Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-11-2012, 04:13 PM   #1735268  /  #1301
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,883
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

I am talking about the same structures in the land animal and the ostariophysians.

I am not talking about whales for the moment.

This is how I put it:
Quote:
If people believe there is no connection between these, then they believe that these same structures evolved in one case within an internal system in a fish and in the other within an external system in a land animal .
Is anyone claiming similar so-called "selection pressure"? If so, please explain why you say that.
__________________

Last edited by Socrates; 03-11-2012 at 04:50 PM.
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 04:50 PM   #1735280  /  #1302
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 24,027
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
I am talking about the same structures in the land animal and the ostariophysians.

I am not talking about whales for the moment.

This is how I put it:
Quote:
If people believe there is no connection between these, then they believe that these same structures evolved in one case within an internal system in a fish and in the other within an external system in a land animal .
Is anyone claiming similar so-called "selection pressure"?
Is there a difference in environment between the sea and the land? Yes, both structure, quire different, accomplish the same task.

The fact you are amazed and incredulous at this revelation is nothing more than further evidence of your ignorance.
__________________
Invent the Future
RAFH is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 04:50 PM   #1735281  /  #1303
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,182
Steviepinhead
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
There is no doubting that there are a number of traits that cetaceans have that we can find in the lineage I have proposed. And that are not found in the land animal alternative.
Wow, imagine that! Adapting to a watery lifestyle results in adaptations to a watery lifestyle...

Although I'm having a hard time seeing how you think that's somehow a "coincidence."
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 05:08 PM   #1735298  /  #1304
TestyCalibrate
Someone oughta fix the door
dummy
 
TestyCalibrate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I've mistaken blueberries for blueberries!
Posts: 20,004
TestyCalibrate
Default

So-called?
__________________
Cabin fever.
TestyCalibrate is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 05:13 PM   #1735301  /  #1305
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,182
Steviepinhead
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TestyCalibrate View Post
So-called?
A little context may be required to parse this no doubt deeply worthy contribution.
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 05:23 PM   #1735304  /  #1306
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,883
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

I am talking about the same structures in the land animal and the ostariophysians.

I am not talking about whales for the moment.

This is how I put it:
Quote:
If people believe there is no connection between these, then they believe that these same structures evolved in one case within an internal system in a fish and in the other within an external system in a land animal .
Is anyone claiming similar so-called "selection pressure"? If so, please explain why you say that.
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 05:37 PM   #1735312  /  #1307
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,182
Steviepinhead
Default

It's NOT the "same" structure, not even remotely, as the illustrations in your own post clearly show: different embryological precursors, different parts of the anatomy, different final configuration of bones.

But, again, while hearing presents different challenges in water and air, ultimately some system of focusing ambient vibration at an appropriate juncture of sensory nerves will be the physical solution.
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 06:01 PM   #1735321  /  #1308
Faid
just as bad
 
Faid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,107
Faid
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
In both remingtonocetids and protocetids, the size of mandibular foramen had increased.[11] The large mandibular foramen indicates that the mandibular fat pad was present. However air-filled sinuses that are present in modern cetaceans, which function to isolate the ear acoustically to enable better underwater hearing, is still not present.[12] The external auditory meatus (ear canal) which is absent in modern cetaceans is also present. Hence, the method of sound transmission present in them combines aspects of pakicetids and modern odontocetes(toothed whales).[12] At this intermediate stage of hearing development, the transmission of airborne sound was poor due to the modifications of ear for underwater hearing; while directional underwater hearing was also poor compared to modern cetaceans.[12]
So we are led to believe that these creatures took to the water eevn though their hearing was poor in both the air and the water.
That is the oddity of the purported land animal to wahle lineage. The creatures ar less adapted to survival.
But I am sure someone here will come up with some rationalization. But step after step the purported land animal to whale lineage requires rationalizations and tap dancing.
A true evolutionist who works with evolution principles will reject such a purported lineage.
And the Grand Quoteminer strikes again- this time, without even bothering to leave the context out of his quotemine. He just pretends it doesn't exist.

Here, "socrates", allow me to help- this is what the quote says:
Quote:
while directional underwater hearing was also poor compared to modern cetaceans.
Which makes perfect sense. An animal that hears poorly in both ear and water is more adapted for an aquatic environment than an animal that hears well in air, but has completely inadequate hearing in the water. Later its hearing underwater improved, leading to the systems modern cetaceans have.

But of course, the actual issue has nothing to do with what YOU, personally, find plausible. We KNOW how the transition took place because of the EVIDENCE. The EVIDENCE was presented to you.

Not "rationalizations", not "tap-dancing". EVIDENCE.

If you cannot refute this EVIDENCE, than refrain from your "ain't buying it" handwaves and kindly shut up.

Thanks.
__________________
This would make a fascinating discussion, but I know that people here will simply turn this into an argument.
Faid is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 06:04 PM   #1735322  /  #1309
Faid
just as bad
 
Faid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,107
Faid
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
In both remingtonocetids and protocetids, the size of mandibular foramen had increased.[11] The large mandibular foramen indicates that the mandibular fat pad was present. However air-filled sinuses that are present in modern cetaceans, which function to isolate the ear acoustically to enable better underwater hearing, is still not present.[12] The external auditory meatus (ear canal) which is absent in modern cetaceans is also present. Hence, the method of sound transmission present in them combines aspects of pakicetids and modern odontocetes(toothed whales).[12] At this intermediate stage of hearing development, the transmission of airborne sound was poor due to the modifications of ear for underwater hearing; while directional underwater hearing was also poor compared to modern cetaceans.[12]
So we are led to believe that these creatures took to the water eevn though their hearing was poor in both the air and the water.
That is the oddity of the purported land animal to wahle lineage. The creatures ar less adapted to survival.
But I am sure someone here will come up with some rationalization. But step after step the purported land animal to whale lineage requires rationalizations and tap dancing.
A true evolutionist who works with evolution principles will reject such a purported lineage.
No doubt this is why nobody here is willing to describe how the purported evolution occurred in the whale hearing. It is simply an impossible transition.
Another UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.

What did we tell you about those, "socrates"?
__________________
This would make a fascinating discussion, but I know that people here will simply turn this into an argument.
Faid is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 06:06 PM   #1735326  /  #1310
Faid
just as bad
 
Faid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,107
Faid
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
What is fascinating to me is that Nature developed the same 3 part ossicles structure in the ostariophysians, land animals and the Cetacea.

Quite an interesting co-incidence.
I look for ancestry rather than convergence (coincidence).
In the case of the ossicles nobody can claim similar so-called "selection pressures".
This is worth analyzing.
If people believe there is no connection between these, then they believe that these same structures evolved in one case within an internal system in a fish and in the other within an external system in a land animal .

What are the chances of that?
Who says they are the "same structures"?

Another UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION you tried to slip through.
__________________
This would make a fascinating discussion, but I know that people here will simply turn this into an argument.
Faid is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 06:08 PM   #1735329  /  #1311
Faid
just as bad
 
Faid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,107
Faid
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
I am talking about the same structures in the land animal and the ostariophysians.

I am not talking about whales for the moment.

This is how I put it:
Quote:
If people believe there is no connection between these, then they believe that these same structures evolved in one case within an internal system in a fish and in the other within an external system in a land animal .
Is anyone claiming similar so-called "selection pressure"? If so, please explain why you say that.
They.
Are.
Not.
The.
Same.
Structures.

Wake up, "socrates". Support your UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS.
__________________
This would make a fascinating discussion, but I know that people here will simply turn this into an argument.
Faid is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 06:21 PM   #1735342  /  #1312
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,182
Steviepinhead
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
I am talking
Talking is insufficient.

You have to demonstrate your points with evidence, not merely assert them with the occasional use of self-refuting quote-mines.

You have to defend your points when they are brought under fire, instead of pulling out your weak-ass excuses for not engaging one poster after another, or resorting to your patented meta-excuse "but it's not worth arguing."

You can't fail to present evidence, fail to respond to questions, fail to defend your points when they are critiqued, and generally act the pompous self-quoting asinine idiot, and expect anyone, anywhere, ever to accept that you have done anything more than just act the blowhard.

Words are wind.

Evidence is written in stone and in the genome.
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 06:25 PM   #1735344  /  #1313
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,883
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
I am talking about the same structures in the land animal and the ostariophysians.

I am not talking about whales for the moment.

This is how I put it:
Quote:
If people believe there is no connection between these, then they believe that these same structures evolved in one case within an internal system in a fish and in the other within an external system in a land animal .
Is anyone claiming similar so-called "selection pressure"? If so, please explain why you say that.
Nobody yet. Perhaps someone else will arrive and contribute.
Since we are not likely to get an answer from anyone on this question, here is another:
Did the mammal ossicles evolve once or did they evolve multiple times independently?
__________________

Last edited by Socrates; 03-11-2012 at 06:46 PM.
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 06:56 PM   #1735362  /  #1314
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,182
Steviepinhead
Default

Although Selfkwotates is more likely to get my blood pressure up from my rolling around on the floor, trying to hold my ribs in, laughing my butt off than my actually getting my ire up, it is worth pondering why we bother to engage him.

We've gone over this many times before, with our many trolls galore, but it's a question that deserves revisiting from time to time.

In addition to the humor, many of us have an aversion to letting anti-science, faith-head know-nothings dominate the internet discussion of topics as diverse as politics, morality, climate change, human origins, cosmic origins, and evolution.

Sometimes this is pooh-poohed: ah, they're just fringe woo-natics, don't waste your precious time and attention. The frequent admonition to "think of the lurkers" is downplayed (and it's true that at this point we're a fairly mature -- heh! but you know what I mean -- site of entrenched regulars, though that doesn't mean we don't still get a samll but steady stream of onlookers, visitors, and new members).

Selfkwotates represents a partial refutation of this "bah, they're just marginal, who are they harming" attitude. If you google terms like "pterosaur" or "mosasaur whale," this maroon turns up among the first search results. That doesn't mean that he's effectively poisoning the minds of junior high general science students everywhere, but it does suggest some utility to making sure his idiotic ideas don't go completely unrebutted.

Well, and hell, okay, some of us are a little aspie around these evolutionary topics, 'tis true. It's a fascinating subject built of simple premises and yet it challenges deep-seated faith systems and, even when faith isn't at the bottom of the questioning and problems people have, there is so much misinformation out there (some sincere, conceivably, but much of the rest deliberate misconstructions and deceptions) that even ignorant but open-minded students hoping to learn run a significant risk of getting overwhelmed by misinformation and disinformation.

For most of us, though, I suspect that what may have started out as a noble crusade has turned into some combination of lulz, semi-addiction, and an entertaining way to expand our own knowledge bases in an area that we find fascinating.

While certainly I have some base of knowledge in many areas of evolution and biology, I don't have direct access to pay-walled papers and I have for various reasons never acquired a sufficient background in math and statistics to be able to make any sort of a direct contribution to the science (this is, of course, not true of a good few of "us," from Vox to Per to teeth to sfs to susu to jasona..., but still).

But most of the folks around here who really know this stuff like the back of their hand are also busy enough that they can't man the barricades most of the time (and they have more immediately satisfying ways of getting their evo-fixes). So there's plenty in the way of detail for me to learn in almost every corner of this body of interrelated, integrated, consilient, cross-confirming meld of fields (geology, tectonics, radiometric dating, biology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, population genetics, ...).

And this ongoing involvement in woo-debunking provides an entertaining way of soaking up new knowledge in the way that I tend to learn best -- doing my own "research," but cross-checking it with others more knowledgeable than I am by forcing myself to express what I think I know and what I think I've learned and putting it out there to be critiqued by a forum of similarly-interested, articulate, entertaining, but skeptical fellow thinkers.

Some part of the fun and excitement and self-reinforcing learning process of this is what attracts those like Dave and Klast and Selfkwotates and Alguff -- they feel shut out from the real realm of scientific endeavor (or in the case of Klast and Alscruff, they may have somehow bamboozled their way into the very fringes of scientific publishing, but realize that their contributions have zero impact), and this is the nearest thing: they have a sense that something "like" science is going on, a public arena of ideas, an intellectual ferment, a community where any hypothesis may be advanced (though few may survive The Winnowing)...

And, of course, there's the sense that SOME attention is being paid to them (well, heh, and to us, too), even if the reception is rough.

Fortunately, at the moment, I've got something even more entertaining to do, so I leave others to the fun of dissecting Selfqwotates while my son and I go see John Carter on the big screen at the Cinerama...!

Last edited by Steviepinhead; 03-11-2012 at 06:59 PM.
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 07:01 PM   #1735367  /  #1315
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,182
Steviepinhead
Default

I see the site (and particularly this plus-50 page thread, with its many images and diagrams) is suffering from dupli-posting again.

Prolly predicatable, with raven going through her cyborg assimilation ritual...
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 07:31 PM   #1735390  /  #1316
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,883
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

For reference:

__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 07:39 PM   #1735395  /  #1317
Monad
Rabbit in your headlights
Mod: LSD, Phys Sci
 
Monad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,732
Monad
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
I am talking about the same structures in the land animal and the ostariophysians.

I am not talking about whales for the moment.

This is how I put it:
Quote:
If people believe there is no connection between these, then they believe that these same structures evolved in one case within an internal system in a fish and in the other within an external system in a land animal .
Is anyone claiming similar so-called "selection pressure"? If so, please explain why you say that.
Nobody yet. Perhaps someone else will arrive and contribute.
You have had the answer several times - you don't even have the honesty to acknowledge that simple fact. The answer is:

They are NOT the same structures

As is patently obvious
Monad is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 08:52 PM   #1735415  /  #1318
DaveGodfrey
Demoderated
 
DaveGodfrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,275
DaveGodfrey
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
For reference:

Note how they look fuck all like the ossicles in Danio rerio?
__________________
Why do I bother?
DaveGodfrey is offline   topbottom
Old 03-11-2012, 08:57 PM   #1735455  /  #1319
DaveGodfrey
Demoderated
 
DaveGodfrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,275
DaveGodfrey
Default

[mod]Onward to part II[/mod]
__________________
Why do I bother?

Last edited by DaveGodfrey; 03-11-2012 at 09:06 PM.
DaveGodfrey is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
b&betarded, costanza, dunning meets kruger, hippos are fish, humans are fish, jumped the mosasaur, whales are fish

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org