How do Creationists explain the vestigial structures in whales?

[Jro]

If you ever try to fork a spoon I can guarantee the experience is not pleasant.

 

[NailsII]

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

Spoons don't reproduce, because the number of tea spoons I have decreases every year.

The forks look like they've been at it with the spoons, as you can clearly see a hybrid spork there.

Whales don't reproduce, god makes new ones every so often to keep the japanese 'researchers' happy.

 

[Davian]

Spoons don't reproduce, because the number of tea spoons I have decreases every year.

The forks look like they've been at it with the spoons, as you can clearly see a hybrid spork there.

Whales don't reproduce, god makes new ones every so often to keep the japanese 'researchers' happy.

 

[Split Rock]

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

This is to be filed under "Evos find all the intermediate fossils in a big pit and then arrange them the way they like" category. Funny how you guys always ignore stratigraphy... isn't it?

 

[USincognito]

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

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

This is to be filed under "Evos find all the intermediate fossils in a big pit and then arrange them the way they like" category. Funny how you guys always ignore stratigraphy... isn't it?

Might as well throw this in as well... When Creationists analyze spork DNA and find it to have spoon and fork DNA, then it might be valid.
Phylogenomic analyses and improved resol... [Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
"Phylogenetic analysis of this newly developed genomic sequence data using a codon-based model and recently developed models of the rate autocorrelation resolved the phylogenetic relationships of the major cetartiodactylan lineages and of those lineages with a high degree of confidence. Cetacea was found to nest within Artiodactyla as the sister group of Hippopotamidae, and Tylopoda was corroborated as the sole base clade of Cetartiodactyla."

For purposes of GB's failed analogy, Cetartiodactyla is the analagous clade to "Untensila".

 

[good brother]

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".

It's funny. You say that Pakicetids are cetaceans because they share "morphological features", then say that rats, cats and lions aren't related just because they look alike. You do realize the "morphological features" is just a fancy way of saying "they look alike, don't you?

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Given the weight of evidence in favour of evolutionary theory, I would say it is a fair bet that there are more

At least you're willing to admit that evos are betting theres 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.

Is that why they only show four in pictures showing it's evolution? If I were going to make such audacious claims, I think I would provide more proof than four.

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!

If you would have read my whole post I stated that I believe some of the reason God made some of those strange animals that go against the claims and ideas of evolution, is to just mess with their minds and their precious theory.

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

Right, cuz it's crazy to assume an almighty God created everything with a perfect design and function, but it's perfectly normal to assume that given enough time a lizard will grow feathers and fly away. Sure.

In Christ, GB

 

[AnotherAtheist]

It's funny. You say that Pakicetids are cetaceans because they share "morphological features", then say that rats, cats and lions aren't related just because they look alike. You do realize the "morphological features" is just a fancy way of saying "they look alike, don't you?

In Christ, GB

There is morphology and there is morphology.

A pike and a barracuda "look alike", but that's a superficial likeness and investigation of finer detail will show that they are very different. And this is evidence that they are not closely related.

A red squirrel and a grey squirrel look alike, but if you look at the finer detail you find that they really do look alike, even to unusual and distinctive features. And this becomes good evidence that they are related.

Right, cuz it's crazy to assume an almighty God created everything with a perfect design and function, but it's perfectly normal to assume that given enough time a lizard will grow feathers and fly away. Sure.

The difference between the two cases is the amount of evidence that we have. We have a lot of evidence, e.g. genetic and fossil, that reptiles did grow feathers and gain the ability to fly.

 

[MostlyLurking]

Is that why they only show four in pictures showing it's evolution? If I were going to make such audacious claims, I think I would provide more proof than four.

You appear to think that the Theory of Evolution and particular evolutionary paths are "proven" by some series of pictures.

And that fact together with your assumption that a picture of dinnerware is somehow relevant to how paleontologists conduct their research makes it virtually impossible for someone to try to explain to you why evolution is evident everywhere we look among living things.

You will continue to post illogical claims until you finally READ and STUDY some elementary evolution book or website.

I've been reading on this website for weeks now as an unregistered guest. But after watching many patient forum members (some of them professors and scientists) cover the same evolution basics with you again and again, I've come to doubt that there is any progress possible until you learn those basics.

I'm not saying that you must yourself adopt the theory of evolution as a personal belief. I'm saying that if you want to intelligently refute evolution and the evidence for it, you need at the very least a foundational knowledge. And the lack of that knowledge is why you so often cut-and-paste material which you don't understand and which at times even undermines your claims.

And if you are refusing to learn the basics as some kind of personal protest against evolution, then the Book of Proverbs has some essential lessons for you. That portion of the Bible has much to say about those who choose not to avail themselves of knowledge and wisdom. I make that suggestion because I am a Christian and when I see Christians on-line demonstrating an appalling lack of basic knowledge in the areas in which they preach to others, it embarrasses all of us who claim the Christian name.

So think of my advice this way: If you were to actually learn some things about the theory of evolution, you would be better equipped to defend your position.

 

[MostlyLurking]

If you would have read my whole post I stated that I believe some of the reason God made some of those strange animals that go against the claims and ideas of evolution, is to just mess with their minds and their precious theory.

Based on that reasoning, should I assume that God stocked his creation with countless evidences for evolution, huge numbers of evidence for the universe being billions of years old, and even destroyed all evidence of a global flood, just to mess with YOUR mind and YOUR precious theories?

I realize that many of your creationist associates do think that God planted fossils and various kinds of evidence for a very old universe and for evolution itself because God was testing their faith. I suppose that sounds better than your "mess with their minds" concept. But is it really all that different?

Meanwhile, I didn't notice any animals in your previous posts which "go against the claims and ideas of evolution." Instead, they only displayed your own confusion about the claims and ideas of evolution. If you understood the basics of evolution theory, you wouldn't have assumed they pose any problems in 2012. I've seen creationists pull out old quotes about things which were scientific mysteries long ago but pose no problems today.

So please. Devote yourself to just a few hours reading from some non-creationist source about the foundations of the theory of evolution. If you are going to deny evolution, at least figure out what it is.

 

[Split Rock]

It's funny. You say that Pakicetids are cetaceans because they share "morphological features", then say that rats, cats and lions aren't related just because they look alike. You do realize the "morphological features" is just a fancy way of saying "they look alike, don't you?

In Christ, GB

What's even funnier is you missed "distinct morphological features" even though you quoted it in bold. What she is talking about are specific derived features only found in cetaceans. For example, certain types of ear bones.

 

[Split Rock]

If you would have read my whole post I stated that I believe some of the reason God made some of those strange animals that go against the claims and ideas of evolution, is to just mess with their minds and their precious theory.

Wonderful ad hoc reasoning. I'll file this away with:
1. Satan created fossils to fool dumb evos.
2. God created fossils to test Christians' faith.

All this assumes that you couldn't possibly be wrong about your interpretation of scritpure, of course.

Right, cuz it's crazy to assume an almighty God created everything with a perfect design and function, but it's perfectly normal to assume that given enough time a lizard will grow feathers and fly away. Sure.

In Christ, GB

Its also perfectly normal to assume a snake talked to eve, God blew on dirt to make Adam, and fashioned his mate out of a rib. "Sure."

 

[MostlyLurking]

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 can help with this. I'm no longer a creationist (though I do believe that God created everything) and I can assure you that "God works in mysterious ways" is not a straw-man issue.

Especially during the Q&A segment of various Bible conferences where we would have some Creationist guest speaker (Duane Gish was one), that kind of answer was always there as a last resort when a speaker couldn't give a more specific answer. They didn't always use those exact words but here's some examples:

(1) "As the scripture tells us, God's ways are not our ways. So we can't always expect to make sense of some things." This one was particularly helpful when someone dared bring up an issue that was clearly a slam-dunk for the merits of the Theory of Evolution. So the speaker would claim that it only *seemed* to be a superior answer. But all the speaker had to do was resort to that "I can't explain it but God can.", and most of the heads in the auditorium would nod their heads to agree with him. (Sometimes they would even applaud. And it the questioner had been in any way determined or obstinate, and if the speaker then got equally obstinate to put him in his place, he might even get a standing ovation!)

(2) "We know that God is omniscient and his wisdom dwarfs our own, just like a blue whale compares to a microscopic amoeba. So we should expect that God does lots of things that are far beyond our comprehension."

(3) "Perhaps sometimes God just likes to show he has a sense of humor. How else can we explain a platypus?"


Now perhaps some think that those three statements aren't the same as "God works in mysterious ways", but I sure think they come close. They at least offer words similar to "mysterious" and can be substituted for it:

"God works in mysterious ways",
"God works in superior ways", [which we don't always understand]
"God works in smarter ways", [which we don't always understand]
"God works in clever/witty ways."[which we don't always understand]

I doubt that those speakers would have no objections if somebody quoted them as saying "God works in mysterious ways".

Does anyone disagree with my conclusion?

 

[MostlyLurking]

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.

I too would like to read Verysincere's story about that and especially how he eventually harmonized the Bible and evolution. For that matter, I would like to interview him if I could. The only such account (of a young earth creationist Christian becoming a evolution apologetics writer) I've ever read was Glenn Morton's, the geologist. But Morton wasn't a evangelical seminary professor and Bible translator.

I saw Dr. David Levin's endorsement (microbiologist at Boston University) of his forum writings and so I have been tracking down all of verysincere's postings. Dr.Ganis, a paleontologist at Brown University has also referred to his Internet remarks so it is interesting how forum postings get noticed more than one would think. Verysincere reviewed some of the books written by his former creationist colleagues and some of those reviews were very funny. But they got some extremely strong reactions to say the least. He also wrote a review of one of Jason Lisle's books where he used nothing but tongue in cheek rave-review superlatives. Lisle posted an angry complaint saying how "evolutionists can't address the issues". I guess he didn't appreciate the humor.

If there are any other ex-creationist evolution-endorsing Christians on this forum who are still Bible-believing Evangelicals, I would love to interview you by email for an article I would like to write. If you know the usernames of any such ex-creationists on ChristianForums who don't post here often or recently, I would appreciate the username so that I can try to contact them.

 

[MostlyLurking]

It's funny. You say that Pakicetids are cetaceans because they share "morphological features", then say that rats, cats and lions aren't related just because they look alike. You do realize the "morphological features" is just a fancy way of saying "they look alike, don't you?

Is that meant to be a joke?

Obviously "morphological features" is *NOT* at all the same thing as "they look alike".

I'm probably looking foolish here for not catching the joke but surely nobody here thinks that morphology refers to outward appearance. And the "don't you?" must be the punchline somehow. (I suppose you might say that morphology=appearance for Superman, cuz he has X-ray vision.)

(Even at the risk of making myself look stupid, could somebody explain this one to me? If it is American humor, I don't always understand American humor.)

 

[good brother]

What's even funnier is you missed "distinct morphological features" even though you quoted it in bold. What she is talking about are specific derived features only found in cetaceans. For example, certain types of ear bones.

Is that meant to be a joke?

Obviously "morphological features" is *NOT* at all the same thing as "they look alike".

This answer is for both of you.

Morphology: In biology, morphology is a branch of bioscience dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.

Notice that it is the study of the "form" (i.e. what it looks like) and the "structure" (i.e. again, what exactly the structure looks like) and their "special structural features" (again, what it looks like).

So you can say whatever you like, but "sharing morphological features" is the same doggone thing as "they look alike". Now, morphology may be talking about ear bone structure or brain capacity, but it is still what it "appears to be" or rather, "what it looks like". Sugar coating it with a fancy technical term is just putting another coat of paint on an old barn, it looks fancy from a distance but the closer you get to it, the more the imperfections become visible.

In Christ, GB

 

[MostlyLurking]

This answer is for both of you.

Morphology: In biology, morphology is a branch of bioscience dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.

Nice try and I'm not surprised that you tried to perform a save on it. Morphology=what it looks like can perhaps suffice for an elementary school science class and general introductions for the general public. But the fact is that not all aspects of form and structure can be SEEN as you suggested, despite your original claim with the pictures. AnotherAtheist tried to explain that to you.

No doubt you are trying to recover from those sets of photos and your claim that paleontologists somehow "proved" evolution by merely looking at such pictures and the EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF ANIMALS. But those who tried to educate you on this pointed out that evolution clues are not just morphology alone. And certainly not just EXTERNAL APPEARANCE as you were trying to insist. (Or when you say that two people "look alike", do you mean that dual comparative autopsies were performed?)

Only by straining your original statements as to "what they looked like" through a series of gymnastics to where you've now adopted a NEW understanding are you getting closer to the morphological issues they were explaining to you.

But it is kind of interesting that even the definition you provided (see above) fits more closely what OTHERS were explaining to you and NOT what you were trying to claim originally (with the pictures where you said that they merely "looked like" each other.) You may prefer to forget your original claims but other readers have not. But if it makes you feel better in recovering your pride, tell yourself whatever you wish. Enjoy yourself.

(Something tells me that I've found myself in a futile exercise. Enough.)

 

[Split Rock]

This answer is for both of you.

Morphology: In biology, morphology is a branch of bioscience dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.

Notice that it is the study of the "form" (i.e. what it looks like) and the "structure" (i.e. again, what exactly the structure looks like) and their "special structural features" (again, what it looks like).

So you can say whatever you like, but "sharing morphological features" is the same doggone thing as "they look alike". Now, morphology may be talking about ear bone structure or brain capacity, but it is still what it "appears to be" or rather, "what it looks like". Sugar coating it with a fancy technical term is just putting another coat of paint on an old barn, it looks fancy from a distance but the closer you get to it, the more the imperfections become visible.

In Christ, GB

No, specific features found only in cetaceans is what we are talking about. We are not sugar-coating anything, you are trying to re-define terminology.

 

[USincognito]

It's funny. You say that Pakicetids are cetaceans because they share "morphological features", then say that rats, cats and lions aren't related just because they look alike. You do realize the "morphological features" is just a fancy way of saying "they look alike, don't you?

Who is saying that rats, cats and lions aren't related? You do know they share characteristics including morphological features that make all three mammals and the last two feliformes, right?

There's a difference between general morphological features the determine long distance relationships and specific morphological features that determine closer relationships. Humans and kangaroos are both bipedal, but our last common ancestor was ~90 million years ago. Bats and crows both have wings, but the wing structures are very different and their last common ancestor was ~300 million years ago. In the case of Pakicetids and Cetaceans, it's their specific morphological similarities that determine their close relatedness.

 

[USincognito]

Is that why they only show four in pictures showing it's evolution? If I were going to make such audacious claims, I think I would provide more proof than four.

Whale Origins
Cetaceans
Lesson: Whale Evolution