The Hanging Toes of Pigs

[Anaximander]

Greetings all,

Two of the four toes, or hooves, on the back legs of pigs do not touch the ground. Hooves on ungulates (horses, pigs, etc.) are made up of a dense material in order to resist wearing as they make constant contact with the ground. The hanging hooves on pigs are made up of this resistent material, yet they never make contact with the ground. The fossil record shows ancient pig-like ungulates having all toes that reach the ground. Common ancestry has an explanation for the hanging toes that match the fossil record - They are vestigial.

What is the anti-evolution explanation for this?

best,

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

same explaination as always.

- Fall did it
- God did it

 

[rockaction]

same explaination as always.

- Fall did it
- God did it

-Satan did it to trick people

 

[Anaximander]

In one of the YEC websites, they claim it is not vestigial, since they are used for improved gripping is mud. This, though, still does not explain why these hanging hooves consist of dense material.

 

[AV1611VET]

Two of the four toes, or hooves, on the back legs of pigs do not touch the ground.

I believe pigs wallow in mud, do they not?

 

[Anaximander]

Well, pigs and wild boars spend very little time in mud. They are actually very clean animals and prefer to clean themselves in freshwater. If freshwater is not available, they will wallow in mud in order to stay cool. For creationists to suggest their haning toes (possessing dense material, a function designed for contact to the hard ground) help them wallow much more efficiently is a big stretch in logic. The real reason why creation scientists suggest this is because they have to deny the obvious -vestigiality. It works for them, though, because their target audience is not scientists, but fellow believers. Any explanation is good enough, regardless of plausibility.

best,

 

[juvenissun]

Greetings all,

Two of the four toes, or hooves, on the back legs of pigs do not touch the ground. Hooves on ungulates (horses, pigs, etc.) are made up of a dense material in order to resist wearing as they make constant contact with the ground. The hanging hooves on pigs are made up of this resistent material, yet they never make contact with the ground. The fossil record shows ancient pig-like ungulates having all toes that reach the ground. Common ancestry has an explanation for the hanging toes that match the fossil record - They are vestigial.

What is the anti-evolution explanation for this?

best,

Does this the same situation happen to horse?
My guess is not.
If so, why not?

Same question can be asked on cows, deers (?) etc.
Why is pig unique?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, pigs and wild boars spend very little time in mud. They are actually very clean animals and prefer to clean themselves in freshwater. If freshwater is not available, they will wallow in mud in order to stay cool. For creationists to suggest their haning toes (possessing dense material, a function designed for contact to the hard ground) help them wallow much more efficiently is a big stretch in logic. The real reason why creation scientists suggest this is because they have to deny the obvious -vestigiality. It works for them, though, because their target audience is not scientists, but fellow believers. Any explanation is good enough, regardless of plausibility.

best,

On the other hand, are we the ones who are calling them "hanging toes", then not understanding why pigs have them?

I submit the word "hanging" is only confusing you guys -- not us.

 

[Targ]

What do you believe the purpose of these hanging toes is, AVET?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you believe the purpose of these hanging toes is, AVET?

How should I know? I'm not a zoologist; and I'm not the one who is calling them "hanging toes".

As I understand it: flying squirrels don't fly, they glide; flying fish don't fly, they glide; and perhaps these hanging toes don't hang -- (maybe they're for gliding too).

 

[Split Rock]

How should I know? I'm not a zoologist; and I'm not the one who is calling them "hanging toes".

That hasn't stopped you from telling the experts to "take a hike" before... has it?

As I understand it: flying squirrels don't fly, they glide; flying fish don't fly, they glide; and perhaps these hanging toes don't hang -- (maybe they're for gliding too).

And star fish are not stars and sea horses are not horses..... so what?

 

[AV1611VET]

And star fish are not stars and sea horses are not horses..... so what?

What do you mean, "so what"?

You tell me 'so what'?

Again, I'm not the one making an issue out of mislabeled body parts.

 

[Targ]

What do you mean, "so what"?

You tell me 'so what'?

Again, I'm not the one making an issue out of mislabeled body parts.

Where did you get the idea that they're mislabelled?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did you get the idea that they're mislabelled?

You don't think "hanging toes" on pigs is a misnomer?

What will they say next?

That their snout is really a proboscis?

 

[Freodin]

You don't think "hanging toes" on pigs is a misnomer?

What will they say next?

That their snout is really a proboscis?

To quote from the OP: "Two of the four toes, or hooves, on the back legs of pigs do not touch the ground."

That is the point. Regardless of what you call them.

Though I think "hanging" is a good desription in that case.

So, what would you call that... and how does that name change the fact that they do not touch the ground?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, what would you call that...

A misnomer.

... and how does that name change the fact that they do not touch the ground?

Big deal -- their feet don't touch the ground.

Ever heard of fowled bats, or four-legged grasshoppers?

 

[Freodin]

Ever heard of fowled bats, or four-legged grasshoppers?

I did... but these are misnomers.

 

[Cabal]

You don't think "hanging toes" on pigs is a misnomer?

What will they say next?

That their snout is really a proboscis?

Show that they are misnomers, or stop stirring things up.

 

[Cabal]

And star fish are not stars and sea horses are not horses..... so what?

What do you mean, "so what"?

You tell me 'so what'?

Again, I'm not the one making an issue out of mislabeled body parts.

Split, I suspect this is another one of those instances with a creationist being wilfully obtuse when it comes to alternate uses of words or words used as allusions. A bit like how they seem incapable of realising that "theory" has two definitions, and yet they quite clearly handle homonyms in their daily lives.

 

[theFijian]

You don't think "hanging toes" on pigs is a misnomer?

What will they say next?

That their snout is really a proboscis?

or that a sphere has corners?