elephants unable to support own weight according to YEC 'scientist'

[juvenissun]

Except when there is no bone-to-bone attachment, such as in the forelimbs of elephants, bears, cats, deer, elk, bison, etc.

Writing the same false thing over and over does not make you correct.

Elephants are considered anisodactyls:

An`i`so`dac´ty`la

​

n. pl.
​

1.
​

(Zool.) A group of herbivorous mammals characterized by having the hoofs in a single series around the foot, as the elephant, rhinoceros, etc
​

And in anisodactyls:

The clavicle runs from the far end of the scapular to the sternum in most mammals, though in the Monotremata it meets the interclavicle instead. Monotremes also have a pair of bones called the Epicoracoid or Precoracoid bones. In some mammals such as the Anisodactyla, Perissodactyla, Mysticeti and Odontoceti (Horses, Pigs, Deer, Buffaloes, etc. and Whales) the clavicle is absent.
​

Thank you for the discussion. I still do not agree with you, but I understand the problem now. There is not much left to talk about.

 

[SLP]

Thank you for the discussion. I still do not agree with you, but I understand the problem now. There is not much left to talk about.

Like I said, I don't care if you agree with me (on what, exaclty?), your disagreement does not alter the facts, it just shows that you are prone to deny facts that you disagree with for some reason.

What do you disagree about? That the scapula is part of the limb? I never said it was. That the YEC anatomist Menton was wrong when he said a direct connection to the axial skeleton is necessary to bear weight? How can you disagree about that?

One is free to disagree about opinions, but to disagree about objective reality?

 

[juvenissun]

Like I said, I don't care if you agree with me (on what, exaclty?), your disagreement does not alter the facts, it just shows that you are prone to deny facts that you disagree with for some reason.

What do you disagree about? That the scapula is part of the limb? I never said it was. That the YEC anatomist Menton was wrong when he said a direct connection to the axial skeleton is necessary to bear weight? How can you disagree about that?

One is free to disagree about opinions, but to disagree about objective reality?

Allow me to rephrase that so there is no misunderstanding:

A bone which directly connected to the axial skeleton (by any means, including muscle) is necessary for the limb to bear weight.

I do think it is true. It is not practical to connect the limb directly to the axial skeleton by muscle. The muscle will be torn in no time. The key problem here is the word game. You do not admit that the scapula is NOT part of the limb. And you are very sure that the scapula IS part of the limb. This created the whole misunderstanding.

I will not repeat this argument, unless you have something new for me.

 

[tanzanos]

Allow me to rephrase that so there is no misunderstanding:

A bone which directly connected to the axial skeleton (by any means, including muscle) is necessary for the limb to bear weight.

I do think it is true. It is not practical to connect the limb directly to the axial skeleton by muscle. The muscle will be torn in no time. The key problem here is the word game. You do not admit that the scapula is NOT part of the limb. And you are very sure that the scapula IS part of the limb. This created the whole misunderstanding.

I will not repeat this argument, unless you have something new for me.

Well you are wrong and if you insist on denying irrefutable facts then you are purposely propagating a creationist lie! The fore limbs of the elephant are not directly connected to the rest of the skeleton. This is not a debatable observation. Are you going to insist on a flat earth now?

 

[SLP]

Allow me to rephrase that so there is no misunderstanding:

A bone which directly connected to the axial skeleton (by any means, including muscle) is necessary for the limb to bear weight.

I do think it is true. It is not practical to connect the limb directly to the axial skeleton by muscle. The muscle will be torn in no time.

But you just wrote:

"...connected to the axial skeleton (by any means, including muscle) is necessary for the limb to bear weight. "

You cannot even remain consistent from one sentence to the next.

The key problem here is the word game. You do not admit that the scapula is NOT part of the limb.

How am I to admit to something I have never claimed?

I have stated repeatedly that the scapula (and the clavicle) are part of the shoulder girdle which is considered separate from the limb. Do you really have that hard of a time understanding the things people write, or are you just a Poe?

And you are very sure that the scapula IS part of the limb. This created the whole misunderstanding.

What created the whole misunderstanding appears to be your inability to either understand what others write or to honestly portray it.

I will not repeat this argument, unless you have something new for me.

For crying out loud -

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!

What you have is a complete inability to understand A) what this thread was about and B) basic anatomy and physiology.

I DON'T CARE that you 'think' that "(i)t is not practical to connect the limb directly to the axial skeleton by muscle. The muscle will be torn in no time." I really don't - you claim to be a geologist, would you care and think I had a valid argument if I declared that sandstone is really made from lava?

Why is it that you think you 'know' something that is totally false and incorrect, something that I, an anatomist by training, have explained several times and provided documentation for (in the form of pictures and quotes) just, darn it, don't have an argument?

THERE ARE NO BONY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FORELIMBS AND THE AXIAL SKELETON OF HUNDREDS OF TERRESTIAL AND AQUATIC TETRAPODS/QUADRUPEDS!!!!

Your little idea about those poor muscles just being torn to shred is simply naive 'folk science.'

It is wrong.

Face it.

Here is the shoulder of a horse:

No clavicle, no bony attachments between the upper limb or the scapula and the axial skeleton. Can't be true, according to you, a geologist on a YEC discussion board.

Look at this poor saber-toothed tiger - obviously, it was unable to walk at all since its muscles were torn to shreds because it had no bony connections as a YEC claims must exist:

And this poor extinct Irish Elk - obviously extinct because its shoulder was just torn apart due to its poor design:

But you are right, I mean how can the truth actually be true if it doesn't make sense to you?

 

[tanzanos]

Besides if the design is faulty then take it up with God! Bad design = Bad designer.

 

[Split Rock]

Allow me to rephrase that so there is no misunderstanding:

A bone which directly connected to the axial skeleton (by any means, including muscle) is necessary for the limb to bear weight.

I do think it is true. It is not practical to connect the limb directly to the axial skeleton by muscle. The muscle will be torn in no time. The key problem here is the word game. You do not admit that the scapula is NOT part of the limb. And you are very sure that the scapula IS part of the limb. This created the whole misunderstanding.

I will not repeat this argument, unless you have something new for me.

The key for you seems to be "the word game" here. What you are being told is that in many vertebrates the limb bones are connected to the shoulder girdle, but the shoulder girdle is not connected directly to the axial skeleton. This is in direct contrast to what the "creation scientist" in question is claiming about Tiktaalik.

 

[juvenissun]

The key for you seems to be "the word game" here. What you are being told is that in many vertebrates the limb bones are connected to the shoulder girdle, but the shoulder girdle is not connected directly to the axial skeleton. This is in direct contrast to what the "creation scientist" in question is claiming about Tiktaalik.

I might be wrong (I don't know Tiktaalik). But this is what I understand:

In the case of Tiktaalik, there is NO shoulder-like bone in Tiktaalik. So, the limb has to connect to the skeleton "directly" by muscle. As I suggested, if Tiktaalik walked, the muscle should NOT be able to bear the stress given by the limb.

YEC or not, I don't see a problem in this argument.

 

[Split Rock]

I might be wrong (I don't know Tiktaalik). But this is what I understand:

In the case of Tiktaalik, there is NO shoulder-like bone in Tiktaalik. So, the limb has to connect to the skeleton "directly" by muscle. As I suggested, if Tiktaalik walked, the muscle should NOT be able to bear the stress given by the limb.

YEC or not, I don't see a problem in this argument.

Is there some reason you believe if the shoulder girdle is not connected directly to the axial skeleton that the creature can walk, but if the arm is not connected directly it cannot? Also, are you aware that tetrapods like Tiktaalik evolved to walk in the water before walking on land?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What is your source? Why do you assume Tiktaalik could not have supported itself? Do you even know how big Tiktaalik was?

No, T. roseae was not able to run 80 mph, but she certainly would've been able leave one puddle and ambulate to another to look for food or escape predators.

Coming from someone who didn't even know what a scapula was two days ago, do you think you're even qualified to make this kind of judgement?

 

[SLP]

I might be wrong (I don't know Tiktaalik). But this is what I understand:

In the case of Tiktaalik, there is NO shoulder-like bone in Tiktaalik. So, the limb has to connect to the skeleton "directly" by muscle. As I suggested, if Tiktaalik walked, the muscle should NOT be able to bear the stress given by the limb.

YEC or not, I don't see a problem in this argument.

Your suggestion is garbage given the fact that elephants, rhinos, deer, tigers, etc., which weight hundreds of times what Tiktaalik did, get along just fine. Meton the YEC declared that a direct connection is NECESSARY for a limb to bear weight.

This is false.

As I've explAined and documented several times now, your position is simply false, yet here you are stating it again as if it has merit.

Truly incredible, and well explained by Dunning and Kruger.

 

[SLP]

Coming from someone who didn't even know what a scapula was two days ago, do you think you're even qualified to make this kind of judgement?

Judgement?

His judgement on this issue reminds me of those 9/11 truthers who insist that the fire from burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel even after being shown that you do not have to liquify the steel to weaken it.

 

[juvenissun]

Is there some reason you believe if the shoulder girdle is not connected directly to the axial skeleton that the creature can walk, but if the arm is not connected directly it cannot? Also, are you aware that tetrapods like Tiktaalik evolved to walk in the water before walking on land?

Of course. The scapula is in a blade shape and it has a much wider area used to attached to the skeleton. While the end of arm is very small and the stress to the assume muscle connection would be very large.

So, if a fish evolved to walk on land, then we should expect to find a record on the growth of the scapula.

 

[juvenissun]

What is your source? Why do you assume Tiktaalik could not have supported itself? Do you even know how big Tiktaalik was?

No, T. roseae was not able to run 80 mph, but she certainly would've been able leave one puddle and ambulate to another to look for food or escape predators.

Coming from someone who didn't even know what a scapula was two days ago, do you think you're even qualified to make this kind of judgement?

I don't like the way you talk. So I don't usually respond to your comment. Count this one as an exception because you asked a decent question.

I said I don't know Tiktaalik. But does anyone know the ratio of the body weight to the muscle strength on the fin of Tiktaalik? If they do, they should have already calculated it. If they don't, then nobody knows. And my assumption is as good as anyone else's.

 

[Targ]

Thanks for the comments SLP and Tanzanos etc; I'd seen this argument made about tiktaalik roseae on a creationist website and had wondered what the scientific explanation would be (I accept evolution btw). Science has precedent on its side, therefore science wins.

One other issue I'd read from some creationist dude - that the evidence was not concrete that tiktaalik had metatarsals and phalanges in the same way that the feet of tetrapod do. How would you address this argument?

Cheers,
Targ.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course. The scapula is in a blade shape and it has a much wider area used to attached to the skeleton. While the end of arm is very small and the stress to the assume muscle connection would be very large.

So, if a fish evolved to walk on land, then we should expect to find a record on the growth of the scapula.

1. No one is claiming that Tiktaalik could walk as well as any mammal.
2. Tiktalaak mainly walked on the floor of shallow bodies of water.
3. Tiktalaak certainly could sprawl (at least) from one pond to another.
4. Tiktalaak had digits and a wrist. What else would they be used for?
5. Tiktalaak also had a neck, which fish do not have.
6. There are examples of fish today that move around on land without a shoulder girdle.
http://i1.treknature.com/photos/320/bsmudskipper.jpg

 

[SLP]

Of course. The scapula is in a blade shape and it has a much wider area used to attached to the skeleton.

Except that the scapula does not attach to the skeleton.

You are wrong.

Again.

While the end of arm is very small and the stress to the assume muscle connection would be very large.

So, if a fish evolved to walk on land, then we should expect to find a record on the growth of the scapula.

Since the scapula does not attach to the skeleton, this argument is also completely irrelevant.

Are you simply unable to admit that a 'professional' YEC was wrong about something?

Are you simply unable to admit that YOU are wrong about something?

I thought pride was sinful? In my experience, with creationists, this sort of hubris seems to be a prerequisite, not something to avoid.

 

[SLP]

1. No one is claiming that Tiktaalik could walk as well as any mammal.
2. Tiktalaak mainly walked on the floor of shallow bodies of water.
3. Tiktalaak certainly could sprawl (at least) from one pond to another.
4. Tiktalaak had digits and a wrist. What else would they be used for?
5. Tiktalaak also had a neck, which fish do not have.
6. There are examples of fish today that move around on land without a shoulder girdle.
http://i1.treknature.com/photos/320/bsmudskipper.jpg

And, of course, Tiktaalik would not have REQUIRED that its forelimb attach directly to the axial skeleton to support its weight on land as YEC anaotmist Menton declared since there are hundreds of extant large mammals that lack this attachment.

Why this simply fact is so hard for so many YECs to grasp is beyond reason.

 

[SLP]

I said I don't know Tiktaalik. But does anyone know the ratio of the body weight to the muscle strength on the fin of Tiktaalik? If they do, they should have already calculated it. If they don't, then nobody knows. And my assumption is as good as anyone else's.

Not at all - a person who did not even know what a scapula was a few days ago is hardly on par with someone trained in anatomy - or, apparently, one who can look at pictures of elephant skeletons and see that there is no bone to bone attachment between the upper limb and the axial skeleton - in terms of 'assuming' things on this subject.

Tiktaalik would have had NO PROBLEM at all supporting its own weight (a few pounds at most).

How do I know this? Well, for starters there are all the tings I've already explained in this thread and you've seemingly been unable to grasp. Then there is this guy:

Gee, he seems to get along just fine.

But I do enjoy how YECs seem to think that they can just ignore things or people and keep making the same bogus arguments. Such intellectual blinders must be a necessity in church.

To borrow the signature of one of your fellow YECs:

"There is nothing progressive about being pig headed and refusing to admit a mistake." C.S. Lewis

 

[tanzanos]

Then there is this guy:

LOL! I used to chase them when I was a kid in Africa. They lived in mangrove forests. I tell you those little critters can move fast on land!