Wow. How you persevere in the presence of such obstinacy is to be commended.

Stop. Take a breath. Review everything the “critics” have said.

Is it consistent?

Is it factual?

Is it relevant?

It means that no one knows whether or not duplicating or changing HOX genes produces a new body plan.
We know genes change.
We also know that the vast majority of genes to not affect body plans as they are used for every-day maintenance and sustainability- metabolism, etc.

I beg to differ; there is a rich literature describing exactly how HOX genes determine body plans.

As far as I know, lots of the changes responsible for differences in body plans have been identified and I’d be surprised if not a great deal more have been discovered since Carroll (2005) or Shubin (2008). I suppose there must be lots of people working full time on such research. How much progress has ID done since, say, 1995?

At page 109 of Your Inner Fish are some beautiful diagrams showing the correlation between HOX genes as they are located in DNA and the body plans of flies – or people. There’s lots more relevant stuff about HOX genes in Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

Now you are just blowing smoke. Sermonti is making an assertion. There is no footnote next to it that says ‘supported by published research X’. His assertion, his burden of proof.

Everyone else since Darwin invented the idea of sexual selection is saying sexual selection is a driver of evolution, not something that stops evolution. If the peacock’s feathers are a result of sexual selection, have peacock feathers existed since tetrapods climbed out of the water? Get real.

Joseph: YOU think that Common Descent leads to a nestedc hierarchy.

Just to reiterate, so that it is very clear to our readers; if we can’t objectively group organisms by their character traits, then we won’t be able to identify any objective pattern, nested hierarchy or otherwise.

But everyone knows that we *can* objectively group organisms, and it’s obvious you just won’t make the attempt. For everyone else, when we examine the pattern of these groupings, it leads to strong correlations between seemingly unrelated traits, such as having horns and hooves implying a rumen.

The burden is on you to support your position.

You have failed to do so.

And Sermonti’s material supports what I said.

Perhaps you should read it.

Sermonti’s prose is proven with every observation and experiment.

That you refuse to accept that fact does not refute it.

And if you are limiting the discussion to peer-review then your position doesn’t have anything to discuss!

I understand that you don’t like what Sermonti said even though it is based on observations, experiences and experimentation.

Well then, all we need is the references to those observations, experiences and experimentation. The burden of proof is on Sermonti to support his flowery prose. That is going to be difficult to come by I guess. If he can make precise what he means by ‘Venus’ (sexual selection?) stopping ‘progress’ and get it published in a peer reviewed journal, I’d be happy to engage in a discussion about it.

It remains that Sermonti’s material does not support your claim about sex and Common Descent.

Zachriel: Have you ever said whether whales better group with mice or fish?

Joseph: This thread is about whale evolution from a land mammal. If you have any evidence that supports the claim now would be a good time to present it.

But when someone tries to lead you through what the vast majority of biologist consider to be important evidence, you cover your eyes and start saying “nannynah.” From Darwin on, evidence of Common Descent has been found in taxonomy. We can’t possibly discuss the overall pattern when you refuse to admit that we can group organisms by traits.

Indeed, there is only one consistent way to classify organisms, and it leads to a very specific pattern, a pattern that has empirical consequences.

One of George Cuvier’s students dressed as the Devil with horns on his head and hoof-shaped shoes burst into Cuvier’s bedroom when he was asleep and said, “I am the Devil. I have come to devour you!” Cuvier woke up and replied, “I doubt whether you can. You have horns and hooves. You eat only plants.”

If you aren’t going to use characteristics (those used for taxonomy and construction of nested hierarchies) to define common descent what would you suggest be used?

That’s your problem, not mine.

As I said and evidence supports- characteristics can be lost as well as gained.

But anyway as I said above an asterisk would be a pattern that could be produced via descent with modification (given traits can be lost or gained).

I understand that you don’t like what Sermonti said even though it is based on observations, experiences and experimentation.

However all you have to do is provide the data which refutes him.

If you can’t do that then all you have is whining.

This thread is about whale evolution from a land mammal.

If you have any evidence that supports the claim now would be a good time to present it.

Your continued distractions tell me you cannot support the claim.