Ohh No! Not another transitional fossil!!

[USincognito]

View attachment 246146

How cool! It even has feet. It must have evolved before the Shh/Hand2 pathway became fully non-functional post embryonic stage.

 

[Occams Barber]

How cool! It even has feet. It must have evolved before the Shh/Hand2 pathway became fully non-functional post embryonic stage.

I also noticed the fairly pronounced hind limbs. Bear in mind that it's an artist's impression based on broad concepts of what a whale looked like 33 million years ago.

I'm not sure if there is a definitive opinion on when (i.e. how many mya) whale hind limbs became fully internalised.
OB

 

[xianghua]

Ohh No! Not another transitional fossil!!!

Rivaling the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs, one of the most extraordinary transformations in the history of life was the evolution of baleen -- rows of flexible hair-like plates that blue whales, humpbacks and other marine mammals use to filter relatively tiny prey from gulps of ocean water. The unusual structure enables the world's largest creatures to consume several tons of food each day, without ever chewing or biting. Now, Smithsonian scientists have discovered an important intermediary link in the evolution of this innovative feeding strategy: an ancient whale that had neither teeth nor baleen.

The first whales used teeth to chew their food; a characteristic passed on from their land-dwelling ancestors. In the absence of clear evidence, it had been hypothesized that baleen whales went through a transitional stage where teeth may have coexisted with baleen.

A re-examination of Maiabalaena nesbittae, a 33-million-year-old whale fossil originally found in the 1970s, has established that there was no direct transition from teeth to baleen filter feeding. Instead Maiabalaena used a sucking action to take up small fish and squid. A CT scan indicated that Maiabalaena’s upper jaw was too thin and narrow to support baleen. Throat muscle attachment points also indicate strong cheeks and a retractable tongue needed to develop the sucking power for feeding.

This finding is significant in that it adds a major transitional form to the series describing whale evolution. It also provides new insight by showing that whale evolution could proceed without requiring either teeth or baleen.

Read more at:
Whales lost their teeth before evolving hair-like baleen in their mouths: Newly described fossil whale in museum collections reveals a surprising intermediate step in their evolution
View attachment 246146
OB

so what about this whale?

Aetiocetus - Wikipedia

"These whales are remarkable for their retention of teeth and presence of nutrient foramina, indicating that they possessed baleen"

 

[JackRT]

Ohh No! Not another transitional fossil!!!

Rivaling the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs, one of the most extraordinary transformations in the history of life was the evolution of baleen -- rows of flexible hair-like plates that blue whales, humpbacks and other marine mammals use to filter relatively tiny prey from gulps of ocean water. The unusual structure enables the world's largest creatures to consume several tons of food each day, without ever chewing or biting. Now, Smithsonian scientists have discovered an important intermediary link in the evolution of this innovative feeding strategy: an ancient whale that had neither teeth nor baleen.

Every time a new transitional fossil is found we automatically create two new gaps in the fossil record. It is so frustrating!

 

[xianghua]

Every time a new transitional fossil is found we automatically create two new gaps in the fossil record. It is so frustrating!

actually no transitional fossil can prove evolution since we also find transitional forms in designed objects:

(image from Commercial Auto Insurance Quotes - Daniel J Guarino Insurance)

 

[Occams Barber]

so what about this whale?

Aetiocetus - Wikipedia

"These whales are remarkable for their retention of teeth and presence of nutrient foramina, indicating that they possessed baleen"

Thanks xianghua. Unfortunately the Wikipedia article is full of technical jargon which is way beyond my expertise to translate, however this paragraph caught my attention:

Aetiocetus is unique in its representation of transition from toothed archaeocete to toothless mysticete. However, Aetiocetus is not a transitional form in the strictest sense, that is, it cannot be an ancestor to extant Mysticeti.[3] More derived forms, such the Cetotheriidae, a family of toothless baleen whales, are contemporaneous with Aetiocetus. Hence, whales whose feeding relied entirely on baleen made their stratigraphic appearance before Aetiocetus, meaning that “true” baleen whales existed before Aetiocetus.
​

This suggests that Aetiocetus is a kind of evolutionary offshoot from the main line of baleen whale (mysticete) evolution.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

actually no transitional fossil can prove evolution since we also find transitional forms in designed objects:

(image from Commercial Auto Insurance Quotes - Daniel J Guarino Insurance)

Based on ID logic, I've had my car parked next to my vacuum cleaner, at night, for months now waiting for them to mate, conceive and give birth to a hybrid.

So far no luck, but I live in hope.
OB

 

[pitabread]

actually no transitional fossil can prove evolution since we also find transitional forms in designed objects:

(image from Commercial Auto Insurance Quotes - Daniel J Guarino Insurance)

Is this the forum equivalent of Groundhog Day? Every time I come back to this place, I keep seeing the same posts over and over. It's a never-ending loop.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is this the forum equivalent of Groundhog Day? Every time I come back to this place, I keep seeing the same posts over and over. It's a never-ending loop.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

(whatever that means?)
OB

 

[Speedwell]

actually no transitional fossil can prove evolution since we also find transitional forms in designed objects:

(image from Commercial Auto Insurance Quotes - Daniel J Guarino Insurance)

So which way did the transition go? Did the big truck biologically reproduce the van which biologically reproduced the little car? Or did it go the other way? Or did you just find a picture of these vehicles and are lying about them being biologically related?

 

[xianghua]

Thanks xianghua. Unfortunately the Wikipedia article is full of technical jargon which is way beyond my expertise to translate, however this paragraph caught my attention:

its ok. english also isnt my native so i dont unnderstand some words here and there in general in our discussion.

​

This suggests that Aetiocetus is a kind of evolutionary offshoot from the main line of baleen whale (mysticete) evolution.
OB

actually this fossil doesnt fit well with the evolutionery hierarchy. so we must believe in some kind of convergent evolution or convergent loss (tooth loss) to explain it. this is my point: when a fossil fit with evolution we call it "transitional" and when its not we just solve it by "convergent evolution". so in any case it will fit with evolution.

​

Based on ID logic, I've had my car parked next to my vacuum cleaner, at night, for months now waiting for them to mate, conceive and give birth to a hybrid.

what if cars were able to reproduce? in this case you will believe that a car can evolve into something like an airplane?

 

[xianghua]

So which way did the transition go? Did the big truck biologically reproduce the van which biologically reproduced the little car? Or did it go the other way? Or did you just find a picture of these vehicles and are lying about them being biologically related?

who said anything about biology? i just showed that we can arrange designed objects in hierarchy too. therefore hierarchy cant prove non design.

 

[Speedwell]

who said anything about biology? i just showed that we can arrange designed objects in hierarchy too. therefore hierarchy cant prove non design.

Nothing can prove "non-design." The presence of design is unfalsifiable. It's presence can sometimes be inferred through such things as evidence of manufacture, but it can never be ruled out.

 

[pitabread]

i just showed that we can arrange designed objects in hierarchy too.

You've still forgotten our previous conversations

 

[DogmaHunter]

who said anything about biology?

You having to ask that question, does actually explain some of the more stupid things you say in these threads.

i just showed that we can arrange designed objects in hierarchy too. therefore hierarchy cant prove non design.

Indeed, stupid things like that.