|
| BECOME A MEMBER |
| LOG IN |
| NEW! CHANGE BACKGROUND |
|
Welcome,
Guest
|
|
Why do whales have phalange bones in their flippers?
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Because they are descended from the same creature as all other mammals.
Duh. -SirAtheistCliche, SGC’s skeptical doppelgänger |
|
All rules have exceptions, including this one.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
hjg4728 wrote:
Why do whales have phalange bones in their flippers? IDK |
|
~ Cherry
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
SirGeneralCliche wrote:
Because they are descended from the same creature as all other mammals. Duh. -SirAtheistCliche, SGC’s skeptical doppelgänger LOL im actually dying  |
|
baby crawdaddy's are literally the cutest thing ever
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: SirGeneralCliche
|
|
Hmmm, so to clarify the question, you're asking why a whale has finger bones when it has no fingers?
I think its interesting because birds and other types of animals that don't really have fingers have finger bones too. There's an answer given in my biology textbook but I don't have it atm...sorry |
Last Edit: 5 years 2 months ago by Quirky.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
They have those bones because they need them to keep their flippers together. Same reason why we humans have bones in our hands and feet. It was not due to evolution, as macro-evolution is unbiblical.
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: horsegirl04
|
|
SirGeneralCliche wrote:
Because they are descended from the same creature as all other mammals. Duh. -SirAtheistCliche, SGC’s skeptical doppelgänger Seriously though, the phalange bones are some good proof of a common ancestor, because they have the same sections and structures. They all have a long upper arm, two bones in the lower arms, wrist bones, hand bones, and finger bones. It's not just that they have phalange bones, it's that they have a extremely similar bone structure. Obviously there's the size and proportion differences, but the different parts are all the same as in lots of other animals. |
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
endershadow112 wrote:
SirGeneralCliche wrote:
Because they are descended from the same creature as all other mammals. Duh. -SirAtheistCliche, SGC’s skeptical doppelgänger Seriously though, the phalange bones are some good proof of a common ancestor, because they have the same sections and structures. They all have a long upper arm, two bones in the lower arms, wrist bones, hand bones, and finger bones. It's not just that they have phalange bones, it's that they have a extremely similar bone structure. Obviously there's the size and proportion differences, but the different parts are all the same as in lots of other animals. Yes, there are similar bones, organs, etc, in different creatures. You would think that if they had similar features, then they'd have similar DNA. Nope! Each creature has its own unique DNA. Common ancestor? I don't think so. Common Creator who knew that particular feature was the best to use? I believe so. An awesome site anout creation vs evolution is www.creationscience.com/ It's written by a creationist, but the interesting thing is that almost all the evidence/quotes he uses are from the studies, research, and books of evolutionists. It's facinating to read and I suggest that anyone who wants to understand the evidence and what scientists are saying. It has some good quotes about common ancestors - What evolutionists say about similar ancestors A couple of quotes: "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...” Nilsson, p. 1143. “But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22. |
Last Edit: 4 years 3 months ago by tasha1507. Reason: Minor change
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
tasha1507 wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
SirGeneralCliche wrote:
Because they are descended from the same creature as all other mammals. Duh. -SirAtheistCliche, SGC’s skeptical doppelgänger Seriously though, the phalange bones are some good proof of a common ancestor, because they have the same sections and structures. They all have a long upper arm, two bones in the lower arms, wrist bones, hand bones, and finger bones. It's not just that they have phalange bones, it's that they have a extremely similar bone structure. Obviously there's the size and proportion differences, but the different parts are all the same as in lots of other animals. Yes, there are similar bones, organs, etc, in different creatures. You would think that if they had similar features, then they'd have similar DNA. Nope! Each creature has its own unique DNA. Common ancestor? I don't think so. Common Creator who knew that particular feature was the best to use? I believe so. An awesome site anout creation vs evolution is www.creationscience.com/ It's written by a creationist, but the interesting thing is that almost all the evidence/quotes he uses are from the studies, research, and books of evolutionists. It's facinating to read and I suggest that anyone who wants to understand the evidence and what scientists are saying. It has some good quotes about common ancestors - What evolutionists say about similar ancestors A couple of quotes: "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...” Nilsson, p. 1143. “But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22. Um, you know that's false. Creatures have very similar DNA. We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 92% with mice, 44% with fruit flies, and 26% (one fourth) with yeast. |
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
hjg4728 wrote:
Why do whales have phalange bones in their flippers? I don’t know |
|
Speak for those who have no voice.
Red and yellow...black and white.... We're all precious in His sight....❤️ Any questions? Ask! -kash (aka pathfinder4ever)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
SirGeneralCliche wrote:
Because they are descended from the same creature as all other mammals. Duh. -SirAtheistCliche, SGC’s skeptical doppelgänger Seriously though, the phalange bones are some good proof of a common ancestor, because they have the same sections and structures. They all have a long upper arm, two bones in the lower arms, wrist bones, hand bones, and finger bones. It's not just that they have phalange bones, it's that they have a extremely similar bone structure. Obviously there's the size and proportion differences, but the different parts are all the same as in lots of other animals. Yes, there are similar bones, organs, etc, in different creatures. You would think that if they had similar features, then they'd have similar DNA. Nope! Each creature has its own unique DNA. Common ancestor? I don't think so. Common Creator who knew that particular feature was the best to use? I believe so. An awesome site anout creation vs evolution is www.creationscience.com/ It's written by a creationist, but the interesting thing is that almost all the evidence/quotes he uses are from the studies, research, and books of evolutionists. It's facinating to read and I suggest that anyone who wants to understand the evidence and what scientists are saying. It has some good quotes about common ancestors - What evolutionists say about similar ancestors A couple of quotes: "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...” Nilsson, p. 1143. “But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22. Um, you know that's false. Creatures have very similar DNA. We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 92% with mice, 44% with fruit flies, and 26% (one fourth) with yeast. "...And we mustn't forget, children, that our great great great great great great great great grandfather was a piece of yeast" |
|
"Is man merely a mistake of God's, or is God merely a mistake of man?"
-Friedrich Nietzsche
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Blue Tornado wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
SirGeneralCliche wrote:
Because they are descended from the same creature as all other mammals. Duh. -SirAtheistCliche, SGC’s skeptical doppelgänger Seriously though, the phalange bones are some good proof of a common ancestor, because they have the same sections and structures. They all have a long upper arm, two bones in the lower arms, wrist bones, hand bones, and finger bones. It's not just that they have phalange bones, it's that they have a extremely similar bone structure. Obviously there's the size and proportion differences, but the different parts are all the same as in lots of other animals. Yes, there are similar bones, organs, etc, in different creatures. You would think that if they had similar features, then they'd have similar DNA. Nope! Each creature has its own unique DNA. Common ancestor? I don't think so. Common Creator who knew that particular feature was the best to use? I believe so. An awesome site anout creation vs evolution is www.creationscience.com/ It's written by a creationist, but the interesting thing is that almost all the evidence/quotes he uses are from the studies, research, and books of evolutionists. It's facinating to read and I suggest that anyone who wants to understand the evidence and what scientists are saying. It has some good quotes about common ancestors - What evolutionists say about similar ancestors A couple of quotes: "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...” Nilsson, p. 1143. “But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22. Um, you know that's false. Creatures have very similar DNA. We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 92% with mice, 44% with fruit flies, and 26% (one fourth) with yeast. "...And we mustn't forget, children, that our great great great great great great great great grandfather was a piece of yeast" I'm assuming that was meant to be a kind of joke, but to be clear that's not what the shared DNA means. Shared genes are usually used as proof of a common ancestor, not direct ancestry, so yeast would be equivalent to an extremely distant cousin, not a grandfather. You share 50% of your genes with your siblings, but that doesn't mean you descended from them. So no, even according to evolution yeast would not be humans' great great great great great great great great grandfather. |
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ken10wil
|
