about?
                              No, we don't, see Dr. James Tour, notably, on this topic. Two points out of many that he makes are that many needed organic chemicals are kinetic, that is, they tend to degrade with time, and we have no clue on how to assemble a cell (it's "interactome") even given all the parts.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                The processes and environments of the formation of the basic organic chemicals such as amino acids have been solved.
                                No, they haven't, for example, carbohydrate synthesis is difficult to imagine happening in a pool. And how were the 20 amino acids we need generated?

                                They have determined many possible mechanisms how the first RNA formed including the possible role of iron minerals,
                                And the information in the RNA molecule, how is that generated?

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                                7 responses
                                31 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                                0 responses
                                21 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                                6 responses
                                50 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                                33 responses
                                212 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Leonhard  
                                Working...
                                X