Visual Evidence for Evolution

FIRST VISUAL EXAMPLE
Photos of the skulls of extinct primates (unfortunately, you must scroll down a ways to see them) with cranial capacities listed right beside them. Demonstrates VISUALLY that the cranial capacities are not unbridgable. And even creationists cannot agree on which side of the ape-human line the "inbetween" skulls fall.

Also see this article that cites creationist disagreements as to which side of the line on which each skull falls.

---

SECOND VISUAL EXAMPLE
Creationists are right, the Cambrian included vertebrates, but SEE what kinds (the simplest vertebrates of all) that it included. Take a VISUAL LOOK at the "vertebrates" in the Cambrian and compare them to the "vertebrates" that followed during successive geological eons.

Earliest vertebrates
Jonathan Wells in ICONS OF EVOLUTION seems to ignore a growing body of literature showing that there are indeed organisms of intermediate morphology present in the Cambrian record and that the classic "phyla" distinctions are becoming blurred by fossil evidence (Budd, 1998, 1999; Budd and Jensen, 2000). Many of the "major changes" in the Cambrian were initially minor ones. Through time they became highly significant and the basis for "body-plans." For example, the most primitive living chordate Amphioxus is very similar to the Cambrian fossil chordate Pikia.
Both are basically worms with a stiff rod (the notochord) in them. The amount of change between a worm and a worm with a stiff rod is relatively small, but the presence of a notochord is a major "body-plan" distinction of a chordate. Further, it is just another small step from a worm with a stiff rod to a worm with a stiff rod and a head (e.g., Haikouella; Chen et al., 1999) or a worm with a segmented stiff rod (vertebrae), a head, and fin folds (e.g., Haikouichthyes; Shu et al., 1999). Finally add a fusiform body, fin differentiation, and scales: the result is something resembling a "fish".
But, as soon as the stiff rod evolved, the animal was suddenly no longer just a worm but a "chordate" -- representative of a whole new phylum. Thus these "major" changes are really minor in the beginning, which is the Precambrian-Cambrian period with which we are concerned. Before the Cambrian Explosion, there were lots of "worms," now preserved as trace fossils (i.e., there is evidence of burrowing in the sediments).

The period before the Cambrian is known as the Pre-Cambrian, and it contains traces of worms and some simple critters that look like they might be related to the trilobites that dominated the period that followed, i.e., the Cambrian period.

FROM GLEN MORTON'S ARTICLE ON WHEN THE VARIOUS ANIMAL AND PLANT PHYLAS AROSE ACCORDING TO THE FOSSIL RECORD (NOT GOOD NEWS FOR CREATIONISTS)
Bomakellia, a Vendian creature shows amazing similarities to trilobites, yet it is a precambrian creature. Here is a picture of Bomakellia kelleri.

And Spriggina floundersi, another Vendian animal, also shows similarities to the trilobite in the head region. It can be seen here.
For comparison with a trilobite.

For creationists to claim that there is no evidence of phyla level transitional forms, is wrong. There is evidence.
Berkeley has posted an interesting display of when the various phyla appear.
When one analyses the first appearance data of that chart, they find the following (with one addition of Cycliophora which isn't on their list and the moving of 3 additional definite Vendian phyla from the Cambrian to the Vendian as noted earlier on this page):
Period # phyla which appear in period
Recent 12
Oligocene 1
Eocene 1
Jurassic 1
Carboniferous 3
Devonian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4
(note that the Berkeley chart is inconsistent with the data presented here. The phyla found in the Precambrian would move Cambrian creatures back to the Vendian. This would not affect the way I use the data in the next paragraph.)
If one considers the Vendian/Cambrian animals as constituting the Cambrian Explosion, then we have 13 phyla appearing in the Cambrian Explosion and 20 AFTER the Cambrian Explosion. While one can assume that the 13 phyla which have no fossil record arose in the Cambrian, assumptions are NOT data. The plain fact is that the Cambrian Explosion doesn't even represent the majority of the phyla. Will these other phyla be found in the Cambrian? Maybe. But one can't rationally assume what the future holds in order to argue to his case.
And if one adds the plant phyla which appear after the Cambrian (why plant phyla should be excluded as Ray seems to imply is beyond me. They ARE phyla after all (Bohlin, 2001, p. 138)), one gets the following chart.
Period # total phyla which appear in period
Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4
(same note as above concerning phyla in the Vendian)
This yields Cambrian Explosion 13, Post-Cambrian 32! Sounds like a football score! And given that 13 phyla first appear within the past 10,000 years (having no fossil record) one could, if one wanted, claim that we are in another explosion. I wouldn't make that claim but it would fit within the data. To claim that all or even the majority of animal phyla appear in the Cambrian is demonstrably FALSE yet the claim is blindly made being repeated endlessly by apologist to apologist with no one even questioning the validity of the statement.

So why did so many phyla 'suddenly' appear in Cambrian Seas? Basically, it was because of the evolution of hard shells that gave an animal a much greater probability for preservation. Hard shells are more easily fossilized than soft flesh. But why did the animals of the Cambrian evolve shells? There are several schools of thought; I will mention only a few of them. Probably all of the suggested causes had some influence on the development of hard skeletons. Bengston and Zhao (1992, p. 367) write: "The evolutionary mechanisms behind the origin of mineralized skeletons in animals at the Precambrian-Cambrian transition about 550 million years ago have been vigorously debated. One school holds that skeletal biomineralization began as a detoxification process, another that it evolved mainly to promote biomechanically efficient constructions for locomotion, feeding, and so on, yet another that it arose as a response to predation."

---

THIRD VISUAL EXAMPLE
VISUAL evidence for snake evolution as seen in photos in a letter published in NATURE magazine. You can plainly see the python's pelvic girdle with all the basic parts of a tetrapod's pelvis, AND ALSO SEE limb buds on the python embryo (that are later reabsorved). The author of the piece includes pics of leg buds in the chick embryo for comparison.
"Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes" by Martin J .Cohn & Cheryll Tickle, NATURE VOL 399 3 JUNE 1999

Other online articles feature photos of small fossilized limbs found on the earliest known relatives of what was to later become the snake family: "How the snake lost its legs" Discover, July, 1997 by Carl Zimmer
"...How did snakes come to be? The distinctiveness of the animals obscures their ancestry. Their scales, eggs, and subtle features of their skulls show them to be descended from lizards, but it's been difficult to link them to any specific group. Unable to pin them down taxonomically, paleontologists have been able to construct only the flimsiest of scenarios for how snakes lost their limbs. But this confusion may now dissolve, thanks to a 100-million-year-old fossil of a snake with legs. The three-foot-long creature, Pachy rachis problematicus (meaning "problematic thick-ribbed animal"), was discovered in the late 1970s by quarryworkers 12 miles north of Jerusalem. After a preliminary study, Hebrew University herpetologist George Haas suggested that while the fossil looked serpentine, there was no evidence that it was closely related to snakes. There matters rested until 1996, when Michael Lee of the University of Sydney in Australia and Michael Caldwell of the Field Museum in Chicago came to Jerusalem to study the fossil more thoroughly. They exposed more of the fossil from its limestone slab and carefully compared its skeleton with those of snakes and lizards. "The first thing you've got to do is look at every possible animal it could be related to, and Haas didn't have access to lots of primitive snake material," says Lee. He and Caldwell conclude that Pachyrachis possesses many characteristics unique to snakes. Its body, for example, is long and sinuous: it has 140 vertebrae in its trunk; most lizards have just 25. And while lizards have open brain cases, Pachyrachis, like snakes, has a completely sealed one. Its jaws are extraordinarily flexible: the lower jaw doesn't fuse at the chin, so the two halves can bend out to the sides to swallow big prey. Many hinges lie along the length of both the upper and lower jaws to expand the gape even more. "They're snakes, no doubt about it," says Lee. Yet Pachyrachis still held on to some primitive bits of anatomy, and in them Lee and Caldwell glimpse the genealogy of snakes. Most obvious, of course, are the legs. The fossil of Pachyrachis bears two hind legs, each about an inch long, that lack only feet. It's possible that Pachyrachis's feet were washed away after it died, but Lee suspects they would have been vestigial at best, perhaps with a few toes. Less obvious but just as significant are its hips, which were outside its rib cage rather than within, and a number of diagnostic details of its spine and skull."...

And see...

This article, National Geographic Snake Evolution, this article, and these fascinating articles on the evolution of snake venom. Lenny Flank runs a yahoo group on creation and evolution. Here is an article by Lenny on snake evolution, unfortunately no photos

---

FOURTH VISUAL EXAMPLE
Carl Wieland at Answers in Genesis in his article, "The Strange Tale of the Leg on The Whale," attempted to dismiss evidence of pelvic and hind-limb remnants found on modern whales. For that purpose he used a photo of "the skeleton of a Greenland Right whale with bony disease," and suggested such remnants did not exist.
Unfortunately, Wieland had not searched the literature very deeply for evidence for hind limb remnants found on modern day whales. Just compare the photo Wieland highlighted (above) with the diagrams of a dissection of a perfectly healthy Right Whale, one without bony disease, showing its pelvis, femur and tibia plain as day and the ligaments connecting them. In other words, Right whales have the hip bone connected to the leg bone, and the leg bone connected to the shin bone. Struthers' dissections were performed over a century ago, and revealed the anatomy of Right whales plain as day. For the dissection drawings and a discussion of the Right whale's pelvis, femur and tibia, scroll way down to EXAMPLE #5.

Finally, see this article with photos at the website of a theistic evolutionist Christian

Genetic Mutations in Humans: From Feet to Flippers

Timothy (arguing in defense of the 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis): "Evolution has certain severe problems to overcome before I am convinced:

1. Mutations -- Mutations are the only way to introduce new genetic material into an organism. Thus, mutations are the driving force of Evolutionary theory. The problem with mutations are that the vast majority -- like a thousand to one -- are harmful. Thus, mutation is far more likely to destroy a species than cause it to evolve. If you throw a wrench at a car, you my fix it, but you are much more likely to damage it than fix it. To believe that a proven destructive force like mutation will eventually build a single complex living organism, much less ALL living organisms everywhere, is an act of faith, not of science."

Sharon: I happen to know somebody who has a mutation that is "harmless". I do not know where Timothy gets his figures from about "a thousand to one" are harmless.

The conversation called to mind what John F. Kennedy said about our relationship to the sea:
"I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it's because in addition to the fact that the sea changes, and the light changes, and ships change, it's because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea -- whether it is to sail or to watch it -- we are going back from whence we came." --John F. Kennedy, Jr., 1962

[Though the scientific data might have changed since 1962, the fact of our relationship with the sea, has not.]

Of course the photographs we've collected of hind limbs on whales, and recently the flippers with toe nail photos on sea cows.

I called the woman I know and we photographed her and her daughter's webbed toes. My question is sensible enough. If two types of mammals (Sirenians and Cetaceans) could return to the sea, and evolve webbing between their fingers or toes (eventually turning into a tail or flippers), couldn't this mutation show up in humans as well? Sirenians, Cetaceans and Humans are all mammals... it would seem they could have the same genetic mutations occur? I think these "webbed toes" are genetically, even if just remotely perhaps, some insight into land to sea mammal evolution. I also have a photograph of a dolphin embryo where the fingers are evident and they appear to be webbed [obtained from J.G.M. Thewissen's Digital Library of Dolphin Development] -- as you guys know even the flippers of whales have bones in them for digits (their evolutionary past with land mammals).

Is there a relation between human webbed toes and the webbing that occured to transitional land to sea mammals?

Thanks, Sharon

I happened to have known somebody who has a mutation that is "harmless". I do not know where Timothy gets his figures from about "a thousand to one mutations" are harmless.

Of course you know someone with a harmless mutation. Everybody has many many harmless mutations. Hair color, eye color, skin tone etc. are all mutations that are essentially harmless.
The fins of Cetaceans don't have the digits spread out but rather a fairly tight mass with the digits all together. I'm not as familiar with Piniped morphology.
The major changes to adapt to a marine lifestyle seem to be streamlining of the body, heat retention adaptations and metabolic and lung changes to allow more time between breaths. While aquatic birds and otters do have webbed digits I'm not sure if there is any evidence for it being a major factor in cetacean evolution.
-Ken Shaw (talk.origins)

Website on "Syndactyly" (a medical term for webbed fingers or webbed toes) My web site is a very modest effort to help people with syndactyly, and mothers of babies with syndactyly understand the condition better. Sort of an informal, unorganized self-help group. Recently, I received some input from a couple of ladies in India, one a Muslim college student. One does the correspondence for both. This helps to show how this is a global phenomenon which can and does happen "anywhere". I am thinking about changing part of the site to call itself the "World-Wide-Webbed-Toes" site. Your page seems to be directed to explaining syndactyly to people who do not have it, which is great. The people who visit my pages will still benefit from the pictures you provide. The more the better. One of the most common questions (Syndactyly FAQ?) concerns whether this is inherited. I tell people "yes and no". In some cases, there are too many close relatives with this condition to be explained by chance. Other cases, like mine, seem to be isolated, with no known relatives showing this condition. Neither of my children have syndactyly. I am still waiting for grandchildren. We will see what turns up when that happens. Best regards, Bill Luken

Is there a relation between human webbed toes and the webbing that occured to transitional land to sea mammals?

I believe there is. Developmentally it's just the turning off of apoptosis between the digits during early development. There are doubtless many different mutations, at many different parts of the developmental sequence, that could accomplish that same trick. Junk DNA would have nothing to do with it, and it's unlikely that the same mutation would be involved since there are probably so many possible ones.

But the biggest problem with the creationist spiel has nothing to do with the frequency of neutral, beneficial, or deleterious mutations. (And remember that these categories are dependent on environment, by the way.) The biggest problem is a simple failure to understand natural selection. So what if the ratio of good to bad is 1:1000 (or whatever ratio you like)? Natural selection gets rid of the bad ones when they're at low frequencies, and promotes the good ones to high frequencies. Thus a mutation won't destroy a species; it may destroy an individual, but that's how natural selection works. The species as a whole collects good mutations, however rare they may be, through the differential reproductive success of individuals. How can one possibly criticize evolution without understanding its most basic principles?
-John Harshman (talk.origins)

I wonder if the same developmental mutation in your friend's gene happened in the homologous region of the dolphin's DNA? It would take a lot of research to discover that of course.

We share lots of genes with mice, probably many with cetaceans too, since they were originally mammals and all mammals share a common ancestor. Some of those genes probably direct whether the skin between the finger bones dies or not. I was just wondering what the difference was between the genes that directed the development (and disappearance) of the skin between the fingers in human beings and cetacea. It's not something I know anything about, and I haven't heard that any cetacean genomes have been sequenced yet. Though they did sequence the human genome, the whole thing, and chimp genome, and rat genome, and mouse genome and chicken genome (very recently, this month in fact) and zebra-fish genome (ancient cousin of the fish that led to the first amphibians). I don't know what others are due next for sequencing. But the results so far don't pose any problems for evolutionists, since a lot of the same genes or very similar ones, have been found, even in creatures as far apart as mice and men. Recently a few developmental genes of the only known living species of lobe-finned fish have been sequenced. Not the whole genome, just a few genes, crucial developmental ones that play a role in fore-limb formation, because the lobe-finned fish preceded the earliest amphibians in the fossil record. And, as expected, the genes for the development of the forelimb of lobe-finned fishes more closely resembled those of mice than of other fishes (with their non-lobed-fore-fins). I am still collecting articles on all of this stuff. Oh, the guy who headed up the human genome sequencing project is a Christian, a theistic evolutionist. He thinks the creationists are an embarrassment to his faith.
-Ed Babinski

Email to Professor Thewissen
December 19, 2004
Dolphin Embryo Picture (Permission to use?)

Dear Professor Thewissen,

I had a conversation with a fellow who believes in Intelligent Design and part of his argument against Darwinism was "mutations are harmful". I got to thinking about a person I personally know who had a genetic mutation she was born with on her feet, and she passed this gene on to her daughter. They both have webbed toes, which appears similar to the process that took place on cetaceans and sirenians, with the digits webbing together to form a flipper... so I got photographs and created a page, and collected some comments from talk.origins on the question. (At least I feel there is something in common here... I would assume since cetaceans, sirenians and humans are all mammals, the same phenomena of feet to flippers, could [at least, hypothetically] happen.)

I have borrowed the picture of the dolphin embryo with the webbed fingers, from your site (and placed proper credit to your URL on Dolphin Embryo Development site). I hope this is okay. By the way, you guys have done a wonderful job on that site.

I hope there is no problem that I borrowed that photograph. I wanted to drop a line, just in case there was any problem about it. I've read on other pages from your site, that the photographs were accessible, as long as proper credit is given. Please let me know if there is any problem.

Sincere appreciation,
Sharon Mooney

"J. G. M. Thewissen"
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Subject: Re: Dolphin Embryo Picture (Permission to use?)

No great, please use that image on your page.
You have to be careful. A number of genes are involved, and the mechanism whereby a dolphin retains webbed feet might be very different from the mechanism whereby some humans retain webbed feet. For the dolphin, we don't know which genes are involved.
Are you aware that all mammal embryos have webbed feet early in development, and then the skin flaps between the fingers die.
Just making sure.
Hans Thewissen

"ed.babinski/furman.edu"
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Subject: Re: Fw: Dolphin Embryo Picture (Permission to use?)

He's right. All embryos have skin between the finger bones and that skin undergos cell death and shrivels away. I would assume it's the same genes or very similar genes in all mammals that direct the cell death process that makes the webbed skin die between the finger bones. If that gene gets mutated (or another gene related to that process) then the webbed skin would remain.
The whale's skeleton closely resembles the skeletons of other mammals. For instance, the bones of the flippers resemble jointed limbs and digits and the neck has seven vertebrae like many other mammal species including man.
(Even the giraffe's neck has the same standard number of vertebrae, seven!)

[See The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals: A Visual Who's Who of Prehistoric Life, Collier Books: New York, 1988, pg. 230-231]

In mammalian embryos, the forelimb initially forms as a small bump on the side of the chest, the so-called limb bud. The limb bud grows and flattens, and fingers become apparent. At later stages in dolphins (third and fourth specimen above) the fingers can be seen as individual entities, as they are in most mammals. Lateron, they disappear and are all embedded in a narrow, fin-like extremity called the flipper. Source: Digital Library of Dolphin Development If evolution is true and these tiny fingers are a glance back into the evolutionary history of dolphins, could it happen to humans? The answer is yes. Below are photographs of the genetic mutation which occured when a non-webbed toed mother gave birth to a daughter who had the webbed toe gene, and twenty five years later passed that gene on to her daughter.

Photograph of mother and daughter. The Grandmother did not have webbed toes, and none of her relatives or immediate ancestors were known to have webbed toes. For both women, the genetic mutation is located on both feet, affecting the same toes.

Daughter's webbed toe. This webbing occurs on both feet, in the same location.

Mother's webbed toe. This webbing occurs on both feet, in the same location.

Daughter's webbed toe, on left foot.

Daughter's webbed toe, on right foot.

Edward B.: I don't know if humans could evolve into cetaceans. Maybe, maybe not. There's limitations to consider. Usually species don't go back and re-evolve into one another. We share a common mammalian ancestor with cetaceans in the past, but species usually continue to diverge and go off in different directions. Sharon M.: Ed, I may not have a degree in biology but I'm not stupid. Of course humans wouldn't evolve into Cetaceans or Sirenians. What would they call a human with webbed hands and feet / fluke. Ah, yes, a mermaid ! Edward B.: Dugong you're right!

"My Webbed Toes Are Cool"

February 22, 2005, "Joe" wrote:
Thems not webbed feet its just two deformed toes that grew togeather, webbed toes have a thin skin in between those toes are joined togeather, big differance.

Hi Joe, besides misspelling, I feel you have no real understanding of what syndactyly is. But thanks for the input.

You need to refer to Dictionary com if you have any further questions and go from there.
Syndactyly is not a simple "deformation". In fact, individuals with syndactyly would disagree with you about your callous label of their condition as "deformed". The lady in the pics above expressed having always felt her webbed toes were "neat" (in a cool kind of way). It is genetic and can be passed generation to generation. *smile*.

1. Hereditary and Genetic
2. Referred to as "Webbing" of Digits
3. It is not an isolated deformation and the proper scientific name for the condition is "syndactyly."
4. Found in mammals and birds

syn·dac·ty·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn-dkt-l) or syn·dac·tyl·ism (-t-lzm) n. Biology
The condition of having two or more fused digits, as occurs normally in certain mammals and birds.
A congenital anomaly in humans characterized by two or more fused fingers or toes.

Main Entry: syn·dac·ty·ly
Pronunciation: -lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -lies
: a union of two or more digits that is normal in many birds (as kingfishers) and in some lower mammals (as the kangaroos) and that occurs in humans often as a hereditary disorder marked by the joining or webbing of two or more fingers or toes

syndactyly
n : birth defect in which there is partial or total webbing connecting two or more fingers or toes [syn: syndactylism]

syn·dac·ty·ly (sn-dkt-l)
n.
Webbing or fusion of the fingers or toes, involving soft parts only or including bone structure. Also called symphalangism, syndactylia, syndactylism, zygodactyly.
Source: dictionary.reference.com

Answers in Genesis' Response on Evidence for Whale Evolution

Ed,

Very informative post! Your experience is very consistent with anyone who has tried to engage Sirfarti (aka "Socrates") at theologyweb.com. As a point of information, he has been banned or exiled or whatever from that site for the past four or five months due to rude behavior -- and that's no mean task, given that it's run by YEC fundamentalists.

Thanks!

Roger

Hi,
I'm new to the ASA list, or rather was on it years ago and just rejoined. I noticed a discussion about the young-earth creationist, Sarfati (or was it "Socrates" at tweb? -- are they different people or one and the same?) and his penchant for name calling, as mentioned two or three months ago in the ASA forum. I have my own story to add concerning Sarfati:

About a year ago I read several articles at aig.org (Answers in Genesis website) that attempted to debunk evidence for cetacean evolution, but one article in particular attempted to debunk the claim that modern day cetaceans had been found with hind leg rudiments. According to the AiG author he could find no evidence of such things in the scientific literature. All that AiG had been able to find was a photo of a diseased pelvis of a Right whale, and the author claimed there was no evidence that the diseased bone in question was actually a pelvis, nor any evidence that the small protrusions extending from it on either side were rudimentary femurs.

So I did some research of my own and obtained a few articles on hind limb rudiments that are occaisionally found on modern day cetaceans, and I posted the findings and photos and dissection drawings of a healthy Right whale's pelvis, femur and tibia bones.

My webmaster was proud of the page she had put together and emailed Sarfati at AiG and asked him to respond to the evidence since the article questioned several AiG articles.

Sarfati's "response" to my webmaster included him referring to me as "Blabinski" (instead of "Babinski"). Sarfati wrote, "Blabinski manages to miss the point of the [AiG] article," and added, "it's laughable from my perspective as a Ph.D. scientist (earned from a secular university) to hear non-scientists like you and Blabinski try to lecture me on science..." [Ironically, the sources I quoted were scientists who had studied cetaeans far more deeply than Sarfati had, but Sarfati continued to attack my credibiliy, as if that allowed him to reject the evidence out of hand. - Ed.] Sarfati wrote, "What qualifications does Babinski have? Actually, I know the answer to that -- zip, nada, zilch." [I have a Bachelor's in Biology from Fairleigh Dickenson University in New Jersey. - Ed.] Sarfati continued, "He's an affable enough person during emails, but his main claim to fame is as an editor of a book of "anti-testimonies" by assorted apostates. And he writes other junk... I haven't the slightest confidence that these reports are any more than more of the same wishful thinking... This time-wasting apostate deserves nothing but obscurity." He ended with, "I trust that you will also appreciate the immense busyness operating here; we have about 25,000 visitors to our site every day, and I'm finishing a book. So I hope you will understand that we can't possibly respond to all claims disseminated by every God-hater inhabiting the darker hovels of the Internet..."

I sent Sarfati an invitation to look at the evidence, photos, dissection diagrams for himself. He has not yet said what he makes of the evidence for hind limb rudiements found on modern day whales. In fact, in the dissection of the Right whale at my site, Struthers found the hip bone connected to the leg bone, connected to the shin bone, by ligaments, as exists in ALL modern day Right whales, hidden inside their flesh:

"Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint as firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures." [Struthers, p. 142-143]

---

DAVID: Sarfati's "I have a PhD and you don't" attacks are especially ill-founded given that his batchelor's and PhD are in chemistry. He has no more official qualification to talk about evolutionary biology than any layman. Of course, people without degrees in a field can be quite knowledgeable; it is the citation of a chemistry PhD as proof of authority on evolution that is problematic.

ED:

Sarfati responded: "How exactly are they are un-christlike? It seems 'un-Christ-like' not to believe what He [Christ] did about Genesis!"

DAVID: As He didn't say anything about the age of the earth, this claim is questionable. Perhaps more fundamentally, Genesis never says you should lie about whale anatomy. Belief in a young earth does not require belief in the false claims of creation science. It's a popular creation science tactic to label any questioning of their claims as an attack on the Bible.

ED:

So, the problem may lie not only with Sarfati, but perhaps with "Biblical language" itself. I could of course give examples of some serious rhetoric from the Bible, far more serious and sarcastic than Sarfati's.

DAVID: Plenty of examples from church history, too...

Different situations may call for harsher rhetorical styles. E.g., some of the Biblical examples were elicited by harsh comments (e.g., Amos vs. Amaziah).

The fundamental discrepancy between Sarfati's language and Biblical examples is that he is using it to defend his own deviations from Biblical standards of truth and quality.

Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

From: "ed babinski"

My webmaster told Sarfati: "I found your comments highly insulting, un-christlike, and exceptionally un-professional."
Sarfati responded: "How exactly are they are un-christlike? It seems 'un-Christ-like' not to believe what He [Christ] did about Genesis!"

Also, in fairness of Sarfati's sharp sarcastic tongue, is his verbal behavior inconceivably worse than the verbal behaviors of prophets, psalmists, Jesus and Paul, who employed some serious rhetoric at times? For instance, when I questioned Sarfati about the way he addresses people whose beliefs differ from his own, he directed me to an online article by J. P. Holding, titled, "Is it 'Un-Christian' To Engage in Satire?"
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html

So, the problem may lie not only with Sarfati, but perhaps with "Biblical language" itself. I could of course give examples of some serious rhetoric from the Bible, far more serious and sarcastic than Sarfati's.

Yes, the Bible uses pretty bruising language sometimes - e.g., Gal.5:12.
(The idea there is "I hope that when they're being circumcised the knife slips.") But aside from ethical issues, the following points should be considered.

1) People should not use sarcasm, ridicule unless it's actually funny & effective. Most people who use such devices make themselves look silly because they don't know how to do it. E.g., distorting someone's name - Blabinski for Babinski - is childish. It's at about the same level as when my daughter learned the telling put-down "doody head" in 1st grade (in Australia). When adults use language like this it's a reasonable inference that their arguments are weak & that they're putting up a smokescreen.

2) There are 2 very different situations that are relevant here. The biblical writers are using sarcasm & as a rhetorical device in the public arena. E.g., Paul was trying to persuade one group of people (e.g., the Galatian Christians) that another group (the Judaizers) were wrong and that he was right. Generally that kind of thing happens when a dispute has already become more or less public and opposing positions have been set. In the situation you've described, OTOH, Sarfati was (as I understand it) dealing with you as a private individual. The only purpose such rhetoric serves then is intimidation.

I think that the best thing to do with Sarfati & those of his ilk is to leave them, as much as possible, severely alone. Their claims need to be refuted as strongly as possible in whatever media are available, & this includes saying bluntly, with supporting evidence, that those claims are false, absurd - & if the evidence warrants it, lies. But trying to debate with hardline YEC cadres is a waste of time. Efforts should be directed instead to trying to keep them from infecting others.

Whatever the biblical examples may be, childish rhetoric should be avoided. Intelligent people can see through it.

Shalom
George