Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I have written about this multiple times, and since it has come up I thought I would gather it up into a post or two.
I may add more later.
Biological
-Limbs
Here are three pictures of Mammal limbs
From: http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/skeleton.html
From: http://www.ftexploring.com/
Whales have retained the hand bones of their earlier land dwelling ancestors. This is a commonality between practically all mammals no matter where they are. In whales the hand bones are fussed together to create a single flipper. Other aquatic life that don't have the same evolutionary lineage as the whale also don't share their flipper design, for example, a sharks flippers are made from a single piece of cartilage and not a hand like bone structure.
Legs Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)
Whales have also retained leg bones, although inside their body. Some have even been found to have feet connected to these bones with complete digits.
-Hair
Whales develop body hair in the womb but lose all expect for sensory bristles around the blowhole.
-DNA "Molecular studies by Goodman and others (1985) show that whales are more closely related to the ungulates than they are to all other mammals."
"Irwin and Arnason (1994), Milinkovitch (1992), Graur and Higgins (1994), Gatesy and others (1996), and Shimamura and others (1997) also identified the whales as closely related to the artiodactyls" http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
This means that the DNA in whales is more closely related to ungulates and artiodactyls (a type of ungulate) than to other aquatic mammals. Providing evidence for their lineage. This also helped us understand the lineage better. It was originally thought whales evolved directly from Mesonychids (an extinct form of ungulate) because the fossils showed similar characteristics. The new DNA evidence shows that they most likely split from artiodactyls not long after artiodactyls split from Mesonychids, giving early whales the characteristics of mesonychids but DNA more closely related to artiodactyls.
Fossil
Summarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part2b.html
• Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) -- Similar to the early exyclaenid condylarths, had strong canine teeth, blunt cheek teeth and flattened claws.
• Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the Mesonychids. Its molar teeth are reorganized to look like premolars. It was adapted more toward carnivory.
• Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- Molars closer to premolars and other tooth changes.
• Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- Very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shape zygomatic arch and vascularized areas between the molars. probably a close relative to the whale ancestor.
• Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Terrestrial ears, not that good for underwater sound location or deep diving. Molars have very mesonychid like cusps but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils are still at the front of the head.
• Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- Still retains four legs, although they were stubby. Had large back feet that stuck out like tail flukes but lacked real tail flukes and had a simple long tail. Long snout with no blowhole.
• Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Smaller hind legs with a powerful tail. Nostrils had moved back from the tip of the snout.
• Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- Still retained hind legs but most likely couldn't walk on them anymore. B isis might have bee a cousin to the modern whale.
• Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Hind legs almost gone but still present. 6" hind legs on a 15 foot body.
• Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene -- More advanced whales, that had lost their hind legs, but retained more primitive skull and teeth with unfused nostrils. Much larger streamline bodies with a tail fluke.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
1. Toothed whales:
• Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- partly telescoped skull with cheek teeth still rooted.
• Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Fully telescoped skull with nostrils on top
• Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped but still symmetrical.
2. Baleen (toothless) whales:
• Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- Most primitive mysticete whale. Most likely the stem group for all baleen whales. mysticete style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but retained its teeth
• Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) --- lost its teeth.
• Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
-Strata
I should point out that not only does the morphological appearance show an evolution but if the fossils were organized by strata and age we would get the same list.
Conclusion
Whale evolution is a good transitional set because we not only have transitional fossils but multiple pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction. This is also a quick way around the "kind" game, since I have yet to see a definition of "kinds" that considers land mammals and aquatic mammals to be within a kind.
Sections of AiG article in bold, and quotes from AiG in blue.
Wonderful Whales
Here they mainly talk about what the adaptations of a whale are.
One thing to expand on briefly. Whales don't completely lack hair. In the womb they begin to develop hair but most of it is lost except a few bristles around the lips or blowhole depending on the species.
"because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use."
Not much here except a claim that something can't evolve because it would have had no use. We have heard AiG and others use the argument against vestigial, that just because it doesn't appear to have a use, doesn't me it doesn't.
In this case, we don't have enough information to make any assumptions about whether it would be of use or not.
Missing links "Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution , page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids .’"
This is outdated. Current evidence shows that whales are a form of Artiodactyl that took to the water after the family split with Mesonychids.
Early whales were Artiodactyls that retained features of the Mesonychids.
"One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable."
The fossils show that the pelvis did indeed shrink. A shrinking pelvis would be able to support the hindlimbs until they were no longer needed. The pelvis would shrink in proportion to the use of it's tail. The ability to swim even slightly better than land animals that might hunt the early whales does not make them extremely vulnerable as long as they stay around water. It would actually provide a way for them to escape and survive.
"Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement."
There is no evidence the tail movement needed to be converted. The tail is an extension of the spine which can move up and down quite well, a movement which is needed for running on land. The only evidence AiG provides for this sideways movement is in another article where they compare the side to side swishing of a cows tail to the primitive wales. A poor comparison.
"The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’ 3"
If we take a look at the source for this quote, we see it is from 1962. AiG had to go back to 1962 (before much of the evidence was discovered) to provide a quote from a scientist who says we don't have fossils. What was the point?
"The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared."
Untrue, mainly because this is out of date. Pakicetus is generally considered one of the first whales and was primarily a land mammal. Ambulocetus was also able to walk on land.
"The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:
Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)"
Again, out of date. Although AiG tries to update this full article later, they seem to be hit and miss.
Ambulocetus "This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil: "
1) The skull can tell us a lot of information. The teeth and ear designs in the 1994 fossils show that this animal was most likely related to whales. whales have a specific ear design that isn't found in any other animal, thus a similar ear design can point towards a relation.
2) This hasn't been true since 1996, a picture of the Ambulocetus fossils,
It is interesting that even though AiG has updated this article, they failed to update the fact that a more complete skeleton has been found. They even provide a quote from 1994 of the scientist who later collected the remaining skeleton in 1996. AiG tries to dodge this find in an update to another article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp) where they claim that the new find hasn't been properly peer reviewed, thus it isn't valid. Using that logic, practically nothing on AiG's site is valid. It is also not true as not only are the fossils from the same animal that AiG accepted earlier (they had to leave before they could remove the entire fossil because of fighting in the area) but Thewissen has published papers in 1996 and 2001 that refer to this find. AiG then goes on to say that even if these fossils are true, it doesn't mean anything. Again trying to dodge the fact that they are in error, and their claims that large parts of the ambulocetus fossils are missing is false.
Basilosaurus
Their entire complaint about Basilosaurus seems to be how it was drawn. Yes it is much larger than previous fossils. They downplay the important parts of this fossil. Such as the small but still existent hind-limb. The Dorudontids lived around the same time and were considerably smaller than the Basilosaurus.
Pakicetus "A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus , and published their work in the journal Nature .13 The commentary on this paper in the same issue 14 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See illustration, above right.) "
Read the quote carefully, "All the postcranial bones" so what about the cranial bones? Guess what, they show aspects of whales. The cranial bones in the pakicetus show the beginning development of an ear made for underwater hearing. although the pakicetus's ear is poor at underwater hearing it is better than normal land mammals. This ear design is only found in whales. So we have a fossil that has an ear that only exists in whales and allows it to hear underwater, but walks well on land. Sounds like the beginning of the transition from land to water.
Vestigial legs "Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females."
It is important to understand that evolutionists do not claim vestigial organs are useless. Vestigial means something that is rudimentary or stunted, degenerated or not used for it's original purpose.
"One myth promulgated by some evolutionists says that some whales have been found with hind legs, complete with thigh and knee muscles. However, this story probably grew by legendary accretion from a true account of a real sperm whale with a 5.5 inch (14 cm) bump with a 5-inch (12 cm) piece of bone inside. "
Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
Why thanks Matthew for most likely not bothering to read my post and link spaming it.
If you are curious (which would require the reading of my post) the "more" I was planning on adding was a response to trueorigins. But I get the feeling you wont read that either.
If you bother to actually read what I have written you will notice I have already refuted some claims in the articles you posted.
Why thanks Matthew for most likely not bothering to read my post and link spaming it..
At the risk of sounding flame-like have you noticed the way Matthew cannot come up with anything of substance in his own words? Its always a link he posts which he is telling us to go and read, and even if you do post their errors, he doesnt care.
At the risk of sounding flame-like have you noticed the way Matthew cannot come up with anything of substance in his own words? .
In matters of theology and philosophy, I can speak with substance and in my own words. But when it comes to the scientific side of the question, I'd much rather provide articles from people who actually care.
Last edited by Matthew777; 12th April 2005 at 07:10 PM.
And if you continue to not even bother to read or understand the threads people are going to start ignoring you.
Like I have begun.
Similar to the way I treat Bevets, I will only reply to things you have written. Using links to support your claims or pulling quotes of links that directly address an issue in the thread is acceptable.
And yes, I will eventually get around to True origins, unrelated to your post.
Whale evolution is a good transitional set because we not only have transitional fossils but multiple pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction.
Evos like to use Whales as a example of evolution when in reality it is one of the worst examples they can try to produce. There are many factors that severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes. Some of the more significant are: !) Their relatively small population levels. 2) They have very long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth) 3) They have a very low number of progeny produced per adult. 4) They have a high complexity of morphology and biochemistry. 5) Their size is enormous. 6) They have a specialized food supply. Because of these factors the invironmental changes needed to bring about evolution could rapidly drive whales to extinction. While extinctions of whale species have taken place there has never been a measureable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.
!) So you can tell the population levels of the pakicetus? What about the Ambulocetus? Nope? Thus this is irrelavent. Whales today have a small population but that doesn't mean anything when we are talking about 50 millions years ago. Using this logic because the Dodo bird has a population of 0, it must not have existed.
2) Again, this is refering to whales today, not the whales of the past, thus it's meaningless unless you can tell me the generation span of the pakicetus?
3) Again, how many babies did a pakicetus have? If you can't tell me, then this isn't a point against whale evolution either.
4) You obviously didn't read the thread. Their "complexity of morphology and biochemistry" is evidence For whale evolution. Morphology exists in the whale that relates to it's evolutionary lineage. Whales are often refereed to as a junkyard because although their DNA is complex, it is full of past genes that aren't needed or used anymore.
5) What about their size? Not all whales are enormous, the dolphin for example.
6) Specialized food suply? Ok, so now fish or plankton is considered "specialized"
You know, it would be nice if creationists actually read the thread before replying. I guess I'm asking too much.
Originally Posted by JohnR7
Evos like to use Whales as a example of evolution when in reality it is one of the worst examples they can try to produce. There are many factors that severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes. Some of the more significant are: !) Their relatively small population levels. 2) They have very long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth) 3) They have a very low number of progeny produced per adult. 4) They have a high complexity of morphology and biochemistry. 5) Their size is enormous. 6) They have a specialized food supply. Because of these factors the invironmental changes needed to bring about evolution could rapidly drive whales to extinction. While extinctions of whale species have taken place there has never been a measureable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.
Linear Mode
