Evolution of whales

[Split Rock]

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

You seem to be stuck with this one-direction idea. Birds evolved flight and then some birds lost flight when it was useful to do so (ie when flight was no longer economically viable - like on small islands with no large predators). Some fish lost their eyesight when they adapted to cave life. Most parasites evolved from non-parasitic ancestors and lost the ability to digest food and most sensory adaptations. Stop thinking of evolution as uni-directional.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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




Yes. And it doesn't matter.

So, birds evolved from dinosaurs, learned to fly, and then some of them went back. Wow. sound theory.

 

[Split Rock]

What? Man, I'm so gullible sometimes.

LOL!

I like you Linux... you're a real Screwball!!

 

[Uphill Battle]

You seem to be stuck with this one-direction idea. Birds evolved flight and then some birds lost flight when it was useful to do so (ie when flight was no longer economically viable - like on small islands with no large predators). Some fish lost their eyesight when they adapted to cave life. Most parasites evolved from non-parasitic ancestors and lost the ability to digest food and most sensory adaptations. Stop thinking of evolution as uni-directional.

alright then. So ToE can explain anything by saying that.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So, birds evolved from dinosaurs, learned to fly, and then some of them went back. Wow. sound theory.

Mockery will get you nowhere. Do tell why it's not a sound theory.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

alright then. So ToE can explain anything by saying that.

No. Why do you think a meandering path is a problem for evolution? You are getting desperate, pulling pathetic and unfounded objections out of thin air.

 

[nvxplorer]

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?

Yes, you're catching on.

The argument from design presupposes purpose. Paley's watchmaker is identifiable because we know his watch serves a purpose. A house is designed because we know an architect designed it for a purpose. Architects don't build houses on lake beds. That would contradict the purpose of a house. By the same token, a watchmaker doesn't design a watch that needs to be calibrated every five minutes. That contradicts the purpose of a watch.

Designing an air breathing creature for life in the sea contradicts the purpose of lungs.

Let's revisit Paley's watchmaker. We already know that the watchmaker designs amazingly precise instruments. Therefore, the watchmaker is an expert craftsman. This watchmaker would not purposely design a faulty timepiece.

The intelligent designer proposed by ID is also an expert craftsman. He has the knowledge and ability to design gill equiped creatures. He would not design an air breathing sea creature, one that must spend its entire life in the sea.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

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.

No. A virtually complete skeleton, with other specimens to fill in the gaps. What do you want, an anatomy book from 30 million years ago?

The "reasonable assumptions" (would you prefer unreasonable ones?) are made by scientists who study form and function in living animals and are quite capable of applying their knowledge to extinct forms. This page http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7_2.shtml might help you. Short of magical fluids to pour over the fossils and bring them back to life I'm not sure what more we can offer you.

And yet YECcies will happily accept hypotheses about a global flood laying down thousands of feet of sediment, without having any explanations that pass the laugh test for palaeosols, fossil burrows, igneous intrusions, uncomformities, fossil distribution or a thousand other things.

Admit it. This isn't about evidence. This is about you believing what you already have decided is true and hoping you can show that mainstream scientists have missed The Truth. So why the constant call for evidence which you're just going to pooh-pooh?

 

[Split Rock]

alright then. So ToE can explain anything by saying that.

The TOE does do a great job of explaining what we see. There are lots of cases that would cause trouble for it if they were discovered.

Example:
If we discovered that the earliest whales like Rhodocetus and Durodon (you did look at the website I recommended.. right?) had baleen instead of teeth, that would be a big problem. Baleen is a derived characteristic unique to the whales and did not exist in their ancestors. The earliest whales should therefore have teeth. Interestingly, what do we find? The early whales all had teeth! A creator could easily have given them baleen. He could also have given marine reptiles baleen as well.. and that would also be hard to explain with evolution! Why? Because marine reptiles and marine mammals are Not closely related.

 

[nvxplorer]

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

Are you arguing biblical creationism or "scientific" intelligent design?

 

[Lilandra]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Late_Cretaceous again.

​

I keep forgetting to rep. I really need to spread more around instead of thinking good point.

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.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Are you arguing biblical creationism or "scientific" intelligent design?

Biblical, as in God made it all. I thought that was kind of obvious with the Genesis reference.

 

[rjw]

Biblical, as in God made it all. I thought that was kind of obvious with the Genesis reference.

Gidday Uphill Battle,

how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make?

Oh it is logical that a creator could have done it. But logic is only one part of scientific reasoning. Evidence is another part of scientific reasoning.

And if it is neither logical nor illogical then you are saying nothing about it. If you offer no evidence then what you do say is mere assertion.

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

“The Origin of Species” says that evolution happens. Therefore evolution happens?

The author of Job 37 says that God causes weather phenomena directly by his command or as a by product of his activities e.g frost from breath etc. Therefore modern meteorological theory is wrong because Job 37 says so?

So, birds evolved from dinosaurs, learned to fly, and then some of them went back. Wow. sound theory.

Indeed. The fossil and molecular evidence shows it to be a sound theory. And from field studies and lab experiments we can piece together some ideas of how it could have happened.


It is a bit hard for me to know exactly what your theory is (your clarification above notwithstanding). It kind of appears to be that and ID could have done it and if an evolutionist cannot explain something to the nth degree then ID is the best explanation. Furthermore, it seems to rest on the concept that the mere existence of a skeleton can be evidence for an ID. If this encapsulates your ideas somewhat then a couple of points for now:-

1) Your theory requires you knowing the mind of the ID, how the ID designed something and the method by which the ID makes it.

Do you have evidence for any of this?

2) Certainly the mere existence of a skeleton can be evidence for an ID. But the existence of anything can be evidence for an ID. So, ignoring the Job argument above, you abandon all scientific theories simply because the existence of their subject matters can be evidence for an ID?

If not, then why the inconsistency?


Regards, Roland

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

So, birds evolved from dinosaurs, learned to fly, and then some of them went back. Wow. sound theory.

that would explain the flightless bat of New Zealand. Is there a creationist arguement forthe existance small flightless birds and bats in areas devoid of land mammals?

 

[Uphill Battle]

that would explain the flightless bat of New Zealand. Is there a creationist arguement forthe existance small flightless birds and bats in areas devoid of land mammals?

what does the existance or non existance of land mammals have to do with it?

 

[Loudmouth]

what does the existance or non existance of land mammals have to do with it?

No predators to fly away from.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

No predators to fly away from.

Or compete with for those ecological niches.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

HOw does creationism explain the existance of the blind marsupial mole or marsupial mouse in Australia? They are just like mice and moles in the rest of the world by appearance, but are marsupials.

According to evolutionary thoery, the absence of placental mammals on that continent allowed for marsupials (which are already present) to occupy the niches available. Hense, a couple of cases of convergent evolution. Why would there not be ordinary placental mice and moles in Australia if creationism was correct? ANd how did blind marsupial moles get from the arc to Australia?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Anyone care to explain the evolution of the whale? Just out of curiosity, I want to know what the theory of how a mammal became a waterbound creature.

Did a land creature decide to return to the sea?

Or did a fish creature evolve into a mammal?

what theories are there for this?

The cladogram depicting whale evolution is from the book Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer. The artwork is a slight modification of the illustration by Carl Buell in At the Water's Edge by Zimmer. The book is a companion to the PBS series of the Evolution Project, a coproduction of the WGNH/NOVA Science Unit and Clear Blue Sky Productions.

It was not until 1979 that paleontologists had their first indisputable evidence about whale transition. Pakicetus was discovered by Philip Gingerich in Pakistan. Later, in 1995, Hans Thewissen found Ambulocetus. Whales with legs are now known from Pakistan, India, Egypt and the U.S.A.

It took less than 15 million years for the whale lineage to move from land, through shallow bays and coastal waters, to deep marine environments. By 40 million years ago whales had become essentially the animals we know today.

The evolution of whales involved much more than legs becoming flippers or vestigial organs. The fossil series demonstrates how their breathing apparatus changed, their ears changed and other body parts changed. If you are interested in detailed taxonomic descriptions, click on an animal illustrated at right to be taken to another website with that information.

Whales did not turn into fish. Inside every flipper is found the bones of the mammalian hand. They swim like otters by undulating the mammalian spine. The tail fluke is not a fish fin. Evolution works by modifying existing body plans to fit new conditions of life, and is often constrained by developmental pathways. No longer limited by gravity and strength of bones, whales could become giants of the sea.

If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory.

Cetaceans have unique semicircular canals that allow them to be highly acrobatic swimmers without becoming dizzy. By investigating this organ in ancient fossils, the researchers found that early whales acquired this special trait quickly and early on in their evolution. This was a defining event that likely resulted in their total independence of life on land.

Side view of the inner ears of, left to right, a land mammal (bushbaby), a land-living early whale from Pakistan (50-million-year-old Ichthyolestes), a marine early whale from India (45-million-year-old Indocetus), and a modern dolphin. The latter two aquatic species have much smaller semicircular canals than the former two. Image reconstructed from computed tomography scans, adjusting for body size differences between the animals. Each inner ear would easily fit on a penny. [Image by F. Spoor using Voxel-man]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html (This video for high-school students describes two lines of evidence, fossil and molecular, which contribute to our picture of evolution. It focuses on whales, which provide an excellent opportunity to examine the transition between species because so many intermediate fossils have been found.)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html (Ancient Walking Whales Shed Light on Ancestry of Ocean Giants)

SOURCE: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Yes, but they are all the same kind - whale kind.