Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 16 of 443 (646924)
01-07-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
01-05-2012 7:58 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
DNA records are not the only way to detect relatedness, people managed to do that before the invention of DNA sequencing, you know.
Just for interest sake, what other ways are there?
Dr Adequate writes:
For example, even without DNA evidence, wouldn't you conclude that the two animals depicted below were related?
I won’t disagree with you there, I will leverage off your comment here to try and make my point a bit more clear. This is something that I’ve been pondering about quite a bit and is quite a lengthy post but it does resolve back into context! Let’s suppose we have a Panda on an evolutionary transition diagram (such as the ones presented in this post) what would you put as the ancestor where it evolved from or the descendant where the evolution is continuing to, looking at modern animals? Is there any other animal on earth that is somewhere in the middle between a Panda and something else? Not nearly as much as to cause confusion as to whether it is a Panda or not. Why did evolution not try new avenues and evolve some intermediate steps or other variations?Here is the closest known relative to the Panda, the Spectacled Bear.
Different behaviour, different look etc. Look at the markings, more evil looking face, baldish, flatter snout, different ears, longer beak etc. No flowing intermediate steps alive to show gradual transition from the one species to the other, it is either Panda or Spectacled Bear. Look at it from a slightly different angle, the ease of naming the different transitions (Mesonychids, Pakicetus, Ambulecetus, Dalanistes etc.). If there were any fluent transition between these different versions, it would be difficult to put a name to each of them — if there was a smooth transition between the different species you would have to create bounds to clamp the specie names down. Where do you assume the Mesonychids end and the Pakicetus starts? If such a diagram (evolution in general) were true then animals on earth would just be a hodgepodge of intermediate steps of evolution and you would not be able to distinguish animals from each other. There would not be this is a Panda, that is a Lion or be able to tell where to draw the line between apes and human beings, just more human like or more ape like beings.
One could argue that these transitional steps were just intermediate species that was later discarded by evolution (natural selection). Why did species evolve into these intermediate steps in the first place? They could not have been half bad as they survived good and well enough to apparently carry our species all the way from the apes to what we are today. Why would they mysteriously be absent from life today? And what better laboratory to test these ideas than the here and now? Going back millions of years gets rid of a lot of evidence making these ideas more plausible just because you can always make guess work.

To apply this directly into this discussion’s context the question remains the same. Where is the semi-cow-hippo-whale combo? We are talking about a HUGE transition here all the way from a cow to a whale and there would be ample opportunity for some ‘inbetweeners’. I mean seriously, where are they??? In fact, we should be able to draw at least some kind of evolutionary diagrams showing the transition from live specimens today! Even if some of the species in the diagram above died out there should be new or other ones to use.

Dr Adequate writes:
Rather, it is the evidence of their relatedness that led people to draw the diagram.
As per my point mentioned above. Why can’t this diagram be drawn today where there would have been more than enough proof?
Edited by TheArtist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2012 7:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 5:20 PM TheArtist has replied
 Message 24 by caffeine, posted 01-09-2012 4:25 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 17 of 443 (646926)
01-07-2012 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by dan4reason
01-05-2012 9:36 PM


dan4reason writes:
There is a strong correlation between anatomy and genetics. In fact the family tree constructed from genetics is very similar to that from morphology.
Point taken, however, we are looking at fossils here. A mere outline of these animals. That is a small portion of an animal’s anatomy and these animals can be vastly different otherwise for all we know (organs, skin, hair, eyes etc.).
dan4reason writes:
If algae can be digested without a stomach specialised for eating grass and leaves, then why in the world would a ruminant stomach be needed for algae?
Let me rephrase; it does not mean that if fish or other organisms eat algae and have only one stomach that whales do not need four for whatever reason. I’m not saying that they would need four for digesting algae specifically. I mean that all four could be necessary for their lifestyle and environment i.e. not just there because it used to be part of a cow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dan4reason, posted 01-05-2012 9:36 PM dan4reason has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by dan4reason, posted 01-07-2012 12:36 PM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 5:38 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 18 of 443 (646929)
01-07-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dan4reason
01-02-2012 12:36 PM


dan4reason writes:
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).
Apparently the pelvis is crucial to a whale's reproductive system.
Edited by TheArtist, : No reason given.

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 19 by dan4reason, posted 01-07-2012 12:27 PM TheArtist has replied
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 5:47 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
dan4reason
Junior Member (Idle past 4142 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 01-03-2010


Message 19 of 443 (646946)
01-07-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by TheArtist
01-07-2012 11:01 AM


quote:
The Artist writes:
Apparently the pelvis is crucial to a whale's reproductive system.
1: I think you are using too strong a language when you say "crucial." Second you need to back up this whole statement.
I can reasonable admit that maybe the whale pelvis might have some minor function, however, that function is much reduced and is probably different than its original function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TheArtist, posted 01-07-2012 11:01 AM TheArtist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 5:24 AM dan4reason has replied

  
dan4reason
Junior Member (Idle past 4142 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 01-03-2010


Message 20 of 443 (646949)
01-07-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TheArtist
01-07-2012 10:35 AM


quote:
TheArtist wrote:
Point taken, however, we are looking at fossils here. A mere outline of these animals. That is a small portion of an animal’s anatomy and these animals can be vastly different otherwise for all we know (organs, skin, hair, eyes etc.).
Of course. No scientist contests that. But bone structure says a whole lot about non-bone structure. And you can see a lot of evolution even with the few traits you do have.
You do not need 100% proof. You just need evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
quote:
Let me rephrase; it does not mean that if fish or other organisms eat algae and have only one stomach that whales do not need four for whatever reason. I’m not saying that they would need four for digesting algae specifically. I mean that all four could be necessary for their lifestyle and environment i.e. not just there because it used to be part of a cow.
So why would the whale need a four-chambered stomach? Why couldn't they have stomachs like sharks, especially the killer whales?
I found out that actually many non-ruminants have multiple-chambered stomachs. Many whales have what is called the rumen which is a tool for digesting cellulose in plants. Cellulose is meant to keep plants strong, and stiff and defy gravity. The rumen is what is unique to ruminants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TheArtist, posted 01-07-2012 10:35 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 21 of 443 (646997)
01-07-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by TheArtist
01-07-2012 10:26 AM


Just for interest sake, what other ways are there?
Well, morphology. Hence my picture of the pandas.
I won’t disagree with you there, I will leverage off your comment here to try and make my point a bit more clear. This is something that I’ve been pondering about quite a bit and is quite a lengthy post but it does resolve back into context! Let’s suppose we have a Panda on an evolutionary transition diagram (such as the ones presented in this post) what would you put as the ancestor where it evolved from or the descendant where the evolution is continuing to, looking at modern animals?
I wouldn't put "the descendant where the evolution is continuing to", because that is not the sort of thing we know. For all we know, pandas will go extinct leaving no descendants.
Also people making these diagrams don't usually put "the ancestor where it evolved from" unless they're really really certain. If you look at the whale diagram, it doesn't show one form as being ancestral to another, it shows the order of branching.
Different behaviour, different look etc. Look at the markings, more evil looking face, baldish, flatter snout, different ears, longer beak etc. No flowing intermediate steps alive to show gradual transition from the one species to the other, it is either Panda or Spectacled Bear. Look at it from a slightly different angle, the ease of naming the different transitions (Mesonychids, Pakicetus, Ambulecetus, Dalanistes etc.). If there were any fluent transition between these different versions, it would be difficult to put a name to each of them — if there was a smooth transition between the different species you would have to create bounds to clamp the specie names down.
Well, quite. The only reason we can divide into species is a paucity of fossils, and when we have lots the whole thing becomes rather arbitrary. Where does H. sapiens start, for example? We have to draw a fairly arbitrary line. And yet for practical purposes we have to classify things so that we can look 'em up --- we can't just call them all "life".
If such a diagram (evolution in general) were true then animals on earth would just be a hodgepodge of intermediate steps of evolution ...
Well no, because we don't expect all the intermediate forms to still be alive. If they were, what you're saying would be true, and the concept of species would break down in living species.
There are examples of chain species and ring species, but we can either just shrug and live with them, or we can lump 'em by forcing the relation "species" to be transitive, or we can split 'em by morphology ...
As a concrete example, consider plants in the genus Brassica. B .rapa will breed with B. nigra, B. nigra will breed with B nasus. But B .rapa won't breed with B nasus! Now, how should we arrange them into species? And you can see from their specific name that the solution scientists have come up with is to split them by morphology.
One could argue that these transitional steps were just intermediate species that was later discarded by evolution (natural selection). Why did species evolve into these intermediate steps in the first place? They could not have been half bad as they survived good and well enough to apparently carry our species all the way from the apes to what we are today. Why would they mysteriously be absent from life today?
Well, consider the analogy with technical development. You might as well ask: "If the Atari ST was a bad computer, why did they sell so well? But if it was a good computer, why aren't people still manufacturing them?" Clearly they were good of their time, but were superseded by something better.
If you think about it, the fact that a species is not around today shows that there was some reason that it lost out, and it shows that even if you're a creationist. Finding out what that reason is is sometimes difficult, sometimes easy, depending on the particular case.
And what better laboratory to test these ideas than the here and now?
How do you propose that we do that?
Going back millions of years gets rid of a lot of evidence making these ideas more plausible just because you can always make guess work.
It is true that it is harder to find out what happened millions of years ago than what's happening now. But that's not a reason not to try to do it.
To apply this directly into this discussion’s context the question remains the same. Where is the semi-cow-hippo-whale combo? We are talking about a HUGE transition here all the way from a cow to a whale and there would be ample opportunity for some ‘inbetweeners’. I mean seriously, where are they???
They're in the fossil record.
Again, I would point out --- there must be some reason why the intermediate forms couldn't cut it in competition with the modern forms, because the intermediate forms are dead and the modern forms are alive. I would say that this is because the modern forms are better adapted to the whale niches. A creationist would say --- what? I don't know. That God just made them worse than other whaley things in the first place? But since they're extinct, we know that there is a reason why they're extinct. And this fact would seem to trump any a priori reasoning on your part to try to show that they should still be alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TheArtist, posted 01-07-2012 10:26 AM TheArtist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 5:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 28 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 6:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 443 (647003)
01-07-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TheArtist
01-07-2012 10:35 AM


Point taken, however, we are looking at fossils here. A mere outline of these animals. That is a small portion of an animal’s anatomy and these animals can be vastly different otherwise for all we know (organs, skin, hair, eyes etc.).
Well, a couple of whale skeletons.
OK, it's not all the information you could ask for, but if you wanted to decide if they were related, which way would you bet?
No scientist is omniscient, so whenever they say anything they're just saying it based on all the information they have. This is true whether we're talking evolution or Maxwell's equations.
Let me rephrase; it does not mean that if fish or other organisms eat algae and have only one stomach that whales do not need four for whatever reason. I’m not saying that they would need four for digesting algae specifically. I mean that all four could be necessary for their lifestyle and environment i.e. not just there because it used to be part of a cow.
But I've answered that point. The ceteceans have different lifestyles. A dolphin chasing after fish in schools is different from a solitary baleen whale straining out krill, and different again from a sperm whale descending into the abyss to grapple with giant squid. The commonality of their lifestyle is that they swim in the sea, which you could also say of fish.
Now if you're down to saying "maybe there's a good, functional, non-evolutionary reason for this fact ... which I can't think of at the moment", then that's not really much of a critique. A flat-Earther could say that about the evidence for a round Earth ... "maybe there's a good reason why a flat Earth should look round ... which I can't think of off-hand". Well, we can contemplate that possibility, but it's hard to take it seriously.
---
We have to go with the evidence to hand (because we don't have the evidence that isn't) and the ideas we do have (because we don't know what the ideas we haven't had are). And this is not just a fact about evolutionary biology, that's the human condition; we may as well get used to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TheArtist, posted 01-07-2012 10:35 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 23 of 443 (647005)
01-07-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by TheArtist
01-07-2012 11:01 AM


Apparently the pelvis is crucial to a whale's reproductive system.
But not to the reproductive system of a shark. If it is, as you say, crucial to the reproductive system, then that still leaves us without a reason (other than its evolutionary history) why the whale has a reproductive system to which the existence of a pelvis is crucial.
A loose analogy ... if I ask why the coal scuttle is there, you can say: "Because it is crucial to the operation of the machine". Yes, but why a coal scuttle? And we would hazard a guess that it's there because it was what the Professor had to hand, rather than that the coal scuttle was originally designed for the role it plays in the Professor's pancake machine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TheArtist, posted 01-07-2012 11:01 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 24 of 443 (647295)
01-09-2012 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by TheArtist
01-07-2012 10:26 AM


If there were any fluent transition between these different versions, it would be difficult to put a name to each of them — if there was a smooth transition between the different species you would have to create bounds to clamp the specie names down. Where do you assume the Mesonychids end and the Pakicetus starts? If such a diagram (evolution in general) were true then animals on earth would just be a hodgepodge of intermediate steps of evolution and you would not be able to distinguish animals from each other. There would not be this is a Panda, that is a Lion or be able to tell where to draw the line between apes and human beings, just more human like or more ape like beings.
Quite right, and that's why this is how things actually are. It really is exceedingly difficult to draw lines between species and decide exactly where one stops and another begins. When enough of the intermediate steps are dead, we're left with two distinct populations and division is easy. Babriusas, for example, are sufficiently different from pigs and peccaries, without the existence of any suriviving, intermediate animals, that we're comfortable classifying them as seperate.
But, then, how many species of babriusa are there. Traditionally, there was only supposed to be one. In 1980, however, a taxonomist took a look at this idea and decided it was a bit too simplistic. The babirusa should be split into four, distinct, sub-species. More recently, he's decided the different babirusas are more different than he previously gave them credit for, and reognised four different species. Other scientists disagree, and think they should be seen as more uniform.
Of course, exactly where you lie on this debate changes depending on what, precisely, you define a species as. As a classic example, Mexico has somewhere between 101 and 249 recognised endemic bird species, depending on which exact definition of species you use.
We can easily distinguish a whale and a hippo, but taxonomy is still filled to the brim with fuzzy boundaries and arguments over where x stops and y begins. It really is difficult to draw lines and classify things.
Edited by caffeine, : broken tags
Edited by caffeine, : bizarre duplication of text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TheArtist, posted 01-07-2012 10:26 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 25 of 443 (647297)
01-09-2012 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by dan4reason
01-07-2012 12:27 PM


dan4reason writes:
1: I think you are using too strong a language when you say "crucial." Second you need to back up this whole statement.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dan4reason, posted 01-07-2012 12:27 PM dan4reason has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2012 5:49 AM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 6:32 AM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 35 by dan4reason, posted 01-09-2012 1:01 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 26 of 443 (647298)
01-09-2012 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2012 5:20 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Well, morphology. Hence my picture of the pandas.
"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).

Seems like such a diagram is a pretty doubtful display of ‘evidence’ of the evolutionary process, especially considering that it is only the skeleton and does not include the vast array of other missing features as already mentioned. So the only way to prove these or have evidence of these transitions is morphology (DNA is not available) and this is has a large discordance to molecular similarity. Not very convincing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 6:12 AM TheArtist has not replied
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 7:38 AM TheArtist has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 443 (647299)
01-09-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 5:24 AM


vestigial PRATT again
Hi TheArtist, and welcome to the fray.
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....
Vestigial does not mean without function, it means no longer used for original function. These bones are no longer used for locomotion.
Vestigial Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
1. of, relating to, or being a vestige
2. (of certain organs or parts of organisms) having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species: the vestigial pelvic girdle of a snake
The reason they still exist -- long after the other bones of the legs have disappeared -- is because they have a useful secondary function. Curiously, that is how evolution works - adapting parts to new functions.
See CB360: Function of vestigial organs.
quote:
(PRATT) Claim CB360:
Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
Response:
1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.
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.
Found in some whales and not in others. Guess that means that the other whales don't have their genital wall strengthened.
Gosh what a problem that is for creationists to explain.
Enjoy.
ps -- another way to do quotes (such as from your sources) it to type
[quote]quotes from source[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes from source
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by Zen Deist, : ps
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

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

  
TheArtist
Junior Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 01-05-2012


Message 28 of 443 (647300)
01-09-2012 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2012 5:20 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
TheArtist writes:
If such a diagram (evolution in general) were true then animals on earth would just be a hodgepodge of intermediate steps of evolution ...
Well no, because we don't expect all the intermediate forms to still be alive. If they were, what you're saying would be true, and the concept of species would break down in living species.
Dr David Berlinski, made an important point in my opinion. He made the now semi famous statement that a cow would have had to undergo over and above 50 000 mutations to reach a whale which sounds very reasonable don’t you think? I would think that it would be way more than that, however let’s say it is only 50 000.

Consider the fact that each of these 50 000 mutations can loosely be considered as new species as they are each slightly different from the previous. Your assumption is that none of these 50 000 species survived (only the hippo)? For any mutation to live on it would require the animal carrying the mutation to be fit enough to successfully mate with a female. Then the mutation needs to live on a couple of generations to ensure that it does not get lost at some point. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that if a mutation was good enough to enable a male interest in a female or the other way around, that this mutation (or species) would not die out anytime soon.

Male/female courtship depends on both genres to be fit and fertile. We often see how males need to present great displays of manliness to females to win over courtship with them. A female will not easily mate with a weak male. So we can say that all of these mutations need to be very successful for them to live on.

But only a hippo stands between a cow and a whale. Let’s take it easy here and count in the apparently 80 different species of whale in existence today (give or take). This will still yield 49 920 intermediate species or mutations that died out! Why such a great number of very successful mutations that died out? Why are none of them walking the earth today? Well, apparently all of them died out leaving us with no contemporary proof of this transition.

It does not matter how you look at this, 49 920 transition steps being absent today seems a bit suspect. However if all of them did die out, I would SERIOUSLY question the existence of hippos and whales, as it seems that species which was extremely closely related to them, died off.

Dr Adequate writes:
Well, consider the analogy with technical development. You might as well ask: "If the Atari ST was a bad computer, why did they sell so well? But if it was a good computer, why aren't people still manufacturing them?" Clearly they were good of their time, but were superseded by something better.
Remember that these intermediate steps would have had to be very similar in appearance and function. Only miniscule changes would have happened if it took millions of years. In line with this analogy, you would have thousands of very slightly different versions of the Atari ST. We could say that these different versions came about due to imperfections in the production process. Some might be a very slightly different colour whereas other could have slightly more lead residue on their circuit boards. Then, saying that they were good for their time would include many of the slightly different versions, as the difference between them would be so small it would almost be unnoticeable and for all practical reasons the same thing. Then, when they get discarded due to some new technology, all of the versions will be discarded! You could pick any version and it would still be, very much an Atari ST.

The ‘survival’ of the Atari ST would very strongly guarantee the survival of any of the slightly different version and the ‘death’ of the Atari ST will take with it all of these versions too.

Apply this to the evolutionary process. You’ll get the same result.

Dr Adequate writes:
Again, I would point out --- there must be some reason why the intermediate forms couldn't cut it in competition with the modern forms, because the intermediate forms are dead and the modern forms are alive. I would say that this is because the modern forms are better adapted to the whale niches. A creationist would say --- what? I don't know. That God just made them worse than other whaley things in the first place? But since they're extinct, we know that there is a reason why they're extinct. And this fact would seem to trump any a priori (a.k.a prior) reasoning on your part to try to show that they should still be alive.
One would never have to reason that God just made them worse than related species. I can easily say that all creatures were made perfectly in the first place. We know that many a specie became extinct in the past because of natural disasters such as climatic changes, changes in sea levels or currents, volcanic eruptions, rapidly spreading disease etc. These natural forces can be attributed to number of different species’ becoming extinct. Some of them happen suddenly and wipe out entire species in their native area and other happen over time. Another example is the amount of species that became extinct due to human activity such as over hunting and pollution. So all of these were made worse than other animals living away from the harm? Is a certain specie of bird made worse than another if the former specie lives exclusively on a certain island and is wiped out due to a volcanic eruption’s toxic ash clouds?

Dr Adequate writes:
A loose analogy ... if I ask why the coal scuttle is there, you can say: "Because it is crucial to the operation of the machine". Yes, but why a coal scuttle? And we would hazard a guess that it's there because it was what the Professor had to hand, rather than that the coal scuttle was originally designed for the role it plays in the Professor's pancake machine.
I bet if you asked the professor what it is for he would passionately ramble on about how important it is to the rest of his machine. I’m just saying that just because you looked at this picture and cannot see an apparent reason for the coal scuttle to assume that it was just what the professor had at hand.

This argument goes both ways. I’m simply responding to the initial statement It is doubtful if this pelvis has any function at all, although it might have some minor function. Ask the professor about the coal scuttle before making the assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2012 6:29 AM TheArtist has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 443 (647301)
01-09-2012 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 5:29 AM


"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).
That's a very confused quote, you know.
* No-one claimed that the genetic distances were proportional to the morphological differences, only that both considerations tend to sort animals into clades in pretty much the same way.
* Linnaeus's choice of Linnaean rank has nothing to do with anything.
* Back in the real world, fossil evidence and morphology and molecular phylogeny give us pictures of whale ancestry that agree very closely.
Seems like such a diagram is a pretty doubtful display of ‘evidence’ of the evolutionary process ...
As I told you, the diagram is not evidence at all. It's a summary of the findings. The evidence makes the diagram, the diagram does not constitute evidence.
especially considering that it is only the skeleton and does not include the vast array of other missing features as already mentioned ...
Well, all the evidence we have supports the evolution of whales from land mammals. There is nothing more you can say in favor of anything.
You might as well complain that the theory of gravity is shaky because we can't check that planets have elliptical orbits in the Andromeda galaxy. Except that you don't have a grudge against gravity.
So the only way to prove these or have evidence of these transitions is morphology (DNA is not available) and this is has a large discordance to molecular similarity.
Well, that was confused.
DNA of modern forms is available, and this shows a close concordance with the morphological and fossil evidence.
DNA of extinct forms is not available, so you have no basis on which to say anything about the molecular similarity of these forms.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 5:29 AM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 30 of 443 (647303)
01-09-2012 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by TheArtist
01-09-2012 6:10 AM


Dr David Berlinski, made an important point in my opinion. He made the now semi famous statement that a cow would have had to undergo over and above 50 000 mutations to reach a whale which sounds very reasonable don’t you think? I would think that it would be way more than that, however let’s say it is only 50 000.
Show your working.
Consider the fact that each of these 50 000 mutations can loosely be considered as new species ...
No. You have ~100 mutations yourself not inherited from your parents, that doesn't make you a new species.
Your assumption is that none of these 50 000 species survived (only the hippo)? For any mutation to live on it would require the animal carrying the mutation to be fit enough to successfully mate with a female. Then the mutation needs to live on a couple of generations to ensure that it does not get lost at some point. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that if a mutation was good enough to enable a male interest in a female or the other way around, that this mutation (or species) would not die out anytime soon.
And the successful mutations are those which are present, accumulated, in modern forms.
Modern whales are alive, ancient whales are dead. This is because of whales not being immortal. What we have are the descendants of the "survivors" --- the survivors survived long enough to mate, not to live until 2012.
But only a hippo stands between a cow and a whale.
No it doesn't. Hippos are not descended from cows. Whales are not descended from hippos. Whales are not descended from cows.
It does not matter how you look at this, 49 920 transition steps being absent today seems a bit suspect.
It's as suspect as my great-grandparents not being alive today, and my great-great grandparents, and my great-great-great-grandparents ... if I really am descended from them, shouldn't some of them still be alive?
However if all of them did die out, I would SERIOUSLY question the existence of hippos and whales ...
Why?
Hippos and whales are alive. The primitive whales in the fossil record are extinct. I don't see why the latter observation should lead anyone to question the former.
Remember that these intermediate steps would have had to be very similar in appearance and function. Only miniscule changes would have happened if it took millions of years. In line with this analogy, you would have thousands of very slightly different versions of the Atari ST. We could say that these different versions came about due to imperfections in the production process. Some might be a very slightly different colour whereas other could have slightly more lead residue on their circuit boards. Then, saying that they were good for their time would include many of the slightly different versions, as the difference between them would be so small it would almost be unnoticeable and for all practical reasons the same thing. Then, when they get discarded due to some new technology, all of the versions will be discarded! You could pick any version and it would still be, very much an Atari ST.
The ‘survival’ of the Atari ST would very strongly guarantee the survival of any of the slightly different version ...
No, because after thousands of generations of STs the ones nearest the basal form would have stopped working.
To take another example from computing, do you know anyone who still uses one of the first IBM PCs?
However, perhaps we are overextending the metaphor. The point I was trying to make is that something can be a good idea in one environment (with one set of competitors) and a bad idea in another environment (with another set of competitors).
Now, we do not expect primitive whales to be able to compete effectively with modern whales, because we expect modern whales to be better adapted to live in the sea.
One would never have to reason that God just made them worse than related species. I can easily say that all creatures were made perfectly in the first place.
You are free to speculate, but whatever the reason, the intermediate forms are dead. Extinct. Not alive any more.
It appears to be your view that if they were magicked into existence by God, it would be perfectly reasonable for them to be dead, but if they were transitional species they'd still be alive.
Why? They're the same animals however they arose. There is some reason why all the whales with hind feet are now dead. Whatever that reason was, it's an equally good explanation if they were transitional.
I bet if you asked the professor what it is for he would passionately ramble on about how important it is to the rest of his machine. I’m just saying that just because you looked at this picture and cannot see an apparent reason for the coal scuttle to assume that it was just what the professor had at hand.
This is an interesting insight into creationist thought processes.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TheArtist, posted 01-09-2012 6:10 AM TheArtist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by TheArtist, posted 01-12-2012 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024