Whale evolution without fossils.

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I present four evidences for whale evolution, two genetic, one physiological and one embryological.

1. If whales evolved from land mammals we would expect them to have numerous physical characteristics including a mammalian jaw. We indeed find those characteristics one of which is the up and down movement characteristic of mammals in contrast with the side to side movement of reptiles and fish. if whales were specially created they could just as easily move side to side and have a vertical tail fluke as opposed to a horizontal one (see Ichthyosaurs).

2. Cetacean embryos develop hind limb buds that are absorbed (except in cases of atavisms) during fetal development. This is due the interaction of two genes that normally would grow hind limbs (see below). If cetaceans never lived on the land, why do they develop limb buds during the embryonic stage?
http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/dolphin-hind-legs-hind-limb-bud-images.html
embryo_labeled.jpg


3. The sleek, hydrodynamic bodies of whales are due to a broken interaction between the genes Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2. Hand2 normally grows hind limbs in terrestrial mammals. If cetaceans didn't evolve from terrestrial mammals, why do they have the Hand2 gene?
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/05...-legs-got-sleek-and-conquered-the-oceans.html

4. The evolution of cetacean forelimbs into flippers is controlled by two genes - Hoxd12 and Hoxd13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19074008

These are just 4 of the many evidences making whale evolution one of the most compelling and supported lineages we can look at.
 

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Excellent post. It's often very useful to examine the various fields of biology just to see how varied the evolutionary model is and how useful it is in all cases in explaining why things are the way they are. There is no intellectually satisfying explanation for any of these facts outside of evolution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,807
405
✟55,859.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. If whales evolved from land mammals we would expect them to have numerous physical characteristics including a mammalian jaw. We indeed find those characteristics one of which is the up and down movement characteristic of mammals in contrast with the side to side movement of reptiles and fish. if whales were specially created they could just as easily move side to side and have a vertical tail fluke as opposed to a horizontal one (see Ichthyosaurs).

Wouldn't you just assume they had "evolved" to swim side-to-side/vertical fluke, if that was the traits whales exhibited?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I present four evidences for whale evolution, two genetic, one physiological and one embryological.

1. If whales evolved from land mammals we would expect them to have numerous physical characteristics including a mammalian jaw. We indeed find those characteristics one of which is the up and down movement characteristic of mammals in contrast with the side to side movement of reptiles and fish. if whales were specially created they could just as easily move side to side and have a vertical tail fluke as opposed to a horizontal one (see Ichthyosaurs).

2. Cetacean embryos develop hind limb buds that are absorbed (except in cases of atavisms) during fetal development. This is due the interaction of two genes that normally would grow hind limbs (see below). If cetaceans never lived on the land, why do they develop limb buds during the embryonic stage?
http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/dolphin-hind-legs-hind-limb-bud-images.html
embryo_labeled.jpg


3. The sleek, hydrodynamic bodies of whales are due to a broken interaction between the genes Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2. Hand2 normally grows hind limbs in terrestrial mammals. If cetaceans didn't evolve from terrestrial mammals, why do they have the Hand2 gene?
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/05...-legs-got-sleek-and-conquered-the-oceans.html

4. The evolution of cetacean forelimbs into flippers is controlled by two genes - Hoxd12 and Hoxd13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19074008

These are just 4 of the many evidences making whale evolution one of the most compelling and supported lineages we can look at.
Whales are also genetically most similar to hippos and cows... more similar than to any other aquatic mammal, such as seals, sea lions, etc.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Wouldn't you just assume they had "evolved" to swim side-to-side/vertical fluke, if that was the traits whales exhibited?

Tell you what LSO, whenever we actually find one of these hypothetical discoveries you keep making up in your desperation to show that evolution isn't scientific, we can address it. For now, how about addressing the actual content of my OP?
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Tell you what LSO, whenever we actually find one of these hypothetical discoveries you keep making up in your desperation to show that evolution isn't scientific, we can address it. For now, how about addressing the actual content of my OP?
Needs more than one thumbs-up. It seems like LSO's modus operandi is, whenever presented with evidence, to invent hypothetical evidence (which doesn't exist, and which he often doesn't even bother to explain what it might be) that he thinks should falsify the theory, then pretend that he knows how scientists would respond and that that response is wrong because of his incredible expertise in... Um...
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I present four evidences for whale evolution, two genetic, one physiological and one embryological.

1. If whales evolved from land mammals we would expect them to have numerous physical characteristics including a mammalian jaw. We indeed find those characteristics one of which is the up and down movement characteristic of mammals in contrast with the side to side movement of reptiles and fish. if whales were specially created they could just as easily move side to side and have a vertical tail fluke as opposed to a horizontal one (see Ichthyosaurs).

And just as easily have a horizontal one as opposed to a vertical one. And if they evolved from land mammals then they de-evolved - since all life supposedly started in the ocean.


4. The evolution of cetacean forelimbs into flippers is controlled by two genes - Hoxd12 and Hoxd13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19074008

Except flippers evolved long before limbs did - since sea life with flippers existed long before land animals. So you want flippers to now evolve from limbs, instead of limbs evolving from flippers? I think you have that slightly backwards according to your own theory that life first arose in the seas, then slowly evolved limbs and climbed onto the land.

So the fact that whales have flippers is a point against any belief they came from anywhere other than the ocean. Under evolutionary theory limbs developed from flippers - not flippers from limbs. At least get the sequence correct if you are going to propose something.

So much for your idea of head movement:

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And just as easily have a horizontal one as opposed to a vertical one.

A horizontal fluke would be highly problematic for a being that undulates up and down vs. side to side.

And if they evolved from land mammals then they de-evolved - since all life supposedly started in the ocean.

:doh:

Except flippers evolved long before limbs did - since sea life with flippers existed long before land animals. So you want flippers to now evolve from limbs, instead of limbs evolving from flippers? I think you have that slightly backwards according to your own theory that life first arose in the seas, then slowly evolved limbs and climbed onto the land.

So the fact that whales have flippers is a point against any belief they came from anywhere other than the ocean. Under evolutionary theory limbs developed from flippers - not flippers from limbs. At least get the sequence correct if you are going to propose something.

:scratch:


So much for your idea of head movement:

Where did I say anything about head movement?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
And just as easily have a horizontal one as opposed to a vertical one. And if they evolved from land mammals then they de-evolved - since all life supposedly started in the ocean.
There is no such thing as "de-evolved." You have either been watching too many Star Trek episodes, or reading too many comic books.


Except flippers evolved long before limbs did - since sea life with flippers existed long before land animals. So you want flippers to now evolve from limbs, instead of limbs evolving from flippers? I think you have that slightly backwards according to your own theory that life first arose in the seas, then slowly evolved limbs and climbed onto the land.
Flippers are not fins. Whale flippers are homologous with our hands, not with ray fins, for example (like the majority of fish have). They are homologous with the fins of lobe-finned fish, however. This is why we believe all land vertebrates evolved from this type of fish. Nevertheless, they are not identical.

So the fact that whales have flippers is a point against any belief they came from anywhere other than the ocean. Under evolutionary theory limbs developed from flippers - not flippers from limbs. At least get the sequence correct if you are going to propose something.
No, no, no. :doh:
Our hands evolved from lobe-finned fish that actually had the same bones in their fins as we have in our hand. Whales also have the same bones. A flipper is easy to make... its just a stretch of skin between bones.

So, in this case fin----> hand-----> flipper, was the proper sequence.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Flippers are not fins. Whale flippers are homologous with our hands, not with ray fins, for example (like the majority of fish have). They are homologous with the fins of lobe-finned fish, however. This is why we believe all land vertebrates evolved from this type of fish. Nevertheless, they are not identical.

Here is a picture of the actual Ichthyostega fossil for those who try to claim that they are just drawings:

09_Ichthyostega_hind_limb.JPG

http://tolweb.org/Ichthyostega

This is the hindlimb, so the single bone is a femur, two bones for tib/fib, and tarsal bones in the ankle. All found in a transitional lobe finned fish.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Are you aware of the morphological differences between whale flippers and, say, shark flippers?

Are you aware some of the oldest fossils ever found already have flippers - with skeletal bones? Are you aware this is what led them to deduce flippers developed into legs - and life evolved from the sea? And now you want these same flippers with skeletal bones to mean the exact opposite of what you just assured us proved evolution? All because you have mistaken the entire fossil record - gaps, missing transitional's and all - to mean speciation.

When a correct interpretation of breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species fits the data. There are no gaps, no missing intermediaries - just what we observe in reality - breed mating with breed producing new breeds - i.e., variation within the species. There is no such thing as evolution through mutation of one species into another. This only occurs when they have incorrectly classified something as the wrong species.

Darwin's Finches a prime example. It wouldn't be so bad if they would just correct the mistake and move on, but they continue calling them separate species even if they now know they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring with no diminished capacity. Clearly just different breeds of the same species.

With whales they mix up two unrelated species and want to relate them - and other times they take the same species and want to separate them. As with Torosaurus and Triceratops, Nano-Titan and Draco-Rex and T. Rex. They have yet to show how they are even possibly related with no fluke, no blowhole - nothing even close. And based upon the track record of 5 of 12 wrong in the 12 looked at - which we have multitudes of fossil remains for - they do not inspire much confidence.

Until you realize the true significance of "pair" and the genetic structure (part of a rib and the two becoming one) there isn't much use discussing it. Until you accept that breed mates with breed and produces a new breed - understanding the fossil record will always be beyond your grasp.

Until you accept that it was a priest explaining creation in his interpretation in harmony with science - in a way that let each make up his own mind about that thing "hidden in the beginning," where the math breaks down and can no longer traverse, you won't understand.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Are you aware some of the oldest fossils ever found already have flippers - with skeletal bones? Are you aware this is what led them to deduce flippers developed into legs - and life evolved from the sea?

If you don't think these are real transitional fossils, then please tell us what features these fossils are missing that a real transitional would have.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
If you don't think these are real transitional fossils, then please tell us what features these fossils are missing that a real transitional would have.

And this is it's supposed evolutionary tree.

images


So we again see flippers develop before limbs. But when it comes to whales - suddenly it's the exact opposite. And now you seem to want to use an animal that developed legs from flippers to prove flippers developed from legs?????

I fail to comprehend that reasoning as being scientifically sound.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
And this is it's supposed evolutionary tree.

images


So we again see flippers develop before limbs. But when it comes to whales - suddenly it's the exact opposite. And now you seem to want to use an animal that developed legs from flippers to prove flippers developed from legs?????

I fail to comprehend that reasoning as being scientifically sound.

You didn't answer my question.

If you don't think these are real transitional fossils, then please tell us what features these fossils are missing that a real transitional would have.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You didn't answer my question.

If you don't think these are real transitional fossils, then please tell us what features these fossils are missing that a real transitional would have.

I can't describe fantasy to you - one description would be as good as another. None exist - just as none exist between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. Why you refuse to accept breed mating with breed producing new breeds just like we observe is beyond me?
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
I can't describe fantasy to you - one description would be as good as another. None exist - just as none exist between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. Why you refuse to accept breed mating with breed producing new breeds just like we observe is beyond me?

It's easier to just say that you don't have an answer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums