Evolution of whales

[mikeynov]

but how does this show itself as a mutation? How are those involved in studying it certain that it never existed before now? At one point we isolated blood type as well, different among humans, but previously unknown. The only thing we DID know is that we all had blood.

This might sound obvious or dumb, but do you know what a mutation is?

Answer this: what is a mutation, what kinds of mutations are there, and how does that relate to DNA?

I'm about to go get some sleep, but if you answer that question, I can contribute later and/or I'm sure other people will pick up from there.

Because if we want to have a conversation about beneficial mutations, we first need to make sure we're on the same page as to what they are. And in order to do that, I think the questions above are step #1.

 

[Split Rock]

Sharing characteristics do NOT make them both whales, just like sharing charactaristics do not make tigers lions, lions cheetahs, or cheetahs housecats. and apologies for being so abrubt with my dismissal, I just don't feel it's necessary to flap my jaw or type a thousand words to get my point across.

Shared characteristics with (I assume you mean) extinct organisms certainly means they are related. Are you now saying that lions and housecats are not related? I thought they were both "cat kind?" In any case, the fossil intermediates are only one piece of the puzzle. Any one piece by itself is not convincing. It is all the pieces together which make the theory convincing.

and lets see, unique embryonic development? Good, glad the whale DOES have unique embryonic develpment. Makes it like any other creature on the earth. First, that sounds an awful lot like the "gills on human embryos" and to top it off, the development of the whale embryo ends up with what... a whale? with no legs? seems like it's growing the way it's supposed to.

That's the problem.. it is not so "unique." Whale embryos make four leg buds just like all other mammals even though they don't wind up with four legs! Why? It is either because their ancestors had four legs, or their designer was really weird. Also, if you had read through the website I provided, you would also have noted that the nostrils of dolphin embryos start at the tip of the snout, just like all other mammals and then migrate to the top of the head. Very weird for an animal designed from scratch to have a blowhole instead of a typical nose. The really interesting thing, is that this information points to the same conclusion as the transitional fossils you dismissed in the first paragraph...

An odd whale with a genetic mutation doesn't seem all that difficult either... seeing as we are seeing mutations nowadays quite frequently, just none of them are beneficial, as ToE would have you believe.

A mutation that produces an entire leg from scratch is absurd. What this inforamtion tells us instead is that whales have the genetic information to make rear legs. This taken with the fact that they typically have tiny vestigial leg bones buried in their body wall, lead to the same conclusion as the first two lines of evidence we just discussed. Stranger and stranger...

I just what to know how the scientific community can accept carte blanche that this is how it happened. It couldn't BE any other way, because it fits our precious evolutionary models. We have to explain the whale, so lets put together some animals that share some charactaristics, and boom, there ya go. The ToE has a broad spectrum ability to explain anything, as it can encompass any evidence you bring up.

This conclusion is where all the physical evidence points to. This includes recent genetic evidence we didn't even discuss. I could ask you, why you must reject where the physical evidence leads, but I already know the answer.

I would still like to know why you started this thread. Quite clearly you were unfamiliar with the evidence. Are you surprised by some of the evidence? Did you expect more? Did you expect less? Did you think it would be less convincing, or more convincing? Do you really care what the evidence is, or was it just idol curiosity?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Shared characteristics with (I assume you mean) extinct organisms certainly means they are related. Are you now saying that lions and housecats are not related? I thought they were both "cat kind?" In any case, the fossil intermediates are only one piece of the puzzle. Any one piece by itself is not convincing. It is all the pieces together which make the theory convincing.



That's the problem.. it is not so "unique." Whale embryos make four leg buds just like all other mammals even though they don't wind up with four legs! Why? It is either because their ancestors had four legs, or their designer was really weird. Also, if you had read through the website I provided, you would also have noted that the nostrils of dolphin embryos start at the tip of the snout, just like all other mammals and then migrate to the top of the head. Very weird for an animal designed from scratch to have a blowhole instead of a typical nose. The really interesting thing, is that this information points to the same conclusion as the transitional fossils you dismissed in the first paragraph...


A mutation that produces an entire leg from scratch is absurd. What this inforamtion tells us instead is that whales have the genetic information to make rear legs. This taken with the fact that they typically have tiny vestigial leg bones buried in their body wall, lead to the same conclusion as the first two lines of evidence we just discussed. Stranger and stranger...



This conclusion is where all the physical evidence points to. This includes recent genetic evidence we didn't even discuss. I could ask you, why you must reject where the physical evidence leads, but I already know the answer.

I would still like to know why you started this thread. Quite clearly you were unfamiliar with the evidence. Are you surprised by some of the evidence? Did you expect more? Did you expect less? Did you think it would be less convincing, or more convincing? Do you really care what the evidence is, or was it just idol curiosity?

yes, unfamiliar with the "evidence" not at all shocked though. It's a typical ToE presentation.

 

[Split Rock]

but how does this show itself as a mutation? How are those involved in studying it certain that it never existed before now? At one point we isolated blood type as well, different among humans, but previously unknown. The only thing we DID know is that we all had blood.

This is kind of on a tangent, but I thought I would point out that we also knew that while blood transfusions sometimes worked, they often killed the patient. Blood typing helped to explain why.

 

[Uphill Battle]

This is kind of on a tangent, but I thought I would point out that we also knew that while blood transfusions sometimes worked, they often killed the patient. Blood typing helped to explain why.

right. So we identified something in humans, that was there all along, we just didn't know about it. Not a mutation, just an understanding of what was there.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sharing characteristics do NOT make them both whales, just like sharing charactaristics do not make tigers lions, lions cheetahs, or cheetahs housecats. and apologies for being so abrubt with my dismissal, I just don't feel it's necessary to flap my jaw or type a thousand words to get my point across.

Shared characteristics make tigers, lions, cheetahs and housecats all cats. Similarly, shared characteristics make Ambulocetus, the blue whale, Pakicetus, Flipper the Dolphin and Rhodocetus all whales.

and lets see, unique embryonic development? Good, glad the whale DOES have unique embryonic develpment. Makes it like any other creature on the earth. First, that sounds an awful lot like the "gills on human embryos" and to top it off, the development of the whale embryo ends up with what... a whale? with no legs? seems like it's growing the way it's supposed to.

But the point is the whale embryo gets to being a whale with no legs via being a whale with legbuds which are reabsorbed. Why form structures which in every other mammalian embryo become legs at all?

An odd whale with a genetic mutation doesn't seem all that difficult either... seeing as we are seeing mutations nowadays quite frequently, just none of them are beneficial, as ToE would have you believe.

Uphill, you said you wouldn't lie. So don't start. We've listed beneficial mutations elsewhere. I can give you more if you like.

Don't you think it's an amazing coincidence that these "mutant" whales keep on mutating in a way that gives them atavistic legs? Never an extra fin or wings or something; always these legs. And what makes you think an animal that doesn't normally have legs could acquire a simple mutation that would give it legs? Isn't this the sort of thing you creationists are always saying can't happen? Isn't your own argument against the evolution of amphibians that you can't get legs if you don't already have the DNA for legs? And why would a whale have DNA for legs? Evolution has an answer. Creationism has handwaving.

I just what to know how the scientific community can accept carte blanche that this is how it happened.

The evidence. You may think it's not enough, but those who have studied these things in depth almost unanimously think it is. Funny that.

It couldn't BE any other way, because it fits our precious evolutionary models. We have to explain the whale, so lets put together some animals that share some charactaristics, and boom, there ya go. The ToE has a broad spectrum ability to explain anything, as it can encompass any evidence you bring up.

This is a ridiculous caricature. I suggest you actually read Thewisson's papers rather than jeer like this. It's most unseemly. If you really think that the real scientific world is this slapdash then frankly you insult most scientists.

 

[rjw]

you always use the term detailed evidence, but what I don't understand is how it can be suggested that it IS detailed evidence. You have speculation, you have different "forms" of whales, that for some reason have huge gaps between them, you have a much faster rate of evolution for whales than for other forms of life. none of this seems to be "detailed evidence"

Hello Uphill Battle,

What do you mean by "detailed evidence"?

What would it take to convince you that maybe, just maybe, whales could have evolved from land dwelling animals?


How does the nature of this evidence you require from us compare with the evidence you accept for your idea that God did it on one day, 6,000 years ago?


Regards, Roland

 

[Uphill Battle]

oh, good, so, they share charactaristics, that makes them all whales, eh? and where does it show them going from one form to another? Do you see housecats evoloving to cheetahs? It certainly would be a benefit, wouldn't you say?

Please, show me these other mutations. the gene one doesn't cut it, it looks more like isolation of a latent gene.

and we've never observed ANY other whale mutations? Would finding one falsify ToE on whales? I doubt it. and seeing as my point of view on mutations are that they are non beneficial, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of creatures with mutations wind up dead.

The evidence? There is no evidence at all that these forms proceeded from one to another, other than similar charataristics. So, you have similar charataristics, and a need to explain how the whale got where it is... bingo, lump them together in a chain.

And it's no caricature. ToE has an explination for everything that doesn't fit their model. More theorizing on top of the theory. (for example, not about evolution, but the oort cloud theory.... no way to explain the rate of comets disintegrating... so there you go, we have the oort cloud. no real evidence, just a theory, but accepted because it helps. (or the kuiper belt, same thing.)

 

[Valkhorn]

Do you see housecats evoloving to cheetahs?

Evolution doesn't say that would happen.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

Perhaps if you actually learned what Evolution was you'd actually know what to argue against? Right now you're arguing against a fantasy version of Evolution that somehow only occurs in the minds of creationists.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Evolution doesn't say that would happen.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

Perhaps if you actually learned what Evolution was you'd actually know what to argue against? Right now you're arguing against a fantasy version of Evolution that somehow only occurs in the minds of creationists.

ok then, a population of housecats. Or cheetahs. Or lions.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

oh, good, so, they share charactaristics, that makes them all whales, eh? and where does it show them going from one form to another? Do you see housecats evoloving to cheetahs? It certainly would be a benefit, wouldn't you say?

No, not really. And you said you weren't going to misrepresent. Where does the ToE suggest that one existing animal would evolve into another existing animal?

Housecats are selected for docility and friendliness, because the nasty ones are more likely to end up in a shelter where it's guaranteed they'll be neutered.

Please, show me these other mutations. the gene one doesn't cut it, it looks more like isolation of a latent gene.

Sure. Go here http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/jdgreason.htm and do a search for "galactose". The word appears in a nice article about a beneficial mutation appearing in the lab. This sort of thing's been done again and again, I understand.

and we've never observed ANY other whale mutations? Would finding one falsify ToE on whales? I doubt it.

No. The point is that the atavistic leg deformity comes up again and again and again, whereas other deformities are rare and don't form any kind of pattern. And I notice you don't touch my point that a mutation that causes legs to grow should be anathema to creationists unless the DNA were already there. Touché, methinks, and therefore ignored.

and seeing as my point of view on mutations are that they are non beneficial,

Tough. The above experiment demonstrates they aren't.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of creatures with mutations wind up dead.

And you'd be wrong. You probably carry several mutations yourself. Everyone does, and they're mostly neutral.

The evidence? There is no evidence at all that these forms proceeded from one to another, other than similar charataristics. So, you have similar charataristics, and a need to explain how the whale got where it is... bingo, lump them together in a chain.

And it's no caricature. ToE has an explination for everything that doesn't fit their model. More theorizing on top of the theory. (for example, not about evolution, but the oort cloud theory.... no way to explain the rate of comets disintegrating... so there you go, we have the oort cloud. no real evidence, just a theory, but accepted because it helps. (or the kuiper belt, same thing.)[/QUOTE]

 

[rjw]

but how does this show itself as a mutation? How are those involved in studying it certain that it never existed before now?

UB, this passage of yours is typical of much of the logic I see from YECs. The above follows the reasoning that "if you were not there then you cannot be sure" or "if you were not there then you do not really know" or something to that effect.

But then, while denying your opponent that logic, you take it for yourself with:-

The only thing we DID know is that we all had blood.

Given that you (or anybody else) were not or are not there to see yourself, how can you claim this?


Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

oh, good, so, they share charactaristics, that makes them all whales, eh? and where does it show them going from one form to another? Do you see housecats evoloving to cheetahs? It certainly would be a benefit, wouldn't you say?

UB, your logic is inconsistent.

Here you argue that if something cannot be observed then we have no reason to accept that it could exist or have existed. That being so, just how much science do you accept (other than the collection of data, about the only things we do observe)?

Do you accept that fusion reactions keep stars shining? Do you accept the existence of mesons? Do you accept that mesons hold the atomic nucleus together? Do you accept that photons of light can evaporate water molecules from the surface of a pond? Do you accept that germs cause disease?

It is odd if you accept any of this. Should you, then tell me who has observed it!

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of creatures with mutations wind up dead.

You appear so ready to accept your own wild guesses in preference to arguments from evidence. On what grounds do you make this guess?

The evidence? There is no evidence at all that these forms proceeded from one to another, other than similar charataristics. So, you have similar charataristics, and a need to explain how the whale got where it is... bingo, lump them together in a chain.

If people argue that one form gave rise to another then I would disagree with them too. We cannot say that one form did give rise to the other. What we do say is that one form could have given rise to another. However that is unlikely. What is likely is that certain characteristics of this form would also be characteristics of the form which did give rise to the other form.

The diagarams you see these days are generally cladograms - diagrams for which no claim for direct ancestor/descendand relationship is being made.

These cladograms give rise to a "standard phylogenetic" tree. Unsurprisingly, since all the evidence points to common descent with modification, newly discovered bones (such as these whale bones) invariably fit nicely into the one tree. If descent with modification did not occur, then there is no reason to expect this. The ID could easily have designed a whale with wings leading to a tree where whales are grouped close to birds, and another tree where whales are grouped close to mamals. And there would be no objective way in which it could be determined that one tree is correct and the other false.

What is more, this "standard phylogenetic tree" can be created from independent data. That is both bones, genes, and proteins give rise to the same tree. This is so even for those genes and proteins which have nothing to do with morphology (bones).

Again if an ID were behind this, there is no reason that independent data should give rise to the same tree.

And it's no caricature. ToE has an explination for everything that doesn't fit their model. More theorizing on top of the theory.

How much science do you actually read UB?

All scientists have explanations for everything that does not fit the standard model. The explanations:-

1) Call for modifications to the model, perhaps its rejection.

2) Can be just so stories. (Evolution certainly has its fair share of these. But they are not confined to evolution - and plenty of evolution is certainly not just so story. Creationism relies totally on just-so-stories. If you doubt me, then read creationists magazines such as Creation and TJ. The science that is unique to YEC and OEC is just so story.

3) Can be shown to be correct with further research.

(for example, not about evolution, but the oort cloud theory.... no way to explain the rate of comets disintegrating... so there you go, we have the oort cloud. no real evidence, just a theory, but accepted because it helps. (or the kuiper belt, same thing.)

As for this last bit:-

1) You do understand a bit about Newton's laws and his gravitational theory to know why the obital dynamics of certain comets point to the existence of the Oort cloud - don't you?

2) You are aware of some observations which point to the possibility of Oort cloud like structures around other stars - aren't you? And you are aware of some models of solar system formation which demonstrate that an Oort cloud could form - providing the models are themselves matching reality?

3) Have you checked mainstream literature to ensure that "rate of comets disintegrating" is not a furfee? And if it is not, then why is it, supposedly, solid evidence that the Oort cloud and the Kruiper Belts are nonsense?

4) You are aware that, once upon a time, the Kruiper Belt was a hypothetical entity like the Oort cloud and that over the past two decades, numerous bodies have been detected beyond the orbit of Pluto? You are aware that these bodies form a belt around the sun? You are aware that these bodies are such that they have caused some debate (at times intense) within the astronomical community, as to the status of Pluto. That is, is it a planet or a Kruiper Belt object? (In short, it is deemed that the Kruiper Belt has been or is being detected.)



Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

It does not stand up any more than a whale stands up. I don't need to even consider the spilt on this one. We know He made the great whales in creation week itself. The only question might be, why were they made with bones that look a little like they were little leggies? Did whales need to hyper adapt for some reason between creation, and the flood? That would be the only thing I could see if it could be demonstrated there were big changes. But at this stage, with some different whale pictures as 'evidence' it seems like the only thing evoluting is evoist imaginative assumptions?
I'm not against any adaptions if we know they really did happen, I am opposed to grasping at straws to try to say God did not create things.

Gidday Dad,

I'm not against any adaptions if we know they really did happen, I am opposed to grasping at straws to try to say God did not create things.

So dad, do you know of any adaptations that really did happen? If so, how do you know that they “really did happen” as against the idea that God created them?

As an aside but nevertheless relevant, decades ago, Eric von Daniken, in Chariots of the Gods either made the direct claim or implied that aliens created humans by genetic engineering. By extension, they could have made whales in a similar way.

Therefore it must have happened this way?


Regards, Roland

 

[nvxplorer]

As an aside but nevertheless relevant, decades ago, Eric von Daniken, in Chariots of the Gods either made the direct claim or implied that aliens created humans by genetic engineering. By extension, they could have made whales in a similar way.

While being a fantastic hypothesis, Chariots of the Gods shows how ambiguious the Bible truly is. Von Daniken's analysis of scripture is no less believable that the many Christian interpretations. Indeed, dad has no difficulty formulating spirysics using his personal, unique interpretation of the Bible.

 

[dad]

Gidday Dad,



So dad, do you know of any adaptations that really did happen? If so, how do you know that they “really did happen” as against the idea that God created them?
[Good question. But, assuming a creation and the kind of growing conditions, and things then, with the merge, would it really matter?]

As an aside but nevertheless relevant, decades ago, Eric von Daniken, in Chariots of the Gods either made the direct claim or implied that aliens created humans by genetic engineering. By extension, they could have made whales in a similar way.

Therefore it must have happened this way?
[Problem is, this is against the bible, (God made us and them) and science does not lead us there either. So what's left? Someone's opinion. I must admit, I think there were a few tidbits in there (if this was the guy I'm thinking of) where there were drawings in south america seen only from the sky, that make for interesting speculation, as to flight in the old world.]


Regards, Roland

.

 

[Kripost]

ok then, a population of housecats. Or cheetahs. Or lions.

You forget about the very enviroment they are placed in: humans are part of their enviroment, and exert selective pressure through artificial breeding.

 

[Jet Black]

Fused legs, tail, whatever. What I said is, there isn't any real evidence that they moved from one form to another, is there.

and what precisely were you basing your pre-emptive conclusion on? absolutely nothing. you pulled it out of thin air, talk about being intellectually dishonest.

A series of skeletal remains, some with legs, some not. woohoo.

again, you're not in a position to say, because you don't even know what you are talking about

And lastly, if there were some born without legs, the first fully aquatic whales, they would have nothing to mate with, as theire ancestors would still be restricted to shore areas.

how silly, so now you try to defend your lack of knowledge with a strawman. who said the first fully aquatic whales were the first ones with no legs? look at the legs on the basilosaurs, they could not support weight, the basilosaurs were fully aquatic and still had rear legs. actually educate yourself as to how whales (supposedly) evolved, and then argue against that, rather than making up your own strawman and then knocking it down. It's a logical fallacy, which just heightens the weakness of your position.

or did the fully aquatic whale restrict itself to shore areas too? Why?

again, silly question, mostly covered by the previous answer.

Look Uphill, take a leaf out of Dominus Fidelis' book and actually make some effort to know what you are on about. You came into this thread with no knowledge of even basic whale anatomy, having already declared your conclusion, and now that has been exposed, you are trying to defend your weak position with an increasing number of strawmen arguments.

 

[Jet Black]

you always use the term detailed evidence, but what I don't understand is how it can be suggested that it IS detailed evidence. You have speculation, you have different "forms" of whales, that for some reason have huge gaps between them, you have a much faster rate of evolution for whales than for other forms of life. none of this seems to be "detailed evidence"

the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals was proposed initially by darwin back in the 1800s. His model was based around bears, which turned out to be the wrong group, but it was a very basic idea. the matter at hand is that it was predicted that organisms intermediate between terrestrial and aquatic mammals would be found.

and they were.

and many of the features from the terrestrial mammals through to the whales match up.

 

[dad]

the matter at hand is that it was predicted that organisms intermediate between terrestrial and aquatic mammals would be found.

and they were.

and many of the features from the terrestrial mammals through to the whales match up.

In an original spectrum of life, the complete creation would fill the gaps we now have as a result of the flood, and other extinctions. Predicting that some creatures would have ear chambers, or whatnot further in or out, is not rocket science. Giving the credit to some imagined evolution, instead of creator is baseless, and only a statement of faith, or belief. It doesn't prove whales evolved from wolve like creatures or whatever, but that there were no gaps in the original creation, like now, in a sin and flood decimated one! Not at all, in the slightest.