Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 443 (647304)
01-09-2012 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 5:24 AM


There is a book by Dr. Bergman and Howe called Vestigial organs are fully functional ...
And yet the pelves of whales do not have the full function of the pelves of land mammals, since they don't have legs attached to them that the whales walk around on.
"Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall."
And yet the legs of a right whale do not have the full function of the legs of land mammals, since they can't walk with them.
This is what makes them vestigial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 5:24 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 443 (647305)
01-09-2012 6:46 AM


Connoisseurs of creationism will notice that what we have here is the strange intellectual convolution that I think of as the anti-"Why Aren't There Still Monkeys?" When creationists aren't being baffled that humans didn't drive monkeys out of the monkey niche, which we have never attempted to occupy, they're busy being flabbergasted that advanced whales drove primitive whales out of the niche they were both trying to occupy.
At some point they should have a word with themselves and try to straighten this out.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 33 of 443 (647306)
01-09-2012 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 5:29 AM


Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
"These results reveal a large discordance between morphological and molecular measures of similarity. Rats and mice are classified in the same family, while cows and whales are classified in different orders. Perhaps molecular sequences are not necessarily giving us an accurate picture of ancestry."
"The Marsupial Mitochondrial Genome and the Evolution of Placental Mammals," Genetics, 137:243-256 (1994).
I've just been reading through the full text of the paper that you cited, and the "quotation" that you "quote" from it appears nowhere in the text. It does, however, appear on creationist websites. This would go some way to explaining why it's nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 5:29 AM TheArtist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Panda, posted 01-09-2012 9:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 36 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 69 by TheArtist, posted 01-19-2012 5:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 34 of 443 (647322)
01-09-2012 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
01-09-2012 7:38 AM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
Dr A writes:
I've just been reading through the full text of the paper that you cited, and the "quotation" that you "quote" from it appears nowhere in the text. It does, however, appear on creationist websites. This would go some way to explaining why it's nonsense.
This sort of crap really pisses me off.
We have to waste our time confirming every little thing they say - because we know it is normally wrong.
Are creationists happy that they have such a reputation for dishonesty that people always check their sources?
Are creationists happy that they are so often shown to be lying?
Are creationists happy to be so closely related to politicians?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 7:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 3:51 PM Panda has replied

  
dan4reason
Junior Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 01-03-2010


Message 35 of 443 (647377)
01-09-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 5:24 AM


quote:
There is a book by Dr. Bergman and Howe called Vestigial organs are fully functional where they apparently explain in detail how these bones are used and that they are important to the reproductive system on pg 71. They also point out that these bones are different in male and female specimens. Unfortunately I do not have this book to give you a direct quote but it sure sounds worth reading. There are numerous references to this book and what it says about the pelvis but I couldn’t find any direct quotations as yet.
Here is another:
"Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.
There might be later studies where these bones were found in other whales as well.
Wrong, there are many other species that have hips e.g. the sperm whale, and the fin whale. The fact that your "author" would make such an incredibly ignorant mistake suggests his or her extreme bias and ignorance on the topic. Because of that, can you please use a better source? However, not all whales do have vestigial hips. This only goes to show how whales can be made without them and still get along just fine.
Now a vestigial organ does not mean this organ is useless, but one whose original function is much reduced. Naturally nearly every body part will have an effect on other parts no matter how vestigial it might be. The hips have most if not all of their original function.
I need some back-up for the claim that the whale pelvis is "vital" for reproduction, if it is at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 5:24 AM TheArtist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-08-2016 5:44 PM dan4reason has not replied

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2650 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


(3)
Message 36 of 443 (647400)
01-09-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
01-09-2012 7:38 AM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
Dr Adequate writes:
I've just been reading through the full text of the paper that you cited, and the "quotation" that you "quote" from it appears nowhere in the text. It does, however, appear on creationist websites. This would go some way to explaining why it's nonsense.
Apologies, you’re absolutely right. I could not find the quote either, it does not seem to be anywhere in the paper. I found the quote and reference elsewhere and never thought to double check it.

It’s quite curious as to where this originated from as the same thing seems to be repeated on the net.

I strongly agree with you that spreading lies or misinformation is distasteful. It wastes one’s time or is just plain embarrassing as in my case. A perfect example that one should never just except something you read.

I’m not saying that this is definitely a lie though as it could well be that someone just screwed up and put the wrong reference to this quote. I am looking into this to try and find out for myself what the story around this is.

Edited by TheArtist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 7:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 4:05 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2650 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 37 of 443 (647405)
01-09-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Panda
01-09-2012 9:08 AM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
Panda writes:
This sort of crap really pisses me off.
We have to waste our time confirming every little thing they say - because we know it is normally wrong.
Are creationists happy that they have such a reputation for dishonesty that people always check their sources?
Are creationists happy that they are so often shown to be lying?
Are creationists happy to be so closely related to politicians?
I think your comments are uncalled for. You are badmouthing creationists as a whole and this is all you could contribute to the forum so far.

It’s like saying that people are liars. You cannot make such a generalization just because some mishaps do happen. Sure somewhere someone will screw up, and this screw up can be spread quickly if someone forgets to check the validity of the claim as I did. No one is perfect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Panda, posted 01-09-2012 9:08 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 4:07 PM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 40 by jar, posted 01-09-2012 4:21 PM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 4:45 PM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 42 by Panda, posted 01-09-2012 6:15 PM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 76 by Pressie, posted 01-27-2016 6:54 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 443 (647410)
01-09-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 3:44 PM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
I presume you got it from either this ICR page or one of its clones.
I too am not going to speculate on whether the author is a knave or a fool, but he is certainly one or the other. Consider this, from the same article:
None of the suggested whale's terrestrial ancestors (ungulates or carnivores) have a vertical tail movement ...
Did he really claim that carnivores can't move their tails vertically? Has he never seen a cat or a dog with its tail up? Is he blind? Stupid? Mad?
As for this:
Macroevolutionists cannot appeal to natural selection to produce amazing structures like the countercurrent system, although comparative physiologists present countercurrent exchange found in gills and kidneys as structures that repeatedly evolved. Indeed, no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale: "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs." Specifically, natural selection cannot produce new structures as is often stated in evolutionary just-so stories; it can only preserve the best-adapted varieties which occur by other means.
Was he asleep in biology class when they explained what the theory of evolution was?
And then ... but I shall save the rest of my derision until you confirm that this text was indeed the source of your misattributed quotation.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 3:44 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 39 of 443 (647413)
01-09-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
It’s like saying that people are liars. You cannot make such a generalization just because some mishaps do happen. Sure somewhere someone will screw up, and this screw up can be spread quickly if someone forgets to check the validity of the claim as I did. No one is perfect.
The problem, and the frustration, is that this is a pattern on the creationist side. Misattribution of quotes, quote mining, outright quote fabrication...these happen quite frequently and regularly in this debate, and it almost always seems to tbe the creationist side doing it.
What's worse, though, is that when it is pointed out that something is a misquote, or misattributed, or even just wrong, many of the people of authority in the creationist movement will continue to use it. Those of you down in the trenches, as it were, may correct these errors, but for every one of you that do, many more are swayed by those at the top who continue to spout these, now, lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 3:51 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 443 (647416)
01-09-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
Speaking as a Christian, I do not think the comments were at all uncalled for and in fact such comments are not just justified but need to be heard more often.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are the products of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and one characteristic of that is that there is no culture of honesty similar to what is found in science.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 3:51 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 41 of 443 (647428)
01-09-2012 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
I think your comments are uncalled for. You are badmouthing creationists as a whole and this is all you could contribute to the forum so far.
It’s like saying that people are liars. You cannot make such a generalization just because some mishaps do happen. Sure somewhere someone will screw up, and this screw up can be spread quickly if someone forgets to check the validity of the claim as I did. No one is perfect.
But it's not like this is an isolated incident. Saying "no-one's perfect" in this context is like appealing for clemency for a mafia godfather by saying: "My client made a mistake, and he's sorry for it" when the "mistake" lasted thirty years and involved running a vast criminal empire.
This is creationism, and if you'd spent more time checking whether what they say is true and less time just believing it, you'd probably be as disgusted with them as Panda is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 3:51 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 42 of 443 (647470)
01-09-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
TheArtist writes:
Sure somewhere someone will screw up, and this screw up can be spread quickly if someone forgets to check the validity of the claim as I did.
Then I hope that you have learned to check the validity of any future statements you copy and paste from creationist web-sites.
I caution you though...you will be very disappointed if you do.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 3:51 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 43 of 443 (647556)
01-10-2012 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dan4reason
01-02-2012 12:36 PM


Hi Dan.
I have some concerns about this series. I was told by a creationist that this series was put completely out of order, so I decided to check the facts (I know weird huh?) Of course, I did not find them to be completely out of order, but I am puzzled by what I found and I think this calls into question the legitimacy of this series or at least deserves some discussion.
Source of all data is http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl
1. Indohyus indirae is known from a mandible (type specimen) from the upper Ypressian and Middle Eocene deposits in India. (50mya — 40mya)
Sister taxon:
Diacodexis is widely known from the USA (56mya — 50mya) and from India / Pakistan in Lutetian deposits (48mya — 40mya).
Helohyus is known from the USA from 48mya — 44mya.
Note: Indohyus was not fully aquatic and N. America was separated from Europe/Asia by the Eocene
2. Pakicetidae
All 4 Pakicetid species are known from the same area in Pakistan in Lutetian deposits (48mya — 40mya). Type fossil for P. attocki is a mandible from Lutetian deposits.
A set of teeth were found in upper Ypressian deposits (50mya — 48mya). They were originally identified as Ichthyolestes pinfoldi and later reclassified as P. attocki (the type fossil).
Sister taxon:
Ichthyolestes and Nalacetus are known from the same Lutetian deposits
3. Ambulocetus natans (type fossil) is also known from Lutetian deposits. It was found significantly higher in the strata than Pakicetus and therefore is younger in the fossil record. I reflect this in my chart by shifting Ambulocetus’s age by 3my younger.
Sister taxon:
Himalayacetus is known from a mandible found in Ypressian limestone.
Gandakasia is found in Lutetian deposits in the same area.
4. Rodhocetus is known from 2 species found in Pakistani Lutetian coastal deposits
5. Dorudon
2 species, D. atrox and D. serratus are known form Priabonian (37mya — 33mya) deposits in S. Carolina
Egyptian specimens are known from the Late Eocene / Upper Bartonian (37mya — 40mya)
------------------------------------
I have charted this dates below.
While I am certainly not saying the series is clearly bogus and therefore creation is true! Hahaha I win! LOL. I think this shows the organisms in this series were contemporaries living in pretty much the same area. It is worthwhile to question whether this could actually represent a clear transition. Could evolution have caused such rapid changes among contemporary species?
The Himalayas were being formed at about this time. The land mass of India contacted the Asian continent about 70mya and the Tethys ocean was closed by about 50mya. How could this have affected the situation? It doesn’t appear that the Himalayas would have created a speciation barrier as most of the fossils were found in Pakistan. In fact, it seems as the formation of the Himalayas would have pushed the direction of evolution in the opposite direction of what this series shows. It seemed to me that these creatures were developing in the Tethys ocean, but the Himalayas were closing this water habitat. Wouldn’t the animals of that area need to become more adapted to land rather than reverting to the sea?
Just some things to think about.
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dan4reason, posted 01-02-2012 12:36 PM dan4reason has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by dan4reason, posted 01-10-2012 2:00 PM herebedragons has replied

  
dan4reason
Junior Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 01-03-2010


Message 44 of 443 (647623)
01-10-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by herebedragons
01-10-2012 9:55 AM


Here is a more comprehensive list of species.

You will probably notice that it is not 100% in order. That is either because the fossil record is not perfect, and because of minor instances of convergent evolution, dating innacuracies, or even instances of backward evolution in individual species (becoming less whale-like). Each transitional is probably not a direct ancestor of whales and probably have some unique characteristics. So we should see a strong general trend (especially with species with a lot of specimens discovered) not an exact trend.
Before I was just showing a general progression, but now lets get picky.
I want to use this image below:

First, the most important dates are when the species start. So lets use that.
Indohyus:
48 MYA (Indohyus - Wikipedia). Keep in mind we do not have a lot of morphological data and specimen of this fossil.
Diacodexis:
55.4 MYA (Diacodexis - Wikipedia).
Heliohyus:
50-46 MYA (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/seymouria/message/2680) I could not
find a lot of info on this fossil so take and date ranges of this fossil with a grain of salt.
Pakicetus:
55.8 MYA (Pakicetus - Wikipedia).
Ichthyolestes:
48.6 MYA (Ichthyolestes - Wikipedia).
Gandakasia:
??????????
Ambulocetus:
50 MYA (Ambulocetus - Wikipedia).
Himalayacetus:
55.8 MYA (Himalayacetus - Wikipedia).
Dalanistes:
48.6 MYA (Dalanistes - Wikipedia).
Rodhocetus:
47 MYA (Rodhocetus - Wikipedia).
Takracetus:
45 MYA (Takracetus - Wikipedia).
Gaviacetus:
45 MYA (Gaviacetus - Wikipedia).
Dorudon:
41 MYA (Dorudon - Wikipedia).
Basilosaurus:
40 MYA (Basilosaurus - Wikipedia).
Mystecetes:
39 MYA (Baleen whale - Wikipedia).
I could not find much on odontocetes.
If you just look at the most common speciments, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, and Mystecetes, you definitely see this evolutionary trend.
http://www.nature.com/...al/v413/n6853/images/413259aa.2.jpg.
When questioning whether evolution could have evolved whales, keep in mind that human evolution took only 6 million years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by herebedragons, posted 01-10-2012 9:55 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by TheArtist, posted 01-12-2012 3:13 PM dan4reason has replied
 Message 46 by herebedragons, posted 01-12-2012 3:19 PM dan4reason has replied

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2650 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 45 of 443 (648005)
01-12-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by dan4reason
01-10-2012 2:00 PM


Hi Dan,
dan4reason writes:
Himalayacetus:
55.8 MYA (Himalayacetus - Wikipedia).
According to wikipedia "Himalayacetus is an extinct genus of carnivorous aquatic mammal (from the same link you provided).
This aquatic mammal was one of the earliest mammals on your list, alongside Pakicetus and even the Pakicetus seemed to roam dry land.
What is your thoughts around this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dan4reason, posted 01-10-2012 2:00 PM dan4reason has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-12-2012 3:32 PM TheArtist has replied
 Message 58 by dan4reason, posted 01-13-2012 10:58 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024