Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-12-2012, 11:38 AM
 
278 posts, read 356,306 times
Reputation: 47

Advertisements

Below is a one paragraph summary of my entire post, if you want the details read further into my post.

One strange creature that we find is the whale. Surprisingly whales are genetically far more similar to other mammals than to fish even though they look like fish. Whales may look like fish on the outside, but they are far different on the inside, and are actually mammals. Their similarity to mammals is evidence for evolution. The fact that they have a cow's special grass-digesting stomachs when they don't eat grass, they have a vestigial hip with small leg bones (some are even born with full legs), a mammal's lungs and no gills even when they live in the water, embryonic teeth even for whales that don't have teeth, and a fossil record what shows transitional fossils of whales ordered from most land-mammal like in the lower strata and more whale like in the higher strata, all are evidence that whales evolved from mammals.

This is evidence against anti-evolutionist creationism. Why would God make whales in such a way as to look just like they had evolved by evolution?

The Evidence

Whales have hair, a trait found in mammals not fish. Whales give birth to live young and don't lay eggs like fish. They feed their young with breast-milk which is a mammal trait not seen in fish. Whales have smooth skin not fish scales. Whales move their tails up and down when swimming, a mammal trait. Fish move their tails side to side. Whales have pelvises just like mammals, and have a hand structure in their front fins unlike fish. Below is a whale and fish compared.





The most important feature of all is that whales have lungs instead of gills. This would be comparable to making a monkey with gills instead lungs. This monkey would live and eat up in the trees, but from time to time they will have to rush back in the water to breathe. Dolphins are also mammals that look like fish.

Baleen Whales (toothless whales) also have a four-chambered stomach which is a super-stomach meant to grind up grass and leaves which is very rare but seen in a group of mammals called ruminants (e.g. cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc) which whales happen to be the most closely related to. They have a rumen which is a special chamber of the stomach for digesting grasses, that is completely unique to ruminants.



Simple stomachs cannot digest grass and leaves. However baleen whales don't eat grass or leaves but they do eat tiny sea creatures called krill, and zooplankton and also eat tiny single-celled algae (simple plants). Some fish, snales, insects, amphibians, eat algae and do not need four-chambered stomachs. Toothed whales (e.g. dolphins and killer whales) generally eat larger sea creatures, and often have three-chambered stomachs, a trait shared by some ruminants (cattle), but not very much among other animals. Why would these whales have powerful cattle-stomachs for diets unlike that of cattle, to eat food easily digested by non-cattle such as fish?
Observations on the anatomy of the stomach and duo... [Am J Anat. 1987] - PubMed - NCBI
Stomach anatomy and use in defining syste... [Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

This makes sense from an evolutionary view because whales are most related to cattle which eat grass and leaves, and so inherited their stomachs. The closest land-mammal relative of the whale, the hippo lived mostly in the water, exhibiting a life-style maybe very near that of the ancestors of whales, and eats grass.

The reason for this is that millions of years ago, some land animals that lived in shallow water began adapting themselves more and more for water with fins and the like, until they could not live in the water any-more. This is why whales look like mammals dressed up like fish. The hippo a close relative of whales hints at the possible lifestyle of these ancestors. The walrus is another mammal and spends much of its time in the water also hinting at the transitional whale's lifestyle.

In fact we find transitional fossils of land animals evolving into whales.


The above image shows the evolution of whales with more whale-like creatures in higher geological strata. This evolutionary series starts out in 50 million year old strata and becomes more and more whale-like as we approach 35 million year old strata. We find these fossils in Pakistan.


Notice how the front arms are becoming reduced as we go into higher strata. Also notice how the back legs disappear and the pelvis becomes small and distant from the spine. Indeed Dorudon has a transitional pelvis between that of a normal mammal and that of a whale. Notice also how the transitionals increase in size over time.



This two minute video shows how the nose of the mammal ancestors of the whale starts moving up the forehead to become the blow-hole of the whale as we look at more and more whale-like fossils.

Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils! - Nebraska Vignettes #1 - YouTube

Looking at the whale pelvis, we see that it is vestigial. It is tiny and just sitting separated from the spine in the whale. Lets take a closer look on this pelvis.


As you see, it still has the femur which is a leg bone. This is an astounding piece of evidence for evolution.

It is doubtful if this pelvis has any function at all, although it might have some minor function. It is vestigial because it has lost its former function (holding the legs solidly).

Indeed in the below link, we find that some dolphin species still develop leg bugs in embryonic development. What evolution did was keep the leg buds from developing further into legs; in the dolphins. The embryonic evidence is screaming out who the ancestors of whales are.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

The most astounding thing of all is that sometimes unlucky whales and dolphins will develop atavistic legs on their vestigial pelvises! Atavisms are traits formed from ancestral genes that were turned off, but through some mutation is turned back on in a descendent. Often these genes will allow something which started in embryonic development (leg buds) to continue to develop and not stop. Below are some images of some atavistic legs.
HowStuffWorks "How Atavisms Work"
Whale Evolution and Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales

http://www.chrismaser.com/baleen.jpg

We also find that some baleen whales develop teeth in embryonic development but then degrade and disappear later on. Baleen whales in adulthood have soft tissues called baleen in their mouths instead of teeth. The first image below shows these tooth buds. The second shows baleen.
Baleen whales: a lovely transitional form « Why Evolution Is True
BALEEN WHALES - Physical Characteristics






This makes sense in the light of evolution because baleen whales evolved from ancestors with teeth, and so may exhibit signs of their ancestry in embryonic development.

Everything about the whale screams of its origins. The fossil record shows the ancestry of the whale. Whales are strong evidence for the theory of evolution. Looking at the whale pelvis, we see that it is vestigial. It is tiny and just sitting separated from the spine in the whale. Lets take a closer look on this pelvis.

Last edited by distraff; 03-12-2012 at 11:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2012, 01:02 PM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,228 posts, read 28,302,028 times
Reputation: 24749
I've always been fascinated by the evolution of whales. It's truly remarkable to see how they evolved from land mammals.

Also, seals and walruses evolved in a similar way from land-based ancestors which were related to bears.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,871,013 times
Reputation: 3767
Yup; pretty undeniable stuff! Unless of course one is into outright denialism...

(Eusebius, you there? Or MoC? Or Mickiel? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone who might be reading and thinking out there this afternoon?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:30 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,477,123 times
Reputation: 5926
I am aware of two objections - that the whale appendages are not vestigial but designed for use in mating (that does not explain why they are legbones rather than a bit of prehensile cartilage) and the fossils for the 'supposed' Cetean evolutionary line are too fragmentary to justify the conclusions.

It's not much to set against the evidence For.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:52 PM
 
278 posts, read 356,306 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I am aware of two objections - that the whale appendages are not vestigial but designed for use in mating (that does not explain why they are legbones rather than a bit of prehensile cartilage) and the fossils for the 'supposed' Cetean evolutionary line are too fragmentary to justify the conclusions.

It's not much to set against the evidence For.
Well, we don't know if those tiny pelvic bones are necessary for mating but who knows they might be used to help it along. Maybe that is why they haven't disappeared completely.

And you are right, those are not very strong points but they are worth considering. When making arguments with science it is always good to be careful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,757,400 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by distraff View Post
Well, we don't know if those tiny pelvic bones are necessary for mating but who knows they might be used to help it along. Maybe that is why they haven't disappeared completely.

And you are right, those are not very strong points but they are worth considering. When making arguments with science it is always good to be careful.
Sounds like a good example of a breakdown of IC. When all parts are not fully developed, what is there can serve a another function.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 09:39 PM
 
218 posts, read 504,975 times
Reputation: 323
Like there's any need for any more evidence for evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 09:58 PM
 
278 posts, read 356,306 times
Reputation: 47
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,494 posts, read 36,972,653 times
Reputation: 13964
Quote:
Originally Posted by distraff View Post
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.
Yeah, for them it's like going to war with a gun and no bullets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 10:11 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,477,123 times
Reputation: 5926
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra View Post
Sounds like a good example of a breakdown of IC. When all parts are not fully developed, what is there can serve a another function.
That's actually a good explanation of the mousetrap makes a tieclip refutation of the ID claim that a mousetrap is useless if one part is missing. Even if the legs have all but gone some other function can prevent them disappearing entirely as in dolphins (are there vestigial bones inside dolphin bodies?)

By Random Factors yes there seem to be.

(The bone structure in the pectoral fins of today's dolphin is a remnant of its life on land.)
http://understanddolphins.tripod.com...evolution.html

By the crunge, science in action. theory based on compelling evidence, falsification and evidence supporting. Theory gains yet more evidential credibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top