Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Mesonychidae to Whale Question
outblaze
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 12 (23951)
11-23-2002 3:28 PM


http://www.trueorigin.org//whales.asp
This trueorigin article discusses the descent of whales from Mesonychida. Does the scientific community characterize this descent as a scientific "hypothesis" or a scientific "theory"?
If Mesonychida-whale evolution is viewed more as a hypothesis, could it also be considered conjecture?
tks for any comments

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2002 3:41 PM outblaze has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 2 of 12 (23955)
11-23-2002 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
11-23-2002 3:28 PM


A hypothesis, and one that's in some amount of shadow right now. Work published within the last year by Hans Thewissen and his group suggest that whales are more closely related to hippopotami - molecular data had already suggested that.
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/whaleorigins.htm
has some details.
I guess Tr/O needs an updated article. I wouldn't call the whale-mesonychian hypothesis a "conjecture," though. There appears to have been a lot of fossil data backing it up, but the new fossils Thewissen found provided new data, which better support a hippo relationship.
Edited to add:
Indiana University Bloomington
has bunches of stuff, with links.
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 11-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 11-23-2002 3:28 PM outblaze has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 12 (24174)
11-25-2002 6:04 AM


Mind you, it really only comes down to whether the archocaetes were nephews or sons of the Mesonychids - IIRC, they're all ungulates anyway. It's another question that creationists like to try to capitalise on, but it really doesn't cast any doubt on the general course of cetacean evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by outblaze, posted 11-26-2002 7:55 PM Karl has not replied

  
outblaze
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 12 (24513)
11-26-2002 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Karl
11-25-2002 6:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
Mind you, it really only comes down to whether the archocaetes were nephews or sons of the Mesonychids - IIRC, they're all ungulates anyway. It's another question that creationists like to try to capitalise on, but it really doesn't cast any doubt on the general course of cetacean evolution.
Got it thanks to you and Coragyps for the comments and links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Karl, posted 11-25-2002 6:04 AM Karl has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 12 (44639)
06-30-2003 1:29 AM


Whale message from another topic
Sharon357 posted the following good, but off-topic message, at http://EvC Forum: Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other) -->EvC Forum: Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)
quote:
Photographic evidence of vestigial hind limbs on Cetacean Species exists:
In latter 2002, Edward T. Babinski posted on this Forum, about whale evolution. I was searching months later, out of my own personal interest, in a vague hope to find something on the web, that would give some hard evidence for whale evolution, to be true.
I ran into a lot of dead ends, and information which I didn't consider convincing enough. I found some sites, where Creationist(s) mocked that no photographic evidence exists for hind limbs on whales.... the more I searched, the more disillusioned I became.
I came across Ed's article in this forum - - it was the only thing I came away with that day, in my entire Google search, which gave me some hope evidence exists. After acquainting Ed through this Forum, we've had extensive email correspondence, and I still maintain the same interest in Cetacean Evolution as I did that day, when I bumped into him.
Since then, he's done a lot of research on the subject and we've worked to get an article, prepared and placed on the web. He's done an excellent job, if I might say so.
Creationists claim no photographs exist?
Edward Babinski has provided an abundant amount of graphic evidence, also with appreciation to WGBH-Boston/Carl Zimmer's "Evolution Project", for their contribution to the article.
This article "Cetacean Evolution: Whales, Porpoises, Dolphins" is located at Edward T. Babinski - Cetacean Evolution
The public may also review the amusing response by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., from Answers in Genesis, in regard to Ed's earliest version of "Cetacean Evolution". (Long before Ed got the article on the web).
That article, containing Dr. Sarfati's emails, is located at
File Not Found
--
Ed Babinski and myself, welcome people to visit.
Thank you, Sharon Lemke
http://www.skeptical-christian.net
Scrivenings
Another whale topic is at "Genetic evidence of Whale evolution"
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Sharon357, posted 09-07-2003 3:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 8 by Sharon357, posted 09-07-2003 3:50 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 01-02-2008 4:15 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 12 (44645)
06-30-2003 5:20 AM


Excellent links, thanks.

  
Sharon357
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 12 (54359)
09-07-2003 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
06-30-2003 1:29 AM


Re: Whale message from another topic
Accidentally posted twice. Sorry!
I'm erasing this one.
[This message has been edited by Sharon357, 09-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2003 1:29 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Sharon357
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 12 (54360)
09-07-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
06-30-2003 1:29 AM


Re: Whale message from another topic
These articles were recently added:
Anatomy of modern whales (photos contributed by the Milwaukee Public Museum) accompanied with a brief commentary on the museum exhibit/ whale anatomy / whale evolution by Hans Thewissen, Ph.D.
Whale Anatomy and Photos of Limb Rudiments on Modern Day Whales
Thewissen makes the best argument, explaining it is only normal (in difference to what AIG has said), only normal for these vestigial hind limbs to be used in reproduction! Only normal, for even humans and other mammals, have leg muscles attached to genitalia. 55 million years ago, the longer legs on whales, like humans, had muscles from the genitalia attached to legs... as the legs shrank down through evolutionary history, the muscles are still attached. So the argument by AIG means nothing!
Also Hans Thewissen verifies beyond doubt, the whale skeleton exhibit with the rudimentary bones attached, that there was indeed a femur but it these are made of cartilage, so it is not present in the mount at the Museum.
For those who are intrigued with the work of Hans Thewissen, I'll add this information also...
WKSU Radio - Featuring Hans Thewissen
Page Not Found | WKSU
VERY GOOD!
We're working on a neat new website now, that shows the embryological data. Little dolphin embryos with hind limbs for instance. Suspected launch: fall 2003.
http://darla.neoucom.edu/...S/FACULTY/BMSfac/ThewissenJ.html
Thewissen - Northeastern Ohio Universities
- J. G. M. Hans Thewissen, Ph. D.
Also...
Located in the August 2003 Latest Directory:
Photos of Hind Limb Rudiments on Modern Day Whales
(and Cretinist Answers)by Edward T. Babinski
Photos of hind limb rudiments on modern day whales (and creationist "answers")
(In relation to Ed Babinski's Cetacean/Whale Evolution article)
located at Whale Evolution and Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales
As for the article with the response from Dr.Jonathan Sarfati,located at:
File Not Found
has been temporarily disabled, because of this:
----- Original Message -----
From: AiG Mail
To: webmaster@edwardtbabinski.us
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
Dear Webmaster of Ed Babinski,
... then he’ll talk.
-----------
so, the webmaster of edwardtbabinski.us is under the impression that Dr. Sarfati will indeed give a serious debate about the reality of vestigial hind limbs on whales/cetaceans with Ed Babinski.
I hope so.
Scrivenings
Update Note on August 3, 2005
Sarfati never fulfilled on his promise. There was no debate on the issue. He dealt with the photographs by ignoring them.
This message has been edited by Sharon357, 08-03-2005 10:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2003 1:29 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 12 (445486)
01-02-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
06-30-2003 1:29 AM


Re: Whale message from another topic
Moose writes:
The public may also review the amusing response by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., from Answers in Genesis, in regard to Ed's earliest version of "Cetacean Evolution". (Long before Ed got the article on the web).
Sarfati seems too intelligent to be that dense. Wonder why the guy sees red where the rest of us see blue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2003 1:29 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 4:25 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 10 of 12 (445488)
01-02-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
01-02-2008 4:15 PM


Because Safarti knows where the money is.
Sarfati seems too intelligent to be that dense. Wonder why the guy sees red where the rest of us see blue?
Because the bottomless pit to draw money from is the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Communion of Bobbleheads. As long as it is more profitable to lie and get paid for it, the Creationists will continue to hawk their snakeoil.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 01-02-2008 4:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 12 (445515)
01-02-2008 6:15 PM


NEW WHALE (where's randman ...)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/12/19/whale-ancestor.html
quote:
It sounds like a stretch, but a new study suggests that the missing evolutionary link between whales and land animals is an odd raccoon-sized animal that looks like a long-tailed deer without antlers. Or an overgrown long-legged rat.
The creature is called Indohyus, and recently dug up fossils reveal some crucial evolutionary similarities between it and water-dwelling cetaceans, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises.
Newer fossils point to the deer-like Indohyus. The animal is a "missing link" to the sister species to ancient whales, said Hans Thewissen, an anatomy professor at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.
"As a zoo animal, it looks nothing like a whale," Thewissen said. But, he added, when it comes to anatomical features, the Indohyus "is quite strikingly like one."
The key finding connecting Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans. An examination of its teeth showed that the land-dwelling creature spent lots of time in the water and may have fed there, like hippos and whales. Also, the specific positioning and shape of certain molars connects Indohyus to the earliest whales, which are about 50 million years old, Thewissen said.
With pictures:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
Video:
Videos | Nature
Nature article (abstract):
Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India | Nature
quote:
Although the first ten million years of whale evolution are documented by a remarkable series of fossil skeletons, the link to the ancestor of cetaceans has been missing. It was known that whales are related to even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls), but until now no artiodactyls were morphologically close to early whales. Here we show that the Eocene south Asian raoellid artiodactyls are the sister group to whales. The raoellid Indohyus is similar to whales, and unlike other artiodactyls, in the structure of its ears and premolars, in the density of its limb bones and in the stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth. We also show that a major dietary change occurred during the transition from artiodactyls to whales and that raoellids were aquatic waders. This indicates that aquatic life in this lineage occurred before the origin of the order Cetacea.
Can you say muskrat?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added refs

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
DJ1
Junior Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 04-22-2008


Message 12 of 12 (465031)
05-02-2008 3:11 AM


I think I have these in the correct order in terms of cetacean evolution,
Indohyus
Pakicetus
Nalacetus
Ichthyolestes
Gandakasia
Ambulocetus
Himalayacetus
Attockicetus
Remingtonocetus
Dalanistes
Kutchicetus
Andrewsiphius
Indocetus
Qaisracetus
Takracetus
Artiocetus
Babiacetus
Protocetus
Pappocetus
Eocetus
Georgiacetus
Natchitochia
Dorudon
Ancalacetus
Zygorhiza
Saghacetus
Chrysocetus
Gaviacetus
Pontogeneus
Basilosaurus
Basiloterus

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024