Observe the skeleton of this african elephant:
Please note that it lacks a direct connection between any of the bones of its forelimb and its axial skeleton (vertebral column or ribcage)*.
According to YEC anatomist David Menton, this situation is not possible:
"The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. ...In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle...
The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.
...
Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land."
and in another article on the same issue:
"...the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages). "
Take another look at our elephant.
It is a tetrapod.
It has no clavicle.
Its forelimbs do not attach directly to the axial skeleton AT ALL.
Recall what YEC anatomist Menton wrote:
"...the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body"
The linked to article is Menton's atempt to diminish the relevance of the fossil Tiktaalik, a proposed transition from fish to amphibian. Menton apparently really wanted the reader to think that there was no way that Tiktaalik, who might have weighed a few pounds, could have supported itself on land and so coul dnto have been a transition, but in doing so, he engaged in some pretty silly embellishment of the facts.
So, YECs, was Menton wrong, or are you going to circle the wagons?
*Elephants are not the only large terrestrial animals lacking the connection that Menton proclaims "must" be present - dogs, cats, bears, etc., all lack a direct connection between their forelimbs and their axial skeleton.
Please note that it lacks a direct connection between any of the bones of its forelimb and its axial skeleton (vertebral column or ribcage)*.
According to YEC anatomist David Menton, this situation is not possible:
"The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. ...In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle...
The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.
...
Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land."
and in another article on the same issue:
"...the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages). "
Take another look at our elephant.
It is a tetrapod.
It has no clavicle.
Its forelimbs do not attach directly to the axial skeleton AT ALL.
Recall what YEC anatomist Menton wrote:
"...the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body"
The linked to article is Menton's atempt to diminish the relevance of the fossil Tiktaalik, a proposed transition from fish to amphibian. Menton apparently really wanted the reader to think that there was no way that Tiktaalik, who might have weighed a few pounds, could have supported itself on land and so coul dnto have been a transition, but in doing so, he engaged in some pretty silly embellishment of the facts.
So, YECs, was Menton wrong, or are you going to circle the wagons?
*Elephants are not the only large terrestrial animals lacking the connection that Menton proclaims "must" be present - dogs, cats, bears, etc., all lack a direct connection between their forelimbs and their axial skeleton.
Last edited:
