Darwinism Evolution

Biology prof: Whale, dolphin hip bones known for a long time to NOT be vestigial

Spread the love

(But they made such a good example that … )

Further to “Vestigial” whale, dolphin hip bones actually needed for, um, reproduction (Lots of vestigial organs prove that Darwinian evolution is true, but not finding any also proves it true. Sign of a strong theory.):

David A. DeWitt kindly writes to say,

This is not really new. I have material from several years ago that showed that the pelvic bones were attachment sites for muscles involved in copulation. Pythons also use their ‘pelvic girdle’ during mating. The males use them to rub a particular patch of scales on the female which help them to become receptive to the male.

The only new aspect to this is the analysis of 3D shapes and the correlations to testes size which makes an evolutionary story. These bones never were vestigial and it has been known for a long time.

He adds,

I am convinced that Darwinists ignored the known function of the whale pelvic bones until they had a Darwinian ‘just so’ story to link it too. Let’s see how long it takes for this to show up in biology textbooks since they now discuss them as ‘vestigial’ and evidence for evolution.

Note: Some have written to say that an appendage can be vestigial but still functional. Actually, if it assists reproduction, it may be critical, but we won’t quibble.

The problem is that the qualification (vestigial but functional) takes all the punch out of the claim that vestigial organs demonstrate explicitly unguided (Darwinian) evolution. If evolution were guided or designed, we might expect that some parts greatly change their function as a response to changed circumstances, as here.

Evidence for Darwinian evolution would be vestigial parts that are actually useless but not naturally selected out because they do not compromise survival. Perhaps discussion should focus on those parts, if anyone can identify them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Pythons mating:

37 Replies to “Biology prof: Whale, dolphin hip bones known for a long time to NOT be vestigial

  1. 1
    RodW says:

    The problem is that the qualification (vestigial but functional) takes all the punch out of the claim that vestigial organs demonstrate explicitly unguided (Darwinian) evolution

    Not at all. There is a beautiful series of transitional fossils that show the transformation of a land-dwelling artiodactyl to a fully aquatic whale. Throughout this transition we see that gradual reduction and loss of the hindlimbs and pelvis. The tiny speck of a bone thats all thats left of the pelvis is not performing its original function- therefore its vestigial. Its performing a new function -anchoring the ‘mobile penis’. This example provides a great contrast between what we’d expect to see from evolution vs ID. Evolution is severely constrained in a way that ID isn’t. Natural selection has to build on whats already present in incremental steps. Thats why a fully aquatic animal has functional parts that look like they were derived from a land-dwelling animal. What possible reason could an intelligent designer have to do it that way – to deceive us?? (And for that matter if whales and dolphina were created as they are now why do dophins have the genetic program to make a femur bone and partial hind leg, which they sometimes express? )
    If you say the designer had to include that bone thats outright false. The designer had many other options other than using a bone that for all the world looked remarkable like a reduced pelvis. He could have used connective tissue! After all there are 2 species of whale that have completely lost the pevlis. They use connective tissue as an anchor and manage to ‘get busy’ just fine.
    As an aside. Have any of the posters here considered cutting and pasting the articles from ENV here for comment? I know some of you provide links but the article would be better for going back and forth to comments.

  2. 2
    anthropic says:

    RW 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85kThFEDi8o

    Dr. Richard Sternberg uses well known population genetics to estimate that it took 43 million years for two coordinated mutations to show up and become fixed in the putative ancestors of whales.

    How many coordinated mutations would you estimate are necessary to turn a land animal into an ocean going cetacean, RW?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this claim from RW

    “There is a beautiful series of transitional fossils that show the transformation of a land-dwelling artiodactyl to a fully aquatic whale. Throughout this transition we see that gradual reduction and loss of the hindlimbs and pelvis.”

    and yet the series is ‘misleading’ as even Phil Gingerich himself admits in this following video,,,

    Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video – fraudulent fossils revealed
    http://vimeo.com/30921402
    Making up missing links with plaster and body parts from other creatures – April 2014
    Excerpt: The two scientists who found the lion’s share of walking whale fossils essentially created the best fossil proof of evolution using plaster models and drawings and supplied these to museums and science magazines. In each case, they started with incomplete fossils of a land mammal. Whenever a fossil part was missing, they substituted a whale body part (blowholes, fins and flukes) on the skeletal model or skull that they distributed to museums. When these same scientists later found fossils negating their original interpretations, they did not recall the plaster models or drawings. Now museums are full of skulls and skeletons of ‘walking whales’ that are simply false.” Dr. Werner went on to say, “I suspect some curators are not aware of the significance of these substitutions nor are they aware of the updated fossils. Museums should now remove all of the altered skeletons, skulls and drawings since the most important parts of these ‘walking whales’ are admittedly made up. Museums will also have to delete these images from their websites as they are misleading the public.” –
    http://www.thegrandexperiment......ution.html

    further notes debunking the claim are here:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-514004

  4. 4
    bw says:

    @anthropic, we can use some simple maths to work this out.

    1 x mutation for the skin/fur -> blubber conversion
    1 x mutation for the nose -> blowhole conversion
    1 x mutation for the forelimb -> flipper conversion
    1 x mutation for the hindlimb -> fluke conversion
    1 x mutation for the teeth -> filtering plates

    No further significant mutations needed unless I missed something.

    If we take the number derived by Dr. Sternberg as our guide, the we are looking at a process of around 215 million years.

    Now if I remember rightly early whale ancestors were thought to be only around 50 million years old but there is nothing to say the mutations above couldn’t have happened in parallel or slightly overlapping and as such I think there is no great controversy when it comes to the evolution of whales from earlier mammals.

  5. 5
    Dr JDD says:

    RodW – please could you provide a source to show evidence of femur/partial hindleg in whales/dolphins other than just aberrant small bone spurs/growth? And also please provide details of the genetic information responsible for these structures so we can determine that they don’t perform other vital functions.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    The overall pattern in the fossil record looks nothing like Darwinists originally imagined it to be. Here are a few (more) notes along that line:

    Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video and notes
    http://vimeo.com/30932397

    The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM

    Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video and notes
    http://vimeo.com/30926629

    “Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”
    Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

    “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

    “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.”
    -Dr. Mark McMenamin – 2013
    Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

    “The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
    (Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

    “If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world’s higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.”
    (Valentine, Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987)

    “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
    (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine –

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”

    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67021.html

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.”
    Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105.

    “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’
    Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132.

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” –
    Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.”
    Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187.

    “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” –
    Niles Eldredge , “Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate,” 1996, p.95

    “Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record…the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life.”
    Ager, D. – Author of “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record”-1981

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”
    Stephen Jay Gould

    etc.. etc.. etc..
    All in all, The fossil record is a major embarrassment for Darwinists!

  7. 7
    anthropic says:

    bw 4, I can’t argue with your impeccable math. Your use of the famed evolutionary Just So series of imaginary numbers is a real treat! 🙂

    Though it does seem to me that the whale might want to excrete waste, digest krill, drink seawater and reproduce once in a while…

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    #6 bornagain77

    I don’t know much about fossil record, but can someone explain how we got the stuff mentioned in over 300 posts in this thread:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-513919

    Any clues?

    🙂

  9. 9
    RodW says:

    Anthropic
    Sternberg says population genetics demonstrates that whales couldn’t have evolved. Pretty much every population geneticist in the world would say he’s wrong. Some of the mistakes hes makes are:
    1. Thinking that mutations and adaptations ocurr in series. They can occur in paralell
    2. Thinking there is one route to a particular adaptation. There are many
    3. Thinking that whatever route occured to an adaptation was preordained.
    4. Thinking that transitionals and extant cetations are perfectly adapted to live in water. They arent. Early forms seemed clumsy compared to whales and dolphins can suffer from decompression sickness.

    BA77
    The video seems to be saying the fossils are frauds. If scientists have been manufacturing evidence for evolution in some grand conspiracy then there is no real evidence for evolution. As a non-scientist I have to take the evidence at face value (knowing that science at the cutting edge is tentative) The evidence on its face is overwhelming for evolution.

    Dr JDD

    The link below shows a dophin embryo that has the same forelimb buds and hindlimb buds found in limbed vertebrates. In dolphins the hindlimb buds atrophy.

    http://bobjk.blogspot.com/2008.....blogs.html

    The link below contains info on abberant hind limbs. They are not just nubs of bone. Many whales even have a degenerate femur along with the pelvis.

    http://etb-whales.blogspot.com.....swers.html

    And also please provide details of the genetic information responsible for these structures so we can determine that they don’t perform other vital functions.

    These structures appear very rarely in animals so its unlikely they have any function. But even if they did that has no bearing on whether they are vestigial and its still what we’d expect from an evolutionary mechanism.
    I know that the genetic regulatory networks that specify bone have been worked out in some detail. I also know that there are cases when the activation of a particular gene is necessary ( and sufficient) to make a specific bone but I dont know if any candidate genes are known for the pelvis.
    Let me ask you guys a question:
    There are genes that specify the formation of limbs in mammals..for example SHH and DLX. If scientists were to look for those genes in the “hindlimb” bud of dophins do you think they’d find them? Take the simplistic scenario that the gene PLV specifies formation of the pelvis in mammals. Do you think the PLV gene would be found in whales and would its activity specify the reduced ‘pelvis’ of whales?

  10. 10
  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    RW,, you claim “The evidence on its face is overwhelming for evolution.”

    Really??? Since just a bit of scrutiny reveals the series to be fraudulent,,,, Can you at least provide evidence of one molecular machine arising by unguided Darwinian processes??? So as to quiet the doubts of those of us who question whether unguided processes can build machine that gratly outclass anything man has ever built???
    Should be a piece of cake for you since you claim the ‘evidence on its face is overwhelming’.

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996

    Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw

    ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7t2_Ph-ck

  12. 12
    Dr JDD says:

    Well a dolphin with 4 fins has convinced me….

    I guess the embryology is on par with humans demonstrating tails, egg yolk sacs and slotted gills in embryology too.

    Anyway, I am not sure what the PLV gene is – could you please provide me with a real gene name? That one does not exist in public databases as far as I can see. My point is the same – show me a gene that is solely for the expression of a particular structure not present now in say whales but was present in a time past that offers an intermediary stage. Then I will be interested. The bottom line is despite asking this question many times of Darwinists I always get a blank. The same was true of human tail genes. I was informed that we still have the genes for tails like our ancestor but we don’t have tails anymore. Yet the genes for tail patterning have a whole host of essential functions beyond tail formation so it is an illegitimate and deceitful point. I suspect the same istrue here. You very rarely in development find genes that only account/play a role in a single structure. This also heavily implies the control of development is regulated more extensively by non-protein coding DNA material.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Dionisio, I hope you did not take the ‘anyone anyone’ video as a diss, it was meant as a poke at atheists,,, I have your ‘3rd way’ link referenced in my ‘complexity notes’,,, I know it took you a lot of work to put all that together and thank you.

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    #13 bornagain77
    Had not seen that video before. Poor kids, with such a boring professor like that. 🙂

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    RodW:

    There is a beautiful series of transitional fossils that show the transformation of a land-dwelling artiodactyl to a fully aquatic whale.

    If one has a very good imagination. However reality says there are only a hopeful small handful of such fossils when there should be thousands.

    How many mutations did this evolution take? Science requires measurements so please tell us. Then tell us what genes were involved so we can test the claim.

    Natural selection doesn’t build anything. It is an eliminative process in which whatever is good enough survives to get the chance to reproduce.

    So RodW, you don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing a whale from a land mammal. Try again…

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    RodW- Whales do not have a femur. Why can’t that be an atrophied hind fin?

    All you are saying is that formerly four-finned cetaceans just have two fins now.

  17. 17
    Dionisio says:

    #13 bornagain77

    It took me a while, but now I see a correlation:
    someone standing in front of a class full of atheists and pointing to the list of over 300 posts with examples of different elaborate biological systems. The audience having no clue what to answer the gazillion questions? Is that what you meant? Did I get it right? Or was it supposed to symbolize a different case?

  18. 18
    Dionisio says:

    #17 correction:

    …having no clue what how to answer the…

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    You got it D,,

    they have no clue how to answer,,, Indeed, when it comes to the astonishing levels of integrated complexity being dealt with in life, there is no answer the class full of atheists can give,,, thus the ‘anyone, anyone?’ jab,,,

    🙂

  20. 20
    RodW says:

    Dr JDD

    I guess the embryology is on par with humans demonstrating tails, egg yolk sacs and slotted gills in embryology too

    I dont know about the first one but the other 2 are definately evidence for evolution. They both show evolution building on preexisting structures. Mammals have a placenta so they dont need yoke, but they still have a yolk sac. Mammals dont have “slotted gills” but they do have pharyngeal slits early in development. In fish those structures form the gill supports. In mammals they mostly dissappear but parts form diverse other structures.

    Anyway, I am not sure what the PLV gene is – could you please provide me with a real gene name? That one does not exist in public databases as far as I can see. My point is the same – show me a gene that is solely for the expression of a particular structure not present now in say whales but was present in a time past that offers an intermediary stage.

    I mentioned that I made up PLV but SHH and DLX are real. You’re right that most genes dont have a unique function, at least in development. Most of those genes are reused. There has been a debate within evolution for decades over whether most evolution of animal form is due to changes in proteins or changes in the regulatory regions of proteins. I think the latter group is winning the argument. This would mean that whales still have all or most of the genes to make a pelvis. A pelvis is, afterall just a bunch of fused bones. What they’re missing is the specific network of interactions between those genes that cause the pelvis to form in its specific location and take on its shape. They havent lost the entire network because a rudimentary pelvis does form. The same would be true for the formation of the hindlimb.

  21. 21
    RodW says:

    Joe:

    If one has a very good imagination</blockquote?
    I dont think imagination is required. There are a large number of species of transitional form just where you'd expect them.

    Why can’t that be an atrophied hind fin?
    All you are saying is that formerly four-finned cetaceans just have two fins now.

    I think the evidence from the fossil record and from embryology is clear: the fluke evolved from the tail and the hindlimbs dissappeared.

    How many mutations did this evolution take? Science requires measurements so please tell us. Then tell us what genes were involved so we can test the claim

    My knowledge is out of date but from what I remember if whales divereged from hippos about 60 million years ago then the differences in their proteins will be about 10-15%. For non-coding it would be higher so there could be 800mil – 1 billion nucleotied differences between the 2. The vast majority wont be involved in the differences…maybe 1 million to 10 mil would. I doubt anyone could give a precise number on this ( and most wouldnt be careless enough to hazard a guess)

    Natural selection doesn’t build anything. It is an eliminative process in which whatever is good enough survives to get the chance to reproduce.

    The entire scientific community would dissagree with this. Natural selection does build. More to the point, our eperience tells us that the way natural selection builds is utterly different than the way designers build. When we look at the natural world we see mountains of evidence thats consistent with the natural mechanism and little or none consistent with ID.
    I have to get to work and then catch a bus. When I get home I’ll try to reply..if needed

  22. 22
    Dionisio says:

    #19 bornagain77

    I like it. Will bring it up in the future as a funny reminder.
    🙂

  23. 23
    anthropic says:

    RW 9, thanks for the reply.

    —————————————————-
    Anthropic
    Sternberg says population genetics demonstrates that whales couldn’t have evolved. Pretty much every population geneticist in the world would say he’s wrong. Some of the mistakes hes makes are:
    1. Thinking that mutations and adaptations ocurr in series. They can occur in paralell
    2. Thinking there is one route to a particular adaptation. There are many
    3. Thinking that whatever route occured to an adaptation was preordained.
    4. Thinking that transitionals and extant cetations are perfectly adapted to live in water. They arent. Early forms seemed clumsy compared to whales and dolphins can suffer from decompression sickness.
    —————————————————–

    At 43 million years on average to achieve two coordinated mutations, the odds are prohibitive that all the coordinated mutations necessary (dozens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands) to turn a cow like critter into a whale would occur and become fixed in the population in less than 10 million years. Even if they are all developing in parallel. The math really isn’t hard, except for those who dislike the implications.

    Remember, whales don’t survive in the oceans until ALL the key morphological changes (Berlinski counted 50,000 and stopped there) necessary for this environment are complete. Different breathing apparatus. Different skin. Blubber. Different eating & digesting apparatus. Different reproductive apparatus, including special blood cooling system for the internal testes. Different system for feeding young underwater. Ability to drink sea water. Sonar. And on, and on, and on….

    All these demands must be met before the creature can survive in the oceans. Not just a few, or even most. All of them.

    Sorry, but no amount of chatter about “many routes “, “parallel adaptations” changes the utter implausibility of that occurring via unguided natural processes in less than ten million years.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    RodW, to revisit the video I posted. You seem to have severely downplayed the significance of Philip Gingerich’s testimony,,, Thus I have written it out for you,,,
    At the 5:36 minute mark of the following video, Philip Gingerich, the paleontologist who discovered and reconstructed Rhohocetus, which has been called by evolutionists, ‘the most spectacular intermediary fossil in whale evolution’, states this about that, “most spectacular intermediary fossil”,,,

    “Well, I told you we don’t have the tail in Rodhocetus. We don’t know for sure whether it had a ball vertebrate indicating a (tail) fluke or not. So I speculated (that) it might have had a (tail) fluke.,,, Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms, the arms in other words of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kinf of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.,, If you don’t have flippers, I don’t think you can have a fluke tail and really powered swimming. And so I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluke tail.”
    Philip Gingerich – 5:36 minute mark
    Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video – fraudulent fossils revealed
    http://vimeo.com/30921402

    I suggest watching the video again to see how crucial Rodhocetus was for the Darwinian ‘just so’ story of whale evolution to see important that admission is by Dr. Gingerich.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    RodW you claim,,,

    I dont know about the first one but the other 2 are definately evidence for evolution. They both show evolution building on preexisting structures. Mammals have a placenta so they dont need yoke, but they still have a yolk sac. Mammals dont have “slotted gills” but they do have pharyngeal slits early in development. In fish those structures form the gill supports. In mammals they mostly dissappear but parts form diverse other structures.

    Yet, contrary to what you believe to be ‘knock down’ evidence for evolution,,

    “The so-called “yolk sac” is the source of the human embryo’s first blood cells, and death would result without it! “,,,
    and
    “The throat (or pharyngeal) grooves and pouches, falsely called “gill slits,” are not mistakes in human development. They develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy. The first pouches form the palatine tonsils that help fight disease. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth. Without a thymus, we would lose “half” our immune systems. Without the parathyroids, we would be unable to regulate calcium balance and could not even survive. Another pouch, thought to be vestigial by evolutionists until just recently, becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance. Far from being useless evolutionary vestiges, then, these so-called “gill slits” are quite essential for distinctively human development.”
    https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/embryonic-development/

    Moreover, as to the “pharyngular stage”, it turns out that the “pharyngular stage” is another Darwinian myth,,,

    Three Flawed Evolutionary Models of Embryological Development and One Correct One – Casey Luskin – 2011
    Excerpt: When biologists carefully compare embryological data, they find that there is considerable variability at the purported phylotypic stage, leading increasing numbers of biologists to question whether this pharyngular stage exists. As a paper in Nature said last year: “both the model and the concept of the phylotypic period remain controversial subjects in the literature.” PZ generally refuses to address this literature, but it nonetheless calls into question the very concept that defines this model and gives PZ’s Pharyngula blog its name.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....48541.html

    Vertebrate Gene Expression and Other Properties Don’t Support a “Phylotypic” Stage – Casey Luskin – June 14, 2013
    Excerpt: a new article in PLoS Genetics, “The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models — Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates,” shows that,, an analysis of the genome based on Darwinian assumptions fails to confirm many predictions of the “phylotypic” stage. ,,, (as they report),,,
    ,,,”Here, we first show that some of the previous conclusions do not hold out under detailed analysis of the data.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73171.html

    Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM

    In fact, Darwinists have been ‘fraudulent’, (there’s that word again), with embryological evidence almost ever since Darwin first wrote his book over 150 years ago.

    Haeckel’s Bogus Embryo Drawings – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk

    Haeckel’s Embryos – original fraudulent drawing
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....ped-II.jpg

    Actual Embryos – photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages);
    http://www.ichthus.info/Evolut.....mbryos.jpg

    There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: – Richardson MK – 1997
    Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, embryological developement is an extremely complex, and tightly constrained, process that is unique for each species,,,

    The mouse is not enough – February 2011
    Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”
    http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.”
    Eric Davidson
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 8) by Paul Giem – developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=8

    Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
    Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Jeffrey Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144632.htm

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    “Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
    Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

    Thus where Darwinian theory most needs plasticity in order to be viable as a hypothesis, i.e. in developmental gene regulatory networks, is the place where it is found to be least flexible, (always catastrophically bad!).Yet, it is in these developmental gene regulatory networks where the greatest differences are found!

    supplemental note:

    Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
    Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
    1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
    2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
    3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
    Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

    Thus RodW, exactly how do you evolve from some cow like critter to a whale when you have no viable pathway to do it?

    In other words, Imagining that such an extraordinary transition of cows turning into whales can happen in you head is a far, far, cry from demonstrating the feasibility of it in the lab!

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Verse and Music

    Matthew 12:40
    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    Steven Curtis Chapman: Long Way Home – Official Lyric Video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1p-QfgkLow

  28. 28
    Sebestyen says:

    RodW:

    There is a beautiful series of transitional fossils that show the transformation of a land-dwelling artiodactyl to a fully aquatic whale.

    And you people look down on others for believing in the virgin birth…

    Sebestyen

    P.S.: Discovering a new species

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    bw @ 4: Some rather big mutations! Ever seen a fluke plus muscular support, change in bones to support up/down strokes strong enough to swim, plus neural controls co-ordinated with other things appearing out of a single point, frame shift or the like? That would argue for pretty serious dual-use code, pointing to major front-loading. A design hyp, BTW. KF

  30. 30
    Ho-De-Ho says:

    Please read this post even though it is a tad long.

    Have a look at this image

    http://tinyurl.com/pk94xzu

    The Icthyosaur reminds us that we have seen other marine creatures with hind limbs before and polydactyl limbs. Of course Ichtyosaurs are thought to have come from land dwelling reptiles and cetaceans have followed their example in returning to the sea.

    Alternatively nature may be trying to give us a message. That this design plan is particularly efficient. After all, given the chance of returning to the sea why did these creatures both assume such a similar design? Why not alter the limb design or revert to fish fins? Or is nature telling us that the pentadactyl limb design is particularly efficient?

    What the evolution of cetaceans highlights again is the importance of Homology. To the vast majority of people Homology is the central pillar of evolution. Without it, evolution would crumble in the minds of many.

    I have been reminded playfully on this sight that similarity of features can be explained by common design. While this is true it doesn’t seem to cut much ice for many. If a designer has the imagination to engineer such wonders as the brain and the blood clotting cascade, then why would they limit themselves to a repetitious use of body plans and limb designs?

    That, I believe, is the rub, as they say.

    Cars, lorries, vans etc share a great many features because they are the most efficient design for their purpose and environment. Now is that the same for animals?

    I have heard it said that there appears to be no reason why creatures should possess five digits. Why not 7 or 13 or 20? Even by the evolutionary paradigm the fact that creatures share a similar number of digits leads to the conclusion that about five is optimum for nature otherwise it would’ve gained more. If Five is the optimum in most cases then it makes sense that an intelligent designer would also use that number.

    The question is though, are the body plans and limb designs of most creatures more suited to the environment than any other design? If they are then one would expect an intelligent designer to use said designs.

    Of course a designer may follow a pattern of design for aesthetic reasons, a global harmony if you will. But then why give that limb design to a whale when it doesn’t look aesthetically the same from without.

    I cannot stress this point enough. Homology is the life-blood of evolution in the eyes of the public. Homology by common descent is visually powerful. If it were known that this homology is actually because it is a superior or optimum design plan, then a great avenue for intelligent design would be opened to the minds of many.

    A powerful question for Intellignt Design research would be: What are the advantageous design/engineering principles underlying the pentadactyl limb design?

    This would go beyond just design detection to the elucidation of design principles which in turn would advocate the power of Intelligent Design as a theory and undermine the undesigned approach of evolution.

    Biomimetics certainly is beginning to do this, but I feel that the reasons behind the overall body plans and limb designs would be particularly significant.

    Perhaps some on here could ask any engineers they know if they have any knowledge of the benefits of these plans found in nature.

    Thank you for reading, sorry I took so long.

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    RodW:

    I dont think imagination is required. There are a large number of species of transitional form just where you’d expect them.

    What is this alleged large number? I have seen a small handful.

    I think the evidence from the fossil record and from embryology is clear: the fluke evolved from the tail and the hindlimbs dissappeared.

    Except there isn’t any such evidence.

    My knowledge is out of date but from what I remember if whales divereged from hippos about 60 million years ago then the differences in their proteins will be about 10-15%. For non-coding it would be higher so there could be 800mil – 1 billion nucleotied differences between the 2. The vast majority wont be involved in the differences…maybe 1 million to 10 mil would. I doubt anyone could give a precise number on this ( and most wouldnt be careless enough to hazard a guess)

    Science requires measurements and you don’t have any. Got it. Also there isn’t any evidence that genomes determine the form.

    The entire scientific community would dissagree with this. Natural selection does build.

    Without any evidence to support them their disagreement is meaningless. And they don’t have any evidence to support them.

    More to the point, our eperience tells us that the way natural selection builds is utterly different than the way designers build.

    Except we don’t have any experience with natural selection building anything

    When we look at the natural world we see mountains of evidence thats consistent with the natural mechanism and little or none consistent with ID.

    Nonsense. For one design is a natural mechanism as it exists in nature. Also yours doesn’t even have a model- just how can we model natural selection producing complex protein machinery? Please be specific and show your work. Thanks.

  32. 32
    mk says:

    rodw

    we even find a six digit. is not mean that we evolve from six digits human. we even find a shark with “legs”. do its prove that shark was walking in the history? not at all. about the series of fossil of the wale evolution. i can show you hw a truck evolve from a car= a car–> a van–> a truck. its prove that a truck evolve from a car? lets say that they even have a self replication system like living things.

  33. 33
    humbled says:

    Rodw. Many evolutionary scientists have admitted the fossil evidence doesn’t exist, Gould comes to mind. So I’m curious as to what evidence you’re referring to?

  34. 34
    lifepsy says:

    RodW

    There is a beautiful series of transitional fossils that show the transformation of a land-dwelling artiodactyl to a fully aquatic whale.

    Pure fantasy.

  35. 35
    lifepsy says:

    RodW

    The tiny speck of a bone thats all thats left of the pelvis is not performing its original function- therefore its vestigial. Its performing a new function -anchoring the ‘mobile penis’.

    Exactly. Vestigiality is the product of your imagination about some mystical transition from a past function, and otherwise is completely useless as any kind of scientifically relevant anatomical description.

  36. 36
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Not only is there only a handful of so called transitionals but you now also have another huge problem in a basilosaurus whale fossil found swimming the oceans as roughly the same time as ambulocetas which basilosaurus was supposed to have evolved from 16 million years later.

    What’s ridiculous is that major problems like this don’t make evolutionists question the theory . Evolution is a non falsifiable theory and that is why I left it 5 years ago.

    The more they ignore problems like this the easier it becomes to look at evolution as science mixed with philosophy then pure science .

  37. 37
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Lefsy, exactly and that is why evolutionists like RodW are smuggling philosophical worldviews and trying to pass it off as but toe science .
    Once your eyes wake up to this fact like mine did 5 years ago you start to recognize the theory for what it truly is

Leave a Reply