Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 274 of 443 (803983)
04-06-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Dredge
04-06-2017 6:44 AM


Dredge writes:
If you could wave a magic wand and remove from human consciousness the notion that species evolve from other species - evolution's core doctrine - it wouldn't make an iota of difference to anything pertaining to the real world. So the theory of evoltion isn't "essential" in ANY way, let alone "a myriad" of ways. It's as irrelevant as a fairy tale.
I said essential to our understanding. Evolution is the central unifying concept of biology. For one example of practical utility, evolutionary concepts allow us to track and predict which strain of flu will dominate each flu season, so that flu vaccines tuned to the right virus can be produced months in advance. For another example, understanding descent and mutations allows us to track ancient human migration patterns around the globe. For yet another example, evolutionary concepts drive new design approaches where constructions "evolve" toward a final design.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 6:44 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 5:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 280 of 443 (804106)
04-07-2017 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Davidjay
04-06-2017 11:42 PM


The evolutionary change that moved the whale nose from the tip of the snout to the top of the head is thought to have occurred gradually over millions of years. One source of evidence is whale embryology, where during development the nose originally develops at the tip of the snout, then gradually moves to the top of the head. Fossils are another source of evidence, found this here:
These are Pakicetus (50 million years ago), Rodhocetus (45 mya) and modern whales.
Here's a brief Richard Dawkins video on whale evolution that shows the positioning of blowholes on fossils beginning around the 1 minute mark:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Davidjay, posted 04-06-2017 11:42 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 312 of 443 (804324)
04-08-2017 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Dredge
04-07-2017 5:55 PM


Dredge writes:
You seem to saying that the theory of evolution is useful because certain things pertaining to human existence, like technology, evolve. If this is your argument, it's a very poor one.
That is not my argument. What I said was, "Evolutionary concepts drive new design approaches where constructions 'evolve' toward a final design." In other words, genetic algorithms.
I also pointed out other ways in which evolution is useful. Besides being the central unifying concept of biology, I mentioned predicting flu viruses and tracking human migration. But something doesn't have to be of practical use to humans to be true. Of what practical use is knowledge of the distance to the nearest star, yet it is true nonetheless.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 5:55 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-08-2017 8:20 PM Percy has replied
 Message 363 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 330 of 443 (804404)
04-09-2017 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Faith
04-08-2017 8:20 PM


Faith writes:
That's built-in variability or "microevolution," which has nothing to do with the ToE.
Some of it is inherent variation, some of it is mutation, and all of it is part of the theory of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-08-2017 8:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 331 of 443 (804405)
04-09-2017 8:30 AM


Topic Reminder
We seem to be forgetting that this thread's topic is evidence for whale evolution.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 353 of 443 (804510)
04-10-2017 5:08 PM


Topic Reminder
I'm not planning to step in as moderator at this point, but I would like to remind folks that the topic is the evidence for whale evolution.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 378 of 443 (804563)
04-11-2017 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Dredge
04-10-2017 7:24 PM


Dredge writes:
Perhaps I choose the wrong words and didn't express myself properlly previously. What I need is an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) is useful. You've given some examples of microevoluton, which is not what I'm after. I already know that microevolution has many uses.
Say you had two types of walking, microwalking and macrowalking. Microwalking is about minor changes in position, say walking from the front door to the end of the driveway, while macrowalking is about major changes in position, say walking from the front door into town. But microwalking and macrowalking are just different amounts of the same thing: walking.
This is analogous to microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is about a few mutations and allele mixings after a single generation or perhaps a few generations. Macroevolution is about many mutations and allele mixings after many generations. They're just different amounts of the same thing: evolution.
Evolution is descent with modification followed by natural selection. A single generation of descent with modification followed by natural selection can be considered microevolution. Many generations of descent with modification followed by natural selection can be considered macroevolution. The minute changes of microevolution gradually accumulate into significant changes, such as significant structural change.
The fossil record is evidence of oftentimes significant structural change over time. The fossils we find in successive geologic layers show small doglike creatures become gradually larger over time to become horses. They record small rodent like creatures becoming mammals. And they record a small weasel-like creature evolving into whales.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2017 7:24 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Dredge, posted 04-13-2017 2:10 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 397 of 443 (804791)
04-13-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Dredge
04-13-2017 2:27 AM


Dredge writes:
Actually, I was hoping you could help Tangle out and give me an example of how the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has "enormous scientific value".
Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Dredge, posted 04-13-2017 2:27 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Dredge, posted 04-13-2017 7:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 398 of 443 (804794)
04-13-2017 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by Dredge
04-13-2017 2:10 AM


Dredge writes:
Thanks for your "walking" analogy. But I see micro- and macro-evolution like more like this:
Micro' is observing that human beings are running the 100 meter sprint faster and faster.
Macro' is concluding from the evidence that humans are running the 100 meter sprint faster and faster that humans will keep running faster and faster, until the world record will be less than one second.
Whether this is observation or analogy, it fails. No one in biology views microevolution and macroevolution in anything like this way. Microevolution is a evolution that occurs over a few numbers of generations, while macroevolution is evolution that occurs over a great many generations. There is no limit on evolutionary change, just as there is no limit on walking. One can walk to the end of the street or to the other end of the country, it's all just walking. In the same way, evolution can make a bird have a slightly larger beak, or, over a much longer time period, it can turn a weasel-like creature into a whale.
In the same way, the evidence that small changes are observed in organisms cannot be used to predict with certainty that massive changes are possible and inevitable.
The observation of small changes over small numbers of generations leads directly to the conclusion of large changes over larger numbers of generations. Experiments with short-generation organisms like bacteria prove this is true.
This inevitable accumulation of changes is consistent with the history of change seen in the fossil record, where similar forms follow one after another for millennia, but where the oldest is frequently very different from the youngest.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Dredge, posted 04-13-2017 2:10 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2017 8:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 409 of 443 (805043)
04-15-2017 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Dredge
04-14-2017 8:32 PM


Dredge writes:
Contrary to your claim, experiments with short-generation organisms such as bacteria have not proved that large changes over many generations are possible.
There is no limit to evolutionary change, as experiments with short-generation bacteria show. The longer the bacteria are followed the more change is observed. More generally, species evolve gradually into new species in response to adaptation pressures.
I'm not sure this is the right topic for you - you don't seem interested in the evidence for whale evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2017 8:32 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Dredge, posted 04-16-2017 10:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 412 of 443 (805273)
04-17-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dredge
04-16-2017 10:03 PM


Dredge writes:
If I'm hearing you right, you are claiming that experiments which show changes in bacteria prove that there is "no limit to evolutionary change" and that therefore it is possible that whales evolved from some deer-like land animal.
Actually it's a rebuttal to your arguments that there are limits to evolutionary change, and that therefore species in general and whales in particular do not evolve from predecessor species. There are no genetic limits we're aware of to evolutionary change.
So what evidence is left for this tale about whale evolution? The fossil record, of course. Or is there more?
The fossil record is one of change over time. It records species change from Indoyus and Pakeicetus through intermediate species up to modern whales.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Dredge, posted 04-16-2017 10:03 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by jar, posted 04-17-2017 8:25 AM Percy has seen this message but 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