Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Whale of a Tale
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 41 of 243 (275329)
01-03-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
01-03-2006 12:03 PM


Re: About the Site
Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm
Here's a nice excerpt to get you started -
The evolution of whales involved much more than legs becoming flippers or vestigial organs. The fossil series demonstrates how their breathing apparatus changed, their ears changed and other body parts changed. If you are interested in detailed taxonomic descriptions, click on an animal illustrated at right to be taken to another website with that information.
Whales did not turn into fish. Inside every flipper is found the bones of the mammalian hand. They swim like otters by undulating the mammalian spine. The tail fluke is not a fish fin. Evolution works by modifying existing body plans to fit new conditions of life, and is often constrained by developmental pathways. No longer limited by gravity and strength of bones, whales could become giants of the sea.
They list all of the species in the line on this site on a nice pictorial chart. You can click on each one of these if you want to get more information on the actual fossils.
Here's another nice summary
Cetaceans

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 12:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 2:20 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 50 of 243 (275358)
01-03-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
01-03-2006 2:20 PM


evidence >>>>>>>>> opinion
Uh, so showing how whales are mammalian and not fish demonstrates evolution, eh?
Wow, you didn't even read the page or explore any of the relevant links...
Let's start with this:
The team's research, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), shows that the semicircular canals, the organ responsible for balance and located in the inner ear, was adapted to aquatic life approximately 45 million years ago. The discovery was published in the May 9 issue of the journal Nature.
Cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) have unique semicircular canals that allow them to be highly acrobatic swimmers without becoming dizzy. By investigating this organ in ancient fossils, the researchers found that early whales acquired this special trait quickly and early on in their evolution. This was a defining event that likely resulted in their total independence of life on land.
"The early evolutionary development of small semicircular canals by cetaceans opened an entirely new mammalian niche for habitation and contributed to the broad diversity of marine living habits that we see in whales today," said Rich Lane, director of NSF's paleontology program, which funded the research. "The evolutionary acquisition of such specialized organs or abilities (like the brain and upright walking habit of man) provide mechanisms by which highly evolved organisms dominate in certain environments."
The semicircular canals sense head movements and this vital information is used to coordinate the body during locomotion. This happens subconsciously, and humans only become aware of an organ of balance when things go wrong, such as during sea sickness, drunkenness and wild roller coaster rides.
The researchers found that in living cetaceans the semicircular canals are much smaller than in any other mammal of the same body size. In fact, the semicircular canals of the huge blue whale are smaller than those of humans. In general, cetaceans are more acrobatic than similarly sized land animals (imagine an elephant making the jumps of a similar-sized whale). This could be the result of the small canals, because the small size makes the canals less sensitive, preventing the animal from becoming dizzy (i.e. experiencing vertigo).
Here's some more:
Some researchers use morphology (the study of an animal's structure and form) to suggest that whales are descended from mesonychians, an extinct group of meat-eating animals that resembled hyenas with hooves. Others use DNA, molecular, and genetic techniques to suggest that whales and hippos are more closely related to one another than either of them is to any other species.
The fossils found in Pakistan last year add weight to the second theory: that whales descended from the group of animals known as artiodactyls, whose members include sheep, cows, pigs, camels, deer, and hippos. Artiodactyla (Greek artios, entire or even numbered, and dactylos, finger or toe) are named for the even number of fingers and toes (two or four) found on each hand and foot.
The fossils found by Gingerich and the others are the first and only known specimens that have sheep-like ankle bones and archaic whale skull bones in the same skeletons. Some of the ankle bones have signature features that place the whales in the artiodactyls group.
Certain ankle bones show specialized features typically associated with adaptation to running. Such features are unique to artiodactyls, living and extinct.
The presence of artiodactyl-like ankles in the primitive whales strongly suggests common heritage rather than convergent evolution, said Kenneth D. Rose of the Program for Functional Anatomy and Evolution at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Convergent evolution is the process by which different groups of organisms may evolve similar characteristics in response to particular environmental requirements.
And this quote randman pretty much sums up your problems with reality:
As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory."
Natural History magazine, May 1994.
Since you did not refute this evidence I have no choice but to assume that you can not refute it or that you just don't understand it.
Are you just arguing for fun? You don't even bother to try and learn or understand the science behind all of this.
This is just like me going up to a nuclear physicist and complaining that electrons don't exist because I can't see them and also that not atom has ever given me a shock due to these "electrons"!
This message has been edited by Mini_Ditka, 01-03-2006 02:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 2:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 2:55 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 72 of 243 (275390)
01-03-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
01-03-2006 2:55 PM


Re: evidence >>>>>>>>> opinion
Nice rant. Have you ever seen Billy Madison? Here is a quote from that movie that your responnse reminded me of:
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
(one of my favorite all time movies!)
You have again failed to debunk any of the evidence in the article and have not addressed any of the conclusions made by scientists in the literature provided.
- Please stop demanding to see transitional forms. I KNOW for a fact that you have been informed that almost all species are transitional (unless their population group dies out) MANY times. This is a completely bogus argument.
As for fossil rarity. It's slightly off-topic, but I found the article/essay here to be very enlightening.
http://www.freeinquiry.com/challenge.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 2:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 4:35 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 81 of 243 (275418)
01-03-2006 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by randman
01-03-2006 4:35 PM


Re: evidence >>>>>>>>> opinion
It all depends on how you define the word transitional.
The terms 'transitional' and 'intermediate' are for the most part used as synonyms to each other. However, a distinction between the two can be made:
* Transitional can be used for those forms that do not have a significant amount of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words: a transitional is morphologically close (if not identical) to the actual common ancestor of itself and the derived relative.
* Intermediate can be used for those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative.
So let's say that all species are intermediates..... will that make you happy? Keep in mind that these are all artificial human classifications in any case.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia
EDIT: Remember that all of these terms and classifications were invented to DESCRIBE EVIDENCE. Not the other way around. The evidence was found and examined and then systems for explaining it were invented!
slightly off topic: Why do we test drugs on chimpanzees and not dogs?
This message has been edited by Mini_Ditka, 01-03-2006 04:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 4:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 4:45 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 85 of 243 (275427)
01-03-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by randman
01-03-2006 4:45 PM


Re: evidence >>>>>>>>> opinion
the story of evo factual claims
Nice job quote mining. Have you ever made a reasoned argument against evolution that was supported by evidence?
All I have ever seen you do is claim there is a worldwide evolutionist conspiracy. Do you think there is a worldwide gravitionalist conspiracy? How about an electromagnetist conspiracy?
If evolution was not true a scientist would be the first person to want to discover it. Do you know how famous the scientist who discovered the evidence against evolution would be? If their study/evidence was valid they would be one of the most famous scientists of all time!
There's a reason this hasn't happened.................
I reiterate: Why is it more effective to test drugs on chimpanzees over dogs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 4:45 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 5:25 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers 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