Interesting ancestrial whale fossil

It sounds like you are doing things really well. I can learn from you. That’s a great theme to teach. Thanks.

I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything. The original article was behind a paywall this article is free. It shows how a fossil is classified. I am sure you would have the same objections to this article as you would to the original if it was available. Others might be interested in seeing how this type of research is done.

1 Like

For those truly curious, here’s an article from the Evolution Basics series that covers the needed territory.

The short answer is that stem groups can persist for a long time after they part ways with the lineage that gives us the crown group. Evolution is a branching bush, not a ladder.

This error in YEC circles is so common one wonders why, after numerous attempts to explain why it’s not a issue, it nonetheless keeps coming up as an objection. It’s right up there with “if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?” and other similar arguments.

5 Likes

If someone was claiming that said fossil could not be in any way related to the other organisms under consideration, I can understand why this is claimed as a fallacy. But if said fossil remains are indeed later/younger than the more whale-like creatures under discussion, then this particular fossil simply could not be transitional between two other identified species, both of which predate it, no?

Can’t read the mind of whatever source Chris was referencing, but that is all I would understand the claim to entail, and that claim in and of itself does not seem particularly erroneous.

It is all in the wording. Your use of “particular” meaning I suppose that unique organism seen that produced that one unique fossil would preclude direct linage to an earlier fossil, but of course most of us take it as the species represented by the fossil, in which case it could be transitional.

Yes. Imagine a line of descent from A to B to C. Clearly C must be younger than B. But what happens if B doesn’t go extinct after splitting off into C? B could continue to evolve but could retain characteristics that are transitional between A and C. This line could continue to the point where the fossils found are younger than C. Understand? Remember evolution is a bush not a ladder

1 Like

Correct… if that general species had existed for millions of years earlier, largely unchanged, then said organism could well have been a transition between land animals and the more aquatic animals. But we would need further fossil discoveries of older fossils to confirm this, no?

But if further discoveries confirm that this particular species simply never predated the more fully aquatic species, then it may remain an interesting descendent from some land based animals, but cannot be used to illustrate or claim transition or “filling in the blanks of whale evolution.” It would be down the line on a different pathway that diverged from whale evolution.

Yes, it could be as you suggest. :wink: thus we, strictly speaking, could say that a hypothetical or inferred ancestor of B was a missing link between A and C.

However, if as further information is gathered, we continued to find only fossils of B that were dated significantly well past the appearance of C, and no ancestors of B that predated C or were closer to the timeframe expected at the divergence of the proposed common ancestor between B and C, then I would increasingly doubt B should give us much information as to the evolutionary pathway to C.

(For instance, when I look at the cladogram of birds and archaeopteryx, arch. is not in the “direct” lineage from reptiles to birds. But its timeframe still predates birds significantly, if I recall correctly. Thus, hypothetically, if archaeopteryx had not gone extinct, it could have continued in existence LT and we could find some specimens of it that post date modern birds. Thus it was only a short distance off the “trail” of direct lineage from reptiles to birds, thus able to function to give us some more formation about the transition.

But if all known fossils of archaeopteryx post-dated modern birds, however, its appearance would have to be explained by other circumstances… an interesting descendent of reptiles that perhaps had some interesting convergent evolution along with modern birds, or the like. If every known specimen of archaeopteryx post dated modern birds, though, it would not tell us very much about the evolutionary path from reptiles to birds, as the birds would have completed their evolution before the evolutionary changes that gave rise to archaeopteryx.)

Just looked further… if I am reading properly, this fossil find dates to some 2-3 million years after the timeframe that we already had fully aquatic whales. So if anything, this organism would be related/descended from something like a rhodocetus (that had existed something like 2-3 million years earlier). But it is so far off the direct lineage, only appearing at the same timeframe as fully aquatic whales that I still would argue it has little to do with ”whale evolution”, as I understand the term, unless we have reason to think the same species had also existed much much earlier than this specimen.

If we are talking about “filling in the missing labels on the extensively branching tree that branched from pakicetus, then sure, it is useful in that sense. But as a “transitional form” to demonstrate the evolution of land animals to our current whales, that i simply can’t see.

That is a big IF. And you argument says B should not be dismissed out of hand just because it is younger. Which is what many YEC do.

Another big IF. Given we will never find fossils of every animal that ever lived. Not finding a fossil doesn’t prove anything. Absence of evidence etc.

At some point you have to just step back and look at the fossil record that we do have and say “what explains this best?”

2 Likes

Quite correct.

Quite correct as well. As for what explains it best, for me, what breaks it is when I consider what is entailed in cetacean echolocation, 300,000 or so generations seems a ridiculously short time to think that blind chance however assisted by natural selection could come upon something so fine tuned, with all the brand new integrated functions, a new specialized directional organ, etc. I know Dr Venema disagrees here of course, but given the speed of sound being 4X faster in water, I simply can’t accept cetacean echolocation as simply a “fine tuning” of what all mammals already possess. Other mammals simply cannot tell sound direction in water using normal ears. They had to develop the capacity to emit directional narrowband high frequency signal, the capacity to receive it, and in a very specific way that can differentiate far, far more more minute timing of return signals, as seems to be completely rewired through the animal’s jawbone and teeth as a sonar array. And this just one of many adjustments that had to have happened just right to achieve said echolocation, all in an evolutionary blink of an eye. I understand the theory in principle, but all that is necessary to get this just right, so fast, maintains my skepticism.

But what happens when you add God to the process? Evolution is a long series of decisions and we are told “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”

1 Like

And yet cetaceans use the same (very slightly modified) genes as any other mammal to accomplish these tasks.

300,000 generations is roughly what separates us from our common ancestor with chimpanzees. I’d say we’ve come a decent way from that point as well - again, with only very subtle modifications along the way. In a complex organism a large amount of phenotypic change can be underwritten by a small amount of genetic change.

1 Like

This, once again, presupposes that there is only one way (or perhaps only a few ways) to “get it right”. But, as we have explained before, this is almost certainly not the case.

Sir, hopefully I don’t come across combatativr, and I’m not trying to particularly argue a case here, but I’m afraid your thoughts here continue to reinforce to me the idea that there is significant minimizing of various complexities. I’m afraid your thoughts only serve to undergird my skepticism…

Aquatic HF sonar is something I know at least a bit about.

And there are only certain ways to “get it right” to develop such a highly discriminating, pinpoint accurate, high-frequency sonar system in an aquatic environment, at least speaking of the engineering involved. This is something I can speak to to some small degree at least. The broadband, audible (to humans) “pings” we hear in movies are useful for detecting very large objects (like submarines) at very long ranges. But to get into the area of very highly descriminating and pinpoint accurate sonar, the high-frequency (inaudbile to us) sonar is required. We use such HF on submarines for detecting relatively smaller objects at closer range, but even that is very, very crude by comparison to what dolphins can do.

To develop such capability in an animal, evolution must develop the ability for an animal to project very loud, near continuous, very high frequency noises. And there are will be very specific parameters involved in engineering a biological system that can accomplish said feat. Simultaneously, said creature must be capable of detecting said very high frequency sounds, and in a different way in the water to discriminate direction which given sound speed in water is very tricky. And to be able to discriminate that level of detail, very precise discrimination of object sizes, at the speed involved which far surpasses our best technology… there are very few ways of getting such a stunningly perfectly balanced system right… such that our science isn’t even close to figuring out much of the technology involved. So I fear I remain incredulous when you suggest that it is not the case that there are only few ways to get such a system “right.” If there are so many multitudinous ways to get it right, why haven’t our best scientists found any of them yet?

I understand your view is that, given enough time, small modifications of existing functions will continue to be honed and unsurprisingly, given natural selection, eventually out comes such a perfect system. But I know just enough of how HF sonar systems work that I perceive this as a terrible minimization of the engineering feats involved. I fear I simply remain dubious, given everything that must be developed to achieve just such a perfect system as this.

Again, this seems to simply minimize all the engineering that must be done with said proteins. Of course they certainly use most of the same genes (I’m assuming you’re meaning the same protein-coding genes?) But the arrangement of the cells, tissues, in redesigning organs and systems to achieve the very, very precise system that we haven’t yet been able to emulate can not simply be waved aside by the observation, “well, they’re using largely the same proteins.” It is the very precise arrangement of said proteins, whether from non-coding DNA, epigenetic pathways, developmental biology, or some combination of all that or more, that arranges said proteins into the very, very precise arrangement necessary to achieve said feats. Simply dismissing the complexity by observing that the same proteins are used only feeds my skepticism, as it seems only to minimize the astounding engineering I witness in said features and doesn’t acknowledge the tremendous complexities involved.

And not to be overly critical, but when discussing with an evolution skeptic like myself, such an observation or argument simply begs the question at hand. The fact that unguided evolution achieved similar feats in the same timeframe as between HCLCA and modern man demonstrates that it is equally unproblematic in cetaceans? I’m dubious that any such process can achieve said feats in any biological system. Appealing to another such “achievement of evolution” of which I am equally skeptical does nothing, I fear, to assuage my doubt.

And again, suggesting there are only “very subtle modifications” required in a chimp or chimp-like ancestor in order to achieve the astounding human achievements such as morality, love, music, visual art, mathematics, philosophy, astounds me. It comes across like there is just this gene called “intelligence,” and all one needs to do is crank it up from its current setting to a higher one, as is easily achieved by the magic of natural selection, and poof! we get brains capable of the achievements of J.S. Bach, Shakespeare, Homer, Einstein, NASA, and the like.

I know you’re not oversimplifying it that much, granted, but that is the basic impression it leaves me with. Same is said for cetacean echolocation. Just take what already exists, give it a couple hundred thousand generations aided by nothing more than natural selection, and don’t be surprised if it stumbles upon stunning achievements which outperform out best modern science.

I fear I remain incredulous.

That’s fine - I don’t really think it’s my job to convince people who are skeptical. Long ago I learned that there are, in general, two possible responses to evidence for evolution. One response is to ask for more evidence and learn more about what biologists think about it. The other general response is to think up objections (that tend not to be realistic because usually the person doesn’t understand the biology well enough) - and usually there is a prior theological commitment that is motivating the objections. Someone in the latter category is not someone I can usually have a productive conversation with, and that’s ok. There isn’t a rule that one has to accept evolution. Look at Behe, for example - he’s gone on record to say that he won’t accept the evidence for the evolution of the immune system unless presented with every point mutation along the way, with its fitness, with allele frequencies over time, and so on. That level of detail is impossible to provide, and that is what he has chosen as his standard - it’s “designed” unless that level of evidence can be provided. Well, that’s an unassailable position he’s worked out.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.