Another Fossil Transitional Species that shouldn't exist ... Meet Pappochelys

[Loudmouth]

Oh I get it. SO your claim is going to be that this is not a whale

http://www.newscientist.com/article...e-smell-quite-well-actually.html#.VZ1mGflViko

Apparently more popcorn is going to be needed.

You still don't get what is being said. Whether whales can smell or not has zero to do with the presence of OR pseudogenes in their genome and the phylogenetic analysis of those OR pseudogenes. Even humans have OR pseudogenes, and we can smell. Doesn't stop them from being OR pseudogenes.

 

[MikeEnders]

Why would a designer give all of the cetaceans the same broken smelling gene?

Umm because

A) in the bowhead they are not the same
B) they do function and umm..........they work

To make the case for whale sense of smell even stronger, a colleague looked for genes in bowhead DNA that code for smell sensors. Half of the genes found seemed to produce proteins, compared with fewer than 25 per cent of smell-sensor genes in toothed whales. "I could not see how you can still doubt that bowhead whales can smell," Thewissen says.

''

Did it sink in this time???

So in essence what you now have to beg (And I did say we were going to see the mother of all handwaving) is that they regained the function that was lost (or admit they never were lost at all). Where it pretty obvious to any intelligent person that this proves some whales in fact did, have and will continue to have the use you and TO claimed they never did.

As such its ez peazy for IDist and creationists to claim that whales had the use of smell and lost the use of smell as whales. at any rate you can cry to the cows come home the claim by TO that modern whales ONLY hve vestigial nerves of smell is a total crock

Sorry hand waving some more will not save the VAST blunder

 

[MikeEnders]

You still don't get what is being said.

NO you don't get what is being said.TO says point blank that modern whales only have vestigial smelling nerves AND lists that as one for the reasons it makes no sense for a designer to place them there. IF however they work well for a modern whale that particular claim is gibberish. You can try and handwave your way out of it as I predicted you would but it won't work . It opens the door wide that Whales had sense of smell just fine and lost them as Whales because we have aclear undeniably example of the fact that it was Not Lost to all modern whales but some whales had and HAVE them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Umm because

A) in the bowhead they are not the same
B) they do function and umm..........they work

Really? Where in that article does it say that? All I could find is this description:

To make the case for whale sense of smell even stronger, a colleague looked for genes in bowhead DNA that code for smell sensors. Half of the genes found seemed to produce proteins, compared with fewer than 25 per cent of smell-sensor genes in toothed whales.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...e-smell-quite-well-actually.html#.VZ17vDYw_5p
​

50% of the OR genes are OR pseudogenes in the bowhead whale. Also, it doesn't say that the bowhead pseudogenes are all completely different from the pseudogenes shared by all cetaceans.

Perhaps you should read your own references.

So in essence what you now have to beg (And I did say we were going to see the mother of all handwaving) is that they regained the function that was lost (or admit they never were lost at all).

Another irony meter explodes.

Where it pretty obvious to any intelligent person that this proves some whales in fact did, have and will continue to have the use you and TO claimed they never did.

Then why does every whale have OR pseudogenes with some of the pseudogenes having the same knockout mutation in all cetaceans?

 

[Loudmouth]

NO you don't get what is being said.TO says point blank that modern whales only have vestigial smelling nerves AND lists that as one for the reasons it makes no sense for a designer to place them there.

I am asking you. Why would a designer give all of these different cetaceans the same broken olfactory receptor gene?

IF however they work well for a modern whale that particular claim is gibberish.

The shared pseudogene is without function in all of the species they have looked at, and it shares the same knockout mutation, something that would not be seen if they acquired the mutation independently.

 

[[serious]]

By all means lets start here

"Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves."

and explain to the class how Modern whales have ONLY vestigial olfactory nerves since the modern Bowhead Whale has functional ones that allow them to smell

But wait!!!!! first let me get some popcorn and a soda first.

Ah! Finally, a specif criticism we can analyze and discuss.

A few points:

1. The talkorigins site talks about whales generally. The new scientist article talks about one specific species of whale. unless you are arguing that the olfactory system is not generally reduced across whales as a whole, you at best have a specific species in which one of the identified vestigial structures arguably is not reduced to such an extent as to make it vestigial.

2. The new scientist article does NOT discuss the size of the olfactory nerve, which the talkorigins site focuses on, but instead talks about the olfactory bulb, which the talk origins site does not address.

3. The talkorigins article is dated 2001, and the new scientist article is talking about a 2010 article that may challenge understanding of the olfactory abilities of bowhead whales. So even if the structure being discussed were actually the same, and if the the talkorigins site was talking about the specific species of whale the newscientist article is, it would still merely be a case of new research refining our understanding of a topic. The talk origins site would still be an accurate summary of the scientific literature at the time it was written.

4. New scientist is discussing a paper by one J. G. M. Thewissen. As recently as 2015, that very same author has noted that "Although modern baleen whales (Mysticeti) retain a functional olfactory system that includes olfactory bulbs, cranial nerve I and olfactory receptor genes, their olfactory capabilities have been reduced to a great degree."

As a reminder, vestigiality is not the complete lack of function in a structure, but, "genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution."

 

[[serious]]

Seriously Dude. Please learn to read. That was a hint as an example of what cannot be claimed. An example is not the argument. You are informing no one of anything they did not know .If you even bothered to read the last two pages you would have seen me referring to smell repeatedly.

​

I read quite well thank you, but I appreciate the concern. This thread is moving rather quickly but I prefer to take my time replying. As such, there is often some cross post between when my reply goes out and when I was up to date reading the thread. For example, in this case, I do not see where you mentioned their ability to smell prior to the post i was responding to. In the posts made as i we typing, you mentioned it, but those were made as i was typing. As of this post, you seem to think that vestigial structures need to lose all function before they are vestigial. This has been explained to you to not be the case.

 

[MikeEnders]

Really? Where in that article does it say that? All I could find is this description:

To make the case for whale sense of smell even stronger, a colleague looked for genes in bowhead DNA that code for smell sensors. Half of the genes found seemed to produce proteins, compared with fewer than 25 per cent of smell-sensor genes in toothed whales.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...e-smell-quite-well-actually.html#.VZ17vDYw_5p
​

50% of the OR genes are OR pseudogenes in the bowhead whale. Also, it doesn't say that the bowhead pseudogenes are all completely different from the pseudogenes shared by all cetaceans.

Perhaps you should read your own references.

Perhaps you should brush up on your basic reading comprehension. If one species produces twice the proteins of others without smell in what planet can you claim they are exactly the same?? Obviously something is happening different in the bowhead. Further I said nothing about the bowhead genes being completely different. Strawman but before you go handwaving all over the place lets review for the class some of the things you said (precisely why I gave youtime to say them)

The ID explanation just doesn't work. These genes were never a working part of any living species of cetacean

uh-huh but they do in the bowhead. Wrong as proved by the link. many genes do create protein and a modern whale can smell - it works. fail one

So why give olfactory genes to a species that doesn't have a nose?

but uh huh wrong some WHales do have a sense of smell. fail two

No protein is made from those genes.

Ooops fail three

All wrong and obviously wrong. As most IDist and creationists know though....They will go on all night and day handwaving to try and convince otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps you should brush up on your basic reading comprehension. If one species produces twice the proteins of others without smell in what planet can you claim they are exactly the same??

Did you miss the part where 50% of the bowhead whales OR genes were pseudogenes?

uh-huh but they do in the bowhead.

Again, did you miss the part about 50% of the bowhead whale's OR genes being pseudogenes?

but uh huh wrong some WHales do have a sense of smell. fail two

Doesn't change the fact that the bowhead whale still has tons of OR pseudogenes. It doesn't change the fact that cetaceans as diverse as baleen whales and dolphins have the SAME pseudogenes, an indication that the pseudogene was inherited from a common ancestor.

All wrong and obviously wrong. As most IDist and creationists know though....They will go on all night and day handwaving to try and convince otherwise.

You are the one pretending that the bowhead whale still has 50% OR pseudogenes, and that divergent cetaceans share some of the SAME PSEUDOGENES.

 

[[serious]]

Perhaps you should brush up on your basic reading comprehension. If one species produces twice the proteins of others without smell in what planet can you claim they are exactly the same?? Obviously something is happening different in the bowhead. Further I said nothing about the bowhead genes being completely different. Strawman but before you go handwaving all over the place lets review for the class some of the things you said (precisely why I gave youtime to say them)



uh-huh but they do in the bowhead. Wrong as proved by the link. many genes do create protein and a modern whale can smell - it works. fail one



but uh huh wrong some WHales do have a sense of smell. fail two



Ooops fail three

All wrong and obviously wrong. As most IDist and creationists know though....They will go on all night and day handwaving to try and convince otherwise.

He's talking about pseudogenes, not the remaining functional ones.

By way of analogy, let's say that we give tea set to 3 different people. Mr. Toothed drops 6 out of 8 cups and the teapot. He now has 2 intact tea cups but no way of making tea to put in them. Mr. Bowhead drops 4 out of 8 teacups but still has 4 teacups and the pot. He and his family can drink tea, but they do not have enough teacups to entertain guests, so he might rely more on after dinner drinks rather than tea when having a party. Mr. Dog keeps all his teacups intact. Both Mr. bowhead and Mr. Toothed have significantly reduced tea sets. They are both vestigial even though Mr. bowhead can still drink tea out of the remaining cups. The broken cups are the pseudogenes. We see them there, but they can no longer be used at all. The remaining cups are the intact genes. Function can still be retained with these remaining genes, even if it's reduced, or vestigial function.

 

[MikeEnders]

1. The talkorigins site talks about whales generally.

Special pleading and begging. Won't work. One cannot say Modern Whales ONLY have this or that without making a claim that all whales are included . Its an exclusive word not a general one and trying to change the meaning of the word to save TO is an epic fail. Might as well claim when someone says they only have blue toothbrushes at home and you find a green one that they too were accurate. its nonsensical and shows the desperation TO lovers as yourself will go to save face.

The new scientist article does NOT discuss the size of the olfactory nerve, which the talkorigins site focuses on, but instead talks about the olfactory bulb, which the talk origins site does not address

TO makes the claim that modern whales only have vestigial smelling nerves and does it within the context of saying that it make s no sense for them to be there from a design inference. You can stick your head in the ground to save your point but its pretty clear what they mean when they refer to vestigial is NOT something that works at a sufficient level to feed but one that doesn't and hence would not be put there by a designer. IF you claim you want an honest discussion then have an honest discussion

3. The talkorigins article is dated 2001, and the new scientist article is talking about a 2010 article that may challenge understanding of the olfactory abilities of bowhead whales.

TO updates its site all the time particularly to try and bolster their case. Further this argument is still used as all across the internet as we could see that right here as I allowed LM to articulate. Claiming that ID or creationist sites get let off the hook for leaving bad arguments and wrong arguments on their site is something Darwinists would never allow - so begging off its allowable for TO is nonsense. At best then we all can now ignore Darwinists various links to TO because after all they don;t update to where the science really is

4. New scientist is discussing a paper by one J. G. M. Thewissen. As recently as 2015, that very same author has noted that "Although modern baleen whales (Mysticeti) retain a functional olfactory system that includes olfactory bulbs, cranial nerve I and olfactory receptor genes, their olfactory capabilities have been reduced to a great degree."

and prey tell what Creationist or IDist has a problem with capabilities being greatly reduced over time?? I don't know a creationists that believes that ANYTHING on this planet has not had capabilities greatly reduced. Posting that like its against my position is AGAIN resorting to a strawman argument

As a reminder, vestigiality is not the complete lack of function in a structure, but, "genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution."

more straw. never said it was the complete lost but if you are attempting by sophistry to apply that to a discussion about original function in an ID creationist context then I would question your desire to have an honest unbiased discussion as you claim. There is no way people refer to vestigial in the context of ID and Creation and are referring to complete abilities to perform original functions. even if humans have lost 75% of the original ability to hear, we do just fine and no one would call it vestigial in the context of a debate about design purpose.

Hand wave some more. Got to run. Catch you later

 

[Loudmouth]

Special pleading and begging. Won't work. One cannot say Modern Whales ONLY have this or that without making a claim that all whales are included .

Would you agree that the vast majority of whales are missing the features that TO describes?

TO makes the claim that modern whales only have vestigial smelling nerves and does it within the context of saying that it make s no sense for them to be there from a design inference. You can stick your head in the ground to save your point but its pretty clear what they mean when they refer to vestigial is NOT something that works at a sufficient level to feed but one that doesn't and hence would not be put there by a designer. IF you claim you want an honest discussion then have an honest discussion

Are you saying that there are no whales with a lack of smell, or at least a drastically reduce smelling anatomy?

TO updates its site all the time particularly to try and bolster their case. Further this argument is still used as all across the internet as we could see that right here as I allowed LM to articulate. Claiming that ID or creationist sites get let off the hook for leaving bad arguments and wrong arguments on their site is something Darwinists would never allow - so begging off its allowable for TO is nonsense. At best then we all can now ignore Darwinists various links to TO because after all they don;t update to where the science really is

You continue to use a bad argument, like most ID/creationists. You think that by finding a functional OR gene that it makes all of the OR pseudogenes go away. It doesn't.

and prey tell what Creationist or IDist has a problem with capabilities being greatly reduced over time??

How does ID/creationism explain the same pseudogene in multiple cetacean species as diverse as dolphins and baleen whales? Independent loss of these genes would produce different knockout mutations. Instead, we see the SAME MUTATION in all of these genes which is evidence that the gene was knocked out in a common ancestor.

 

[MikeEnders]

He's talking about pseudogenes, not the remaining functional ones.

Makes do difference and no I made no agreement to exclude functional ones. Lets be clear here. I am not claiming that with one stroke all arguments for terrestrial to Whales "transition" are rebutted by the paper. We could go for days on that and one creature would not settle it. What I have maintained and in fact proven false is one particular sub claim and a key one that has been used in MULTIPLE debates, in Books, even text books and on TO that was supposed to be a KILLER point against creationist and ID -

Whales do not use smell and never have (LM said it himsef -never a working part of any living species) - so the presence of these genes in whales makes no sense to design and can only on THAT BASIS be by ancestry. If anyone can looks at a modern whale having and using the sense of smell as a "working part of a living species" and claims they were still completely right then

They are totally full of GRADE A baloney, have no interest WHATSOEVER in an honest discussion and can do a mean two step around facts better than they claim any Creationist dances

 

[Loudmouth]

Makes do difference and no I made no agreement to exclude functional ones. Lets be clear here. I am not claiming that with one stroke all arguments for terrestrial to Whales "transition" are rebutted by the paper. We could go for days on that and one creature would not settle it. What I have maintained and in fact proven false is one particular sub claim and a key one that has been used in MULTIPLE debates, in Books, even text books and on TO that was supposed to be a KILLER point against creationist and ID -

Whales do not use smell and never have (LM said it himsef -never a working part of any living species) -

I showed you the OR pseudogenes that show clear evidence of being broken in the common ancestor of all cetaceans. Are you going to address that or not? Why would a designer put the same broken gene in multiple species of whales?

They are totally full of GRADE A baloney, have no interest WHATSOEVER in an honest discussion and can do a mean two step around facts better than they claim any Creationist dances

An honest person would address the observation that we find OR pseudogenes shared by distantly related cetaceans that have the same knockout mutation.

 

[[serious]]

and prey tell what Creationist or IDist has a problem with capabilities being greatly reduced over time?? I don't know a creationists that believes that ANYTHING on this planet has not had capabilities greatly reduced. Posting that like its against my position is AGAIN resorting to a strawman argument

If you don't have an issue with the structure and function of the olfactory nerve being greatly reduced (in other words, vestigial), why did you cite it as something you took issue with on the talk origins site? Are you objecting to the definition of vestigial generally?

 

[MikeEnders]

An honest person would address the observation that we find OR pseudogenes shared by distantly related cetaceans that have the same knockout mutation.

LOL...well as long as you are talking generally about what honest people would do I'd say an honest person would go back and look at what the discussion was about. You cited as reason that nothing from DI could be ONE thing you claimed they made one mistake on. You totally failed to address anything else in their article. I did the same in the TO article and did the same focus on ONE thing. Plus if you can make point blank wrong statments and not address the fact you made wrong statements then why should anyone waste more time with you? All you will do is try and wiggle like you are out of your latest blunder.

What will be different?

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL...well as long as you are talking generally about what honest people would do I'd say an honest person would go back and look at what the discussion was about. You cited as reason that nothing from DI could be ONE thing you claimed they made one mistake on.

I did show you.

"Out of tens of thousands of ERV elements in the human genome, roughly how many are known to occupy the same sites in humans and chimpanzees? According to this Talk-Origins article, at least seven. Let's call it less than a dozen. Given the sheer number of these retroviruses in our genome (literally tens of thousands), and accounting for the evidence of integration preferences and site biases which I have documented above, what are the odds of finding a handful of ERV elements which have independently inserted themselves into the same locus?"
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html

Those are all lies. Out of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, less than 100 are not found at the orthologous position in chimps. It isn't a few dozen out of tens of thousands. It is more than 99.9% of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome. That article is full of those same types of outright lies.

You totally failed to address anything else in their article.

What else needs to be addressed? One lineage of whales lost fewer OR genes than another lineage. Why is that a problem for evolution?

Plus if you can make point blank wrong statments . . .

What wrong statements did I make?

I see that you still won't address the OR pseudogene that is shared by all cetaceans that has the SAME KNOCKOUT MUTATION.

 

[MikeEnders]

If you don't have an issue with the structure and function of the olfactory nerve being greatly reduced (in other words, vestigial),

Nope not buying your spin. Sorry You can twist do the macarena all you want

TOs article is not saying :"gee boys and girls if anything is not in full operational function then its proof of evolution and darwinism". As the context makes extremely clear they are not claiming that the olfactory senses are reduced they are saying they don;t exist at all

"Unlike the rest of the mammals, whales have no tear glands, no skin glands, and no olfactory sense"

read English?

and that whales having the genes makes no sense whatsoever in a design context. As I said Humans could have 25% of their original smell but no one would bring it up in a design context because its sufficient for a potential design purpose. try fooling someone else. Vestigial is used quite often to refer to something that has lost its original use nearly completely and thats by far how it used in this creation context.

You should be embarassed to try and spin the nonsense that within this context - "oh they are just saying very reduced not non existence." LOL...you can do quite the jig though, I give you that. But nope as the quote above proves just as your beloved comrade Loudmouth claimed himself - the claim is its never been operational in whales

a point whether you like it or not, will spin like a top to deny. has now been proven utterly false by a beloved Creationist.

 

[MikeEnders]

That article is full of those same types of outright lies.

No one needs to be the least interested in your spin . Thats not the only issue in the article and you addressed nothing else. You address one thing. So thats what I did and now your feelings are hurt because TO is wrong and you are wrong claiming Whales never had working smell. Like I said if you can't man up to saying something that clearly has not panned out why does anyone need to discuss anything with you further. You will just spin and spin to save face for being wrong

What wrong statements did I make?

ROFL..... I've quoted him and shown him like four times and still its

"where?" where?". Its like where is my nose? right here. Where is my nose? its right here. no seriously where is my nose?

Its the old keep asking them to show proof until they get tired of pointing it out gambit

 

[gordonhooker]

That's the true name of the AntiChrist THEORY that satanist-atheist Darwin dreamed up to disprove CREATION!!!!!

God help us all...