Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Evolution: Whale Evolution

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 2:22:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On strange creature that we find is the whale. Surprisingly whales are genetically far more similar to mammals than to fish even though they look like fish. Whales may look like fish on the outside, but they are far different on the inside, and are actually mammals.

Whales have hair, a trait found in mammals not fish. Whales give birth to live young and don't lay eggs like fish. They feed their young with breast-milk which is a mammal trait not seen in fish. Whales have smooth skin not fish scales. Whales move their tails up and down when swimming, a mammal trait. Fish move their tails side to side. Whales have pelvises just like mammals, and have a hand structure in their front fins unlike fish.

The below links show the fish and whale skeletons compared.
http://www.drdino.com...
http://www.infovisual.info...

The most important feature of all is that whales have lungs instead of gills. This would be comparable to making a monkey with gills instead lungs. This monkey would live and eat up in the trees, but from time to time they will have to rush back in the water to breathe. Dolphins are also mammals that look like fish.

The reason for this is that millions of years ago, some land animals that lived in shallow water began adapting themselves more and more for water with fins and the like, until they could not live in the water any-more. This is why whales look like mammals dressed up like fish. The hippo a close relative of whales hints at the possible lifestyle of these ancestors.

In fact we find transitional fossils of land animals evolving into whales.

http://darwiniana.org...
The above image shows the evolution of whales with more whale-like creatures in higher geological strata.

http://wshsscience.edublogs.org...
http://biologos.org...
The above two links shows the skeletons of the transitionals.

Notice how the front arms are becoming reduced as we go into higher strata. Also notice how the back legs disappear and the pelvis becomes small and distant from the spine. Indeed Dorudon has a transitional pelvis between that of a normal mammal and that of a whale.

This two minute video shows how the nose of the mammal ancestors of the whale starts moving up the forehead to become the blow-hole of the whale.

Looking at the whale pelvis, we see that it is vestigial. It is tiny and just sitting separated from the spine in the whale.
http://www.drdino.com...

It is doubtful if this pelvis has any function at all, although it might have some minor function. It is vestigial because it has lost its former function (holding the legs solidly).

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Indeed in the above link, we find that some dolphin species still develop leg bugs in embryonic development. What evolution did was keep the leg buds from developing further into legs; in the dolphins.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us...
The most astounding thing of all is that sometimes unlucky whales and dolphins will develop atavistic legs on their vestigial pelvises. Atavisms are traits formed from ancestral genes that were turned off, but through some mutation is turned back on in a descendent. Often these genes will allow something which started in embryonic development (leg buds) to continue to develop and not stop.

Everything about the whale screams of its origins. The fossil record shows the ancestry of the whale. Whales are strong evidence for the theory of evolution.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 10:52:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 2:22:47 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
On strange creature that we find is the whale. Surprisingly whales are genetically far more similar to mammals than to fish even though they look like fish. Whales may look like fish on the outside, but they are far different on the inside, and are actually mammals.

Whales have hair, a trait found in mammals not fish. Whales give birth to live young and don't lay eggs like fish. They feed their young with breast-milk which is a mammal trait not seen in fish. Whales have smooth skin not fish scales. Whales move their tails up and down when swimming, a mammal trait. Fish move their tails side to side. Whales have pelvises just like mammals, and have a hand structure in their front fins unlike fish.

The below links show the fish and whale skeletons compared.
http://www.drdino.com...
http://www.infovisual.info...

The most important feature of all is that whales have lungs instead of gills. This would be comparable to making a monkey with gills instead lungs. This monkey would live and eat up in the trees, but from time to time they will have to rush back in the water to breathe. Dolphins are also mammals that look like fish.

The reason for this is that millions of years ago, some land animals that lived in shallow water began adapting themselves more and more for water with fins and the like, until they could not live in the water any-more. This is why whales look like mammals dressed up like fish. The hippo a close relative of whales hints at the possible lifestyle of these ancestors.

In fact we find transitional fossils of land animals evolving into whales.

http://darwiniana.org...
The above image shows the evolution of whales with more whale-like creatures in higher geological strata.

http://wshsscience.edublogs.org...
http://biologos.org...
The above two links shows the skeletons of the transitionals.

Notice how the front arms are becoming reduced as we go into higher strata. Also notice how the back legs disappear and the pelvis becomes small and distant from the spine. Indeed Dorudon has a transitional pelvis between that of a normal mammal and that of a whale.

This two minute video shows how the nose of the mammal ancestors of the whale starts moving up the forehead to become the blow-hole of the whale.


Looking at the whale pelvis, we see that it is vestigial. It is tiny and just sitting separated from the spine in the whale.
http://www.drdino.com...

It is doubtful if this pelvis has any function at all, although it might have some minor function. It is vestigial because it has lost its former function (holding the legs solidly).

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Indeed in the above link, we find that some dolphin species still develop leg bugs in embryonic development. What evolution did was keep the leg buds from developing further into legs; in the dolphins.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us...
The most astounding thing of all is that sometimes unlucky whales and dolphins will develop atavistic legs on their vestigial pelvises. Atavisms are traits formed from ancestral genes that were turned off, but through some mutation is turned back on in a descendent. Often these genes will allow something which started in embryonic development (leg buds) to continue to develop and not stop.

Everything about the whale screams of its origins. The fossil record shows the ancestry of the whale. Whales are strong evidence for the theory of evolution.

I agree. Nice post!
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 8:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, just because they look a lot like a series of intermediates between land-walking mammals and whales doesn't mean they are. How do you know that God didn't create the Sinonyx and the Pakicetus and the Ambulocetus and the Rodhocetus and the Basilosaurus and the Dorudon on the sixth day?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 9:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 8:58:12 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
Well, just because they look a lot like a series of intermediates between land-walking mammals and whales doesn't mean they are. How do you know that God didn't create the Sinonyx and the Pakicetus and the Ambulocetus and the Rodhocetus and the Basilosaurus and the Dorudon on the sixth day?

Well, first these transitionals are found in Pakistan in fossil strata ranging from 50 million to 35 million years ago. Second, the younger these tranisitionals are, the more whale-like they are. These show a sequence.

So what if God sequentially created animals that looked more and more like whaled from 50 million years ago to 35 million years ago? And plus, why is God making things look exactly as if whales did evolve? Maybe God is a prankster. Who knows. Occam's razor will sheer that idea right off.

The point is, that a theory is strengthened when new data supports the range of predictions its make. The mammalian nature of whales gives away their land-mammal ancestry. The fossil record shows a sequence of fossils going from land mammal to whales, the vestigial pelvis, atavistic legs, and embryonic leg buds of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) also supports the idea that whales evolved.

Creationism can often accommodate these discoveries, but these discoveries do not boost the idea of creationism, creationists can only try to show how these facts don't contradict creationism.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 10:52:59 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 12/27/2011 2:22:47 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
On strange creature that we find is the whale. Surprisingly whales are genetically far more similar to mammals than to fish even though they look like fish. Whales may look like fish on the outside, but they are far different on the inside, and are actually mammals.

Whales have hair, a trait found in mammals not fish. Whales give birth to live young and don't lay eggs like fish. They feed their young with breast-milk which is a mammal trait not seen in fish. Whales have smooth skin not fish scales. Whales move their tails up and down when swimming, a mammal trait. Fish move their tails side to side. Whales have pelvises just like mammals, and have a hand structure in their front fins unlike fish.

The below links show the fish and whale skeletons compared.
http://www.drdino.com...
http://www.infovisual.info...

The most important feature of all is that whales have lungs instead of gills. This would be comparable to making a monkey with gills instead lungs. This monkey would live and eat up in the trees, but from time to time they will have to rush back in the water to breathe. Dolphins are also mammals that look like fish.

The reason for this is that millions of years ago, some land animals that lived in shallow water began adapting themselves more and more for water with fins and the like, until they could not live in the water any-more. This is why whales look like mammals dressed up like fish. The hippo a close relative of whales hints at the possible lifestyle of these ancestors.

In fact we find transitional fossils of land animals evolving into whales.

http://darwiniana.org...
The above image shows the evolution of whales with more whale-like creatures in higher geological strata.

http://wshsscience.edublogs.org...
http://biologos.org...
The above two links shows the skeletons of the transitionals.

Notice how the front arms are becoming reduced as we go into higher strata. Also notice how the back legs disappear and the pelvis becomes small and distant from the spine. Indeed Dorudon has a transitional pelvis between that of a normal mammal and that of a whale.

This two minute video shows how the nose of the mammal ancestors of the whale starts moving up the forehead to become the blow-hole of the whale.


Looking at the whale pelvis, we see that it is vestigial. It is tiny and just sitting separated from the spine in the whale.
http://www.drdino.com...

It is doubtful if this pelvis has any function at all, although it might have some minor function. It is vestigial because it has lost its former function (holding the legs solidly).

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Indeed in the above link, we find that some dolphin species still develop leg bugs in embryonic development. What evolution did was keep the leg buds from developing further into legs; in the dolphins.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us...
The most astounding thing of all is that sometimes unlucky whales and dolphins will develop atavistic legs on their vestigial pelvises. Atavisms are traits formed from ancestral genes that were turned off, but through some mutation is turned back on in a descendent. Often these genes will allow something which started in embryonic development (leg buds) to continue to develop and not stop.

Everything about the whale screams of its origins. The fossil record shows the ancestry of the whale. Whales are strong evidence for the theory of evolution.

I agree. Nice post!

Thanks!
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:58:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fantastic thread so far, and response to AposteAbe's post, Dan4reason.

I just hope that the "god the trickster" fallacy argument or the brilliant argument that "commonalities indicate the presence of a common designer" aren't brought up to explain or accommodate the spectrum of the evolution of whales...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 12:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:58:43 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Fantastic thread so far, and response to AposteAbe's post, Dan4reason.

I just hope that the "god the trickster" fallacy argument or the brilliant argument that "commonalities indicate the presence of a common designer" aren't brought up to explain or accommodate the spectrum of the evolution of whales...

I hope it isn't brought up either. I do have a good analogy to counter most arguments from that direction.

Using Newton's laws we can predict how different objects will move with respect to each other. We find that these predictions come true in real life. Since these predictions have been validated, this is strong evidence for Newton's laws.

There are a few people who believe that it is really God who moves everything. They respond to the evidence by stating that God could have easily moved objects in such a way as we see them move today.

However, the motions of different objects with respect to each other can only be accommodated by the God theory of motion. These motions on the other hand fulfil the predictions of Newton's laws and that is what is important. And plus, why would God make objects move just so that they conform to Newton's laws? Wouldn't that be deceptive if Newton's laws are false?
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 1:29:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:53:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/28/2011 10:52:59 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

I agree. Nice post!

Thanks!

My pleasure. Merry Winter Solstice & a Happy New Year.