Whale Evolution vs. The Fossil Record: The Video

_{Jonathan McLatchie

October 25, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

You do realize that Sinonyx andPakicetus were land mammals and only evotard imagination puts them with whales. GinoB:
What about the rest of them on the list then? Designed or evolved from an earlier form? How do you know?
Don't know- theoretical musings about untestable past events, while OK, are best left to the sci-fi writers or even the History Channel. But it sure as heck doesn't belong in any science class.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

GinoB:
You think that atavistic tails on human babies means that humans were designed with tails but later evolved them away.
What alleged human ancestor had a tail? Fossils, timeframe, the usual, please...Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

GinoB:
You have no supporting fossil evidence, no supporting genetic evidence, no time frame, but you just *know* it happened.
Umm atavistic hind fins/ flippers is supporting genetic evidence And notice not one bit of your evidence points to any mechanism
You already said mutations plus selection was the mechanism that caused rear limb evolution, remember?
Geez Gino, you must be on something- or you are just dishonest/ stupid- as I NEVER said that. I said mutation/ selection can take away things, however even then it could be by design. IOW Gino you are so confused that you think ID states no change can happen- it doesn't. ID says that not all changes are via blind, undirected chemical processes. Your ignorance has you continually confused.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Joseph
I don’t know the time-frame. All I know is atavistic means it existed before- ie prior generations
Interesting. You think that atavistic tails on human babies means that humans were designed with tails but later evolved them away. What was the original designed purpose for tails on humans?GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Joseph
I don’t know the time-frame. All I know is atavistic means it existed before- ie prior generations. That alone supports my claim.
LOL! You have no supporting fossil evidence, no supporting genetic evidence, no time frame, but you just *know* it happened. Sounds exactly like Intelligent Design Creationism's position on everything in biology.
You do realize that Sinonyx andPakicetus were land mammals and only evotard imagination puts them with whales.
What about the rest of them on the list then? Designed or evolved from an earlier form? How do you know?
And notice not one bit of your evidence points to any mechanism
You already said mutations plus selection was the mechanism that caused rear limb evolution, remember? Are you on some sort of medication that makes you so continually confused and incoherent?GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

GinoB:
You’re the one who made the claim that whales with hind limbs existed then had the hind fins evolve away. Back up your claim.
The existence of atavistic hind fins plus the existence of cetaceans without them. If this is really too difficult to follow then perhaps you should go to another forum where your brand of trolling is welcome.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

GinoB, I don't know the time-frame. All I know is atavistic means it existed before- ie prior generations. That alone supports my claim. Either that or evotard use of atavistic characteristics is nonsense. You do realize that Sinonyx andPakicetus were land mammals and only evotard imagination puts them with whales. Ambulocetus, again only EI- but thanks for proving my point- you present a handful whereas there should be thousands. And notice not one bit of your evidence points to any mechanism.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Joseph
GinoB: "So you are now claiming the ‘Designer’ created the original whales with hind fins?" I am claiming that atavistic would mean that since hind fins/ flippers developed then there were hind fins/ flippers before.
You forgot to tell us when did these whales with hind fins exist? What time frame?
As for fossils- wow- where are all the fossils of all the transitional forms that had to have existed under teh darwinian scenario- including the fossils of failures?
They're in museums all over the world - Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, etc. Where are the whale fossils with hind fins Joseph? Of the above list, which were the original 'Intelligently Designed' species and which evolved from earlier species? How do you tell? You're the one who made the claim that whales with hind limbs existed then had the hind fins evolve away. Back up your claim.GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

GinoB:
So you are now claiming the ‘Designer’ created the original whales with hind fins?
I am claiming that atavistic would mean that since hind fins/ flippers developed then there were hind fins/ flippers before. As for fossils- wow- where are all the fossils of all the transitional forms that had to have existed under teh darwinian scenario- including the fossils of failures? To date we have a handful of speculative fossils which doesn't amount to squat considering how many transitional forms must have existed.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Joseph
Atavistic- hind fins developed which means hind fins were lost.
So you are now claiming the 'Designer' created the original whales with hind fins? When did these whales exist? What time frame? Where are all the fossils of whales with hind fins?GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

A transposon has in it sections of DNA that encode two of the enzymes it needs to carry out its job. The cell itself contributes the other necessary enzymes. The motion of these genetic elements about to produce the above mutations has been found to be a complex process and we probably haven't yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and as well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events. Dr Lee Spetner "Not By Chance" page 44
Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

The paper assumes common ancestry.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

A common design = a common originJoseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Repost - this got buried, but I thought it may be of interest. Whales, Artiodactyls and transposons IN summary, an analysis of whale/artiodactyl relationships independently of gene function using distinctive markers - SINE transposons.Chas D_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

A fascinating paper on the genetic evidence that cetaceans evolved from land animals - specifically, Artiodactyls, even more specifically, a common ancestor with the hippo. The method used is basically 'whale-independent'. It doesn't look at things that may be involved in 'whaleness', but at short transposons, cut-and-paste sequences that move around the genome, effectively at random. If a sequence is present in a group of species, it is suggestive of a common origin for that sequence, because the probability of the same sequence inserting at the same point in a separate event is negligible. This avoids the known problems with some statistical tree-building that relies upon on sequence divergence - it is much more robust. If one looks at a variety of different markers, one can build a tree based on sequences shared, each different marker grouping species at a different level. It is entirely possible that one could do this and get a complete mess - common descent is disconfirmed. But that is not what happens.Chas D_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

There isn’t any DNA sequence that we can point to and say “That has to do with being a whale”
You read it the wrong way round. We want sequences that we think have nothing specific to do with being a whale. We can't be sure which ones do, but we can tell which ones don't - if they also occur in another organism that isn't a whale, they aren't unique to whales. The clumsy way this used to be done, before genome sequencing, was to mix up the whole of the DNA of two species and allow it to link. You can tell how close in sequence these are by the extent to which they bind - the closer the match, the tighter. Even that method placed whales in the Artiodactyla. But all this method says is that the complete sequence of whales is most like the complete sequence of artiodactyls, out of all organisms. That could just be an accident. Given that it must be most like something, maybe Artiodactyls just happened to be that accidental match. But protein, and then gene, sequences gave a much more surgical tool. You can look at genes in respiration, say, which both whales and Artiodactyls need. They may have different requirements - whales dive deep and hold their breath, Artiodactyls don't. But despite those different requirements, their respiration genes are actually closely related in sequence. It really isn't clear why Artiodactyls would need respiration genes that are more like a whale's than like a horse's or an elephant's. Nor why whales would need such genes that are more like Artiodactyls' than seals', or penguins', say. You can look at many other shared genes and get the same pattern, or a pretty good match. Even though the differences may be partly accounted for by difference in function, it's the remaining similarities, after subtracting the differences, that argue for a common origin. But the clincher is in the kind of more distinctive 'errors' that creep in from time to time, because reproduction is imperfect. You can find whole chunks of sequence shifted and embedded somewhere else. If this kind of function-independent rearrangement occurs in all the members of a group, and in no others, then it is strongly indicative of a common origin for that group. Common design wouldn't be a strong alternative hypothesis, because the same signal appears in both whale and hippo, two very different designs.Chas D_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
That does a great job of supporting your claim that proto-whales all had fully developed hind fins.
I never said proto-whales had fully developed hind fins- see you ARE a waste of time as you can't even read. Atavistic- hind fins developed which means hind fins were lost.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

GinoB, I read the article and looked at the picture- those are flippers, not legs- only evotards on an agenda would say the dolphin had hind legs. Atavistic means the reappearence of a characteristic that was once lost- FLIPPERS APPEAR ON THE DOLPHIN, which means flippers were lost- duh. And only evotard imagination sez proto-whales had legs and feet. Your ignorance means nothing but does prove YOU are a waste of time.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Nothing like ‘assuming the conclusion’ to establish scientific certainty eh Chas???
Setting up a statistical test that assumes common descent is precisely equivalent to setting up a statistical test that assumes design. Both are simply legitimate approaches to hypothesis-testing, which necessarily assumes that the hypothesis might be true, then looks to see if the data supports it. Then one runs the program, and "follows the evidence where it leads". Guess where the evidence leads on Artiodactyla/Cetacea?
you not even in the realm of experimental science
What? You are? You have experimental evidence that molecular phylogeny is wrong, as a science? Or that Artiodactyl-Cetacean evolution (BY SOME MEANS) is prevented by known genetic/developmental constraints?
, you refuse to acknowledge it, the thread is long, and i am done with you!
OK then.Chas D_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Er Joseph, did you even bother to read the dolphin article? It's about a case of atavistic hind limb development. "Dolphin reveals an extra set of ‘legs’ Scientists say fins may represent throwback to ancient land-dwelling ways. Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared" That does a great job of supporting your claim that proto-whales all had fully developed hind fins. Why are there no fossils of proto-whales with hind fins, but plenty of fossils of them with hind legs and feet? I think I'll leave you now to cry in your soiled diaper. Attempting to converse with you when you behave like a child throwing a hissy fit is a waste of time.GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

There isn't anything in this paper- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1482506/- that demonstrates a hooved leg can evolve into a fin.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

GinoB- You are confused- only a cry-baby would think that stating onvious facts, which is what I am doing when I say "There isn't any evidence...", is akin to throwing a tantrum. Yes, you are close to being a lying moron, that is about it. dolphin with hind FINS Now how about that paper that demonstrates a hooved leg can evolve into a fin.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Joseph
It doesn’t exist- you are lying.
LOL! I imagine you holding your breath and stamping your feet when you type out these childish NUH UH, THERE AIN'T NO EVIDENCE!!! replies. Am I close?
Pargwinn alrady posted a paper- duh.
The paper paragwinn posted lays out the transitional steps from hind terrestrial legs to no hind limbs. You claimed proto-whales once had hind FINS, remember? Maybe you try reading the paper instead of just claiming it doesn't exist. You are the most confused, angry Creationist I've seen in some time.GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

And also the evidence of the leg transforming into a fin. GinoB:
It’s already been presented to you, multiple times.
It doesn't exist- you are lying.
By what mechanisms and what detailed steps did these imaginary hind fins disappear?
Pargwinn alrady posted a paper- duh.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Joseph
GB: "BTW, where is your evidence that the hind limbs on early proto-whales were fully formed FINS and not legs?" Whales have fins and there isn’t any evidence that they ever had legs.
Whale don't have fully formed HIND fins. Where is your evidence that they once did?
GB: "We have lots of evidence from the fossil record of gradually diminshing rear feet and legs, not gradually diminishing fins. Present it then. And also the evidence of the leg transforming into a fin.
It's already been presented to you, multiple times. Not much we can do if you won't read the scientific literature. That's right - you're the guy who behaves like a fussy little child and answers every technical point by screaming THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!!! Bet that works wonders for you in real life too.
You are dense- making something disappear is easy and I never argued against it.
By what mechanisms and what detailed steps did these imaginary hind fins disappear? You say it's easy, so give us the details.GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
Mutations and selection aren’t explosions. They cause slow, small, incremental changes that happen generation to generation.
Except there still isn't any for the type of changes you are talking about.
Explain why mutations plus selection couldn’t slowly evolve a leg into a fin using the same mechanism you already admit causes major morphological changes.
Explain how they can- ya see science requires POSITIVE evidence and your position lacks positive evidence. Also tal=king something awat is much easier than changing from one type to another- fewer changes required.
BTW, where is your evidence that the hind limbs on early proto-whales were fully formed FINS and not legs?
Whales have fins and there isn't any evidence that they ever had legs.
We have lots of evidence from the fossil record of gradually diminshing rear feet and legs, not gradually diminishing fins.
Present it then. And also the evidence of the leg transforming into a fin.
Paragwinn already posted a paper with evidence for the genetic regulatory elements that cause the genes for hind limb development to be not expressed, along with lots of nice images of the intermediate morphologies. I’m sure you read it thoroughly.
You are dense- making something disappear is easy and I never argued against it. What you lack is the evidence a hooved leg can transform into a whales fin.Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Joseph
GinoB: "If mutation and selection can make a species of cetaceans gradually evolve away the ‘hind fins’, why can’t mutation and selection evolve a terrestrial mammal leg into a fin?" The two scenarios are not even close to being similar. So why would anyone say if one can happen so can the other- there isn’t any connection. Heck I can use explosives to take down a building but I can’t use explosives to build one.
Mutations and selection aren't explosions. They cause slow, small, incremental changes that happen generation to generation. I can build a wall one brick at a time, or I can remove a wall one brick at a time by using the same tools. Explain why mutations plus selection couldn't slowly evolve a leg into a fin using the same mechanism you already admit causes major morphological changes. BTW, where is your evidence that the hind limbs on early proto-whales were fully formed FINS and not legs? We have lots of evidence from the fossil record of gradually diminshing rear feet and legs, not gradually diminishing fins.
Then it should be straightforward for you to tell us the genes involved in the morph.
Paragwinn already posted a paper with evidence for the genetic regulatory elements that cause the genes for hind limb development to be not expressed, along with lots of nice images of the intermediate morphologies. I'm sure you read it thoroughly. Where is your ID evidence for the same changes?GinoB_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
If mutation and selection can make a species of cetaceans gradually evolve away the ‘hind fins’, why can’t mutation and selection evolve a terrestrial mammal leg into a fin?
The two scenarios are not even close to being similar. So why would anyone say if one can happen so can the other- there isn't any connection. Heck I can use explosives to take down a building but I can't use explosives to build one.
Both terrestrial legs and fins have virtually the identical bone, circulation, and muscular structure. Right, because of a common design.
It looks to be quite straightforward to morph one into the other with small incremental changes.
Then it should be straightforward for you to tell us the genes invoved in the morph. But heck we don't even know what genes are "whale" genes- as far as anyone knows there aren't any.
Joseph_{October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Joseph
Losing fins is not the same as turning hooved legs into fins.
If mutation and selection can make a species of cetaceans gradually evolve away the 'hind fins', why can't mutation and selection evolve a terrestrial mammal leg into a fin? Both terrestrial legs and fins have virtually the identical bone, circulation, and muscular structure. It looks to be quite straightforward to morph one into the other with small incremental changes.GinoB_{October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Chas D:
Suppose we pick a DNA sequence that has nothing to do with ‘being a whale’,...
THAT is the whole problem! There isn't any DNA sequence that we can point to and say "That has to do with being a whale"- We don't have any idea what makes a whale a whale...Joseph_{October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply