How do Creationists explain the vestigial structures in whales?

Verysincere, before you depart for good I'd love it if you posted a thread about your experiences as a creationist and what eventually changed your mind. I've picked up pieces, but it sounds like you've got an interesting story and a unique perspective.

verysincere said:

My creationist forum studies are coming to an end (the mountain of data is more than enough) but there are a few questions I will be posting here on the way out:

How do Young Earth Creationists explain the vestigial structures in whales?

The Theory of Evolution explains them quite well. Have YEC leaders addressed them?


.

Click to expand...

The standard Creationist response is something like, "They're not vestigial, they have a use, which is why the Good Lord made them". What they can't explain is why God would use bones found in land-mammals, rather than a unique bone structures, to do what those vestigial features do.

Harder still is for them to explain why God would create whales at all: air-breathing creatures... that live exclusively in the ocean, that have to dive deep to get enough food, that bear live, air-breathing young in the water. Evolution explains all this, but Creationism? "God works in mysterious ways!" is all they can come up with.

Jro said:

Verysincere, before you depart for good...

Click to expand...

He going somewhere?

selfinflikted said:

He going somewhere?

Click to expand...

That's what I gathered from the first post, yes.

"My creationist forum studies are coming to an end (the mountain of data is more than enough) but there are a few questions I will be posting here on the way out:"

Jro said:

That's what I gathered from the first post, yes.

"My creationist forum studies are coming to an end (the mountain of data is more than enough) but there are a few questions I will be posting here on the way out:"

Click to expand...

I somehow missed that. Apologies. It has been a long day thus far, and there's a long way still before it's over.

Wiccan_Child said:

Harder still is for them to explain why God would create whales at all: air-breathing creatures... that live exclusively in the ocean, that have to dive deep to get enough food, that bear live, air-breathing young in the water. Evolution explains all this, but Creationism? "God works in mysterious ways!" is all they can come up with.

Click to expand...

If there is a adaptive reason for this, why wouldn't God do this? In fact, this happened multiple times during evolution, not only with whales, but also with plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs (just to name the most successful ones).

selfinflikted said:

I somehow missed that. Apologies. It has been a long day thus far, and there's a long way still before it's over.

Click to expand...

No apologies necessary. At least the weekend's almost here.

Wiccan_Child said:

The standard Creationist response is something like, "They're not vestigial, they have a use, which is why the Good Lord made them". What they can't explain is why God would use bones found in land-mammals, rather than a unique bone structures, to do what those vestigial features do.

Click to expand...

Related to this response is: "It is not vestigical... there are X number of nerves and blood vessels in that organ!" As if any part of the body could survive without these!

Wiccan_Child said:

Harder still is for them to explain why God would create whales at all: air-breathing creatures... that live exclusively in the ocean, that have to dive deep to get enough food, that bear live, air-breathing young in the water. Evolution explains all this, but Creationism? "God works in mysterious ways!" is all they can come up with.

Click to expand...

Given that some people (including me) criticise some creationists for creating straw-men, and ignoring actual arguments against creationism, I don't think it's fair to do the same thing back.

There aren't many creationists here, but "Answers in Genesis" does discuss the evolution of whales.

It seems that AiG claim that there isn't evidence of evolution of whales from land living creatures, because they list three claimed whale ancestor species and then claim that they aren't sufficient evidence.

To summarize the evolutionist case, evolutionists have been increasingly claiming that the fossil ancestors of modern whales have been found, and that a transition can be clearly seen between creatures walking on land (with legs) and whales (which have no legs today), and include the following:
Pakicetus-however, it consisted only of jaw and skull fragments yet it’s been claimed to be a “walking whale.”
Basilosaurus has also been offered as an ancestor to whales; while it did have hind limbs, they were far too small to have anything to do with walking. Yet evolutionists agreed that they were clearly functional, not useless, and the most common view is that they were probably used for grasping in reproduction.
Ambulocetus had hind limbs, and could walk; it is thus the latest fossil candidate for whale evolution. However, as explained in Refuting Evolution, it is doubtful that this supposed creature (constructed with some imagination) had anything to do with the history of whales.
Once again, evolution has “no legs.”

Click to expand...

I'm not going to address all of these as my family is expecting me to cook their dinner. But, looking at Wikipedia quickly suggests that there are many more fossils of Pakicetus than AiG suggests.

Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pakicetids are hoofed mammals that are the earliest whales, with Indohyus from family Raoellidae being the closest sister group.[4] [9] They lived in the early Eocene, around 53 million years ago. Their fossils were first discovered in North Pakistan in 1979, located at a river not far from the shores of former Tethys Sea.[10] After the initial discovery, more fossils were found, mainly in the late-early Eocene fluvial deposits in northern Pakistan and northwestern India.[1]

Click to expand...

(References on the Wikipedia page)

Does the above picture make the below picture valid?


Also, how do you go from that Pakicetus to a whale via four transitions? I could go from a rat to a lion in four pictures, but it wouldn't validate it. It would just show that there are all kinds of creatures out there in a myriad of shapes and sizes.

In Christ, GB

AnotherAtheist said:

I'm not going to address all of these as my family is expecting me to cook their dinner. But, looking at Wikipedia quickly suggests that there are many more fossils of Pakicetus than AiG suggests.

Click to expand...

Wow, are you suggsting that god-lovin' creationists could be blatently dishonest?

good brother said:

Also, how do you go from that Pakicetus to a whale via four transitions? I could go from a rat to a lion in four pictures, but it wouldn't validate it. It would just show that there are all kinds of creatures out there in a myriad of shapes and sizes.

Click to expand...

There are more than four examples that have been found, researched and published. There were obviously many more, and time will tell how many we wil find.
What is very clear however, is that there was a transition from land animal to sea-dwelling animal.
Whales have hind legs, their flippers have complete arm and hand bones, their intestines are almost identical to those found in ungulates (only a lot, lot bigger), they have mammalian ears (ie three bones), they suckle their young with milk, have fur (admittedly very little) and their spine bends up & down, as opposed to side to side in reptiles and fish.
What else could possibly explain this?

good brother said:

Also, how do you go from that Pakicetus to a whale via four transitions? I could go from a rat to a lion in four pictures, but it wouldn't validate it. It would just show that there are all kinds of creatures out there in a myriad of shapes and sizes.

Click to expand...

Well yes, you need more than a few pictures showing gross skeletal structure in order to establish an actual evolutionary relationship between these creatures. That's why the evidence from such pictures has to be backed up by other evidence before anyone's going to even seriously consider claims such as these.

The wikipedia page on Pakicetus gives more information about the evidence that is used to claim Pakicetus as an ancestor of modern whales. Specifically there are adaptations found that are present in modern whales, but not in other creatures.

Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AnotherAtheist said:

Given that some people (including me) criticise some creationists for creating straw-men, and ignoring actual arguments against creationism, I don't think it's fair to do the same thing back.

Click to expand...

I never made a straw-man. Cetaceans really are a problem for Creationism, for which "God works in mysterious ways!" really is an 'explanation' that's been put forward. Straw-men are fake arguments refuted in place of your opponents real arguments - what fake argument did I construct?

AnotherAtheist said:

There aren't many creationists here, but "Answers in Genesis" does discuss the evolution of whales.

It seems that AiG claim that there isn't evidence of evolution of whales from land living creatures, because they list three claimed whale ancestor species and then claim that they aren't sufficient evidence.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that AiG has a response to whale evolution, but that doesn't make it a straw-man to point out that the existence of air-breathing aquatic creatures presents a problem for Creationism. Even your own citations of AiG only deals with the alleged paucity of fossils; there's no discussion of why God would create air-breathing creatures... underwater.

NailsII said:

There are more than four examples that have been found, researched and published. There were obviously many more, and time will tell how many we wil find.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean that evolutionists assume that there are obviously more? Is not that more accurate?

What is very clear however, is that there was a transition from land animal to sea-dwelling animal.

Click to expand...

No, what is clear is someone can arrange pictures in such an order to attempt to make it appear as such. There are only four supposed transitions between the Pakicetus and the whale. Evos ASSUME there more transitional type fossils out there that will eventually validate their claim of transition from one to the other. Until that day comes when there are far more abundant skeletons showing a definite transition, and not an assumed transition, the two cannot be dogmatically linked.

Whales have hind legs, their flippers have complete arm and hand bones, their intestines are almost identical to those found in ungulates (only a lot, lot bigger), they have mammalian ears (ie three bones), they suckle their young with milk, have fur (admittedly very little) and their spine bends up & down, as opposed to side to side in reptiles and fish.
What else could possibly explain this?

Click to expand...

God made birds that move far more gracefully in water than on land and some birds that never leave land. God made some birds capable of diving hundreds of feet under water from flying high above without any part of them exploding (or imploding) due to pressure changes. God made some mammals to be aquatic (beavers, muskrats, and otters come to mind). God made some dogs to seem to be more at home in the water than on land (labs). God made all sorts of strange animals I personally think just to jack with the minds of those who would claim common ancestry.

In Christ, GB

good brother said:

Does the above picture make the below picture valid?

Also, how do you go from that Pakicetus to a whale via four transitions? I could go from a rat to a lion in four pictures, but it wouldn't validate it. It would just show that there are all kinds of creatures out there in a myriad of shapes and sizes.

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

You underestimate the information we can extract from a creature's bones. It's more than just "They're roughly similar" - there are a myriad of distinct morphological features that tell us a great deal about the creature, including its ancestry.

Pakicetids, for instance, were identified as cetaceans due to unique structures in the skull that are unique to cetaceans, primarily those relating to the ear and nose (source). Just as we can identify a new species of ant as, indeed, a species of ant, so too we can identify pakicetids as being cetaceans.

So, while you could put skeletons of a rat, ferret, a cat, and a lion, next to each other and say that's as good as the fossil record presented for cetaceans... you'd be wrong. There are good reasons for why creatures like pakicetids are identified as cetaceans, and those reasons extend beyond "They look a bit similar".

Wiccan_Child said:

I never made a straw-man. Cetaceans really are a problem for Creationism, for which "God works in mysterious ways!" really is an 'explanation' that's been put forward. Straw-men are fake arguments refuted in place of your opponents real arguments - what fake argument did I construct?

Click to expand...

I was referring to this from your previous post.

Harder still is for them to explain why God would create whales at all: air-breathing creatures... that live exclusively in the ocean, that have to dive deep to get enough food, that bear live, air-breathing young in the water. Evolution explains all this, but Creationism? "God works in mysterious ways!" is all they can come up with.

Click to expand...

Your current post continues.....

I don't doubt that AiG has a response to whale evolution, but that doesn't make it a straw-man to point out that the existence of air-breathing aquatic creatures presents a problem for Creationism. Even your own citations of AiG only deals with the alleged paucity of fossils; there's no discussion of why God would create air-breathing creatures... underwater.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.... OK. I must admit that I haven't seen anything by creationists suggesting why God would create air breathing aquatic creatures that live underwater. There is argument against evidence for whale evolution on AiG, but notthing If the best is "God works in mysterious ways!", then your post wouldn't be a straw-man. But, I'd be happier if some creationists were to comment so that we could see if the paraphrase does misrepresent their argument.

I may have jumped to the conclusion that it was a strawman because it looks so much like simply brushing away the question.

I seem to have missed out the AiG link from my previous post, but I'll put it here. Another Whale of a Tale: Creationists Without a “Whimper”? - Answers in Genesis That page solely argues against sufficient evidence for evolution of whales from land animals, but doesn't address your point. So, I'll have to look and/or ask further to find out if there is a creationist explanation for why God would create air breathing aquatic mammals.

good brother said:

Does the above picture make the below picture valid?

Click to expand...

No, because knives, spoons, forks, and sporks don't reproduce.

good brother said:

Don't you mean that evolutionists assume that there are obviously more? Is not that more accurate?

Click to expand...

Given the weight of evidence in favour of evolutionary theory, I would say it is a fair bet that there are more.
There are in fact more than four transitions so far uncovered in cetation evolution, so I would say it is a FACT that there are more.

good brother said:

No, what is clear is someone can arrange pictures in such an order to attempt to make it appear as such. There are only four supposed transitions between the Pakicetus and the whale. Evos ASSUME there more transitional type fossils out there that will eventually validate their claim of transition from one to the other. Until that day comes when there are far more abundant skeletons showing a definite transition, and not an assumed transition, the two cannot be dogmatically linked.

Click to expand...

As detailed above, there are more than four so far uncovered.
Even if a hundred had been uncovered, complete skeletons evenly spaced to show each stage, creationists would still deny it.

good brother said:

God made birds that move far more gracefully in water than on land and some birds that never leave land. God made some birds capable of diving hundreds of feet under water from flying high above without any part of them exploding (or imploding) due to pressure changes. God made some mammals to be aquatic (beavers, muskrats, and otters come to mind). God made some dogs to seem to be more at home in the water than on land (labs). God made all sorts of strange animals I personally think just to jack with the minds of those who would claim common ancestry.

Click to expand...

Talk about basing a premise on assumptions - where is your evidence for a god and that god created animals, and that they were created specifically to live in the habitats in which we see them today?

If you are right, then why would a god make a bird with wings and feathers that cannot fly?
Why create a mammal that breathes air and force it to live in water, especially some that give birth to live young which need to breathe!

What about the countless number of animals (and plants) that are now extinct - why were they created?

Why would a god create a free-swimming animal like a seal that is such a liabilty on land - that place it has to rest when digesting food!

Creationism postulates much, but answers very little. This is in direct opposition to evolutionary theory which assumes very little and explains so much.

good brother said:

Does the above picture make the below picture valid?

Click to expand...

One of those reproduces, the other does not. Can you figure out which one?