You know the drill, new forms appeared rapidly followed by little change. This time it’s whales, the late comers turned allstars of the ocean. Somehow the whale ancestors lost their hind limbs, grinding teeth and pelvises and developed a host of new features with great efficiency. These new features include the fluke tail with its unique vertical propelling motion, the huge filter-feeding jaw, and the ability to give live birth and raise its young in the marine environment. All this while acquiring superior skills in its new marine environment. The latest entry to the community could swim, dive and feed better than most fish and sharks. It all just happened to happen, and with great evolutionary speed.The evolution of early whales has been described as explosively fast. As one evolutionist explained this week:
We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on.
It is remarkable how evolution has produced such amazing creatures.
Gould and Eldredge got here 38 years ago. Do you have a better explanation?
ReplyDelete55 million years ago, cetaceans began living in the sea.
ReplyDelete35 million years ago, the common ancestor of modern whales.
25 million years ago, whales have diverged to occupy three distinct ecologies.
Lightning fast!
In any case, adaptive radiation is an orthodox mechanism. A new environment becomes available, and organisms rapidly evolve and diversify. Galápagos tortoises and finches are examples.
In 20 million years a cetacan became a whale ancestor.
ReplyDeleteIn 10 million years the common ancestor become three different kind of whales.
Since 25 million years we have only whales.
Blas: Since 25 million years we have only whales.
ReplyDeleteWith modification, of course. That's the expected pattern. A new environment opens up, there is a burst of adaptive radiation as the organism diversifies into the various niches, followed by more gradual evolution. This is not an ad hoc modification of the Theory of Evolution, but was discussed by Darwin in Origin of Species.
Darwin: it is probable that the periods, during which each {species} underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition.
Can anyone explain Dr. Hunter's point in posting these inane virtually science-free personal incredulity rants of his? The only possible thing I can see is to pander to the handful of scientifically illiterate creationists who like to hear this sort of stuff.
ReplyDeleteAny other ideas? Because it sure has nothing to do with discussing the actual science involved.
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"scientifically illiterate creationists"
It is the evolutionists that are scientifically illiterate. Accepting that these changes happened randomly is an act of blind faith similar to following in a herd of lemmngs jumping of the end of a cliff.
Peter: Accepting that these changes happened randomly is an act of blind faith similar to following in a herd of lemmngs jumping of the end of a cliff.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not a random process.
The changes don't happen randomly. See:
ReplyDeletehttp://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html
Can anyone explain to me why scientists so easily accept that a land mammal evolved into a whale?
ReplyDeleteI join with Dr. Hunter, not in an argument from incredulity, but in an argument from legitimate skepticism.
The story begins with an animal that supposedly is perfectly adapted to living on land, and some mutation comes along that sets it on a path to become a sea dwelling mammal. But evolution never sets an animal on a path to become something else, yet this is what the fossil record seems to suggest. Where are all the failed experiments?
And the right random mutations just happen to come along to carefully "re-engineer" the animal step by step into a whale, with each step providing a selective advantage. How convenient.
Can someone explain to me the steps that are involved in gradually changing legs into flippers, such that each step along the way provides a selective advantage? It seems to me that the intermediate stages would neither be advantageous for walking or swimming.
Can someone tell me when and how the testes became internalized? Along with becoming internalized, a cooling system had to co-evolve, otherwise the whale would be sterile. It seems that the redesign of the reproductive system alone would take untold numbers of mutations, and there seems to be no viable, intermediate steps.
Can someone tell me how the spine was redesigned step-by-step with each step providing a selective advantage to allow for vertical movement rather than horizontal flexing?
Did this occur before the whale become fully aquatic or after? If it occurred before, then evolution would be anticipating a need, which evolution can't do. If the spine changed after the whale became aquatic, it would seem to be at a selective disadvantage.
I am sure there are hundreds (thousands?) of questions like the ones I have that need to be answered. Without answers to what I think are very fundamental questions, the claim that a land animal evolved into whale remains an implausible claim.
Diversification/speciation is dependent on ecological opportunity, i.e., available niches. It will proceed rapidly if open niches are available, but will slow considerably when the niches begin to fill up. This is uncontroversial ecology.
ReplyDeleteDave Wisker
"Can anyone explain Dr. Hunter's point in posting these inane virtually science-free personal incredulity rants of his?"
ReplyDeleteOr your poclivity to read them? If so inane, why so interested? Surely you would move on to more intellectually challenging waters by now?
What is really "science free" is the claim that mammals went back to the waters in this manner. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how many morphological changes took place to accomplish this? Nearest ten thousand would be a decent place to start.
Ok, let me see if I get this straight. Correct me if I am making any assumptions.
ReplyDeleteLife originates in the oceans, moves onto land(some stays in the oceans), then some moves back into the water. As I understand the explanation of natural selection mutations occur all the time, the bad ones are filtered out, the organisms with positive mutations that helps it adapt to its current environment win out. So in this case you have land animals. Questions.
1) What is the force/natural disaster that made them need to adapt to water? If necessity was not there why would they need to adapt to it?
2) Assuming a disaster (meteor,earthwide flood,etc) the need to adapt would be almost instantaneous. How could they possibly mutate that much that quickly? ie. Imagine tectonic forces that make the entire planet go underwater. Does that mean the human race would go extinct? Or would some of our children almost instantly develop gills and other apparatus that would let then survive in the water?
3) Does this mean that any time we see a child born with some weird deformity it is a mutation that under some circumstances/environments would give him an advantage?
I cannot see how that could be so but I await your reply.
Rephrase question 3 to "some of the times we see children born with deformities/abnormailities".
ReplyDeleteZachriel,
ReplyDelete"Evolution is not a random process."
I know. It is anything an evolutionist wants it to be. It is random. It is not random. It is based on selection. It is based on genetic drift. How very convenient, and unconvincing.
.
So a cetacean is not species, whales ancestor are not species but whales are. Whales are settled to remain unchanged or change at different rate that cetacean and whale ancestor.
ReplyDeleteWhy? This rate of change is regulated by what? Magic?
"Galápagos tortoises and finches are examples.'
ReplyDeleteZachriel, what do you mean?
Doublee -
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain to me why scientists so easily accept that a land mammal evolved into a whale?
I'll ignore the fossil evidence for a moment and start with the genetic evidence. By comparing the DNA of living creatures we can assertain with an extremely high level of certainty, the relatedness between them. As it turns out, whales are deeply imbedded in a group of mammals which include hippos and pigs - indeed recent evidence suggests whales are the closest living relatives of hippos, closer than pigs are.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318153803.htm
The story begins with an animal that supposedly is perfectly adapted to living on land, and some mutation comes along that sets it on a path to become a sea dwelling mammal. But evolution never sets an animal on a path to become something else, yet this is what the fossil record seems to suggest. Where are all the failed experiments?
This illustrates a lack of understanding about how evolution actually works. No, evolution did not 'set an animal on a path to become something else', at least, not in the conscious, deliberate sense you seem to be implying. The land-living ancestors of whales gradually became more and more acclimatised to life in the water. This would not produce 'failed experiments' in the sense of fully-formed creatures put together from a huge number of random mutations all occuring in the same individual. That is not how evolution works. It is a culumative process, slowly and selectively building up advantageous mutations. It does not produce individuals who are genetically wildly different from their parents.
Or perhaps I am just taking you too literally? Perhaps you meant it in a slow, progressive sense. In which case, I present the toothed whales. As whales evolved some developed baleen and some retained the teeth (and carnivorous diets). However, the tooth whales have all died out. Only the baleen-toothed filter-feeders remain. Are the toothed whales what you mean by 'failed experiments', since they have become extinct?
Can someone explain to me the steps that are involved in gradually changing legs into flippers, such that each step along the way provides a selective advantage? It seems to me that the intermediate stages would neither be advantageous for walking or swimming.
Well if a land-living four-legged animal took to living in the water, then legs which were better suited to life in the water would be a selective advantage. Consider the difference between, say, weasels and otters. Very similar creatures, but otters are semi-aquatic. They show adaption to life in the water. For example, they have webbed toes. That would not be an advantage for weasels. But for otters, it would.
Peter:
ReplyDeleteNo kidding!
That's exactly the problem.
Evolution is all things and nothing - depending on the Darwinists current need to explain away something inexplicable under NDE (neo darwinian evol).
One of the most hilarious crocks in all of Darwinian bull shitting is the alleged evolution of whales.
I showed the pix of the alleged ancestor of the modern whale (on the national geo. site) to some friends - including at least 1 Darwinian.
They all broke out laughing when they saw that little mouse deer like mammal that they claimed was the ancestor of huge sea going whales.
Even the evolutionist laughed.
Why? Because its so blatantly ludicrous that even he didn't swallow the codswallop!
But the rest of Darwinists just don't get how inane this particular instance of Darwinian fairy tale spinning - far beyond the Brothers Grimm - really is.
May as well claim princes came (evolved rapidly) from kissed frogs.
No wonder so much of the public still doesn't believe the Darwin myth. The have good reason indeed.
The most amazing thing of all though is to see Dawkins (or his ilk) wearing a serious face while arrogantly proclaiming that this is how whales evolved!
He points his stick at the small poster on the wall showing some drawings of how it happened, as though the nice pictures were real life accurate.
And then they claim that is science!! God help us.
Doublee (continued)
ReplyDeleteCan someone tell me how the spine was redesigned step-by-step with each step providing a selective advantage to allow for vertical movement rather than horizontal flexing?
A mammal's spine is more adept at flexing up and down (from a tertrapod's perspective) than it is from side to side. The turning point where this happened was when the legs of reptilian ancestors of mammals moved to sit under the body rather than jutt out the side like a crocodile's. Imagine a crocodile walking. The positioning of its legs means it flexes its spine from side to side as it moves. A mammal does not move like this. This is not an adaption that happen to whales alone in the last 50 years of their evolution - it happened hundreds of millions of years ago when reptiles were becoming mammals.
Now let me mention the fossils. We have quite a cache of specimens. Here is a diagram you might find instructive:
http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/whales-graph.jpg
These specimens distinctly detail the adaptations which changed a whale from a fully land-living mammal into a fully aquatic one, such as the progression of the nostrils up the face to the 'blowhole', the disappearance of the hind limbs, the change of the front limbs into flippers.
I am sure there are hundreds (thousands?) of questions like the ones I have that need to be answered. Without answers to what I think are very fundamental questions, the claim that a land animal evolved into whale remains an implausible claim.
The thing is, are you really, sincerely looking for answers? Are you actually trying to find out the answers to these questions? Or are you just trying to think up as many questions as you can to bolster an argument from incredulity?
"1) What is the force/natural disaster that made them need to adapt to water? If necessity was not there why would they need to adapt to it? "
ReplyDeleteAvoiding competition is one possibility. Competition is very expensive, energy-wise. Energy spent competing can be reinvested into reproduction if a species can exploit a different niche. Suggested reading: "The Economy of Nature", by Robert Ricklefs, a classic basic textbook on ecology.
Dave Wisker
Fil: "1) What is the force/natural disaster that made them need to adapt to water? If necessity was not there why would they need to adapt to it?
ReplyDeleteNo disaster. The 'force' is that the local environment changed and open up a new ecological niche which the animals exploited. Animals that lived / fed in and near the water had a better chance to survive and mate. Could be better/more reliable food supply, better protection from predators, etc, In each generation natural selection gave those with morphological adaptations useful for aquatic living (paws shaped more like fins for example) a slight advantage over those who didn't. Repeat for thousands of generations, and you end up with a fully aquatic mammal like a whale.
You can see snapshots of the process today with semi-aquatic mammals like otters, and mostly aquatic ones like seals and sea lions.
Fil, if you are seriously interested in learning about the solid science and evidence behind the ToE, here is a great web site run by The University of California / Berkeley Museum of Natural History
Understanding Evolution
It's written mostly for laymen, but has enough details to cover the basics. There are lots of pages and topics because there is lots of positive evidence for ToE. Please read it over, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
"Animals that lived / fed in and near the water had a better chance to survive and mate. Could be better/more reliable food supply, better protection from predators, etc"
ReplyDeleteOf course! the water where lives fishes adapted to it since 500 MY has less predators and more food supply for an adapting mammal. I understand now why I saw a monkey trying to eat fish at the beach last summer!
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone be so wrong so often about so many things the way you are here?
Absolutely stunning gullibility and stunning ignorance of the facts.
No, we cannot show relatedness by minor genetic comparisons any more than we can by morphological ones.
If you knew anything at all of these issues you would know that cladistics systematics and genetics are more often than not at odds with each other.
There is no obvious evolutionary "tree of life".
And no, comparing parts of genomes does not indicate "evolutionary relation" any more than comparing parts of cars indicates designer relations.
You are obliged to first assume macro-evolution is true to even come to such a conclusion.
That's called begging the question. Get it?
You do that all the time and it appears that no matter how many times you are corrected on this you return to the same fallacy immediately! Then you wonder why you are insulted for your stubborn refusal to learn!
You say you'll "ignore the fossil record for a moment"?
It is more than obvious that you ignore it completely since that very record makes havoc of the inane Darwinian fantasy.
Then you go on with the usual incredibly over simplified, even childish nonsense you Darwinians habitually exchange for facts -random mutations and selection creating all life on earth for no reason with no guidance or goals!
And this started a couple of billion years ago when DNA magically appeared out of the "soup" and magically changed itself into approx. 13 million vastly differing perfectly functional and incredibly complex life forms!
I'm sure Darwin was actually a member of the Worrell family since his followers have been getting dumber and dumber ever since.
The explanations get more and more dumb over the years and the theory continues to adapt itself to anything and everything.
It has to because, to the blind self-restricted materialist mind, it has to be true - because materialist metaphysics dictate it!
Gullibility drives Darwinism and it matters.
Fil -
ReplyDeleteLife originates in the oceans, moves onto land(some stays in the oceans),
Yes, right so far,
...then some moves back into the water.
Yes, but be careful not to think of this as a single event. For as long as there have been land-living animals, there have been species which return to the water. There were many aquatic reptiles who returned to the waters in the time of the dinosaurs. There are many aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals today - from otters, to seals, to whales, who returned to the water totally independently of each other.
As I understand the explanation of natural selection mutations occur all the time, the bad ones are filtered out,
Yep.
the organisms with positive mutations that helps it adapt to its current environment win out.
Yep.
1) What is the force/natural disaster that made them need to adapt to water? If necessity was not there why would they need to adapt to it?
Go back to the point I just made that lots of species have returned to the water. Each driven by its own unique environmental forces and pressures. In the case of whales, well it is important to remember the seas had been ruled for hundreds of millions of years by fearsome aquatic reptiles. They were mostly killed off in the extinction which carried off the dinosaurs.
Great extinctions are generally followed by an expolsion in biodiversity in the creatures which survive. Without the dominant species, the survivors can vie for power, and there are whole ecosystems up for grabs. I am not an expert by I personally doubt whales would ever have had the opportunity to evolve had the marine reptiles all survived the extinction.
2) Assuming a disaster (meteor,earthwide flood,etc) the need to adapt would be almost instantaneous. How could they possibly mutate that much that quickly?
Yes, the opportunity is there instantaneously. But evolution takes as long as it takes. If a natural disaster wipes out all creatures of a certain size, there will suddenly be the opportunity for the surviving species to become as big as possible (being big is generally a good survival strategy). It may take a long time for evolution to let your species get big, but it will take a long time for every other species to get big too. Obviously, the faster your species can grow in size the better. The winner gets to fill a valuable niche. But that does not necessarily mean it will be instantaneous.
Does that mean the human race would go extinct? Or would some of our children almost instantly develop gills and other apparatus that would let then survive in the water?
The former. Features like that do not develop in single generations.
3(revised)) Does this mean that some of the times we see children born with deformities/abnormailities it is a mutation that under some circumstances/environments would give him an advantage?
Well, kinda. Every human body contains mutations unique to itself. It is just that most are never expressed. Some can express themselves, and they do so in many ways. Some can 'disable' functioning gene sequences and result in blindness or deafness. Some may result in physical deformities. Often we would consider these mutatuions disadvantageous since they would hinder the survival on the individuals. But some mutations can be actively beneficial, eg, some people can see in the dark almost as well as they do in the day. Under most circumstances I would imagine people would generally call this a benefit.
"3) Does this mean that any time we see a child born with some weird deformity it is a mutation that under some circumstances/environments would give him an advantage?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Genetics acknowledges there are harmful loss-of-function and gain-of function mutations. 60-80% + of human fertilizations fail to result in a child, some due to failure of implantation, some due to arrest in development due to mutations. We're all familiar with birt defects-some are environmental, some genetic.
Most childhood leukemias are spontaneous gain-of-function mutations (and since we're told evolution can't create novel functions or information, these must be the direct handiwork of the designer). No?
But there are 'good' spontaneous mutations observed, too. Scientists have tracked the mutation that gave the "Mr. Universe Jr." his physique.
Myostatin mutation associated with gross muscle hypertrophy in a child.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15352277
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 2;351(10):1030-1
Now, if all humanity needed to lift huge rocks to find food that could support that muscle growth, that mutation would be fixed pretty quickly, no?
Gary -
ReplyDeleteIt really is such an effort to trawl through your posts trying to find actual points worth responding to amongst all the vitrolic bile. If you could keep the former to a maximum and the latter to a minimum, that would help so much, thanks.
No, we cannot show relatedness by minor genetic comparisons any more than we can by morphological ones.
We do it all the time. Paternity tests, for example.
There is no obvious evolutionary "tree of life".
... that you want to acknowledge.
The fossil and the DNA record both reveal a distinct tree of life and correlate very closely.
You are obliged to first assume macro-evolution is true to even come to such a conclusion.
That's called begging the question. Get it?
And if you assume macro-evolution is true, then a Hell of a lot of evidence suddenly makes a great deal of sense.
You do that all the time and it appears that no matter how many times you are corrected on this you return to the same fallacy immediately! Then you wonder why you are insulted for your stubborn refusal to learn!
What a wonderful teacher you would make. I do not think it is acceptable to insult people even if they do fail to grasp points you are trying to teach them (I assume this is how you see it). Should I heap personal abuse onto my niece if she fails to understand something I am trying to teach her?
Gary, you seems to be the arch-typical blustering but woefully ignorant creationist. I've yet to see a single scientifically accurate thought among your barely coherent rants. Why don't you go read the Berkeley: Understanding Evolution site too. At least then your foaming at the mouth would have a slight chance of being tangentially connected to reality.
ReplyDeleteI love reading these ad hoc neo-Darwinian explanations. What fun.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, could some creationist summarize the methodology and results of this paper, the author's conclusions, and explain instead how it demonstrates ID?
ReplyDeleteLooking at it, I see some very nice phylogenies, excellent data, and some support for a quick (millions and millions of years) radiation.
What evidence of design is there? How was it detected? Why did the design take millions of years to execute? Why utilize intermediates (clearly present in the fossil record) in design? Why create designs to allow them to go extinct (many times more whale species are extinct then living)?
Why was the design executed in a manner that causes the modern genomic data to precisely fit the appearance of evolution?
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, are you really, sincerely looking for answers? Are you actually trying to find out the answers to these questions? Or are you just trying to think up as many questions as you can to bolster an argument from incredulity?
I am not looking for answers per se. I am asking questions that I think science should answer before they can claim a land animal evolved into a whale. People much smarter than I are asking the same questions. Dr. David Berlinski and Dr. Richard Sternberg come to mind.
The fact that they are asking these questions suggests to me that they haven't been answered yet. On that basis, I doubt that any search I could do would come with the answers to the questions I pose.
If an argument from personal incredulity means that because I don't believe whales evolved from land animals, and therefore I believe that some other hypothesis is true, I contend I am not making such an argument.
My position (not argument) is that land animals could very well have evolved into whales. I just don't see that the many evidences and assertions made so far have demonstrated that.
What is especially troubling is the following exchange:
Me: Can someone explain to me the steps that are involved in gradually changing legs into flippers, such that each step along the way provides a selective advantage?
Ritchie: Well if a land-living four-legged animal took to living in the water, then legs which were better suited to life in the water would be a selective advantage.
Essentially repeating my question as an answer is not an answer to my question.
I can't argue with the proposition that legs that are better suited to life in the water are better suited to life in the water.
Want I want to see is a plausible, detailed outline of the sequence of genetic changes required to bring about the leg to flipper transition. How many genetic changes would be required, and at a given mutation rate and population size how long would these transitions take?
Just to perform this one task no doubt is an undertaking beyond my ability to see its scope. But yet I sense that until there is some kind of understanding of the specific details of evolution, science cannot claim that it has an explanation for the history of life.
"Want I want to see is a plausible, detailed outline of the sequence of genetic changes required to bring about the leg to flipper transition."
ReplyDeleteWhat you are asking for is a work in progress. Dolphin, seal, and other genomes that would help in the comparison are relatively new. Nevertheless, some key genes, their effect, and evolutionary paths have been traced:
Adaptive evolution of 5'HoxD genes in the origin and diversification of the cetacean flipper.
Mol Biol Evol. 2009 Mar;26(3):613-22.
"In Hoxd12, we found evidence of Darwinian selection associated with both episodes of cetacean forelimb reorganization. In Hoxd13, we found a novel expansion of a polyalanine tract in cetaceans compared with other mammals (17/18 residues vs. 14/15 residues, respectively), lengthening of which has previously been shown to be linked to synpolydactyly in humans and mice. Both genes also show much greater sequence variation among cetaceans than across other mammalian lineages. Our results strongly implicate 5'HoxD genes in the modulation of digit number, web forming, and the high morphological diversity of the cetacean manus."
Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 30;103(22):8414-8.
"Among mammals, modern cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) are unusual in the absence of hind limbs. However, cetacean embryos do initiate hind-limb bud development.... The total loss of Shh expression may account for the further loss of hind-limb elements that occurred near the origin of the modern suborders of cetaceans approximately 34 million years ago. Integration of paleontological and developmental data suggests that hind-limb size was reduced by gradually operating microevolutionary changes."
Doublee -
ReplyDeleteI am not looking for answers per se. I am asking questions that I think science should answer before they can claim a land animal evolved into a whale.
You mean claim it as an absolute fact? We can never claim anything as an absolute fact. If two men - one carrying a gun - walk into a totally empty room without windows, trapdoors or furniture of any kind and then there is a gunshot and ten people rush in to find one man dead and the other holding the gun saying 'I'm glad I shot him', we can never prove as an absolute fact that the man shot the other. Fingerprints, videocamera footage, confessions and the lack of credible alternatives all are extremely good evidence, but can never amount to absolute proof.
The best we can do is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The question is, does the evidence we have add up to proof beyond reasonable doubt? Since this is subjective, there will always be people who will answer no, no matter how much evidence there is. If someone is committed to the belief that evolution MUST be wrong (to pick a totally random example, because biodiversity is actually the result of intervention from God) then no amount of evidence is likely to persuade them.
The fact that they are asking these questions suggests to me that they haven't been answered yet. On that basis, I doubt that any search I could do would come with the answers to the questions I pose.
I don't believe that is the case at all. An afternoon of dedicated and sincere Googling can reap wonders.
My position (not argument) is that land animals could very well have evolved into whales. I just don't see that the many evidences and assertions made so far have demonstrated that.
And what standard of evidence do you require to convince you of this? Bear in mind you could ALWAYS say there is not enough evidence, so you need to be clear on how much is reasonable, and you would be willing to accept.
Want I want to see is a plausible, detailed outline of the sequence of genetic changes required to bring about the leg to flipper transition. How many genetic changes would be required, and at a given mutation rate and population size how long would these transitions take?
I am not a scientist and am in no position to give you these answers. But again, look for yourself. Here is a link to start you off with:
http://www.darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm#whales
Though sparse on information itself, it has lot of links for you to follow.
Or just google 'whale evolution'. Give it a go. See what you turn up.
Allen MacNeill:
ReplyDelete"The changes don't happen randomly."
But if we're going to correct the record, shouldn't we clarify that the new synthesis maintained that biological variation is random with respect to need?
...or you could wait for RobertC to explain it. He seems very clued-up on the facts.
ReplyDelete:)
Dr Hunter writes:
ReplyDelete"Allen MacNeil: "The changes don't happen randomly."
Dr Hunter: "But if we're going to correct the record, shouldn't we clarify that the new synthesis maintained that biological variation is random with respect to need?"
How many times must evolutionary biologists explain this before IDers and creationists stop pretending they haven't heard it?
Dave Wisker
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"Can anyone explain Dr. Hunter's point in posting these inane virtually science-free personal incredulity rants of his? The only possible thing I can see is to pander to the handful of scientifically illiterate creationists who like to hear this sort of stuff."
My thought has always been that its an attempt by the Disco Tute to get a credible scientist who does not support of ID to cast doubt on evolution. This would explain why Dr. Hunter refuses to postulate any explanation of his own for these evolutionary inconsistancies. That and he's honing his arguments and generating material for his next book.
T. Cook said...
ReplyDeleteMy thought has always been that its an attempt by the Disco Tute to get a credible scientist who does not support of ID to cast doubt on evolution. This would explain why Dr. Hunter refuses to postulate any explanation of his own for these evolutionary inconsistancies. That and he's honing his arguments and generating material for his next book.
Is that it Dr. Hunter? Are you just gathering material for another pseudo-science popular press hardback to con more money from the True Believers? It worked for Johathan Wells and his "Ten Idiotic Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Science to Embarrass Yourself By Asking". No reason you shouldn't get a slice of that "pander to the ignorant" pie too. People that gullible deserve to be separated from their money, right?
The problem with drawing on the likes of ScienceDaily for your news is that the tend to get big pow-wow quotes from one of the paper's authors who will, inevitably, focus on meeting ScienceDaily's news values. This means taking a slant on what is new, controversial or apparently unexpected in their work, regardless of whether that slant is genuinely important.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, infact, theory predicts that morphological diversity will occur rapidly in radiations, with differences becoming smaller over time as species numbers increase. Nothing about this aspect of the whale radiation is surprising.
This has been demonstrated in a radiation of Galapagos snails, in line with this theoretical prediction:
Parent & Crespi (2009). Ecological Opportunity in Adaptive Radiation of Gala´pagos Endemic Land Snails. Am Nat 174, 898–905.
Abstract here.
And incidentally, the same pattern appears most likely to be true of the early terrestrial mammals too:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/652466
Cornelius, this is partially a duplicate of a question you asked me in another forum, but part of it is applicable here as well:
ReplyDelete...As for your 'scientific straw men'; I don't think anything could illustrate it better than your article on whale evolution on June 1st. You paint the picture of a scientific community befuddled by the fact that the ancestors of whales evolved at an irregular pace. As Zachriel pointed out, even Darwin predicted this:
"...it is probable that the periods, during which each {species} underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition."
Incredibly, you have taken a fulfilled prediction of evolution, and classified it as a falsified prediction. Frankly, it's embarrassing to watch a fellow Christian spew such distorted thinking. If you're going to point out failed predictions of evolutionary theory, fine, I'm sure there are plenty; the pace of whale evolution certainly isn't one, and neither are the differences in the human and chimp y-chromosome, nor is 'complexity', or just about anything else you've written about lately.
Zachriel: In any case, adaptive radiation is an orthodox mechanism. A new environment becomes available, and organisms rapidly evolve and diversify. Galápagos tortoises and finches are examples.'
ReplyDeleteFil: Zachriel, what do you mean?
The Galápagos Islands vary in age from 1 to 5 million years or so. They were colonized by a single species of finch from the South American mainland that then diversified in a geologically short period of time into a variety of different behaviors and morphologies like wrens, warblers, even woodpeckers.
Zachriel: Evolution is not a random process.
Peter: I know. It is anything an evolutionist wants it to be. It is random. It is not random. It is based on selection. It is based on genetic drift. How very convenient, and unconvincing.
You are confusing evolution and variation. While variation is generally uncorrelated with biological need (i.e. random with respect to fitness), evolution is far from random. You might compare it to individual gas molecules which move randomly, but collectively act to expand and fill empty vessels.
Peter: Accepting that these changes happened randomly is an act of blind faith similar to following in a herd of lemmngs jumping of the end of a cliff.
ReplyDeleteZach: Evolution is not a random process.
Peter: I know.
So Peter clearly knew that he was violating the Ninth Commandment. Peter, if evolutionary theory is so bad, why do you have to grossly misrepresent it to attack it? Why does it justify ignoring one of the best rules of the Judeo-Christian tradition?
Dr. Hunter: "But if we're going to correct the record, shouldn't we clarify that the new synthesis maintained that biological variation is random with respect to need?"
We do, and there's vast quantities of evidence to support that, which we both know you'll never address here. We also know that mutation (which is just a component of Darwinian and non-Darwinian mechanisms) is not even remotely random wrt location in the genome, which is another reason that Peter's use of this simplistic "random" description is so dishonest.
What are YOU doing to correct creationists and IDers who routinely employ Peter's bald-faced lie to obfuscate?
Why aren't YOU doing empirical research?
Here is a great article showing the evidence for or rather lack of evidence for whale evolution:
ReplyDeletehttp://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution
The fossil record is one of either quick change or of long ages of no change as stated. As older fossils are discovered, the amount of time available for evolution becomes less and less and then we are forced to believe in no change for millions of years. Evolution is amazing because it explains rapid change as well as no change over long periods of time. Both are evidence for evolution we are told. Hmmm.
Zachriel
ReplyDelete"You are confusing evolution and variation. While variation is generally uncorrelated with biological need (i.e. random with respect to fitness), evolution is far from random. You might compare it to individual gas molecules which move randomly, but collectively act to expand and fill empty vessels."
Nice attempt at obfuscation. The driving mechanism is still randomness. Randomness is required to 'generate' the changes which are selected for. No randomness, no changes, therefore no evolution.
.
Any of you guys want to explain why whales and dolphins are sometimes born with atavistic legs?
ReplyDeleteAnyone?
Don't all speak up at once now.
Thornton,
ReplyDeleteCan you give a documented example of these atavistic legs?
tokyojim said...
ReplyDeleteThornton,
Can you give a documented example of these atavistic legs?
Certainly.
HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES: Example 1
HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES: Example 2
HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES: Example 3
HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES: Example 4
HIND LIMB RUDIMENTS FOUND ON MODERN DAY WHALES: Example 5
Here is a recent case (2006) of a dolphin born with atavistic rear limbs.
A dolphin with hindlimbs
Examples from cetacean researcher Edward Babinski's excellent Whale Evolution site.
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete"Gary, you seems to be the arch-typical blustering but woefully ignorant creationist."
Denial of reality is all you 'seems' to muster.
If only you understood any of the points I bring against your inane ideas it could be worth attempting to enlighten your darkened little brain further.
The terms of reference and fact based arguments I use are, sadly, so far beyond your pitiful level of knowledge its like trying to instruct a 3rd grader on quantum physics - would be comical if not so serious.
As the twit who got kicked off UD for being such a lame brained & arrogant yet uninformed nerd, you obviously even don't have a clue what I'm talking about!
Pretty amazing for a wannabe "expert" - just like all the other wannabe experts I've trounced in debates over the last 20 years or so by using solid facts.
Those who understand end up as IDists or full blown creationists.
You don't because your mind is on HOLD.
"I've yet to see a single scientifically accurate thought among your barely coherent rants."
ROTFLMAO. Yes, tell that to the brilliant (and still using their reason and facts rather than their imaginations) scientists I get my "barely coherent rants from.
"Why don't you go read the Berkeley: Understanding Evolution site too."
Let me get this straight - you want to send me to a Darwinian fundamentalist run school, where anyone questioning the Primary Axiom is persecuted and black balled? And that to learn Darwin's "simple idea" huh?
And they are going to tell me the whole truth huh? hahahahaha!!
Sorry, it is ever clearer that I know more about Darwinian evolution than you ever will.
You and Ritchie must be lodging in the same asylum.
Ritchie: "I do not think it is acceptable to insult people even if they do fail to grasp points you are trying to teach them (I assume this is how you see it). Should I heap personal abuse onto my niece if she fails to understand something I am trying to teach her?
ReplyDeleteWhen someone absolutely refuses to understand or accept simple facts, rejects current research (and everything that disturbs their personal views) and then perpetually worms their way out of the obvious using pseudo-logic incredibly flawed reasonings etc. - it is proof of willful, stubborn, thick hardheadedness and not evidence of a willing to learn student.
You are that thick "student" -wannabe teacher- who is willfully obstinate at rejecting facts in preference to your long lists of fiction, conjecture, speculation and gratuitous extrapolations that you wish to "teach others".
Such a "student", if I may abuse the term, deserves nothing but disdain and indeed insult.
YOU ARE that "student" - just as is thornton and several other adamantly unteachable materialist dupes that post here only to discourage other true students from learning the truth about the Darwinian lie.
Get over it and change your dark heart.
Gary: "
ReplyDeletePretty amazing for a wannabe "expert" - just like all the other wannabe experts I've trounced in debates over the last 20 years or so by using solid facts."
LOL! Sure thing Gary. You're a legend in your own mind.
Why don't you ask all those brilliant scientists to give you the explanation for whales and dolphins occasionally being born with atavistic limbs? The one you just can't seem to come up with on your own.
"Such a "student", if I may abuse the term, deserves nothing but disdain and indeed insult. "
ReplyDeleteWow Gary. I disagree with Thornton and Ritchie mostly. I believe in God and the bible(do you?) but that attitude is scripturally wrong.
I understand that the pelvis of the whale anchors muscles that support the sex organs. And sometimes humans are born with extra digits. But that doesn't mean that humans evolved from a seven fingered ancestor.
ReplyDeleteGary: "When someone absolutely refuses to understand or accept simple facts, rejects current research (and everything that disturbs their personal views) and then perpetually worms their way out of the obvious using pseudo-logic incredibly flawed reasonings etc. - it is proof of willful, stubborn, thick hardheadedness and not evidence of a willing to learn student"
ReplyDeleteGary,
I know you're speaking primarily to Ritchie and Thorton, and I can only speak for myself, but my acceptance of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it "disturbs my personal views," and it is most certainly not a issue of hardheadedness. I consider myself a fairly conservative Christian, and I was not only a creationist for most of my life, but a ardent young earth creationist to boot. I can't speak for the materialists in here (if any) but I am completely open to hearing the simple facts you speak of. From a theological standpoint, I'm open to a young earth, and old earth, special creation, progressive creation, theistic evolution, natural evolution, etc, so I don't have any 'metaphysical biases' as CH likes to call them anymore. (other than the fact that I don't believe that God would intentionally engineer every piece of evidence we can find to make it look like we evolved if in fact we didn't-- that could be considered a metaphysical bias - but believing God to not be intentionally deceitful isn't exactly unorthodox either.)
If you had told me even a few years ago that I would accept evolution today, I'd have called you crazy. I had it firmly in my mind (as you seem to) that one cannot be a 'real' Christian and accept that our origin can also be explained in natural terms. (or even believe that the earth was a day over 6,000 years old) The problem with that belief is that I started to come across 'real' Christians who did accept evolution. This confused me at first, so I decided to investigate why they accepted it. I wasn't indocrinated, I never went through the science department at a 'Darwinian fundamentalist' school, (an oxymoron, by the way) and I wasn't suffering from the severe confirmation bias any longer that I had been earlier in life. I discovered that I had simply been misinformed about many things. When I step back from my preconceptions and look at the data as honestly as I humanly can, the evidence seems to me to point clearly in the direction of descent with modification via natural selection. I presume this is the case for Ritchie and Thorton and everyone else here who accepts evolution. This is not a 'heart' issue. It's a 'data' issue. This is an issue of which theory best explains the observations. Some might object here and point out here that ID could also explain everything. A 'theory' which could explain anything you could possibly observe explains nothing.
"Such a "student", if I may abuse the term, deserves nothing but disdain and indeed insult. "
And to be frank, your terse language is juvenile; you do often come across as an angry ignoramus.
And to be frank, your terse language is juvenile; you do often come across as an angry ignoramus.
ReplyDeleteThat may be correct. But my problem with Gary is that he still hasn't explained how statistical mechanics falsifies evolution.
Why does a theory that can explain everything explain nothing? Everything is not equal to nothing. And evolutionists constantly point out all the things ID does not explain, like whale legs, so ID does not explain everything.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteI understand that the pelvis of the whale anchors muscles that support the sex organs. And sometimes humans are born with extra digits. But that doesn't mean that humans evolved from a seven fingered ancestor.
The whale pelvis is a vestigial structure. Vestigial does not mean useless, it means having lost or been modified from its original function.
Polydactylism is caused by a genetic condition that leads to the overexpression of the HOX genes for digit development.
Neither of those conditions are atavisms, which are the reactivation of genes long dormant but still present from the animal's ancestral lineage.
Ask yourself - what are the genes for growing legs doing in whales and dolphins?
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteWhy does a theory that can explain everything explain nothing? Everything is not equal to nothing. And evolutionists constantly point out all the things ID does not explain, like whale legs, so ID does not explain everything
ToE doesn't have an explanation for everything, but it does explain a huge percentage of observed biological phenomena. That's a strong indicator that the basic tenets of the theory are correct.
ID, on the other hand, explains nothing. ID is not a theory, it's not even a testable hypothesis. It's an ad hoc crutch for those who desperately need to see their personal Deity involved in creation, somehow.
DC said above that it explain everything, which he said means nothing. I'm asking for the basis for saying everything is nothing. If ID is not testible, how can people say it has been falsified?
ReplyDeleteAnd the whales pelvis was put there because it serves a purpose. It is assumed that it was modified from it original structure.
Now, have the genes for whales hind legs actually been found? maybe the appearance of extra legs is like extra toes on humans. And if they have, they might serve some other purpose under normal circumstances. Occasionally a freak accident happens, and turns on the legs genes to make legs. I understand something similar happens in chickens with the Sonic gene, so they grow teeth. I admit I'm just speculating here.
And maybe evolution is a crutch for people who want to live lives of disipation, crime, hedonism, etc, etc. I'm just saying.
ReplyDeleteI recall seeing a report about a girl in India born with four legs and four arms. Surely this doesn't mean humans where descended from spiders.
ReplyDeletePeter: The driving mechanism is still randomness. Randomness is required to 'generate' the changes which are selected for. No randomness, no changes, therefore no evolution.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not a random process any more than gas pressure is a random process.
tokyojim: Can you give a documented example of these atavistic legs?
Notice the hind limb buds on this whale embryo.
natschuster: I recall seeing a report about a girl in India born with four legs and four arms. Surely this doesn't mean humans where descended from spiders.
The condition is called ischiopagus, conjoined twins.
Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"Evolution is not a random process any more than gas pressure is a random process."
The operation of gas pressure is observable, quantifiable, and replicatable. Evolution is none of these. You made a false analogy. According to evolutionists, evolution should never repeat itself if time is wound back. You are clearly unfamiliar with evolutionary theory.
.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteIf ID is not testible, how can people say it has been falsified?
Which people said that?
And the whales pelvis was put there because it serves a purpose. It is assumed that it was modified from it original structure.
A solid assumption backed up by plenty of fossil and genetic evidence.
Now, have the genes for whales hind legs actually been found? maybe the appearance of extra legs is like extra toes on humans.
* Extra* legs on whales? You mean in addition to their normal set?
And if they have, they might serve some other purpose under normal circumstances. Occasionally a freak accident happens, and turns on the legs genes to make legs.
I'll ask again - what are whales doing with the genes for legs in the first place?
What I meant by extra is the hind limbs.
ReplyDeleteAnd the leg gene in whales might be like the sonic gene in chickens. It controls other aspects of development in most cases. Sometimes something makes it tunr on hind legs as well.
natschuster said: "Why does a theory that can explain everything explain nothing? Everything is not equal to nothing. And evolutionists constantly point out all the things ID does not explain, like whale legs, so ID does not explain everything."
ReplyDeleteGood catch nat, I was careless in my wording. What I meant to say is that ID can conceivably explain *anything*. A theory that explains *anything* explains nothing.
ID could explain any possible feature of nature by saying "Well, God could have made it that way for some reason;" Whereas there would be many things we could find that would falsify evolution: precambrian rabbits, "Elephant, ©4004 BC, Designed by Jesus in California," encoded in Hebrew in the elephant genome, or a million other things.
Any 'theory' that is non falsifiable, (you couldn't think up something that would prove it wrong no matter how hard you tried) has no explanatory power at all. That doesn't automatically mean that it's wrong, just that it's 100% useless for gaining new understanding of anything.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant by extra is the hind limbs.
And the leg gene in whales might be like the sonic gene in chickens. It controls other aspects of development in most cases. Sometimes something makes it tunr on hind legs as well.
Actually, the gene responsible for hind limb development in marine mammals has been identified. In whales it is still present but suppressed.
Sequence Variation in the Tbx4 Gene in Marine Mammals
Abstract: The amino-acid sequences of the T-domain region of the Tbx4 gene, which is required for hindlimb development, are 100% identical in humans and mice. Cetaceans have lost most of their hindlimb structure, although hindlimb buds are present in very early cetacean embryos. To examine whether the Tbx4 gene has the same function in cetaceans as in other mammals, we analyzed Tbx4 sequences from cetaceans, dugong, artiodactyls and marine carnivores. A total of 39 primers were designed using human and dog Tbx4 nucleotide sequences. Exons 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Tbx4 genes from cetaceans, artiodactyls, and marine carnivores were sequenced. Non-synonymous substitution sites were detected in the T-domain regions from some cetacean species, but were not detected in those from artiodactyls, the dugong, or the carnivores. The C-terminal regions contained a number of non-synonymous substitutions. Although some indels were present, they were in groups of three nucleotides and therefore did not cause frame shifts. The dN/dS values for the T-domain and C-terminal regions of the cetacean and artiodactylous Tbx4 genes were much lower than 1, indicating that the Tbx4 gene maintains it function in cetaceans, although full expression leading to hindlimb development is suppressed.
Why don't you do some of that speculation stuff and take a guess as to why it is found in whales.
Zachriel: "You are confusing evolution and variation. While variation is generally uncorrelated with biological need (i.e. random with respect to fitness), evolution is far from random. You might compare it to individual gas molecules which move randomly, but collectively act to expand and fill empty vessels."
ReplyDelete-----------------------
That is an excellent analogy.
-----------------------
Peter: "The operation of gas pressure is observable, quantifiable, and replicatable. Evolution is none of these. You made a false analogy. According to evolutionists, evolution should never repeat itself if time is wound back. You are clearly unfamiliar with evolutionary theory."
-----------------------
I'm sorry Peter, but it seems in this case it is you who are clearly unfamiliar with evolutionary theory. (as well as how gas molecules behave at the atomic level) If you wound the clock back all the way and changed any variable, evolution would not repeat itself exactly, but many features seem to be useful enough to arise again and again. Flight and sight are two examples. If the ancestors of bats hadn't evolved powered flight, maybe the flying squirrels would have finished out the process.
----------------------
Peter: "Randomness is required to 'generate' the changes which are selected for. No randomness, no changes, therefore no evolution."
----------------------
It almost seems as if you are deliberately ignoring the point he is trying to make. Almost *every* natural process has an element of randomness to it: fusion, erosion, fossilization, embryonic development, hurricane formation, and so on. Zachriel's gas analogy is perfect: the motion of *every* *single* *molecule* of a gas in a container is as random as random gets, unpredictable to the core, yet we can still make predictions about how the system as a whole will behave. In the same way, it would have been impossible to predict which mammals, if any, would have evolved flight first. There are too many random variables, which mutation pops up in whom, and when; if it's beneficial in that environment; and so on. But we know that just as the randomly moving gas molecules will expand to fill any solid container, selection will favor traits that are beneficial in a particular environment.
Just because a *component* of a system is random, it doesn't follow that the whole system is. The coin toss at the start of a football game is random, as is how the ball bounces on the kickoff, as is the wind blowing the ball during a pass, as is who is sitting the bench due to injury, etc. But it is lunacy to proclaim that the final outcome is due to "Nothing but randomness."
Thprton:
ReplyDeleteThe leg gene in whales may serve some as yet unknown purpose. It is lke a lot of the junk DNA that has been found to serve various purposes. It may be involved in the development of the whales pelvis which does serve a purpose.
What "grinding teeth"?
ReplyDeleteHunter seems to have fallen for the creationist 'whales evolved from cows' meme. As far as I can ascertain, the ancestors of whales were carnivores long before they took to the seas. They were also not the only carnivorous ungulates from about that period -- another being mesonychids.
Genetically, whales are closest to hippos, an artiodactyl.
ReplyDeletePeter: The operation of gas pressure is observable, quantifiable, and replicatable. Evolution is none of these.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is directly observable, and just like with the activity of collections of gas molecules, can be modeled mathematically.
Peter: According to evolutionists, evolution should never repeat itself if time is wound back.
Actually, the degree of contingency in evolution is still an open question. However, the analogy with gas pressure wasn't meant to model evolution, but to show why your original comment was fallacious when you conflated variation, which is generally uncorrelated with need (i.e. random with respect to fitness), and evolution, which is non-random. Random movements of a quantity of gas molecules can have decidedly non-random effects.
But to extend the analogy somewhat—in the tenuous belief that you might be interested—evolution explores nearby channels of fitness, but doesn't explore the entire topography.
natschuster: And the leg gene in whales might be like the sonic gene in chickens. It controls other aspects of development in most cases. Sometimes something makes it tunr on hind legs as well.
ReplyDeleteThorton provides a cite to the specifics involved. Small mutations can cause significant changes in morphology. Please note again that whale embryos have hind limb buds.
Here's a simple simulation of random walkers, showing how they do not work the same as random sampling. This is without even including selection (i.e. a non-flat topography).
ReplyDeletewww.zachriel.com/randomwalker/
In particular, if you take note of this image, you will see how random walkers spread out in what appears to be a 'coordinated' fashion.
Because Darwin left it up to others, in the future (150 + years so far), to figure out the beginnings of life, abiogenesis, it is obvious that the Theory of evolution doesn’t have an “origins” basis as its foundation. Assume that chance is a valid argument, because evolution is based solely on life evolving all by chance, then we would have to acknowledge scientifically that this happened, yet in the whole history of man, we have not been able to prove that chance or any other point of origins is accountable for our existence, as of yet.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, we know that the theory of evolution is based on something that isn’t of scientific validity. Although the inferences that evolution is Argumentum ad verecundiam and this implies that people say, “that since they have proof of evolution”, that it is a valid theory, yet there could still be other explanations for all the evidence that they show as their proof. ID fits this very category and can explain the same set of circumstances in every instance that evolution tries to explain but without the holes in the theory that evolution has. ID is a much better fit than evolution to all the scientific evidence that has arisen by modern man.
Or, ID could just be the very explanation to an origins theory that fits the bill for the evolution theory and then the theory of evolution would actually fit the bill as being a valid theory with it’s origins explained instead of the theory of evolution relying on “faith” that the unproven, unscientific stance of chance all by itself, explained the ‘why’ behind the theory.
By the same token, because the people who postulate that ID doesn’t have any valid scientific proof behind it, I claim that since the advent of Dr. Craig Venter synthesizing life with a computer, more people in online forums are starting to realize that Intelligent design is more than just Christians claiming a position.
Now even athiests can claim that Intelligent Design can be afforded an elevated status in Biology, because areas of the universe which contain intelligent entities (not just Gods) can spawn new life through design from intelligence by way of science.
Whale evolution has always been a challenging story to explain on how it supposedly happened. Pakicetus was discovered in 1983, in Pakistan. Mere fragments were found like part of the skull and the rest of the fragments were from the jaw bone. When they created a reconstruction of the animal, it had no web feet as depicted in media pictures above which resembled more like it was part of the possum family than whales.
ReplyDeleteDNA samples were taken, and the result from an evolutionary viewpoint suggested that there was a connection with the hippo only problem was, the whale came before the hippo in the fossil record which is why some evolutionists believe hippos are more related to a pig. So you have the DNA and fossil record at odds with each other in the evolutionary story.
Science Daily in September 2008 reported that Georgiacetus vogtlensis that scientists were having new revelations about these fossils which were discovered a while back.
Originally, the fossil was found without any appendages such as flippers or legs as one of the display cards at the Georgia Southern Museum indicates. But the guide misleads the reader into thinking that these things such as flippers and legs were found not presumed to be on the animal.
thebibleistheotherside said...
ReplyDeleteWhale evolution has always been a challenging story to explain on how it supposedly happened. Pakicetus was discovered in 1983, in Pakistan. Mere fragments were found like part of the skull and the rest of the fragments were from the jaw bone. When they created a reconstruction of the animal, it had no web feet as depicted in media pictures above which resembled more like it was part of the possum family than whales.
Irrelevant. Since the first specimen was found in 1983 dozens of others have been recovered, including complete ones with front and rear limbs.
DNA samples were taken, and the result from an evolutionary viewpoint suggested that there was a connection with the hippo only problem was, the whale came before the hippo in the fossil record which is why some evolutionists believe hippos are more related to a pig. So you have the DNA and fossil record at odds with each other in the evolutionary story.
Non-sequitur. Evolution doesn't posit that whales evolved from hippos, but that they share a common artiodactyl ancestor. The fossil record and genetic record are in complete agreement.
Science Daily in September 2008 reported that Georgiacetus vogtlensis that scientists were having new revelations about these fossils which were discovered a while back.
Originally, the fossil was found without any appendages such as flippers or legs as one of the display cards at the Georgia Southern Museum indicates. But the guide misleads the reader into thinking that these things such as flippers and legs were found not presumed to be on the animal.
Irrelevant. 1) The presence of limbs on Georgiacetus vogtlensis is inferred from examination of the recovered pelvic section. As you indicate, the display clearly tells what was actually found. 2) The evolutionary history of whales is not based on this one single specimen.
Did you have any sort of a point?
But hippos are closer to pigs morphologically.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused. The leg gene in whales was disabled. But whale embryos have leg buds. Is there another gene that controls leg buds that is still working? Is it somehow involved in the development of the pelvic region, which serves a purpose? I'm just asking. Though it seems that it is more complicated than we know.
ReplyDeletenatschuster: The leg gene in whales was disabled.
ReplyDeleteThe main genes responsible for hind limb development are not lost or disabled. If they were, the organism would probably die because the same genes responsible for hind limbs are involved in other aspects of development. Instead, regulation of these genes has been modified. There is evidence of how and when this occurred in evolutionary history.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/no_genes_were_lost_in_the_maki.php
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
ReplyDeleteThat't kind of what I've been saying.
Thornton, you claim that there is a leg gene in whales. Has this been documented? Has the whale genome been traced and the leg gene identified? I seriously doubt it is a real legitimate leg gene.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to answer the claim of atavistic legs in whales. Personally, I think that evaluation of what was found was probably based more on their zeal to find such things than the evidence itself, but I can't prove that.
The dolphin example that was given was not a legitimate example of atavism. The researchers simply said that the dolphin had an extra set of fins that COULD BE the remains of back legs. Well, if they didn't find any legs, then why do they claim to have found remnants of legs? Simply because they believe macro-evolution occurred in the past. So, they interpret everything they see through the lens of evolution. They are looking for anything that remotely looks like it could possibly in some way support evolution so they jump to unsupportable conclusions like this.
At any rate, the research that Hunter refers to is kind of hard to swallow if the evolutionary tale is really true. “Whales evolved explosively fast into a spectacular array of shapes and sizes” about 35 million years ago, but then pretty much stopped evolving for the following 25 million years? Doesn't make sense! According to this “explosive radiation hypothesis”, a dog-size mammal walked into the sea 35 million years ago. And then within a blink of an evolutionary eye (just 5 million years), we have blue whales, right whales, sperm whales, porpoises, dolphins, baleen whales, all “exploding” into the oceans! Evolution is absolutely amazing. Within this evolutionary blink of an eye, somehow, (no one knows how) sonar, large brains, baleen and complex sociality all emerged.
So, evolution explains anything and everything, even opposites if you will - explosive change as well as millions of years of stasis. Wow! What an amazing theory evolution is! Evolution was so efficient in the first 5 million years that it didn't need to make any improvements since then!
But wait a minute. I thought evolution was supposed to occur through the gradual accumulation of numerous, successive, slight modifications? I guess that is only when it isn't preserving species with no change for millions of years.
tokyojim said..."But wait a minute. I thought evolution was supposed to occur through the gradual accumulation of numerous, successive, slight modifications? I guess that is only when it isn't preserving species with no change for millions of years."
ReplyDeletetokyojim, Please read an introductory book on evolutionary theory, preferably one geared toward the layman, before embarrassing yourself further. "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne is great, but I also often recommend "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller to fellow Christians. Your lack of even the most basic understanding of what evolutionary theory proposes makes you come across as quite ignorant on the topic. Once you understand something as basic as the fact that evolutionary theory states that the rate of the change is due to selection pressure and other variables, and not some cosmic metronome, then you may proceed with your criticisms.
tokyojim said..."And then within a blink of an evolutionary eye (just 5 million years), we have blue whales, right whales, sperm whales, porpoises, dolphins, baleen whales, all “exploding” into the oceans!
Even in the context of the entirety of evolutionary history, it may be a stretch to call this five million year span a 'blink of an eye' in reference to the changes mentioned here. We've gotten English Mastiffs and Chihuahuas, a roughly 160 fold difference in weight, in a few millennia; do you have any evidence to suggest that there couldn't possibly be at least that amount of diversification in size of the whale 'kind' in five *thousand* millennia?
tokyojim said...
ReplyDeleteThornton, you claim that there is a leg gene in whales. Has this been documented? Has the whale genome been traced and the leg gene identified? I seriously doubt it is a real legitimate leg gene.
Yes, it's the tbx4 gene, part of the t-box family. I already mentioned it and linked to the appropriate research earlier in the thread.
And then within a blink of an evolutionary eye (just 5 million years), we have blue whales, right whales, sperm whales, porpoises, dolphins, baleen whales, all “exploding” into the oceans!
5 million years is not the 'blink of an eye'. At 6-10 years to reach sexual maturity (Blue whale) that's at least a half million generations. Contrast that with anatomically modern humans, who've only been around about 100,000 years.
So, evolution explains anything and everything, even opposites if you will - explosive change as well as millions of years of stasis. Wow! What an amazing theory evolution is! Evolution was so efficient in the first 5 million years that it didn't need to make any improvements since then!
Evolutionary theory doesn't say animals have to continually keep evolving new morphologies. Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes. Species that move into a new ecological niche will radiate and diversify rapidly. If the species has a morphology that works well enough and the environment they live in is stable, the animals' body form will be relatively stable too. Horseshoe crabs have kept their basic morphology for at least 450 million years. Turtles have had theirs for at least 220 million.
As DC wisely suggested, you may want to read up on the topic before again making such beginners' blunders.
Thorton said..."Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes. Species that move into a new ecological niche will radiate and diversify rapidly. If the species has a morphology that works well enough and the environment they live in is stable, the animals' body form will be relatively stable too."
ReplyDeleteVery well said! Those were the words I was looking for, but I'm sure I couldn't have said it better.
Derick Childress said...
ReplyDelete>"Even in the context of the entirety of evolutionary history, it may be a stretch to call this five million year span a 'blink of an eye' in reference to the changes mentioned here. We've gotten English Mastiffs and Chihuahuas, a roughly 160 fold difference in weight, in a few millennia;"<
Ok then let's see you 'breed' a dog into a cat or evidence of the sort instead of just a few oddball limb deformaties, let's see the evidence of species change.
Darwin’s Dilemma explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life: The geologically-sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps Charles Darwin had predicted. Frequently described as “the Cambrian Explosion,” the development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information. “The big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses is where does all that new information come from?”
Then let me ask you why anyone would want to read a book that claims to the fact when the theory of evolution just doesn't add up even after reading all the books you suggest?
I look at today’s "evolutionary" spin on things and thousands of species are becoming extinct every year and scientists say that we are going into a new era and this is exactly what evolution claims to be the catalyst to cause evolution… Warming global temperatures, mass die-offs of certain species, what will survive and evolve in the next millennium?
ReplyDeleteMan is controlling evolution in the laboratory and man is actually the cause for most of the modern evolution you see today. When are we going to see this “Chance” evolution kick in that so many talk about? I mean people talk about evolution as if it is intelligent chance and only does it’s thing when it knows that it has to make changes… So we are at that period, does anyone see these evolutionary changes? Documenting them in the lab? Oh that’s right the evolution that IS taking place is in the lab happening because of an already intelligent force, humanity and that’s the only evolution that is being documented…
Man now has the ability to change a dog into a cat “IN THE LAB” but left to chance, you will never see it as describe by micro-biologists outside of the lab environment… In fact if asked if any of their experiments would or could occur outside the lab in dusty dirty conditions, the micro biologist will tell you that he has a failure rate high enough that if given a dirty lab or if he had to do his work ‘outside’ then the chances would be nil!
In fact if man did do some manipulation of a dogs genes and really did turn it into a cat, then I bet there would be some left-over stuff that used to be of a genetic makeup, left in this new species of cat that shows an evolutionary footprint that it used to have some of the caracteristics of a dog, maybe even some latent genes... Just saying Evolution isn't the only answer to the fossil reocrd, no matter how many books you read saying so!
ReplyDeleteAt some point in time even the most atheist evolutionary fanatics are going to have to answer to all the strict controls that micro-biologist say have to be in place before things can actually change and to realize the complexity of these changes and ask themselves about the fossil records... Did they really occur all by chance or did someone or something have a hand as the actual evidence points too...
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty arrogant to think that man arose from the dirt on this planet in this vast universe (and I'm talking vast beyond most peoples comprehinsion) and to think that man is alone and "evolved" in the short period the Earth has been around... I know that most 'modern' microbiologist are asking these very questions because of the complexitites of life and the orderly 'code' that DNA has that very closly resembles computer programming code and we are but biologicaly programmed life forms.
And to say this all happened by "dumb luck" or was it intelligent chance? :))... You people who still believe in evolution crack me up sometimes with all the missing evidence and intelligence showing it's hand in things. Makes me wonder...
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete>"Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes. Species that move into a new ecological niche will radiate and diversify rapidly. If the species has a morphology that works well enough and the environment they live in is stable, the animals' body form will be relatively stable too."<
Let's break this down... you said that "Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes."
Are you saying that this "evolutionary" process is a "god" like thing that thinks? And acts? Are you saying what I think you are saying that this thing that you worship as evolution is actually "Intelligent"? Wow, I don't believe in Gods... And I thought you were an Atheist here...
"Species that move into a new ecological niche will radiate and diversify rapidly. If the species has a morphology that works well enough and the environment they live in is stable, the animals' body form will be relatively stable too."
and I suppose that inatimate matter in the beginning just up and decided to "morph" into life one day?
And during these transition periods that DNA sequencing that never existed in any other life on Earth just came into being because this "evolution" thing was "smart" enough to code itself with code that didn't exist in any other life on this planet??? That is pretty powerful stuff you got there, Evolution. Yep, I'm more convinced now of a God than before because of your explanation of things... Because a God would have had to been present for evolution to have "grown" as you say it did... But you see, I don't believe in a God so your explanations here just don't "fit" the scientific methods and falls way short of being a resaonable explanation...
Please people, evolution does NOT think and is NOT intelligent as they are leading you to believe unless... the evolutionary process as they explain it is governed by a God and you already know what I think about that one...
nooneeagle said...
ReplyDeleteLet's break this down... you said that "Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes."
Are you saying that this "evolutionary" process is a "god" like thing that thinks? And acts? Are you saying what I think you are saying that this thing that you worship as evolution is actually "Intelligent"? Wow, I don't believe in Gods... And I thought you were an Atheist here.
Don't be a moron. Natural processes don't consciously 'think'. Does a rock that falls from the top of a mountain 'think' about rolling downhill? Does the tide consciously decide to come in every day? The iterative process of genetic variations filtered by selection then used in each subsequent generation tracks changes in the environment because the process acts as a feedback loop.
The rest of your clueless blither isn't worth responding to. At least bother to learn the basics of the ToE before you decide to run off at the mouth about it.
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete>"The rest of your clueless blither isn't worth responding to."<
Ad hominems directed towards me really do no good since you don't have a valid arguement to respond to my posts all you did was get angry and start calling my work clueless blither? Which really changes nothing in terms of what I have written and what it means.
Let's look at it again, "Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes."
Answer for the rest of us, how evolution can "tract" something? Anything unless it's a living intelligent thing? You stated something along the lines of a feedback loop, does evolution have memory? You speak of evolution as if it was a god or was something of a grand nature that does supernatural things and this sounds like you are putting it up there to do "magical" things just as a God does. So you are turning evolution into your religion? Do you believe that evolution can really tract evionmental changes??? What a statement! I would get laughted out of Harvard if I stood up and taught something like this that you are claiming? And you call me the moron?? Oh yeah that was because all you could come back with was an ad hominem in response to my posts and this is about the extent of your theoretical training in response to real questions that evolution can't answer... Next time think about trying to answer instead of just a come back of name-calling...
Again, nothing I have written has anyone shown that any of it is not true... Are you not used to evolution getting knocked out from underneath you so easily? Evolution ISN'T a proven theory by all means, it is just staying afloat by reason of Poppers Philosophy and every day ID knocks evolution down a notch or two, so get use to it. Maybe you ought to talk to someone that deals with microbiology every day and get a feel to what they are feeling these days about evolution and the way you think of it and defend it...
again...
Because the people who postulate that ID doesn’t have any valid scientific proof behind it, I claim that since the advent of Dr. Craig Venter synthesizing life with a computer, more people in online forums are starting to realize that Intelligent design is more than just Christians claiming a position.
Now even athiests can claim that Intelligent Design can be afforded an elevated status in Biology, because areas of the universe which contain intelligent entities (not just Gods) can spawn new life through design from intelligence by way of science.
Let's see you state something that significant about evolution!
Thorton said...
ReplyDeleteThe rest of your clueless blither isn't worth responding to. At least bother to learn the basics of the ToE before you decide to run off at the mouth about it.
Logic and Falicies; Ad Hominem, Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example: Your above statement about me and your misdirection in stating trying to make it look as though I know nothing about ToE, thus telling me to learn it...
Real bright there, Thorton...
Maybe the other people that are reading this thread understand that I do understand what the Bleep I'm talking about and that you are stumped, thus the ad hominems... Really, maybe you have something to learn about your theories about evolution may not be all that iron clad.
I mean really, we are still laughing here about,
>"Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes."<
Who says that and believes it religiously (Grin)
nooneeagle said...
ReplyDeleteLet's look at it again, "Evolutionary changes tract environmental changes."
Answer for the rest of us, how evolution can "tract" something?
It was a simple typo you moron. track, as I clarified in my next post. Feedback tracking loops are a basic component of control theory. How do you think the cruise control in your car works if it doesn't track your actual speed and work to keep it constant, whether your car is going uphill or downhill?
Evolution ISN'T a proven theory by all means,
There's no such thing as a 'proven' theory.
You really are quite clueless on this whole 'science' thing, aren't you?
I claim that since the advent of Dr. Craig Venter synthesizing life with a computer, more people in online forums are starting to realize that Intelligent design is more than just Christians claiming a position
Dr. Ventner did not design new life, he just copied a naturally occurring chunk of genome. BIG difference. While he may eventually get around to creating his own unique self-replicators, that still wouldn't show DNA is intelligently designed.
I don't know why IDCers can't grasp that most basic logic. Creating a copy of a naturally occurring object is not evidence that the original object was designed.
nooneeagle said...
ReplyDeleteYour above statement about me and your misdirection in stating trying to make it look as though I know nothing about ToE, thus telling me to learn it...
You clueless misstatements about the actual ToE demonstrate that you don't know it or understand it, even a little.
Trying to have a discussion on a topic that your opponent known nothing about is a waste of time.
"5 million years is not the 'blink of an eye'. At 6-10 years to reach sexual maturity (Blue whale) that's at least a half million generations."
ReplyDeleteTo me a half million generations doesn't seem like a lot. lol I know that sounds dumb but hear me out. It's assumed that each succesive generation will have some sort of mutations, correct? Most will be neutral, some will be bad and a very few will be positive in each generation. So is 500,000 generations enough to perform probably millions of necessary mutations needed to get them to their current state? (And that's just blue whales.) Not all mutations, including good ones are necessarily kept from one generation to the next. This is also assuming that those with positive mutations mate and don't die of disease or get killed by other predators before they mate. Also, the original population of whale would have been very low... or does the whales ancestors evolve into the ocean as a group?
Fil,
ReplyDeleteOne of the most basic ideas to grasp is that populations evolve, not individuals. The current number of whales of all species is estimated at between 1 and 2 million. The total number earlier was probably quite a bit higher, before human hunting caused such a drastic decline.
Every human individual born has approx. 175 mutations different from their parents. Assuming similar numbers for whales, then a population of 2 million with 0.5 million generations and 175 mutations per individual per generation gives 175 trillion mutations. That's a huge gene pool of variation for natural selection to act on.
So yes, half a million generation is way plenty time for evolution to produce these results.
"One of the most basic ideas to grasp is that populations evolve, not individuals."
ReplyDeleteSo what you are saying is that a group with say 1000 females will all have children with the same positive mutation and carry it on? Isn't it true that each individual beneficial mutation must be spread through the gene pool?
"population of 2 million with 0.5 million generations and 175 mutations per individual "
That's 1 million female whales having calves. 175,000,000 mutations per breeding season let's say. How many of those would be beneficial? And how long would it take for one of those beneficial ones to spread through the rest of the gene pool until it was dominant and normal?
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete>"You really are quite clueless on this whole 'science' thing, aren't you?"<
Well I will answer you on that one even if you used the question in a Rhetorical manner.
Actually I'm not clueless at all on the matter at hand and you seem to be the one getting frustrated and can't seem to conceive the ideas of what I am talking about. You are fixated on what you learned about evolution and you won't budge if anything goes against what you learned.
In an attempt to nix whatever inferences I've drawn, you try to make it seem like I have no idea what I'm talking about when it is you that can't comprehend the scope of what I'm talking about.
Just because it doesn't 'agree' with what your line of reasoning is on the subject doesn't make me ignorant to anything that is being discussed, far from it, your inference only shows your laziness in not even trying to understand what I am talking about when I have shown different points that have proven my points quite clear.
Your point of view about evolution being Argumentum ad Populum and saying that I don't understand just because I don't go along with the crowd doesn't make me ignorant, but you steering away from another logical conclusion to the same set of facts coming to a different conclusion does make you ignorant to the points I am conveying in these posts.
If you want to continue to personally attacking me, it only shows your ignorance in not wanting to learn a different point of view on the subject but it still doesn't change any reasonable points that I have made against the stance of evolution and your continued attacks on me will not change these facts...
Then you disrespect Dr. Venter by saying this,
>"Dr. Ventner did not design new life, he just copied a naturally occurring chunk of genome. BIG difference. While he may eventually get around to creating his own unique self-replicators, that still wouldn't show DNA is intelligently designed."<
He "designed" a cell that wasn't here before his creation, so yes, he created a new form of life and the majority of the scientific field out there agrees with this. A new cell that never existed before now exists and replicates itself, so yes, he did create a new life form. You can say he didn't all day long, just as you claim your little version of evolution even after all the evidence is showing otherwise, and this is the stance I get from you over and over and over... I'm beginning to wonder if it's not you that has no clue???
You seem very closed minded, even with new evidence staring you in the face, and you remain ignorant to new facts and data that the scientific community is coming out with every day just to stay with your version of what you call the truth in 'your little reality' of evolution??? How crazy is that and you are the one saying that I don't understand?
Hey class, we have someone that doesn't understand the idea of new data and how to understand that in the scientific field sometimes when data comes out against what you originally thought was the correct theory that sometimes you have to accept the new data and rethink your whole concept of the original idea in new terms... Just saying, you are the one saying I'm not familiar with the scientific methods... You seem to be the one with the problems accepting new information when if comes to the theory of evolution and what ID is proving through microbiology and other sicences... Go figure.
Fil,
ReplyDeleteLet's try this again. Instead of thinking about specific numbers that we don't have good data for, let's look at the big picture.
Every individual animal that is born has a slightly different genetic makeup than its parents. This is due mainly to sexual recombination of genetic material, but a small part is due to random genetic mutations – copying difference – when the genes were duplicated. As I mentioned before, in humans we get around 175 random mutations per generation. These new genetic differences will cause small differences in the morphology (body structure) of the animals who possess them. Most of the changes are neutral, a few cause serious problems and kill the animals who have them, but a few also confer a survival advantage over those who have them. That is where natural selection comes in. In a hostile environment, natural selection will tend to act as a sieve to allow the animals with the advantage to live and reproduce.
Important point #1: Natural selection effects on a population are statistical in nature. Random genetic variants that confer even a small survival advantage will, given a large enough population size and enough generations, spread through and become fixed in a population.
Consider a population of mammals that lives and feed at the water's edge (like otters). In their population, the average morphological measurements for the shape of their legs will vary in a bell shaped curve around a central point. Now suppose the environment changes, and the food supply on land diminishes while the supply in the water grows. This will apply selection pressure on the population. Animals in the population that have a genetic disposition towards broader, flatter legs (i.e. more fin-shaped) have a small but real survival advantage over those that don't.
Important point #2: Not ever animal with the advantage survives to mate, and not ever animal without it dies, but on average that is what happens to the population.
Over many generation, you will get a population where the central point of the bell shaped curve has moved, with more individuals having legs that are fin-like than not (sea lions). The frequency of the genes for fin-like legs in the population has increased, the frequency of the genes for terrestrial legs in the population has decreased. By definition the population has evolved.
Important point #3: There doesn't have to be one specific individual with one specific mutation for "more fin like". There can be hundreds of slightly different mutations throughout the population that can all cause the same overall morphological effect. If the selection pressure remains and continues to drive the evolution of the population, eventually you end up with fully aquatic mammals (porpoises and whales).
Important point #4: This survival advantage can be very small, less that 0.01%, and still win out in the long run. This is exactly how gambling casinos make money on slot machines with as little as a 1% house advantage. Individual bettors may win money, but the population of bettors will always lose to the house in the long run.
Important point #5: Morphological changes to the population can happen in parallel. Things like front legs evolving into fins, rear legs shrinking, tail developing a fluke, blowhole migrating to the top of the head, kidneys developing the ability to drink salt water, etc. all are occurring simultaneously.
I understand that many thing aren't intuitively obvious at first, but the data and evidence for everything I described above is there for the studying. In evolutionary terms a half million generation with a population of millions is is an extremely long time.
Fil
ReplyDeleteOne thing that's particularly hard to grasp is how fast evolution can work, given sufficient selection pressure. We can see real world examples today. In Africa poachers have been killing big bull elephants with large tusks for several hundred years. That is a severe selection pressure on the population, and allows those with smaller tusks chances to mate where before they couldn't. As a result, the average size of an African bull elephant's tusks has decreased by 50% in the last 150 years.
Elephants Evolve Smaller Tusks Due to Poaching
nooneeagle said...
ReplyDelete(snip lots of inane blithering)
Yep, you really are quite clueless on this whole 'science' thing.
Come back when you can discuss the actual theory and evidence, not some half-assed creto strawman version of it.
nooneagle,
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to evolution, you simply have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Calling your incoherent rants 'nonsense' would be to give them much more credit than they deserve. On one hand, I know how you feel; years ago I spent countless hours of my life debating evolutionist acquaintances, but at least I took time to understand what they believed. You don't have the foggiest idea what evolutionary theory says. What was that nonsense about breeding dogs into cats? From a previous post you seemed to indicate that you knew what a logical fallacy is; have you never heard of the straw man argument? You are not attacking what any evolutionist actually says or believes; you've made up a bizarre and twisted caricature of it in your head and you are arguing against that instead.
Quite frankly, it is blockheads like you who make people think that Christians are complete nutballs.
Please do your brothers here a favor and quit embarrassing us with your ignorant ramblings.
Every process in Ventner's "designed' organism uses process inspired by, and copied from,nature alone.If that validates ID, then any painter who copies Picasso's exact brush strokes is a genius.
ReplyDeleteDave Wisker
Thanks for the explanation thornton.
ReplyDeleteI still have an issue with that article though. He mentions at the end about age of the elephant having something to do with it, ie. older elephant=larger tusks. I think it's premature to say that the size difference is natural selection when that factor is still undetemined.
Interesting. Apparently everyone agrees with me.
ReplyDeleteThere are better, entirely natural, examples of natural selection in the populations of Darwin's finches studied by Grant & Grant.
ReplyDeleteThey have been able to track how beak morphology has changed with food availability in several species.
Have a read of How and Why Species Multiply by the Grants sometime.
I'm somewhat familiar with that. To me it seems more like adaptation though since the dominant group seems to vary depending on food availability/drought. It goes back and forth.
ReplyDeleteFil: To me it seems more like adaptation though since the dominant group seems to vary depending on food availability/drought.
ReplyDeleteAdaptation. Yes! Beak morphology changes in response to environmental conditions, in particular, differing foods depending on climatic changes.
As Darwin understood, evolutionary speciation, considered in terms of reproductive isolation, can be a continuum. (That's a key insight, by the way.) Part of avian adaptation the Grants observed is incipient reproductive isolation. The populations diverge when under environmental stress in order to reduce intraspecies competition. For instance, some birds may evolve to eat larger seeds, others to eat smaller seeds. Later they may hybridize in new combinations when conditions are more amenable.
I can't see them turning into mammals though just to survive, regardless of time and environmental factors. Isn't this supposed to be a proof of microevolution that shows macroevlution is possible?
ReplyDeleteFil: I can't see them turning into mammals though just to survive, regardless of time and environmental factors.
ReplyDeleteNo, birds won't turn into mammals, but they do share a common ancestor.
Fil: Isn't this supposed to be a proof of microevolution that shows macroevlution is possible?
We already know that organisms diverged from common ancestors, so it is only a question of the mechanisms involved. The rates of adaptation observed by the Grants and others as being due to natural selection are much faster than required to explain the historical record. In addition, we can often determine that historical adaptations occur due to selectable change.
What is amazing is that Darwin could infer macroevolution, but couldn't directly observe the processes that led to it. The Grants and other researchers have shown that it is possible, if you are very patient and very methodical, to directly observe the process of natural selection, contingency and evolutionary adaptation in wild populations of birds.
Fil said...
ReplyDeleteI can't see them turning into mammals though just to survive, regardless of time and environmental factors. Isn't this supposed to be a proof of microevolution that shows macroevlution is possible?
Fil, birds won't 'turn into' mammals, and whales didn't 'turn into' mammals either. Whale ancestors were mammals to begin with. All that happened is they changed their morphology to best survive in a different, water environment.
Think of all the semi-aquatic mammal species we have today - otters, sea lions, walruses, etc. Think about how little change it would take to turn a webbed otter paw into a sea lion's flipper, or that flipper into a fully aquatic whale's fin.
In the real world, transitions from one species into another, generation by generation, is a smooth progression. Where we define one species stops and another starts is somewhat a matter of arbitrary classification. The same is true for defining how much 'micro' change makes up 'macro' change.
As an analogy, imagine you are a walker and cover 2' with each stride. Walking to the corner store might be a 'microwalk'. You could if you wanted walk all the way across town, a 'macrowalk', with the same slow stride. It would just take you longer. Given enough time you could walk across the whole country, but it's still the same one step at a time.
I guess a better way of saying it is that I cannot see birds changing their morphology into mammals, lizards, fish or anything but a bird. Maybe a different bird but a bird nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteOne step is easy. Almost anyone could do it. When it comes to enough steps to cross the country very few could. To me a macrowalk would be walking across america hundreds or thousands of times. Yes, it's all one step, but the magnitude of the entire journey is enough to ensure that it will never be completed.
The ability to do something once, twice or even many times, does not amount to the ability to do it millions or billions of times.
Fil said...
ReplyDeleteI guess a better way of saying it is that I cannot see birds changing their morphology into mammals, lizards, fish or anything but a bird. Maybe a different bird but a bird nonetheless.
So you have no problem with terrestrial mammals evolving into aquatic ones, because they're still mammals, right?
One step is easy. Almost anyone could do it. When it comes to enough steps to cross the country very few could. To me a macrowalk would be walking across america hundreds or thousands of times. Yes, it's all one step, but the magnitude of the entire journey is enough to ensure that it will never be completed.
So how long a journey is "too big in magnitude" to be completed? Be specific, and tell me how you determined the number.
Also, one individual doesn't make the whole journey. Many hundreds or thousands of generations do it. If a member from each generation has to take but one step, why couldn't the distance be crossed in time?
The ability to do something once, twice or even many times, does not amount to the ability to do it millions or billions of times.
Not for one individual, but what barrier would stop cumulative results over generations?
Think hard about that one Fil, it's an important point.
"So you have no problem with terrestrial mammals evolving into aquatic ones, because they're still mammals, right?"
ReplyDeleteI still doubt it.
"So how long a journey is "too big in magnitude" to be completed? Be specific, and tell me how you determined the number."
Such as a million steps? A billion? A trillion? I have no specific number.
"Also, one individual doesn't make the whole journey. Many hundreds or thousands of generations do it. If a member from each generation has to take but one step, why couldn't the distance be crossed in time?"
That's assuming the destination can be walked to. Change my analogy to walking to the moon. Then is not the distance, but an unwalkable barrier that precludes the journey from being completed. That may be a more accurate analogy from my perspective. (Don't bother with apollo rockets either)
"Not for one individual, but what barrier would stop cumulative results over generations?"
See above.
I have zero problem with adaptation, that is definitely shown, sometimes within a year/generation. Adaptability, such as in finches, does not, however, guarantee the ability to adapt to anything however, which is what it seems to me like evolution claims. No situation is so unique that some reasoning cannot be made up for it.
Completely unscientific? Probably. But like I've said before that's not my area of expertise.
Fil: That's assuming the destination can be walked to. Change my analogy to walking to the moon.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the historical record, we see many important and complex adaptations that occurred incrementally and selectably, with small, seemingly inconsequential changes leading to cascades of complexity.
Fil said...
ReplyDeleteThat's assuming the destination can be walked to. Change my analogy to walking to the moon. Then is not the distance, but an unwalkable barrier that precludes the journey from being completed.
Then tell me what in genetics is that 'unwalkable barrier'? Creationists always claim such a magic barrier exists that stops micro genetic changes from accumulating into macro ones, but they can never show it, or give a mechanism for how such a barrier should work.
That's one of my big problems with most creationists (not you personally, you actually seem rather pleasant) - lots of empty claims, zero supporting evidence or details.
"Then tell me what in genetics is that 'unwalkable barrier'? "
ReplyDeleteNo idea. But I don't believe we know enough about life to rule it out though.
Fil said...
ReplyDelete"Then tell me what in genetics is that 'unwalkable barrier'? "
No idea. But I don't believe we know enough about life to rule it out though.
Since there's not a speck of evidence that such a barrier exists and lots that it doesn't, why should we rule it in?
"Since there's not a speck of evidence that such a barrier exists and lots that it doesn't, why should we rule it in? "
ReplyDeleteAdaptation does not equal microevolution.
One of the problems I have is that evolution is ASSUMED to be true, has been assumed that for 100 to 150 years, and scientists prop it up with very tenuous 'facts' and misleadings.
Take your elephant article. Some quotes from it.
"It appears that in at least one case, however, evolution is occurring at what seems like jet speed. In the last 150 years, the world’s elephant population has evolved much smaller tusks."
Wow! Evolution in action!
"While some of this may be due to an absence of older animals, it is possible there has been a genetic selection pressure against large tusk size that outweighs their usefulness in contests with other males in winning females."
"It is possible"
Well, anything is in theory possible. The writers, however, assume evolution is the cause, while briefly, almost offhandedly saying some of this might be due to older animals being rare.
That one statement tells me that THEY DO NOT KNOW ITS EVOLUTION. They assume it. They cannot determine the factor older animals played in this scenario so their assumption is invalid. A long line of assumptions has propped up this theory.... just like a house of cards.
So, in fact, the barrier needs to be disproven, and not by assumptions.
Fil: Adaptation does not equal microevolution.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Some evolution is not adaptive, such as genetic drift.
Fil: One of the problems I have is that evolution is ASSUMED to be true, has been assumed that for 100 to 150 years, and scientists prop it up with very tenuous 'facts' and misleadings.
Well, it's assumed in the sense that a hypothesis is tentatively assumed in order to test its empirical implications. A century and a half of consistent testing continues to support and expand the Theory of Evolution.
Fil: So, in fact, the barrier needs to be disproven, and not by assumptions.
So something exists by default? In any case, this was an issue that Darwin dealt with in Origin of Species. You're a bit behind in your reading. Darwin marshalled evidence to show that there is no such barrier, and that the vast differences between extant organisms are smaller the closer we get to the posited common ancestor.
Hey Thornton, why do you believe whales evolved from land in 500,000 generations? In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). And this in a group of bacteria with a much greater group of organisms to work with, and bacteria having a higher rate of surviving mutations?
ReplyDeleteLike I said before, 500,000 generations does not seem like ANYWHERE near enough when you consider that.
Fil said...
ReplyDeleteHey Thornton, why do you believe whales evolved from land in 500,000 generations? In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). And this in a group of bacteria with a much greater group of organisms to work with, and bacteria having a higher rate of surviving mutations?
Like I said before, 500,000 generations does not seem like ANYWHERE near enough when you consider that.
Nice try but still wrong Fil. You really can't make any valid comparison between the two examples at all. Just picking 'number of generation' out of the mix tells you nothing.
1. E coli do not reproduce sexually, so there is no variation produced by sexual genetic recombination. In the real world sexual recombination accounts for the large percentage of observed genetic variation.
2. The genome size of E coli is approx. 4.6 million base pairs. The genome for cetaceans is over 3 billion base pairs. LOTS more material per individual to work with, EXTREMELY larger overall gene pool.
3. Cetaceans didn't have to 'invent' new things. They just adapted what they already had as mammals. Lenski's E coli basically came up with a whole new way of eating.
4. There were lots more changes in the E coli genome than just one. Just so happens that particular one was the biggest, most apparent. How would you know if the average E coli cell size changed by 1% for example?
Back to the drawing board for your personal incredulity I'm afraid.
Fil: In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall).
ReplyDeleteAbout a dozen beneficial mutations were fixed during the course of the experiment. The reason why the mutation concerning citrate was notable is because the trait doesn't normally appear in wild populations of E. coli, and it was *contingent*.
Blount, Borland & Lenski, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 2008.
Thorton: How would you know if the average E coli cell size changed by 1% for example?
Presumably, with a Coulter counter. Lenski's bacteria about doubled in size over ten thousand generations.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete1. E coli do not reproduce sexually, so there is no variation produced by sexual genetic recombination. In the real world sexual recombination accounts for the large percentage of observed genetic variation.
With sexual reproduction half of each parent's DNA doesn't make the trip to the offspring.
And sexual selections tends to keep the norm.
IOW sexual reproduction doesn't help you, it is a detriment to your position.
"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye"
ReplyDeleteWhen I read that it seems to refute the claims made in that experiment.
Fil said...
ReplyDelete"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye"
When I read that it seems to refute the claims made in that experiment.
No, it's just the standard unsupported knee-jerk denial "NUH UH!!" from the Creto camp.
Lenski's work and conclusions still stand.
Here's another question for you Fil:
ReplyDeleteIn the above cited article AIG claims the E coli acquiring the ability to digest a completely new food source wasn't evolution but just 'adaptation'.
So why wouldn't land mammals moving into water and having their bodies change to an aquatic existence (paws change to fins, nostrils move to top of head and become blowholes, etc) also be considered 'adaptation'? - modifying an existing function to perform in a new way?
How much adaptation does it take to count as evolution? And before you give me a standard creationist dodge like "dogs always remain dogs", I'd like you to tell me how much change it would take for a dog to be considered a non-dog.
"No, it's just the standard unsupported knee-jerk denial "NUH UH!!" from the Creto camp.
ReplyDeleteLenski's work and conclusions still stand. "
I was actually hoping for more of an explanation as to why it doesn't refute it rather than just a statement saying it doesn't.
"So why wouldn't land mammals moving into water and having their bodies change to an aquatic existence (paws change to fins, nostrils move to top of head and become blowholes, etc) also be considered 'adaptation'? - modifying an existing function to perform in a new way?
How much adaptation does it take to count as evolution? And before you give me a standard creationist dodge like "dogs always remain dogs", I'd like you to tell me how much change it would take for a dog to be considered a non-dog. "
No idea. I'm slowly learning about stuff while doing research on different subjects but when you wants specifics I really couldn't give an accurate answer. I know the physical appearance and function is quite different but I have a long ways to go before I start getting it on a genetic, dna level etc.
Do you have an example of a dog that looks like a non-dog?(No pictures with dogs dressed up either.)
Fil said...
ReplyDeleteI was actually hoping for more of an explanation as to why it doesn't refute it rather than just a statement saying it doesn't
Because all they did was try a weaseling semantic trick of redefining evolution as adaption. And as soon as they did that, my question about how much adaption it takes to be classified as evolution becomes critical. It was a classic case of creationist goalpost-moving.
No idea. I'm slowly learning about stuff while doing research on different subjects but when you wants specifics I really couldn't give an accurate answer. I know the physical appearance and function is quite different but I have a long ways to go before I start getting it on a genetic, dna level etc.
OK, fair enough. But know that there are people who have studied it their entire adult lives and do understand it. They're called evolutionary biologists, geneticists, etc. If you're going to reject their accumulated knowledge you'd better have more than personal incredulity in your quiver.
Do you have an example of a dog that looks like a non-dog?(No pictures with dogs dressed up either.)
Better than that. I have the whole canid family tree, as determined by genetic analysis
canid phylogenetic tree
Do you consider foxes to be dogs? How about jackals? Dholes? Are they all the same dog 'kind'?
'Because all they did was try a weaseling semantic trick of redefining evolution as adaption.'
ReplyDeleteSo you don't believe in situations of adaptation only not tied to evolution?
"Do you consider foxes to be dogs? How about jackals? Dholes? Are they all the same dog 'kind'? "
According to wikipedia they are. Are you making the comparison of dogs,foxes etc coming from wolves just as land mammals changing into sea mammals?
Fil said...
ReplyDelete'Because all they did was try a weaseling semantic trick of redefining evolution as adaption.'
So you don't believe in situations of adaptation only not tied to evolution?
I don't believe in trying to draw an arbitrary and unsupported distinction between the two.
"Do you consider foxes to be dogs? How about jackals? Dholes? Are they all the same dog 'kind'? "
According to wikipedia they are.
Shame on you Fil, that is untrue. According to Wiki they are all the of the same family canidae. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a subspecies of wolves.
Are you making the comparison of dogs,foxes etc coming from wolves just as land mammals changing into sea mammals?
Foxes and jackals did not come from wolves. They and all modern dogs shared a common ancestor some 9-10 million years ago. That's what the genetic evidence shows. And yes, it's evolution, exactly the same as whales evolving from land dwelling ancestors.
Fil wrote:
ReplyDelete"When I read that it seems to refute the claims made in that experiment."
How can an experiment make claims?
Don't people make claims?
Did the thing that you found so convincing include any new evidence, as Lenski's work does?
What is the evidence that changes to a land mammal's genome can account for the transition from land animal to fully aquatic animal?
ReplyDeleteHow can such a premise be objectively tested?
Why do evolutionists keep citing Lenski's work?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't as though his work supports their position.
However it is good if you wanted to support baraminology...