Denying all evidence

[SkyWriting]

...The point is there is the head of a reptile on the body of a bird.

Crockaduck. I seen that one.

Didn't know the name.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is incorrect.

Evolutionary theory does not assert that modern reptiles (crocodiles) gave rise to modern birds (ducks). Rather, it asserts that modern reptiles and birds had a common ancestor.

That's not a stretch. It asserts we all have a common ancestor.
Pretty close to the biblical assertion.

 

[Sophophile]

I see you inserted "modern". Today's modern is tomorrow's ancient. Given the fact that it is asserted that reptiles gave rise to birds, (sans "modern"), there is no "breach" in finding a crocoduck.

Greg -- You must ask yourself: How can one be defending the truth, if one must use error to do so?

I inserted "modern" because crocodiles are modern and ducks are modern. Evolutionary theory does not predict transitionals between two modern species.

Instead, evolutionary theory predicts transitionals between ancestral and modern characteristics. Modern crocodiles are not the ancestors of modern ducks. Therefore, a transitional between them is not predicted by evolutionary theory and would in fact violate the predictions of evolutionary theory.

Therefore, you are propagating an error. I do not ask you to accept or believe evolutionary theory. However, I do ask that you stop misrepresenting what it says.

It is fundamental. In fact it is one of the main features which separates warm blooded from cold blooded organisms.

Here is what you said: "there are fishes which share some attributes with mammals, like tuna, and its ability to regulate body temperature, a fundamental feature in being called a mammal."

But thermoregulation is not diagnostic of (i.e. unique to) mammals, so it is not a fundamental feature of mammals. Therefore, what you said was false. Do you agree that thermoregulation is not unique to mammals?

I dont have to get every single trait, to the last nut and bolt, to put cars in a nested hierarchy. If so , then the nested hierarchy breaks down given the fact that there are mammals without echolocation, there are mammals without paws, there are mammals without claws, there are those without hooves, without fingernails. There are discrepancies.

But biologists do use every "last nut and bolt" to construct the nested hierarchy of life, including genetics and microscopic features -- many hundreds of traits are used to construct the "tree" of life. Unless you do so with cars to the same level of detail, then you are not making a valid comparison, and therefore your comparison to cars is irrelevant.

And by the way, mammals without echolocation, paws, claws, hooves or fingernails are not violations of the nested hierarchy predicted by evolutionary theory. Please stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory. You don't have to agree with it to represent it accurately.

As well as with vehicles. I did not get into the smaller nests.

But you must get into the smaller nests if you wish to show that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy the same as biologists have placed organisms in a nested hierarchy, which is your claim. You don't get to just claim that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy, without violations, because we don't believe you. You must show your work.

Cheers
S.

 

[Sophophile]

Crockaduck. I seen that one.

Didn't know the name.

Dear SkyWriting

That is not the head of a (modern) crocodile. Therefore, its not a crocoduck. So it is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Cheers
S.

 

[SkyWriting]

...But you will not find mammals which are not tetrapods (have four legs or evidence that their ancestors had four legs.) ...

Do you happen to have any pictures of your 4 legged ancestors?
Do the kids ride on them at family reunions?

 

[Greg1234]

Greg -- You must ask yourself: How can one be defending the truth, if one must use error to do so?

I inserted "modern" because crocodiles are modern and ducks are modern. Evolutionary theory does not predict transitionals between two modern species.

Instead, evolutionary theory predicts transitionals between ancestral and modern characteristics. Modern crocodiles are not the ancestors of modern ducks. Therefore, a transitional between them is not predicted by evolutionary theory and would in fact violate the predictions of evolutionary theory.

Again, it does not have to be the head of a modern crocodile, or the body of a modern duck. You assert that a reptile can turn into a bird, therefore the Darwinist prediction of an ancient crocodile with the body of a duck should be fulfilled. The body of a duck does not come from the body of a modern duck, but from the crocodile, in the past, changing into a duck. The head of the crocodile does not come from a modern crocodile, but from a type of crocodile, with the head of the crocodile what we would see today "after millions of years".

Here is what you said: "there are fishes which share some attributes with mammals, like tuna, and its ability to regulate body temperature, a fundamental feature in being called a mammal."

But thermoregulation is not diagnostic of (i.e. unique to) mammals, so it is not a fundamental feature of mammals. Therefore, what you said was false. Do you agree that thermoregulation is not unique to mammals?

Thats the whole point

But biologists do use every "last nut and bolt" to construct the nested hierarchy of life, including genetics and microscopic features -- many hundreds of traits are used to construct the "tree" of life. Unless you do so with cars to the same level of detail, then you are not making a valid comparison, and therefore your comparison to cars is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is there are discrepancies when it comes down to "every last nut and bolt" and as you approach "every last nut and bolt" in organisms you will begin to find traits which are particularly unique to the smallest nest. The use of discrepancies when it comes down to the "last nut and bolt" to say that "the nested hierarchy of cars will begin to break down is similar to the use of the "last nut and bolt" in organisms to say that the nested hierarchy in organisms break down. The same level of detail can be reached, never said that it could not, but there you have a mammal with echolocation and mammal without echolocation. A mammal with paws and a mammal without. The same thing happens in cars.

And by the way, mammals without echolocation, paws, claws, hooves or fingernails are not violations of the nested hierarchy predicted by evolutionary theory.

The same principle for cars.

But you must get into the smaller nests if you wish to show that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy the same as biologists have placed organisms in a nested hierarchy, which is your claim.
You don't get to just claim that cars can be placed in a nested hierarchy, without violations, because we don't believe you. You must show your work.

Cheers
S.

What has been provided is sufficient. The reliquishing of smaller nests does not negate the larger nests.

 

[Sophophile]

Again, it does not have to be the head of a modern crocodile, or the body of a modern duck. You assert that a reptile can turn into a bird, therefore the Darwinist prediction of an ancient crocodile with the body of a duck should be fulfilled. The body of a duck does not come from the body of a modern duck, but from the crocodile, in the past, changing into a duck. The head of the crocodile does not come from a modern crocodile, but from a type of crocodile, with the head of the crocodile what we would see today "after millions of years".

Now you're making a bit more sense -- congratulations. Evolutionary theory predicts a transitional between the ancient ancestor of ducks and modern ducks. The ancient ancestor of ducks (and crocodiles by the way) would be an archosaur. Here's a nice example of a transitional between archosaurs and modern ducks -- Deinonychus (where have I seen that before?)

Look at that! Head similar to the ancient ancestors of ducks (and crocodiles), body on its way towards that of modern ducks. Not found today, as it is now extinct. A transitional along the archosaur lineage - just as predicted by evolutionary theory.

But thermoregulation is not diagnostic of (i.e. unique to) mammals, so it is not a fundamental feature of mammals. Therefore, what you said was false. Do you agree that thermoregulation is not unique to mammals?

Thats the whole point

You said originally: "there are fishes which share some attributes with mammals, like tuna, and its ability to regulate body temperature, a fundamental feature in being called a mammal."

But in your post immediately above you agreed that "thermoregulation is not diagnostic of (i.e. unique to) mammals". In fact you said this was your "whole point".

And I say, so what? Evolutionary theory states that mammals and reptiles are descendants of ancient fish. The fact that thermoregulation is shared amongst fish, reptiles and mammals therefore does not violate the nested hierarchy.

The fact of the matter is there are discrepancies when it comes down to "every last nut and bolt" and as you approach "every last nut and bolt" in organisms you will begin to find traits which are particularly unique to the smallest nest.

Yep, well said. The smallest nest might be a unique, modern species with its own unique traits.

The use of discrepancies when it comes down to the "last nut and bolt" to say that "the nested hierarchy of cars will begin to break down is similar to the use of the "last nut and bolt" in organisms to say that the nested hierarchy in organisms break down.

No, no, no, no, no *sigh*. Having traits that are unique to the smallest nest does not mean the hierarchy "breaks down" or is violated.

What would violate the nested hierarchy of life would be a transitional between one modern set of traits and another modern set of traits - something like a "crocoduck".

All you have to do, the show the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution is false, and thus undercut a hugely important part of evolutionary theory, is find something like a crocoduck that violates the nested hierarchy, and thus could not possibly be related to other organisms by descent from a common ancestor.

Cheers
S.

 

[Greg1234]

Now you're making a bit more sense -- congratulations. Evolutionary theory predicts a transitional between the ancient ancestor of ducks and modern ducks. The ancient ancestor of ducks (and crocodiles by the way) would be an archosaur.

A reptile does not need to be of a particular demeanor, to turn into a duck. Thats the whole point. Modern becomes ancient. A crocoduck is in fact a reptile giving rise to a bird, regardless of traits present.

Here's a nice example of a transitional between archosaurs and modern ducks -- Deinonychus (where have I seen that before?)

Look at that! Head similar to the ancient ancestors of ducks (and crocodiles), body on its way towards that of modern ducks. Not found today, as it is now extinct. A transitional along the archosaur lineage - just as predicted by evolutionary theory.

I am aware of the Darwinist assertion of reptiles turning into birds. But anyways, so you have a bird, giving rise to a reptile. At some point, there would be the head of the reptile and the body of the bird. The body of the bird and the head of the reptile (whatever floats your boat), hence the crocoduck. It does not have to be the head of a crocodile born in 2010. The avian features of a duck are not isolated to modern ducks. The head of the crocodile is not isolated to modern crocodiles. And the fact that an organism is extinct does not mean that it gave rise to another. Polar bears are on the verge of extinction, and there are no polar bears giving rise to whales. The above example is precisely the out taken. At that point in time it was in fact modern and is a modern bird with modern traits. You outline the traits, which are shared, then label it as "transitional". So much for the nested hierarchy. But wait, now its transitional.

You said originally: "there are fishes which share some attributes with mammals, like tuna, and its ability to regulate body temperature, a fundamental feature in being called a mammal."

But in your post immediately above you agreed that "thermoregulation is not diagnostic of (i.e. unique to) mammals". In fact you said this was your "whole point".

And I say, so what? Evolutionary theory states that mammals and reptiles are descendants of ancient fish. The fact that thermoregulation is shared amongst fish, reptiles and mammals therefore does not violate the nested hierarchy.

Thats the whole point. The same for vehicles. See traits shared.

Yep, well said. The smallest nest might be a unique, modern species with its own unique traits.

And cars have their own their own unique traits as the nest gets smaller. The findings of discrepancies does not negate the fact that a car is placed in a nested hierarchy.

No, no, no, no, no *sigh*. Having traits that are unique to the smallest nest does not mean the hierarchy "breaks down" or is violated.

Thats what I said. The same for cars.

What would violate the nested hierarchy of life would be a transitional between one modern set of traits and another modern set of traits - something like a "crocoduck".

Again, a crocodile turning into a duck is not the body of a modern duck, or the head of a modern crocodile. It has the body of a duck and the head of a crocodile, sans modern. Crocodiles were not born yesterday.

All you have to do, the show the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution is false, and thus undercut a hugely important part of evolutionary theory, is find something like a crocoduck that violates the nested hierarchy, and thus could not possibly be related to other organisms by descent from a common ancestor.

Cheers
S.

Lol. We don't need to violate the nested heirarchy for organisms anymore than we need to violate the nested hierarchy for cars, to show that cars cannot turn into aircraft.

 

[Sophophile]

A reptile does not need to be of a particular demeanor, to turn into a duck. Thats the whole point. Modern becomes ancient. A crocoduck is in fact a reptile giving rise to a bird, regardless of traits present.

Greg, here is what you said: "A duck is labeled as a bird. A crocodile a reptile. Darwinists assert that reptiles can give rise to birds. There is no "breach" in finding a crocoduck."

On the contrary, evolutionary theory does not predict that a modern reptile (crocodile) gave rise to a modern bird (duck). Thus, a "crocoduck" is not predicted by evolutionary theory. If a crocoduck was found, it would "breach" the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. Therefore, what you said was wrong.

If you don't agree, please explain why.

Thanks
S.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, here is what you said: "A duck is labeled as a bird. A crocodile a reptile. Darwinists assert that reptiles can give rise to birds. There is no "breach" in finding a crocoduck."

On the contrary, evolutionary theory does not predict that a modern reptile (crocodile) gave rise to a modern bird (duck). Thus, a "crocoduck" is not predicted by evolutionary theory. If a crocoduck was found, it would "breach" the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. Therefore, what you said was wrong.

If you don't agree, please explain why.

Thanks
S.

The issue was primarily with nested hierarchies. You say that the request for a crocoduck is not viable and input "modern". The hippo to whale transition it is postulated, took place over a span of 10-15 million years. We have crocodiles in their present form going back at least 100 million years. I'm telling you that a crocoduck is in fact viable request, a span of time far exceeding 10-15 million years.

 

[Sophophile]

Greg, here is what you said: "A duck is labeled as a bird. A crocodile a reptile. Darwinists assert that reptiles can give rise to birds. There is no "breach" in finding a crocoduck."
On the contrary, evolutionary theory does not predict that a modern reptile (crocodile) gave rise to a modern bird (duck). Thus, a "crocoduck" is not predicted by evolutionary theory. If a crocoduck was found, it would "breach" the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. Therefore, what you said was wrong.
If you don't agree, please explain why.
Thanks
S.

The issue was primarily with nested hierarchies. You say that the request for a crocoduck is not viable and input "modern". The hippo to whale transition it is postulated, took place over a span of 10-15 million years. We have crocodiles in their present form going back at least 100 million years. I'm telling you that a crocoduck is in fact viable request, a span of time far exceeding 10-15 million years.

Greg, saying "I'm telling you" is not an explanation.

Let me ask you this: Do you see Deinonychus (picture in a previous post) as a kind of "crocoduck"? If not, why not?

Cheers
S.

 

[gluadys]

Do you happen to have any pictures of your 4 legged ancestors?

I don't even have any pictures of my two-legged ancestors from more than a century ago. Do you?

Do the kids ride on them at family reunions?

Never heard of kids riding pictures.

 

[gluadys]

That's ridiculous. Every animal is a transitional form according to the theory. There is nothing but transitional forms.

Sure enough. The point is that the transitions stay within the constraints of a nested hierarchy. There are no transitions from one nest to a completely different nest: only within the nest itself.

 

[gluadys]

They would be presented as such. A duck is labeled as a bird. A crocodile a reptile. Darwinists assert that reptiles can give rise to birds. There is no "breach" in finding a crocoduck.

Yes there is. A crocodile is a reptile but it is not and never was a dinosaur. The reptiles which gave rise to birds were a group of dinosaurs. Crocodiles and dinosaurs are both in the great big nest called "reptiles" but that nest has lots of smaller nests inside it: extinct forms like therapsids, pterodactyles, mosasaurs and dinosaurs and still-living forms like turtles, snakes, lizards and crocodiles. You don't get transitions from turtles to snakes because even though both are in the large nest labelled "reptiles" they are in different nests or compartments of that larger nest. Nor do you get transitions from crocodiles to dinosaurs and vice versa. Birds came from a group of dinosaurs, so there can be no transition from crocodile to bird. Only from dinosaur to bird. Therefore a crocoduck does breach the nested hierarchy.

Not all tetrapods are mammals i.e the crocodile example, and not all mammals are tetrapods, for example Dolphins and whales, Darwinist assertion of hippos to whales notwithstanding.

Yes, all mammals are tetrapods, including whales and dolphins. The internal structure of their skeleton still shows the same bone structure as tetrapods or remnants of it. For the same reason, snakes are included with tetrapods, for although they no longer have external legs, their skeleton (as well as some transitional fossils) show that their ancestors did.

You find the same thing with cars, and the section of the quote you snipped already addresses the similarities we find. Finding them, ie mammals lactate, does not imply Darwinism. You will not classify a whale as a fish based on the features that it has. You approach from the perspective of the mammalian features, but not the fundamental attributes that it shares with other fishes or the fact that there are fishes which share some attributes with mammals, like tuna, and its ability to regulate body temperature, a fundamental feature in being called a mammal.

A regulated body temperature is not a fundamental feature of mammals. Birds are not mammals but do regulate their body temperature as did their dinosaurian ancestors.

A whale is classified as a mammal because it does exhibit, at some point in its life, all the characters which indicate a mammal. It does not exhibit most of the characters which indicate a fish.

Actually, there are vehicles, within vehicles there are civilian vehicles, within civilian vehicles, there are civilian vehicles with engines, there are civilian vehicles with engines which are land based, aquatic and aerial. And this is still just a broad perspective, and just as in biological systems, you will find similarities, discrepancies and shared traits. Why is it that all cars seem to have four wheels, front lights, a steering wheel and a gear system. But not all cars have spoilers. Not all mammals have echolocation, or are bipedal. Though, this has nothing to do with Carwinism.

All true, but you still can't organize these vehicles into a single nested hierarchy the way you can with living creatures.

Go ahead. Try.

 

[Mallon]

Reality bites.

 

[Calypsis4]

Reality bites.

Yeah, reality bites but Mallon's spurious interpretation of the facts doesn't. These things have been repeatedly answered by creation scientistis over the yrs. Archeopteryx? It's merely a bird with some teeth and a few other odd characteristics. Now if they had found many fossils of archeopteryx like they have of various fish in great quantity and if they had found the stages between dino and bird leading up to archeopteryx and from archeopteryx into its 'obvious' descendants that would be a huge factor in favor of evolution. But alas, that has not happened.

The whale pelvis bone was created by God to aid the creature during giving birth to its offspring. Baloney with the notion that it was once attached to the rest of the skeletal structure. They don't see those so-called 'stages' of development in the fossil record proving that either.

Any professing Christian who reads the Bible and sees what the Lord said to us about creation...all things considered (including the New Testament references) and still stubbornly cling to evolution are going to be judged by God for accepting the lies of Satan. Mark my word on that. Much more importantly, mark God's Word.

Believe Gods' Word. Do not believe Mallon and those of his persuasion.

For more on how whales were specially created by God:


The pelvic bone in whales serves as an important anchor for muscles of the reproductive organs. Contrary to the claim in this figure, a structure cannot “show structural change over time.” The change over time must be inferred from assumptions about the fossil record and evolution. To know if an organ is vestigial, you must know its ancestors and exactly how the organ was used by those ancestors. (answersingenesis).

And archeopteryx:

This creature was obviously destroyed during a catastrophe of some kind. It did NOT die and then lay around a few million yrs waiting to become fossilized. Fossils are most often caused by sudden pressure and not by time and burial by slow sedimentation build-up. But the fact is that evolutionists cannot supply us with a DNA genetic link between birds and dinosaurs in the first place.

CHROMOSOME COMPARISONS Count - Size

 

[Mallon]

These things have been repeatedly answered by creation scientistis over the yrs. Archeopteryx? It's merely a bird with some teeth and a few other odd characteristics.

It's an animal with both reptilian (teeth, long tail, unfused fingers) and avian (feathers, sternum, hollow bones) features: exactly what you would expect of a transitional fossil that links dinosaurs and birds.

And BTW, that's not Archaeopteryx. It's Microraptor. A dinosaur; not a bird.

The whale pelvis bone was created by God to aid the creature during giving birth to its offspring.

Femora aren't necessary for birthing offspring. Hips are. Legs aren't. And whales not only have hips; they have vestigial legs. Dolphins, too. These are relics of their terrestrial ancestors.

This creature was obviously destroyed during a catastrophe of some kind. It did NOT die and then lay around a few million yrs waiting to become fossilized.

Actually, we can tell from the sediments that an animal was buried in what the environment was like when it died. In Archaeopteryx's case, it died and fell to the bottom of a quiet, oxygen-poor lagoon. It definitely wasn't buried in a catastrophic flood. Those kinds of floods don't deposit fine muds and silts like the ones Archaeopteryx is found in.

Reality bites if you're a YEC.

 

[Papias]

Questions Skywriting is avoiding, since post #166 and before:

SW A: So by not disputing that the verses in the Bible describe a flat earth, I can take it that you agree those verses describe a flat earth?

SW B So do you agree that there is a difference between an ellipsoid and an ovoid? (that’s been asked at least 3 times)


SW C I hope we agree that the vast majority of animals that are born/hatched die well before reaching old age, right? We agree on that?


SW D Do you seriously think that some traits are not advantageous over others?

SW E I asked if you if you understood why the statement ""evolution makes no sense, I mean, how could elephants have survived the cambrian explosion when they are too big to hide in holes?"
Being that SW has avoided this one for a while, I have to conclude that he doesn’t see anything wrong with that statement. SW, it’s not too hard – just google “Cambrian explosion”, post the obvious answer, and pretend that you knew all along.

SW F: What you mean by "the fewer the genomes"? Are you familiar with what a genome is, as opposed to a gene?


SW G: If this (SW’s statement that DNA has built in limits to variation, post #154) were true, it would be easy for you to cite a real scientific paper that says it. Do you have any support at all for that statement, or are you just making stuff up or repeating things without checking on them?




Papias



P.S. Hey, C4 is back! He's the one who quoted a heretic that denies the trinity in a post against me, and then in the same post called me a heretic. big fun.

 

[Papias]

The list of questions for Greg:

A. You agree that some change occurs over time. What stops that change over time from adding up?

Greg has only given the vauge and unsupported statement that: Nope, it remains in the courtyard. This was already given. He also mentioned his writing about cars, which still fails to explain why changes won't add up. This whole question was ignored in recent posts.

B:
Greg wrote:

Im telling you that I could draw up a nested hierarchy of cars.

OK, go for it. Be sure to include most of the features of cars. (still waiting for his nested hierarchy, after he again said he could do it.) OK, now he is saying he won't do it (he said could isn’t would). What a surprise! So whenever a creationists says they could do something, we are supposed to know that what they are really just bluffing, and won’t even try to do it?

B2: Greg, are you familiar with what a nested hierarchy is? This whole question was ignored in his most recent post, so it is not clear that Greg understands what a nested hierarchy is. Greg, you could google it and learn, then post as if you always knew, you know.

Others have done a great job trying to educate Greg on this. One line I will comment on is this:

There are many examples in living organisms where features do not depend on the other. Whether or not an organism has a digestive system is completely independent of whether it has wings.

While one can make inappropriate categories or use convergent evolution, a nested hierarchy with many (>10) terms in each line can be made for animals, and cannot be made for cars. Your own quoted source said that, and your quote above shows that too – you claim that having a digestive system is independent of having wings, yet, those too are nested – there are no animals with wings that don’t have a digestive system (wings are nested within "digestive system"). Did I forget one? If so, name it.

Selection is simulated.

C. One cannot accurately simulate selection over millions of generations in a tiny fraction of that number. How are you saying natural selection over a huge number of generations was accurately simulated?

C2: Do you agree that natural selection removes some mutations from the gene pool, while preserving and propagating beneficial mutations?

D. You responded to my pointing out that saying that alterations to a text of language is pre-programmed because the language is already established is the same as allowing evolution after DNA is established. How is that not the case? You have only responded with:

This is what we have tested. We didnt deprogram DNA and then tested random mutation. The fact that it is a language does not automatically make random alterations viable. And tests show just that.

I don't understand what that word salad is supposed to mean. Which tests, the lab, are you referring to? Could you cite the published results if you are referring to real work?

E. You are aware that natural selection is not random, right?

F. Still waiting on whether or not you know that macroevolution has been observed.

G. Btw, are you aware that the classification system predates Darwin, and was put together by a creationist?


H. Do you have more recent work based on that start showing the larger (and already known) mutations? Have you asked actual biologists and biology professors to help you understand that paper? (Greg has said he has it, but still refuses to show us).



I. Gregg, do you agree that speciation has been observed in fruit flies?

J. Did you see from the theropod story above that natural selection need not be intelligent to give rise to a whole new feature or ability?

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

It's an animal with both reptilian (teeth, long tail, unfused fingers) and avian (feathers, sternum, hollow bones) features: exactly what you would expect of a transitional fossil that links dinosaurs and birds.

So much for the nested hierarchy. For one, the Archeopteryx as the ancestor of birds is found in the same strata as modern birds, there are even birds which exhibit the same features as modern birds in strata below that of said organism. There are other studies which challenge the dinosaur to bird transition. Claws on the wings have been found on birds other than the archeopteryx including the Tauraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoazin and is not a reptilian trait. The long tail is actually a pygostyle and has been noted in other birds, for example the Confuciusornis.

Femora aren't necessary for birthing offspring. Hips are. Legs aren't. And whales not only have hips; they have vestigial legs. Dolphins, too. These are relics of their terrestrial ancestors.

Whales don't have legs. The anchors in the rear support the reproductive organs. The rear appendages are used in modern whales to aid in reproduction and are not vestigial, or legs.