Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

MSNBC.com is reporting on the discovery of a jawbone of an ancient whale in Antarctica: the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered. The news story reports,

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, Argentine scientists said Tuesday.

A scientist not involved in the find said it could suggest that whales evolved much more quickly from their amphibian precursors than previously thought.

Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.

Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.

“The relevance of this discovery is that it’s the oldest known completely aquatic whale found yet,” said Reguero, who shared the discovery with Argentine paleontologist Claudia Tambussi and Swedish paleontologists Thomas Mors and Jonas Hagstrom of the Natural History Museum in Stockholm.

Paul Sereno, a University of Chicago paleontologist who wasn’t involved in the research, said that if the new find withstands the scrutiny of other scientists, it will suggest that archaeocetes evolved much more quickly than previously thought from their semi-aquatic origin in present-day India and Pakistan.

“The important thing is the location,” Sereno said. “To find one in Antarctica is very interesting.”

As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time.  Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

Previously, the whale series looked something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

Comments
Yes, it predicts a tree, starting with whatever the common ancestor was. It says nothing about the OOL. The chance that any fossil, or fossil population is directly transitional is vanishingly small. In palaeontology, the word is used to describe fossils that share features with two other taxonomic groups. It doesn't mean that that organism was in the direct line of descent between the two, and indeed, may have lived later than either. It looks as though the Tiktaalik population that was found by Shubin et al was descended from a population that branched off from other tetrapods before the Zachelmie fossil footprint-makers did.Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Put it this way, Ambulocetus cannot possibly be a transitional fossil between land mammals and whales if fully-aquatic whales were swimming in the Antartic at the same time as Ambulocetus was frolicking on the shores like a sea-lion. But, of course, this fact won't trouble evolutionists the way it should do because they will simply move the goalposts: "Yes, yes, we said Ambulocetus was an important transistional fossil but we privately suspected all along that it couldn't possibly be and this latest ancient whale fossil discovery simply confirms that. Isn't it wonderful how science is self-correcting and evolution is always true?" If whales couldn't have evolved from Ambulocetus, then Ambulocetus cannot be considered a transistional fossil between land mammals and whales. Not a big problem for evolutionist beliefs, I admit, but certainly a big problem for evolutionary science.Chris Doyle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Darwin's theory cannot predict a tree because it is silent on the origin of life and the origin of life is what determines how many trees there will be. Also tiktaalik can't be a transitional because it was found in the wrong strata to be a transitional.Joseph
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle: "Palaentology is a model-fitting science (actually all science is, but it’s worth being especially aware for that fact when it comes to palaentology)." ===== Let's be honest. More often than not Palaentology has some of the worst fabricators pf myth manufacturing the world has ever known and I don't care if their an Evolutionisy, Creationist or IDist. Nobody was there and nobody can say for sure without inserting their own personal feel good bias into the thing. However, not all Palaentologists follow the rule above. ---- Elizabeth Liddle: " Models are not The Thing Itself. That doesn’t mean the aren’t useful." ===== Yes computer models can do offer whatever the programmer wants it to. Again, I couldn't care less which side is using it.Eocene
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
What is a "transitional" fossil, in your view, Chris? BTW, if it turns out that ambulocetus is on a separate twig from this animal that isn't a problem for Darwinism. Darwin's theory predict the tree, merely a tree. It's just like the objection that those Polish fossil footprints are a "problem" for the "transitional" fossil, Tiktaalik. They aren't. They just mean that the clade has to be rearranged a little.Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
But they are certainly evidence for a hierarchy,
IF they are then it is a hierarchy of traits and the theory of evolution does not predict/ expect such a thing. And BTW real family trees are a mess. The tree doesn't exist and many things can cause one.Joseph
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
I disagree :)Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Well, could you? My guess is, yes. You've never seen the rest of the skeleton, yet you can deduce it is probably female, that it has a partner on the other side, the size will give you a height estimate, your knowledge of female human anatomy will give you the right kind of jaw and brow, and you can take a reasonable guess at the rib-cage dimensions. Oh, and the age. Same with the occasional extrapolations from a single bone. If it can be identified as a humerus, for instance, and if its features fall neatly between two animals with archaic humeruses (humeri) then you can probably take a stab at the rest of the body by comparing the animals on either side. But clearly you couldn't make any conclusions about the animal based on data you don't have. If its apparent ancestor had 3 toes and its apparent descendent 2, you wouldn't be able to infer the number of toes it had. This idea that all palaentology is based on single bones is a canard. Sometimes there are different parts of several animals available, with enough information to show that they were part of the same population. Palaentology is a model-fitting science (actually all science is, but it's worth being especially aware for that fact when it comes to palaentology). Models are not The Thing Itself. That doesn't mean the aren't useful.Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Fossil record is a very bad piece of evidence for evolution. It is a far better evidence of design.Eugene S
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle: "Imagine you find a human hip bone. Could you draw the animal it came from?" ===== Why not ??? All that's necessary is to take a script right out of Dr Owen Lovejoy's playbook! "Lucy: Evolution By Powersaw" http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032597/human_evolution_the_powersaw_incident_funny/ -----Eocene
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
BTW, if I were less convinced of the power of Darwinian processes than I am, I would still be completely convinced by the evidence for common descent. And I would, if really wanted to postulate some kind of Intelligent Input into the process, that the Designer's role was to arrange for appropriate variants to be generated at key points in the history of each lineage, to set it off down a reasonably fruitful adaptation path. I think this is Behe's position, BTW. Of course I also think he is wrong :)Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
No, but it's pretty powerful when you note: 1) The mapping of the tree on to geological strata and therefore time and 2) The almost complete absence of transfer of "solutions" from one lineage to another once a branching has occurred. This is not true of, for example, human designs.Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Eocene, pretty sure the author means "amphibious." Passing through an amphibian intermediate really would be something.DrREC
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
I didn't say they couldn't be used as evidence for a common design, Joseph. But they are certainly evidence for a hierarchy, and, given the mapping onto geological strata, for a hierarchy that reflects a family tree - common ancestry. But that doesn't mean, in itself, that Darwinian evolution is responsible for longitudinal adaptation or speciation. I think there's plenty of reason to think it is (and no reason to think it isn't), but let's decide about whether we are arguing about whether the tree exists, or about what causes the tree.Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
I say there isn't any evidence because there isn't. And I have yet to be presented with any evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible. IOW Elizabeth I cannot ignore what does not exist.Joseph
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
1.1.1.2.1 Descent relationship is not the only possible way to explain observed similarities. When I look at two specific engines for similarities, I conclude they must have been a result of common engineering practices. Nothing miraculous.Eugene S
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
You keep saying "there isn't any evidence...." Joseph. But whenever you are presented with any, you just ignore it.Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
There isn't any evidence that the transformations required are even possible. BTW Linnaeus was a Creationist searching for the Created Kind. And we wouldn't expect a tree as we don't know how many founding populations there were.Joseph
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
I also find it entertaining the way they can magically animate a full pic from just one bone to give us an entire creature. Never underestimate the old ‘Lucy’ factor.
Imagine you find a human hip bone. Could you draw the animal it came from?Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Looks like it Eugene. He should read more of my posts :)Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
The reasoning isn't circular. Just as we fit a diagonal to a scatter plot to find out whether there is a significant correlation, we can fit a tree to character data to see whether there is a significant depth of branching - deeper branching then would be expected under the null hypothesis of no nested hierarchy. Repeatedly, analysis of character data from fossils and extant living things reveal a tree, as Linnaeus discovered. Some of the details of the tree may be subject to tweaking as more data become available, just as the equation for the diagonal fit to a scatter plot is constantly adjusted as more data are available, but we don't then say: oh, that is circular reasoning, and any way, you keep changing your linear equation. In both cases, tree and linear fit, we have a clear fit of model to data that is much better than under the null assumption of no relationship.Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
The data for cladograms is not made up, but because cladograms are constructed on the basis of presumed evolutionary relationships (such as those shown in the diagram of the presumed evolution of whales), they hardly constitute validation of the presumed evolutionary relationships. Such circularity in reasoning can't confirm anything.Jim
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, Cladograms are based on similarities and as such can be used as evidence for a common design. As I said there isn't any evidence that a land mammal can evolve into a fully aquatic mammal and the claim cannot be tested- it has to be assumed and then "confirming" evidence is found. But that "confirming" evidence can also "confirm" alternative scenarios.Joseph
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Here's a puzzle for me about the article. *** "Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea." *** So their early ancestors were some sort of mammal wolf/deer-like creature(whatever - choose your favourite fable) which I assume already had mammal reproductive systems, mammary glands, etc. But then it turned back into an Amphibian which would include the previous vestigial sex froggy/salamandish/toady reproduction systems which I assume includes egg laying, etc, but then morphed back to a mammal of the whale/dolphin variety with fully functional mammalian componants once again ??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ??? --------------- I also find it entertaining the way they can magically animate a full pic from just one bone to give us an entire creature. Never underestimate the old 'Lucy' factor. Then their apparent ability to employ the powers of a Wiccan to channel these things dead spirits which evidently reveal a mythological world which is totally foreign to anything we relate to today. Wonder if Speilsberg Studios help any ??? --------------- On a further note, I enjoyed this piece in one of the last paragraphs: "Paul Sereno, a University of Chicago paleontologist who wasn't involved in the research, said that if the new find withstands the scrutiny of other scientists, . . " Let's be honest here, we're not talking "scrutiny", we're talking other competitor's 'jealousy', 'envy', 'bigotry' and all motivated by this inner circle's lust for fame glitter and glory by whatever means. Almost like something out of an "Indiana Jones" script. It's sort of identical to the business world's corporate ladder climbing which includes stepping on the fingers and toes of others(you know - whatever it takes) where everyone is trying to achieve the same obsessive goal.Eocene
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
A 49 million year old, fully aquatic ancient whale fossil would clearly demonstrate that the younger so-called 'transistional' fossils were, in fact, nothing of the sort. To claim otherwise is science fiction. If you think you can "tweak" Ambulocetus back into this picture then think again.Chris Doyle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, He does not know how science works, surely :)Eugene S
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Why does it "clearly demonstrate...that the evolutionary whale tale was science fiction, not fact"? Where is the "demonstration"? It may result in an interesting tweak to the model, but how does that make the existing model "science fiction"? (Recall that all models are provisional, not "facts").Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Here's a better link to Durrett and Schmidt: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581952/?tool=pubmedPetrushka
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
Oh, there is lots of evidence, Joseph, not least being the cladistics of whale evolution, as illustrated above. Or do you think the data from which those cladograms are derived are just Made Up?Elizabeth Liddle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Good article, Jonathan M. And, Lizzie, did you read this bit? With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. If this new fossil find is correct, then this clearly demonstrates that the evolutionary whale tale was science fiction, not fact: Something that many ID proponents have been saying all along! Where do you think this leaves Ambulocetus? And where's Doveton? This is a bad day for him, you and all the other evolutionists who believed in the myth of the evolutionary whale tale. That much is crystal clear.Chris Doyle
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply