Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution (contradiction, Neanderthal, Earth, body)

[baystater]

Originally Posted by distraff

I noticed how often creationists respond to these kinds of thread of make attack threads on evolution, but in this case they are totally absent. That is a bit funny.

I think they slowly but surely heading over to physics/quantum physics. Which is worrying to me, because I believe the general population doesn't have much of a grasp of those subjects.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by distraff

I noticed how often creationists respond to these kinds of thread of make attack threads on evolution, but in this case they are totally absent. That is a bit funny.

Its only the "ape2man" evilooshun they cannot abide, fishies and dolfinz arez okay, Jes don' tell mhai cuzzin iz an ape. Mhai cuzzinz are all hawt...

[GCSTroop]

I remember doing a whale evolution post years ago... I might still have it saved on my computer...

Ahhhh.... Yes... Here it is and it was in response to our good friend Campbell34...

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Ok, I'm doing some basic learning and reading from the publication Evolution.
Now according to these Evolutionist, long ago a land mammal walked down to the sea and somehow lost all of his legs and vital systems. And then became adapted to marine existence. WOW. Sure makes me not to want to go swimming anymore.

Now can you tell me, did this land mammal lose his legs and vital systems in one day, or one month, or one year? Because if it did't happen really fast, you would have one strange looking land mammal swimming around out there. And you have already stated we would not expect to see anything in the fossil record that would look like two species merging together. I mean really. We have gone from a four hundred pound four legged land mammal, to a 60 ton whale. I would think there would have to be some obvious changes. And if that were the case, why would we not see these changes in the fossil record? And how long would it take for this kind of evolution? One day, or one million years?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/1_034_05.html (broken link)

Good question. Finally! Really, I'm proud of you. This is one of the strangest phenomenom of evolution that I think most scientists are aware of to date. So, let me try to answer your question to the best of my ability.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that while I can see what you're trying to get at by stating that a land mammal walked down to the sea and just lost its' legs it really isn't that simple. What you're describing is Lamarckian evolution (similar to how a giraffe might try to reach higher and higher with its' neck and then give birth to giraffe's with longer necks- which is also false). The reason why Lamarckian evolution does not work in this manner is because DNA is not, contrary to popular myth, like a blueprint. Rather, the best explanation I've heard of DNA is that it is an instruction set. Think of a recipe (one-dimensional). It's an assembly list of how to put something together.

For example, if we're going to bake cookies, we would have instructions (think DNA) on how to do this. We might have sugar, chocolate chips, flour, eggs, etc... We'd mix it together in certain intervals, set the oven timing and head onwards from there. Now, if we wanted to change the chemical makeup of the next batch of cookies we wouldn't alter the batch we made, rather we'd alter the instruction set. In essence, we might add more flour to the instruction, or less egg, or whatever. The fact is that we would do this based on the overall quality and "fittestness" of the cookies we made from the original recipe. This is important because it gives insight into the difference between Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution. So, where Lamarckian evolution goes wrong is in assuming that land creatures will desire to swim and start giving birth to more "swim friendly" creatures. That is simply not the case in the same way that a batch of cookies is pretty much done after you've cooked them. I mean, sure, you can sprinkle some sugar on top, but the chemical makeup of the cookie is the same based on the instruction set and all future cookies made from the instruction set will be the same.

So, why is it important to recognize the difference between that and Darwinian evolution? Quite simply... Because Darwinian evolution says that the creature that is the "most fit" for its' environment through natural selection will be the one that passes on its' genes. So, just like our instruction sheet for better tasting cookies, this "pre-whale" creature, possessed DNA that was more suitable for its' environment and thus more "pre-whale" creatures that possessed these qualities were born and passed their genes on. Very similarly, we wouldn't be baking the same cookies over and over again if they kept coming out tasting like crap. You might say that our cookies would evolve themselves based on how we altered our instruction set!! However, there was probably a reason for it to enter the water. What reason that is may not be fully known. My best guess is that it lived close to an aquatic environment similar to how hippos (which I recently found out are more closely related to whales than pigs - Who freaking knew?!) spend most of their time in rivers. Nonetheless, it's very likely that this "pre-whale" creature stood a better chance at not only surviving, but producing kin that was also able to survive. In other words, the offspring of these creatures that did better in the water stood a better chance at surviving and passed on those "more aquatic" genes as a result. The ones that were not "more aquatic" did not fare as well and did not pass on those genes.

To cite Darwin from his Origins of Species to give a better picture of why this might work, he talks about the black bear (although he was probably unaware of the whale's story at this time):

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natual selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous a whale.

Yet, I also must point out that it's not necessarily believed that this animal was 60-tons as you suggest. There are all sorts of whales of different sizes and shapes although many of them are indeed rather large. Anyway, whales belong to a group called "artiodactyls" and they are in the same phenotype as hippos. So, with that in mind, we can say that this creature probably looked somewhat similar to a hippopotamus. I would imagine that the obvious weight distribution would have been similar. After all, a hippo wouldn't fare too well if it had legs like a giraffe but the weight to go with it!

So, here's where we stand right now at this part in my response: We have a class of "artiodactyls" that probably lived very close to the water in much the same way that hippos do. Due to its' natural environment, it probably fared much better for survival AND reproduction the more aquatic that it was. We're not suggesting that a hippo-like creature gave birth to something with fins, but rather that even the smallest protrusions of what might be considered fins aided in swimming or maneuvering in the water better than the animal with no protrusions. As you can imagine, if this was the case, than more "pre-whales" with the genetic code for small protrusions would have mated and the gene would become more dominant through time. However, I must duly note that evolution doesn't just wait until one change is complete either. It doesn't just sit there with a stop watch and stammer its' foot waiting for fins to develop. Rather, other things probably aided in the overall development simultaneously.

Ok, so I hope I answered that part of it. Now, onwards to the next point which was essentially the size of the whale that you mentioned. I briefly brought this up earlier in my response but I'd like to touch on it again. Actual physical size is one of the fastest evolutionary methods of change. In all sincerity, I think you may be looking at it slightly askewed. We touched a few pages back on horse evolution in which you talked about your cognition that horse evolution was a change within "kinds" and that it is to be expected. Well, in case you're wondering, up until not too long ago, our horse ancestors were not much bigger than your average house dog. So, what I want to point out is the proportionate terms of growth. While my 45-lb dog seems to be dwarfed by a 600-lb horse, we have to recognize that that is a little over fourteen times the weight alone!! That's right... the horse ancestor we were talking about was not much over 45-lbs and yet we have a relatively enormous change of fourteen times the body mass in a relatively short evolutionary timeframe. So, my point is that while it may seem daunting that a possibly one ton hippo-like creature entered the water at that weight, size is really not a big change in evolution speak. Really it isn't.

Now, down to the fossil record. I think you misunderstood what I meant about transitionals once again. If all of this true, we would hope to find a creature with somewhat whale like creatures and somewhat artiodactyl features. Yet, we must also remember, that at that time, whales did not exist in the water. Perhaps whale-sized fish did, but not whales. So, what we should expect to find is, like I said, an artiodactyl-like animal that displays certain prominent features of a whale. To what extent we might find that is a bit of luck. Nevertheless, the mitochondrial DNA we have supports this theory as well. But, that was not your question. Your question was on the fossil record itself.

So, here is what we have found so far and I think you'll really like this. Heck, I know I did when I first read about it. In order from oldest to newest.

Mesonychids
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Dalanistes (wait till you see this goofy looking thing)
Rodhocetus
Takracetus
Gaviocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Mysticetes
Odontocetes

Now, you can look each of these up individually if you'd like or you can trust me in the pictures I bring to you. Nonetheless, I left the list open for you, and my recommendation would be to print their pictures off from oldest to newest and compare the "transitions" in the manner that I explained throughout this post. But, here they are, and I really recommend that you perform a "Google Images" search on them to see more detailed artist renditions of what they look like based on fossils that were recovered.



Anyway, I hope I answered your questions. Again, thanks for asking the question in the manner that you did. I'm glad to see that you're trying and I appreciate that. I can do this stuff all day and as long as I know you're not trying to yank my chain I have no problem doing this (time allowing). Oh, and that also reminds me... I have to call my local zoo and tell them they need to change their sign stating that hippos are closest to pigs...

[jdaelectro]

I read the whole thing and I am not impressed at all. You can flame me all you want, but those charts of supposed evolution are nothing more than different species all together, that are now extinct. You cannot prove that one changed into another.

Seriously, your "proof" is that a whale looks like a fish but it is not a fish...it is a mammal that used to be a hippo. That's funny. And people have the gull to say that the Bible is a fairy tale?

So this is what you all call reason, logic, and critical thinking?

Some say no more evidence is needed? All of the scientists that are refuting evolution are chased away from their jobs and are called crackpots. So much for having an open mind . The hoax that is evolution is just another false religion for the pseudo know it all intellectuals. Some of you are very intelligent, but on this you are wrong.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by jdaelectro

I read the whole thing and I am not impressed at all. You can flame me all you want, but those charts of supposed evolution are nothing more than different species all together, that are now extinct. You cannot prove that one changed into another.

Seriously, your "proof" is that a whale looks like a fish but it is not a fish...it is a mammal that used to be a hippo. That's funny. And people have the gull to say that the Bible is a fairy tale?

So this is what you all call reason, logic, and critical thinking?

Some say no more evidence is needed? All of the scientists that are refuting evolution are chased away from their jobs and are called crackpots. So much for having an open mind . The hoax that is evolution is just another false religion for the pseudo know it all intellectuals. Some of you are very intelligent, but on this you are wrong.

To each his own....For you it is myths that you accept, but I'll stick with the evidence that whales were one land dwellers and that returned to the sea...The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution

[distraff]

Originally Posted by jdaelectro

I read the whole thing and I am not impressed at all. You can flame me all you want, but those charts of supposed evolution are nothing more than different species all together, that are now extinct. You cannot prove that one changed into another.

I already showed everyone that as we go higher through the fossil record, you see more and more whale-like animals. So what are the chances we find this progression without evolution? Why aren't all these species jumbled up?

Seriously, your "proof" is that a whale looks like a fish but it is not a fish...it is a mammal that used to be a hippo. That's funny. And people have the gull to say that the Bible is a fairy tale?

No, you obviously didn't read my post. I never said that a whale used to be a hippo. A hippo is a close relative of the whale that can be used to look at the approximate lifestyle of a transitional whale.

I also provided evidence from the whales lungs, stomach, pelvis, legs, and embryonic teeth. Of course you ignored all that.

Please actually read my post.

[jdaelectro]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

To each his own....For you it is myths that you accept,

And I see what you believe as a myth.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

but I'll stick with the evidence that whales were one land dwellers and that returned to the sea...The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution

Read the article. Didn't prove anything. Just speculation and opinion.

[PJ1252]

Thank you for your post. I enjoyed reading it and although I always felt the whale was proof of evolution you provided information I had no knowledge of. I found it to be very informative.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jdaelectro

And I see what you believe as a myth.

Read the article. Didn't prove anything. Just speculation and opinion.

In the end we see this insistence in simply denying all the evidence. We know that we can't convince the deniers (though they can sometimes come to their senses themselves) so all we can do is to present the case and show that the accumulating evidence consistently points to evolution and the Creationist case is based only in misunderstanding, misrepresentation, poor science or non- science and denial of the evidence.

Then we just ask people to decide which view is the most reasonable.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I do not think we could have gotten a better post to display the creationist "thought" process had we created a sock puppet account and written it ourselves. The evidence of Whale evolution is massive, far reaching and conclusive. Much of it is mentioned in posts on this thread and much more of it exists outside the thread.

The creationist response to this, as we have seen perfectly on this thread, is to stick all that evidence under the carpet, stick their head in the sands, and claim that the entire subject is based on nothing but how fishy whales look. Followed of course by the usual stock paranoia persecution complex rhetoric of claiming that people who are against evolution are victimized, fired and marginalized.