Evolution of whales

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I am just about ready to put this guy on ignore.

I’ve been tempted to do this with a few of the intentionally ignorant protagonists here. The only thing that stops me is the though of the lurkers that would see their lies and nonsense go without refutation.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Perhaps we need a thread where we can list known liars, troublemakers and timewasters, with links to the posts where they showed themselves to be unworthy of attention.

Then lurkers can ignore them as well.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Perhaps we need a thread where we can list known liars, troublemakers and timewasters, with links to the posts where they showed themselves to be unworthy of attention.

Then lurkers can ignore them as well.

I suppose, of course, that you would be judge and jury of who is and who is not worthy of attention, eh?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Nope. The posters in question would, by lying, misrepresenting, and constantly stating the same things over and over again, despite having never addressed the refutations posted to their nonsense.

Don't lie, don't misrepresent, and actually engage with the debate and you can't get on the list.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

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

If evolution worked like that, it wouldn't work. I think that is a big stumbling block for a lot of people. After all, since evolution is all about reproduction - if something cannot reproduce it is an evolutionary dead end.

Evolution is not really perceptable at the level of single individuals. It happens at the level of breeding populations, and takes generations. That may sound like a cop-out but it is the only way for it to possibley work.

You take a breeding population and, over generations, benficial mutations will become dominant in the population. The beneficial mutation will have happened only once, in one individual (and may not have made a dramatic difference in body shape or behaviour - only a small change).

Then how does it get to be so prominant in the population?
Well that beneficial mutation, that occured only once out of thousands of individuals, helps to ensure that a greater percentage of offspring survive to reproduce. That means that your babies have a better chance then your neigbors babies at procreating the next genertaiton, and so forth with your grand children and great grand children.

It may all sound so improbable until you realize one thing. In many species, individuals make dozens or even hundreds of babies during their life time. But for every breeding female, on average only 2 survive long enough to reproduce. There is a huge amount of waste. That is on average, some indivduals will see thier offspring be more successful then others. . SO what if one particular female doubles the chances of her offsprings reproductive success due to a beneficial mutation? That mutation will find its way into more individuals with each passing generation.

 

[Uphill Battle]

hmmm. gotcha. I won't lie. Scouts honour.

 

[Split Rock]

Just to round-off what seems to be a dying thread, I will summerize how this thread started and ended:

The OP was started by Uphill Battle, who asked some questions about whale evolution:

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?

After a series of posts answering his questions and providing links with detailed evidence, we see the responses by the two creationists participating in the thread:

Fused legs, tail, whatever. What I said is, there isn't any real evidence that they moved from one form to another, is there. A series of skeletal remains, some with legs, some not. woohoo.

Where do we keep the whales with complete legs? I wouldn't mind having a look, maybe getting a picture? Are they still alive? Do they still swim, or would I better look on land, where they are having a nice stroll? Maybe we could have a whale special olympics, where they see which one is faster on land?

That about sums things up.

 

[techjedi]

I find it both sad and humorous that some people refuse to even entertain the idea that perhaps God created the universe a guided its formation through many of the scientific principles that we have to this day discovered (and perhaps some other we haven't). Physics, chemistry, evolution, etc...

I mean, it is highly likely that the book of Job contains the oldest writings from the time of Moses, and that Genesis/Exodus/etc (Pentateuch) came after that. Also, much of the beginning of Genesis (basically chapters 1-12) is mostly likely the first (or only one we have) attempt by Moses to record what was otherwise oral history, passed down through generations. Typically oral history has a more poetic nature to it, since it concentrates on imagery language and less on nitty gritty details. I will concede that there is divine influence at work since the unique nature of the Judaic creation account is that it is the only one that has the world being created from nothing (no pre-existing material, etc) - and that it coincidentally follows very closely with what astronomy tells us the order of creation of the universe, galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc took place. However, I have come to a place where I cannot in good faith or conscience believe that everything in Genesis is 100% literal truth - it just flies in the face of all the evidence.

I firmly believe that God had a plan, but just like any good symphony conductor, he guided and tuned and adjusted along the way shaping His creation into the very image He had for it.

Not the be all end all of arguments... but my $0.02




Want an iPod? Get one free at http://www.freeipods.com/?r=20012025
This is not a scam, read about it at Yahoo! Finance, then click on my referrer link above.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Just to round-off what seems to be a dying thread, I will summerize how this thread started and ended:

The OP was started by Uphill Battle, who asked some questions about whale evolution:


After a series of posts answering his questions and providing links with detailed evidence, we see the responses by the two creationists participating in the thread:




That about sums things up.

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"

 

[mikeynov]

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"

Put it this way:

If whales were a product of evolution from terrestrial mammals, what would you expect to find? What predictions does the hypothesis "whales are descendents of terrestrial mammals" make?

Does it fulfill them? What evidence falsifies that hypothesis?

These are the questions you need to start asking yourself.

 

[Tomk80]

Put it this way:

If whales were a product of evolution from terrestrial mammals, what would you expect to find? What predictions does the hypothesis "whales are descendents of terrestrial mammals" make?

Does it fulfill them? What evidence falsifies that hypothesis?

These are the questions you need to start asking yourself.

Also, leave the idea of 'proof', 'perfect evidence' and all that behind. There ain't no such thing. Start asking yourself which idea is the most likely to be true, not whether evolution is 100% undeniably true. It isn't, no scientific theory is. Evolution is the best explanation of the evidence we currently have, it is not set in stone, it is not some eternal Truth (tm). Creationism, on the other hand, is one of the worst explanations we have, because it doesn't fit the facts we have in any way.

 

[Split Rock]

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"

What I mean by "detailed evidence" is detailed examination and description of the evidence available to us. For example:

1. Detailed examination and description of the fossil anatomy of extinct organisms that have cetacean (whale-like) characteristics. You dismiss this as "A series of skeletal remains, some with legs, some not. woohoo."

2. Detailed examination and description of the development of whale embryos which show some unusual characteristics for organisms that were presumably created as aquatic. You ignored this evidence entirely.

3. Detailed examination and description of atavistic whales with actual rear legs discovered and documented. Dad responded to this evidence by making jokes about whales entering the Olympics.

If you are not interested in the evidence used to formulate the theory that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals, then I have no problem with that. If that is the case, however, I have to ask why you started this thread in the first place? It seems that you asked about whale evolution under the assumption that there wasn't any evidence behind the theory and are now disappointed that you found out this wasn't the case. So, you just dismiss it all out of hand, because you don't like it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Put it this way:

If whales were a product of evolution from terrestrial mammals, what would you expect to find? What predictions does the hypothesis "whales are descendents of terrestrial mammals" make?

Theres the rub. That is NOT what is asked. They don't start from scratch, and say... lets see, how should something evolve? and then find evidence of it. They find something, and attribute it to one evolutionary path or another.

 

[Tomk80]

Theres the rub. That is NOT what is asked. They don't start from scratch, and say... lets see, how should something evolve? and then find evidence of it. They find something, and attribute it to one evolutionary path or another.

Yes and no. The theory of evolution predicted that we should find intermediates between whales and land-based mammals. Those we found. The theory doesn't predict exactly what they look like. However, if we find one intermediate, following intermediates we find should fit into the gaps that are left between the found intermediate and the new ones. This was also confirmed.

So your criticism actually addressed. Some things are predicted by the theory of evolution, some are not. Those that are predicted should be found, or the theory has to be modified. If none of the predictions hold, or none of the evidence can be fit in, the theory is false. Since predictions by the theory of evolution have hold true, the theory is, as of yet, not falsified.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What I mean by "detailed evidence" is detailed examination and description of the evidence available to us. For example:

1. Detailed examination and description of the fossil anatomy of extinct organisms that have cetacean (whale-like) characteristics. You dismiss this as "A series of skeletal remains, some with legs, some not. woohoo."

2. Detailed examination and description of the development of whale embryos which show some unusual characteristics for organisms that were presumably created as aquatic. You ignored this evidence entirely.

3. Detailed examination and description of atavistic whales with actual rear legs discovered and documented. Dad responded to this evidence by making jokes about whales entering the Olympics.

If you are not interested in the evidence used to formulate the theory that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals, then I have no problem with that. If that is the case, however, I have to ask why you started this thread in the first place? It seems that you asked about whale evolution under the assumption that there wasn't any evidence behind the theory and are now disappointed that you found out this wasn't the case. So, you just dismiss it all out of hand, because you don't like it.

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.

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. 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.

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.

 

[mikeynov]

"seeing as we are seeing mutations nowadays quite frequently, just none of them are beneficial, as ToE would have you believe."

You've seen examples of beneficial mutations in this forum. Why are you lying?

 

[dad]

That's a load of dingos' kidneys, dad, and you know it. We've posted what is barely the scratchings of the tip of the iceberg of material on whale evolution, and already it stands up incredibly well against the whining and whinging from the creationist side.

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.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You've seen examples of beneficial mutations in this forum. Why are you lying?

that to me does NOT describe "benifical mutations" as you would have us beleive that all other changes in ToE would describe, such as legs on whales etc... you are talking about gene differences in humans that you have no evidence didn't exist in the first place. They have just isolated it in some humans.

 

[mikeynov]

that to me does NOT describe "benifical mutations" as you would have us beleive that all other changes in ToE would describe, such as legs on whales etc... you are talking about gene differences in humans that you have no evidence didn't exist in the first place. They have just isolated it in some humans.

A beneficial mutation is one which positively impacts reproductive success.

So what I showed you is the very definition of a beneficial mutation. What you seem to want is the genetic equivalent of saltation - a single "mutation" which will grow wings or grant you telepathy.

What you're asking for might very well falsify evolution. What I gave you is what you still claim doesn't exist. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[Uphill Battle]

A beneficial mutation is one which positively impacts reproductive success.

So what I showed you is the very definition of a beneficial mutation. What you seem to want is the genetic equivalent of saltation - a single "mutation" which will grow wings or grant you telepathy.

What you're asking for might very well falsify evolution. What I gave you is what you still claim doesn't exist. Something is wrong with this picture.

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.