A Whale of a Tale

Here's some stuff from Randman from a different thread: I suggest we move this to a new topic before we completely derail the previous one.I'll take your bait, Randman. But you've gotta clear some stuff up for me first: What is a "whale" feature? What is not a "whale" feature? Is this the ONLY evidence for Paki being a whale ancestor? What are the other whale ancestors?
-and-
What distingushing characteristics seperate whales from them?Let's make sure we are all on the same page to start off with.

Thought of this the other day as an addendum to my openning post. Not adding by edit because I want this to bump the thread back up.I don't want this to be a "the definition of is" argument.Evolutionists are arguing that Paki is an ancestor of modern whales. That gets shortened by various people to "Paki is a whale".We are not trying to argue here that Paki "is" a whale.If you accept that Paki is an ancestor of modern whales, but want to stick on the shortened "Paki is a whale", then there isn't much here to debate - we are all in agreement.

I'm trying to define the argument. I don't fully understand your position.Are you saying that Pakicetus is not related to whales?Or are you saying that Pakicetus is an ancestor to whales, but is so far removed that calling it the "first whale" is sort of like calling Lucy "the first Human".If it's the later, I see your point, but don't understand the zeal with which you pursue it. After all, there is a long tradition of "the first"'s. (ie "The abacus was the first computer")Maybe it's because it's late, but I can't find the site you are refering to. There's plenty of mention of Hans Thewissen and Pakicetus, etc, so I know I'm onto the right guy, but which site is his site?

I'm not mucking up anything. I want us to be very clear up front. I don't want this to be a "what is the meaning of -is-" thread.Are you saying that Pakicetus is not an ancestor to whales?thx for link, btwThis message has been edited by Nuggin, 01-03-2006 02:02 AM

Followed your link -Disagree with your possition about the label at the front end of the page. It's the subtitle.For readers: The page opens with The page then goes on to make his point.However, and this is a big however, so I'll do it in caps. HOWEVER, later in the page there is a photo of three skulls. Two are Pakicetidae, one is a coyote - it's meant to show size. The caption for that photo clearly reads: Here I think he has overstepped.I hope you see the distinction. While I accept him saying these are ancestors to whales, and accept the title "the first whales", labeling the skull a "whale" skull is a little much.And, before my brethren jump on me, I'll give an example (using me Lucy example from before). If an article showed Lucy's skull and labelled it an "Australopithicus Human" skull, we'd all scratch our heads.Is this the extent of our debate though? You agree that Paki is the ancestor of whales, it's just that the description is often over zealous?

First off, GEEZ, I go to work for 1 day and WHAMMO, 90+ messages on this thread - (almost all of them angry, almost all of them spinning off topic) Okay, then that's what we should debate. Noted, though I think any debate on this topic will have to wait until we've sorted out the evidence in whale ancestry.I'll begin my arguement in a new generic reply.

We're debating whether or not Paki is an ancestor of modern whales.But, rather than start at Paki, who is, even by Evo accounts a distant relative, I want to start closer to home.Would anyone disagree that Basilosaurus is an ancestor of modern whales? If so, why? How about Eurhinodelphis? Again, if you disagree, why?

Are you saying that Basilosaurus is not related to whales in any way? Or are you saying that Basilosaurus is not a direct ancestor to modern whales the way your uncle is not a direct ancestor to you. Okay, but you yourself have made the claim that "wholphins" indicate that there is not much genetic diffence between whales and dolphins, so we might as well consider both of them in this discussion.But, either way, we agree - Eurhinodelphis, which no longer exists and predates modern dolphin/whale populations, is an earlier form of the animals we see today. Right?This message has been edited by Nuggin, 01-04-2006 11:46 AM

Trying to sit on the sidelines for most of the mudslinging in this thread (both sides!) but have been reading along and want to make a few comments.On fossils: Based on absolutely no research on my part, I would think that animals which died in the open ocean would be less likely to leave fossils behind than animals which died in a river basin. Wait, let me rephrase that - they may be equally likely to leave fossils, but we would be severely hampered in our finding of these fossils.I'm well aware that marine sediment has been uplifted to the height of mountains, but I think there is a difference between say the Mediterrain drying up and the ocean floor off the contenental shelf.However, that is just one minor factor in fossilization - the idea that we could work out some equation about fossilization rates requires knowing, among other things, where all the fossil beds are. For example, how many fossils are located 1/3 mile underground in Northern China? No idea. So, it is useless to argue that there SHOULD be "more" or "less" fossils of something.It's fine to say - "hey, we've got a million of these horses and only one tooth from that animal. How can you say you know as much about that animal as you do these horses?"On pics: Well, let's assume that that's correct. I'll admit that that's a bit misleading. If we (everyone) could post pics with something in them to show scale, that would be best.However, size and morphology aren't as important a factor as you make them sound. We all agree that Great Danes and Chiuauas are dogs, their skeletons share hundreds of charactistics - however, the size and morphology are dramatically different in these two animals.I think the issue should be - here's a characteristic which exists in only this one kind of animal. Here are several different examples of animals with this characteristic. Size and morphology aren't really relavent. I've answered this before on other threads relating to other two groups. I don't know if you've missed all those posts or just misunderstood them.Evolution does not happen over a wide area simultaneously. Evolution happens in isolated groups. Look at the rapid evolution of island species as an example.When a population is isolated, a positive change in an individual is better able to spread to the entire group through breeding - as opposed to being surpressed by a constant influx of non-adapted genetic material from members in other regions.Squirrels isolated by the Grand Canyon are a good example - especially when compared to the grey squirrels which populate the entire northeast.After the isolated species changes and breaks free from it's environment it is either better suited than it's predicessor or it's not. If not better suited it will either remain in it's isolated location, or simply die out.But, if it is better suited, it will spread out and out compete those that were there before it. Example: Modern humans spread out from Africa and replace residual Homo Erectus groups in various places (Neandertal, Peking, Java, etc).If we were looking at the fossil record of an area into which the new species entered, we would not expect a gradual change. The fossil record from France does not show a gradual change from Neandertal into modern Human - instead it shows replacement of Neandertals.In order to find transitional fossils for modern humans, we would have to find a fossil bed which happened to be location of the isolation. It would also have to be a long term fossilization - ie, many fossils over time (riverbeds are usually pretty good, or cave floors).So, given this we'd expect fossils of transitional forms to be rare. Therefore, this supposed "lack of transitionals" is not evidence against the fact that there were transitionals. It's perfectly consistent with what we would expect to see in the fossil record.And, before anyone jumps in on this - Yes, this pattern would also explain the magical disappearence of one species wholesale and it's magical replacement by a new species - though I don't understand the methodology behind that process.

Good. I think we are making progress. I'm not concerned with specific lineage - I'm talking family tree here. We agree that Basilosaurus is related to modern whale populations.Can I assume that since we agree on Basilosaurus, we also agree on Dorudon, as the two are remarkably similiar?Now, let's talk skull morphology. Would you agree that animals with similiar skull morphology are commonly related?For example - four different species of crocodillian Or, if you disagree, can you explain why and post some examples that we can discuss?

--then I gotta dash outta here and go work out. Why? We already agree that dolphins and whales are similiar enough to interbreed. Commerson's dolphins are 4-6 feet long. Blue whales are 80 ft long.Basilosaurus was 65ft long. Ambilocetus was 9ft long. Narwals are particularly unique looking whales, long "unicorn horn" tooth sticking out the front. They are an arctic species, extremely isolated but in a marine environment. Why haven't they spread out? Perhaps if we enter another Ice Age they will.If we see it happening today, why should we assume that it has never happened in the past? Actually, that's the opposite of what I just said. Neanderthals are not transitional. They existed in a location for a while. Then both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals existed in that location, then no more Neanderthals. They did not become HS. HS walked into their territory fully formed. There is one fossil child which appears to have features of both Neanderthals and HS. However, it's disputed. I tend to think it's a crossbreed - but if I showed you a skeleton of a mule, does that mean that mules are transitional between donkeys and horses? Assuming that the particular river where that species was located dried up, formed fossils, remained accessable to humans later and was discovered by paleontologist? Sure.For example, if a dolphin species from India or Brasil were to break out and spread all over the world - we'd be wondering where is the transitional species for these. If the Amazone or the Ganges were to dry up and we could explore the sediment we'd find them.Ganges River Dolphin Amazon River Dolphin

I'm talking about dolphins and whales. I haven't mentioned George, you haven't mentioned Nazis - we're good.

They sure do. Now, both of these dolphin species are freshwater and can not survive in the ocean where their ancestors originated - agreed?It's also reasonable to assume that the Ganges dolphin did not evolve into the Amazon dolphin, nor did the Amazon dolphin evolve into the Ganges dolphin.Additionally, if either of these could mate with a marine dolphin, which I don't know if they can, would their offspring live in fresh water, saltwater, both, neither? Don't know.So here we see good examples of divergence between fresh and saltwater populations, allbeit within the same type of animal.If global warming were to melt the ice caps and dramatically reduce the saline levels of the oceans, marine dolphins may not be able to adapt fast enough and could go extinct. At that time, the freshwater dolphin could move out of their rivers and colonize the world's oceans. They would likely lose their unusual nose adaptations which are suitable for murky waters.As the world cooled and the freshwater began being locked up in the ice, those new populations of dolphins might adapt to the increasing saline levels.A look at the fossil record left behind of a given stretch of the Altlantic would show bottlenose dolphins replaced by a species similar to today's river dolphins. However it would not show the bottlenose transitioning into the new dolphin.Additionally, the transitional forms (those between the River dolphin and the newly ocean dolphin) would likely exist around the mouth of the Amazon/Ganges. (a good place for fossils if you can dig there). But you'd have to look specifically there to find them.Thus we can look at the various dolphin populations as showing the variablility of dolphin morphology - even if we can't specifically say this sub-species is ancestral to this other sub-species.It's the same way with whales. We agree that Basil is related to modern whales even if it's directly ancestral to a sperm whale. We are looking for a broad pattern over time.

Not necessarily. The amount of variation between the two groups is more dependant on the amount of time they remain seperated. If the "replacement" group is seperated only a short period of time, or not "very isolated" - that group would be expected to accumulate less collective change than a group fully isolated for an extended period.While a scenario is possible that a group becomes isolated, changes only slighty, then proceeds to replace the original group, that's not what I am suggesting for this situation.Let's assume (fairly safely, I think) that Basilo was successful and wide spread and remained so for quite some time.An isolated group of Basilo/Basilo-like animals evolves into a new species. That species (not Basilo, but also not modern whales) has some distinct advantage (maybe it breeds faster, maybe the climate is changing, maybe it feeds on more variety than Basilo). Something happens which brings them into competition with Basilo and it out competes them.Would this animal look like Basilo? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how similiar you want them to look. Personally, I think the Minke whale looks a lot like Basilo - though I don't think the Minke is this transitional. I would expect this creature to have features that we find present in both Basilo and in modern whales - blow hole, tail fluke, maybe teeth similarities, ear components, vestigal hind limbs, etc.Do I know what this animal is? Not yet. I'm a screenwriter in Los Angeles, not a professor of palaentology, so I'm looking. Maybe we don't have a representative of it in the fossil record yet. Maybe we will never have a representative of it. What I'm chiefly concerned with is the plausibility of the scenario.If this scenario seems implausible to you - not because we don't have a fossil, but because you disagree with the idea of isolation, or change, or competetion, or replacement, or whatever, let me know - we'll get into that more directly.On niches:
The group which replaces the original in the niche need not even be related at all, they just need to be better at that niche. Typically we'd expect a minor change in a group which is already good at exploiting that niche to be the best option but there are examples showing extreme exceptions:Though I can't find a link for it, there are areas of forest where crabs have completely replaced the ground dwelling insects by out competing them for food - in this case leaves. Obviously the crabs did no evolve from the ants and beetles which lived in that particular area, they simply moved in and out competed them.On Paki:
Currently, our discussion - meaning you, Randman and me, has not come close to addressing Paki's connection to Basilo. I want to acknowledge that up front. I'm trying to establish a common ground work about more recent relatives before going way out there.Unfortunately, given the tone and length of the thread, that sort of discussion may end up taking place in "A Whale of a Tale part 2"

Me: "I would expect this creature to have features that we find present in both Basilo and in modern whales - blow hole, tail fluke, maybe teeth similarities, ear components, "Rand: Well, "serpent-like" to me would mean that, like a snake, it swam by sending ripples down it's body - as opposed to fish which swipe their tails from side to side, or mammals which undulate.I don't think there is any evidence for basilo being the first and only serpent swimming mammal. Additionally, the tail vertibrae (specifically the fact that the end ones are wider than the ones preceding them) indicate that it likely had a fluke.Was basilo's fluke big like a sperm whale? No, probably not.There are websites (some science ones that actually use the term "serpent like" to describe basilo. This, I can only assume, is a reflection of the creatures overall length, as snakes clearly don't have limbs, pelvis bones, etc. which obviously basilo did.I even found one site that had both in the same sentence: On Teeth -
My bad. I misread the source material. Basilo teeth show a distinct relationship to earlier forms. Basilo teeth differ from modern toothed whale teeth. (I got ahead of myself).On Blow Hole -
Ditto, but in the other direction.On Ear -
Basilo had a ear virtually identicle to modern whales, though I will grant you that both modern whales and basilo lived in the water and the ear morphology is for underwater hearing.A couple good catches on your part. Some bad late night reading on mine. Not to jump on the "you're a creationist" bandwagon - even I feel browbeaten for you - but I do have a question.There are quite a few marine and semi-marine mammals - walrus, seal, sea lion, dolphin, whale, manatee, sea otter, etc.Is it your belief that these animals "began" in the sea? In other words, do you feel that basilosaurus (and whatever immediately led up to it) existed first in the ocean, rather than decended from something on land?Subsequent question: Why is it that the fossil record of times in the very distant past show many types of fish, mollusks, etc. but no aquatic mammals? The aquatic mammals don't show up until after the regular mammals show up on land.