Whale evolution

[jimmo42]

I am in a "discussion" with a fundie who claims that evolution cannot be true because there was not sufficient time for the number of necessary mutations for whale to evolve back into aquatic animals. My guess (based on other claims) is that he got his information from here: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution.

Considering it was written by Jonathan Sarfati, the entire article is suspect. However, simply ingoring it because of the author is not logically sound, so I was wondering if anyone has information that would refute Sarfati claims.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Google cetacean evolution. This should give you enough information.

 

[Inferno]

Before I even read the creationists article: Here's AronRa's website with information on the subject.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

After glancing at the link provided, I was surprised to see most of it debunked by ProcInc in this "debate". Surprised, until I remember that creationist are herders of arguments. They will not abandone them no matter how debunked they become.

Read ProcInc's responses and you will have your information and be a few steps ahead of your creationist in your discussion.

 

[jimmo42]

Thanks to all for the input. I have already checked out the links and looks like what I need.

BTW, I have had some personal contact with AronRa before. I wish my science teachers in high school were all like him.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The "debate" I linked references "The Peanut Gallery" a few times, but never links to it. Here it is, in case you want to read it. It is mostly filled with my innate ramblings.

 

[Inferno]

OK, long answer now...

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable.

The creationist is making a simple, but terrible mistake here: linearity. Basically what he's suggesting is that the pelvis reduced at a linear speed since the Paleocene, which isn't actually what is suggested. Instead, we have animals like Ambulocetus, who took their hind limbs and pelvis into the water, making them move probably somewhat akin to dogs in water. These animals would be amphibious, being neither fully aquatic nor fully dependant on land.

Ambulocetus

This also explains why modern whales still have a vestigial pelvis!

Skeleton of a baleen whale, the red circle shows the vestigial pelvis

Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

It took me some time to even understand that, but simply said there's no evidence that Ambulocetus's tail moved only sideways and not also up/down. If anyone has ever seen a cat, I'd even suggest that moving the tail upwards was probably the norm then.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: 'We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.'

Date of the quote: 1962
Most fossils, including Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, were discovered much later, in 1979 and 1994 respectively.

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.

Except of course the ones that weren't. Both Pakicetus and Ambulocetus were most likely amphibians, then there is Kutchicetus being more aquatic than terrestrial and Protocetus and Rodhocetus being purely aquatic. Note: Rodhocetus still has a big pelvis, contrary to the creationists claims. Also, Rodhocetus might not be 100% aquatic yet.

So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith.

:facepalm:

On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size,see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter).

I have yet to read the book but it's not some huge conspiracy to draw pictures not in their actual size. Anyone know why we do it? Oh Billy, I see your hand up. Yes?
It's because we have to make the pictures large enough for people to see them, make them small enough to save space and have the book nicely styled to make it easy and pleasant for people to read it. If you want to see fossils to their actual size, go to a (non-creationist) museum.



And so on and so forth. If you're interested, I'll dissect the rest of the article, too. Rather boring and tedious though.

 

[tuxbox]

The religious will remain ignorant because of videos like this:

 

[jimmo42]

Thank you very much for doing what you did. I really appreciate it. Biology was never my best subject, although I do enjoy learning about it.

Instead, we have animals like Ambulocetus, who took their hind limbs and pelvis into the water, making them move probably somewhat akin to dogs in water.

And we know that because we have specific fossils from that particular species, right? Do we have any other indicators they would have/might have been amphibians other than the relative age of the fossils?

So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable.

But that isn't necessarily a problem depending on the extent of any restriction in movement, right? Being amphibians they could go into the water to avoid land predators then go onto land to avoid the sea predators. Would that make sense?

Date of the quote: 1962
Most fossils, including Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, were discovered much later, in 1979 and 1994 respectively.

He did something similar in his book. As "proof" evolution is wrong, he offered a quote from the 1920s saying simply that the fossil record didn't support it.

And so on and so forth. If you're interested, I'll dissect the rest of the article, too. Rather boring and tedious though.

No worries. I appreciate what you did.

Did you pull this all out of your head or have to look some of it up?

 

[Inferno]

And we know that because we have specific fossils from that particular species, right?

Exactly right. One of those fossils can be seen on the Wikipedia page I linked.

Do we have any other indicators they would have/might have been amphibians other than the relative age of the fossils?

The age has little to do with it, it's more to do with the morphology of the fossils. They're both adapted to marine life and terrestrial life, so chances are it's an amphibious creature.

But that isn't necessarily a problem depending on the extent of any restriction in movement, right? Being amphibians they could go into the water to avoid land predators then go onto land to avoid the sea predators. Would that make sense?

No, what he's addressing is "Once in the water/on land, what could the animal do to avoid predators?" and there it would be quite difficult to avoid it.
As I've pointed out though, his premise is wrong so it's not even worth thinking about the point.

Did you pull this all out of your head or have to look some of it up?

Both. I already know a bit about biology in general and taxonomy as well as evolution specifically, but I also used the above linked locolobo, wikipedia, the talkorigins website in its various forms as well as Mikko's phylogeny website.

 

[jimmo42]

Both. I already know a bit about biology in general and taxonomy as well as evolution specifically, but I also used the above linked locolobo, wikipedia, the talkorigins website in its various forms as well as Mikko's phylogeny website.

The Internet: Theism's worst nightmare.

Once again, thank you very much for you're efforts hear. I learned allot. You definately no a grate deal about fossils, ect. Your a grate teacher.

 

[Inferno]

Your a grate teacher.

I'd be depressed if I weren't, I'm nearly done with my studies and am already teaching classes.

Any more questions, fire away.

 

[jimmo42]

"In my world, teachers get paid more than baseball players."
'The Light', Jefferson Starship

 

[jimmo42]

I have a specific question.

My "opponent" referenced a whale fossil found in the antarctic that is 49 million years old. He further claims that "The complete evolution now would have had, to occur in just a few million years (or less than 200,000 generations)." (the "complete evolution" from land to aquatic)

I found an article that mentions the exact same species my oppondng did, in the same order as he does, plus the numbers my opponent mentions fit with the article. (the site seems to be a front for the Discovery Institute)

As you pointed out previously

The creationist is making a simple, but terrible mistake here: linearity.

So far so good.

It seems logical to mean that we could translate "200,000 generations" as "200,000 mutations", and if the mutations are not occurring linearly, but in parallel, then the 200,000 mutations could occur in fewer than 200,000 generations.

My question is how do people come up either numbers like "200,000 generations"? Logically it is possible that the discovery institute is simply pulling the numbers out of their backside. However, it also seems logical to mean that we should have a way of estimating the number of mutations or generations from one species to the next in order to see if the necessarily evolution could occur. It seems that the ID-site has used some kind of technique to estimate 200,000 generations. So how is this done?

 

[Laurens]

I'm pretty sure Jerry Coyne covers whale evolution in 'Why Evolution Is True' - I can't remember exactly, but its worth reading if you enjoy debating creationists anyway...

 

[jimmo42]

I'm pretty sure Jerry Coyne covers whale evolution in 'Why Evolution Is True' - I can't remember exactly, but its worth reading if you enjoy debating creationists anyway...

Thanks for the tip. I just now downloaded it.

BTW, I think I will pass along the Popper quote to my opponent. The fact that ID is not science is something he flat-out refuses to accept.

 

[Laurens]

I'm pretty sure Jerry Coyne covers whale evolution in 'Why Evolution Is True' - I can't remember exactly, but its worth reading if you enjoy debating creationists anyway...

Thanks for the tip. I just now downloaded it.

BTW, I think I will pass along the Popper quote to my opponent. The fact that ID is not science is something he flat-out refuses to accept.

There are aspects of ID that are falsifiable. Such as claims of certain things being 'irreducibly complex' however where those claims are made they have been shown by empirical evidence to be false on their own terms.

It is true that a large amount of ID is unfalsifiable. Such as hiding in the gaps of our ignorance... We don't know how the first life arose therefore God - that is unfalsifiable and can be dismissed on the grounds of that Popper quote.

In short, where ID does make falsifiable claims, they are proven false, where it doesn't it does not speak about reality...

 

[jimmo42]

In short, where ID does make falsifiable claims, they are proven false, where it doesn't it does not speak about reality...

That is something I will definitely keep in the front of my mind.

BTW, the Coyne book does cover whale evolution. In fact, there is a whole chapter "Back to the water: The evolution of whales".

 

[nemesiss]

I am in a "discussion" with a fundie who claims that evolution cannot be true because there was not sufficient time for the number of necessary mutations for whale to evolve back into aquatic animals.

this is probably silly, but...

have you asked him the following:
1 - what is the maximum (and minimum) time needed for [whale]* evolution?
2 - how many mutations are needed?
3 - what is the maximum amount of mutations per generation?

*this basic goes for ANY type of evolution.

i expect that he/she/it can't answer any of them and throw a fit.

 

[jimmo42]

this is probably silly, but...

Very good idea. I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't think about those specific question. I was always just asking for sources. (which is not a bad thing)

i expect that he/she/it can't answer any of them and throw a fit.

He will throw another fit.