Whale evolution without fossils.

[Loudmouth]

Do some research - answer your own questions, which you should already know before you even start making claims on subjects you apparently know nothing of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husky

"Husky type dogs originally were landrace breeds kept by Arctic indigenous peoples.[8] DNA analysis has found that Huskies are one of the oldest types of dog, although one researcher "questioned the assignment of dogs to the ancient breed group, saying that any recent crossbreeding with wolves, as has happened with malamutes and Siberian huskies, could make a breed look primitive." [9]

Examples of these landraces in modern times have been selectively bred and registered with various kennel clubs as modern purebred breeds, including the Siberian Husky from Russia (Siberia) and Greenland Dog from Greenland. The Sakhalin Husky is a Japanese sled dog related to the Japanese Spitz and Akita Inu."

But since you also know dog breeds just don't magically pop into existence through spontaneous generation - you should know they had parents. Oh that's right, you still believe in spontaneous generation - my bad.

So where did the original huskies come from? Are you saying that huskies were a separately created kind?

 

[Split Rock]

All all you present as usual in defense is more "claims" that everyone else is always wrong - yet you supply not one shred of science.

No sir... YOU are the one making the claim here. I am mearly asking you to support that claim. I assume that your non-response means you cannot. Another baseless creationist assertion made up based on his/her presumptions which are in turn based on ideology and dogma... rather than facts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So where did the original huskies come from? Are you saying that huskies were a separately created kind?

Your answer was right there in the post, you just chose not to read anything so you could continue with your strawman.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No sir... YOU are the one making the claim here. I am mearly asking you to support that claim. I assume that your non-response means you cannot. Another baseless creationist assertion made up based on his/her presumptions which are in turn based on ideology and dogma... rather than facts.

Apparently you also do not read, Your answer was given in the references I included. But you also apparently prefer not to read anything so you can also continue with your strawman.

 

[lifepsyop]

That would irreconcilable with the side-to-side movement of fish and lizards.

It would be similar to a single mammal species growing feathers instead of fur.
It would be a violation of the nested hierarchy.

I don't understand. Are you saying it would be impossible for marine mammals to gradually "evolve" side-to-side movement similar to that seen in fish? I'd love to hear your explanation for that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your answer was right there in the post, you just chose not to read anything so you could continue with your strawman.

I want to hear you say it. Where did the huskies come from?

 

[The Cadet]

@Justatruthseeker care to address post #32?

 

[crjmurray]

I present four evidences for whale evolution, two genetic, one physiological and one embryological.

1. If whales evolved from land mammals we would expect them to have numerous physical characteristics including a mammalian jaw. We indeed find those characteristics one of which is the up and down movement characteristic of mammals in contrast with the side to side movement of reptiles and fish. if whales were specially created they could just as easily move side to side and have a vertical tail fluke as opposed to a horizontal one (see Ichthyosaurs).

2. Cetacean embryos develop hind limb buds that are absorbed (except in cases of atavisms) during fetal development. This is due the interaction of two genes that normally would grow hind limbs (see below). If cetaceans never lived on the land, why do they develop limb buds during the embryonic stage?
http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/dolphin-hind-legs-hind-limb-bud-images.html

3. The sleek, hydrodynamic bodies of whales are due to a broken interaction between the genes Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2. Hand2 normally grows hind limbs in terrestrial mammals. If cetaceans didn't evolve from terrestrial mammals, why do they have the Hand2 gene?
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/05...-legs-got-sleek-and-conquered-the-oceans.html

4. The evolution of cetacean forelimbs into flippers is controlled by two genes - Hoxd12 and Hoxd13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19074008

These are just 4 of the many evidences making whale evolution one of the most compelling and supported lineages we can look at.

What's the ID explanation for these observations?

 

[USincognito]

What's the ID explanation for these observations?

I'm not an IDist, so I have no idea.

 

[crjmurray]

I'm not an IDist, so I have no idea.

Well it was more of a question to the general public not necessarily specific to you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't understand. Are you saying it would be impossible for marine mammals to gradually "evolve" side-to-side movement similar to that seen in fish? I'd love to hear your explanation for that.

I'ld say that for marine mammals to have a skeletal anatomy like fish, would be a real problem.

Side-to-side movement by itself wouldn't necessarily be a problem. But remember, the side-to-side movement is just the end result. What matters is the mechanics causing / allowing for that movement.

A side-to-side moving marine mammal isn't necessarily a problem, if there is a logical pathway for the underlying mechanics from land dwelling up/down moving creatures to the anatomy allowing for side-to-side swimming.

Whatever anatomy would cause those mechanics, would have to be the result of a series of adaptions starting with the anatomy of an up-down moving, land dwelling creature (if evolution is accurate).

Evolution can't go back in time or return to the drawing board. It needs to work with the body plans that are currently present.

A good example is the human eye with the blind spot.
Our ancestors' eyes originally evolved "backwards" wich resulted in all the "wiring" having to cross the retina. This gives us a blind spot.
Evolution can't go back to reverse this and remove the blind spot. Nope. That's how the wiring originally evolved, so that's the "eye blueprint" that will have to be used for further development, if any. The "solution" consisted of our brains filling in the parts we can't see with what is most likely what it should be. Our brains create the illusion that the blind spot isn't there.

Compare that with the octopus. It doesn't have this problem.
Yet, we both see pretty much the same thing and neither of us has a black spot in the middle of its vision field. But we both accomplish the same result but by different mechanisms.

I would expect a side-to-side swimming marine mammal to show this same phenomena.

It would accomplish the same result as actual fish, but by different mechanisms. In the case of marine mammals, it would have to be a mechanism that makes sense in light of its land-dwelling ancestry.


To finish, I'ld like to point out that we are again talking about hypothetical finds and speculating about the hypothetical reactions of the scientific community.

If you have any real finds you wish to discuss where we actually KNOW what the scientist reaction was instead of having to speculate about it, go ahead.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread has undergone a cleanup due to off topic posts so if your post is gone that is the reason or you quoted someone that made one. Folks this thread is about whale evolution so stick to the topic at hand please.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[crjmurray]

I'll ask again. What is the ID explanation for the observations in the OP?

 

[The Cadet]

I'll ask again. What is the ID explanation for the observations in the OP?

"The designer designed it that way for reasons entirely sufficient to the designer." Why do people keep asking this question?

 

[crjmurray]

"The designer designed it that way for reasons entirely sufficient to the designer." Why do people keep asking this question?

I thought I might get a more serious answer.

 

[The Cadet]

I thought I might get a more serious answer.

So did Dover County. ZING!

 

[Winepress777]

I present four evidences for whale evolution, two genetic, one physiological and one embryological.

1. If whales evolved from land mammals we would expect them to have numerous physical characteristics including a mammalian jaw. We indeed find those characteristics one of which is the up and down movement characteristic of mammals in contrast with the side to side movement of reptiles and fish. if whales were specially created they could just as easily move side to side and have a vertical tail fluke as opposed to a horizontal one (see Ichthyosaurs).

2. Cetacean embryos develop hind limb buds that are absorbed (except in cases of atavisms) during fetal development. This is due the interaction of two genes that normally would grow hind limbs (see below). If cetaceans never lived on the land, why do they develop limb buds during the embryonic stage?
http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/dolphin-hind-legs-hind-limb-bud-images.html

3. The sleek, hydrodynamic bodies of whales are due to a broken interaction between the genes Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2. Hand2 normally grows hind limbs in terrestrial mammals. If cetaceans didn't evolve from terrestrial mammals, why do they have the Hand2 gene?
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/05...-legs-got-sleek-and-conquered-the-oceans.html

4. The evolution of cetacean forelimbs into flippers is controlled by two genes - Hoxd12 and Hoxd13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19074008

These are just 4 of the many evidences making whale evolution one of the most compelling and supported lineages we can look at.

As ever, there is nothing but conjecture. Not a shred of empirical evidence. No one would ever become an evolutionist if he had true scientific scruples and awareness that not one proof is ever offered... sigh

 

[crjmurray]

So did Dover County. ZING!

AYOOOO!

 

[crjmurray]

As ever, there is nothing but conjecture. Not a shred of empirical evidence. No one would ever become an evolutionist if he had true scientific scruples and awareness that not one proof is ever offered... sigh

So what's your explanation for the features we see in whales?

 

[The Cadet]

As ever, there is nothing but conjecture. Not a shred of empirical evidence. No one would ever become an evolutionist if he had true scientific scruples and awareness that not one proof is ever offered... sigh

Funny how the only people with scientific scruples are those who form a minuscule minority in the relevant disciplines, rarely if ever publish in peer review and even then typically only in lower-tier journals, and never contribute anything useful to humanity's understanding of the universe. How does that work?