Evolution of whales

[Uphill Battle]

Because gills require a completely different circulatory system. Evolution does not go the way of the most efficient, it goes with what works good enough given what it has. Evolution cannot plan ahead and decide that gills were beneficial.

ok, that being true, how does a gilled creature evolve into one that breathes air?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Gills are a very inefficient way for an warm blodded animal to obtain oxygen. In fact, a warm blodded animal could not get enough oxygen from water. The oxygen content in water is only 10mg/liter where as in air it is 21 % - a huge difference. The most primitive fish had lungs as well as gills (the air bladder in modern fish is a modified lung actually). SO we would NOT expect to see warm blodded animals develop gills - just lungs that work really well.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

ok, that being true, how does a gilled creature evolve into one that breathes air?

We just have an answer for everything don't we.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

ah, I see. They "extrapolated" quite a bit on the skeletal structure on that one, it would seem.

No, not really.

http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/image/preview/0,1127,1309,00.jpg


pwned again, methinks (what does that stand for?)

 

[Linux98]

From fossils of primitive whales, of which there are several. One in particular called ambulocetus

An animal's lifestlyle can be infered from it's body plan. With the large head and short lets and sharp teeth - it is quite similar to a crocodile so we can infer that it may have fed like one. Of course we don't know for sure, but it would be unlikely that this animal couuld have fed like a gazelle or a cheetah.

PWN3D

Did you see they caught one of these off the coast of Nova Scotia and keep it in a warehouse in an undisclosed location?

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, not really.

http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/image/preview/0,1127,1309,00.jpg


pwned again, methinks (what does that stand for?)

About this.... what in this skeleton suggests

1) aquatic life
2) webbing around the digits
3) fur of any kind (this one may be provable, please tell me if it is.)
4) behaviour (the attacking like a crocodile)

 

[nvxplorer]

or, perhaps, an arguement against natural selection, as I see no benifit to go from air breating on land to air breating in the sea.

Look at it logically, UB. Why would a designer produce a completely aquatic animal with lungs? We're talking about design, and a supposedly intelligent designer. Going on the assumption of design, we have a designed whale shark, a fish that performs the same function as baleen whales. We have a designed white shark, a fish that performs the same function as an orca. Why would an intelligent designer create air breathing aquatic creatures when it is shown that this designer is capable of creating their equivalents as fish? To argue from design, especially intelligent design, you have to answer this question.

 

[Split Rock]

or, perhaps, an arguement against natural selection, as I see no benifit to go from air breating on land to air breating in the sea.

At the end of the Cretaceous, almost all forms of large marine animals became extinct along with the dinosaurs (e.g. mosasaurs, ichtyosaurs). This left some nice ecological niches wide open for mammals to exploit.

One other question raised by the fossil record is why were marine reptiles created along with aquatic mammals, which would exploit the same ecological niches? Why create ichtyosaurs and dolphins at the same time (Remember, none of these were supposed to go extinct... it was a perfect creation)? Why give icthyosaurs a vertical tail fluke and dolphins a horizontal one? Lots of questions, and no answers from creationists.

 

[Split Rock]

Did you see they caught one of these off the coast of Nova Scotia and keep it in a warehouse in an undisclosed location?

Silly Penguin!

That's a LUCK DRAGON!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Look at it logically, UB. Why would a designer produce a completely aquatic animal with lungs? We're talking about design, and a supposedly intelligent designer. Going on the assumption of design, we have a designed whale shark, a fish that performs the same function as baleen whales. We have a designed white shark, a fish that performs the same function as an orca. Why would an intelligent designer create air breathing aquatic creatures when it is shown that this designer is capable of creating their equivalents as fish? To argue from design, especially intelligent design, you have to answer this question.

how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter? is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

About this.... what in this skeleton suggests

1) aquatic life

Shape of pelvis, suited for folding the legs back when swimming.

2) webbing around the digits

Reasonable assumption for a partially aquatic animal

3) fur of any kind (this one may be provable, please tell me if it is.)

The fact it's a mammal. We don't know how much it had. Perhaps it had none, like modern whales. This matters why?

4) behaviour (the attacking like a crocodile)

Big teeth show it was a carnivore. Large jaws are usually associated with holding onto large thrashing prey. But again, what would it matter if it ate wrens' eggs and eidelweiss petals?

 

[Split Rock]

Look at it logically, UB. Why would a designer produce a completely aquatic animal with lungs? We're talking about design, and a supposedly intelligent designer. Going on the assumption of design, we have a designed whale shark, a fish that performs the same function as baleen whales. We have a designed white shark, a fish that performs the same function as an orca. Why would an intelligent designer create air breathing aquatic creatures when it is shown that this designer is capable of creating their equivalents as fish? To argue from design, especially intelligent design, you have to answer this question.

I would argue that there are ecological niches for air-breathing aquatic predators. As was indicated earlier, lungs are better at gathering oxygen than gills. In addition, twice in history (broadly speaking) air-breathing animals evolved to adapt to such roles. Therefore, I don't really think this is a good argument against ID.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter?

Perfectly, if you're working by evolution from ancestors that could fly. Reason #46456356 I prefer TE over YEC.

is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?

No, not really. We are jacks of all trades, and by using tools, masters of them as well. Was H G Wells' conception of martians as physically incapable but using machines for everything also illogical?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Perfectly, if you're working by evolution from ancestors that could fly. Reason #46456356 I prefer TE over YEC.



No, not really. We are jacks of all trades, and by using tools, masters of them as well. Was H G Wells' conception of martians as physically incapable but using machines for everything also illogical?

Wait a minute, isn't bird evolutions supposed to be the other way around?


That is why I all capped PHYSICAL. we are weaker, slower, worse senses, more fragile, less resistant to heat, cold, etc...

 

[random_guy]

how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter? is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?

That's why ID isn't scientific. ID doesn't allow any questions regarding the designer and we can't possibly know anything about the designer from the creations.

A side note, your post is full of irony as you say that you can't assume anything about the creator other than he wouldn't create using evolution.

 

[Linux98]

Silly Penguin!

That's a LUCK DRAGON!

What? Man, I'm so gullible sometimes.

 

[Split Rock]

how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter? is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?

I quess we can't assume anything about the creator, since we don't know his/her intentions. This is a big reason why ID is Useless. It makes no predictions and leads to no new understanding of the natural world. "The creator did what he did and we don't know why. End of Story ... Next!"

 

[Uphill Battle]

Shape of pelvis, suited for folding the legs back when swimming.



Reasonable assumption for a partially aquatic animal



The fact it's a mammal. We don't know how much it had. Perhaps it had none, like modern whales. This matters why?



Big teeth show it was a carnivore. Large jaws are usually associated with holding onto large thrashing prey. But again, what would it matter if it ate wrens' eggs and eidelweiss petals?

so lets see. The picture I see there is made from an uncomplete skeleton, using "reasonable assumptions" as to behavior, and appearance, an d anassumption on it's location because it's "suited" for it. hmm.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That's why ID isn't scientific. ID doesn't allow any questions regarding the designer and we can't possibly know anything about the designer from the creations.

A side note, your post is full of irony as you say that you can't assume anything about the creator other than he wouldn't create using evolution.

No, I don't assume that he didn't. It says in Genesis that he made it in a day.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Wait a minute, isn't bird evolutions supposed to be the other way around?

No. Listen. I will seh zis ernly wernce.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. The early birds could fly. Some of them started to prefer swimming on the sea and did it so much they eventually lost the power of flight. Others, after the dinosaurs had gone, spent most of their time on land, became larger, to attack larger prey, or maintain heat, or eat different food, or whatever, and lost the power of flight

That is why I all capped PHYSICAL. we are weaker, slower, worse senses, more fragile, less resistant to heat, cold, etc...

Yes. And it doesn't matter.