Whales did (NOT) evolve

@T.j_Runyon,

One of my ancestors lost a ring long ago… you know how these things happen… he was walking his Mosasaur when the darn thing snapped at a bug, and took his hand right off - - along with the ring!

So if you find a ring and a human digit in that gaping mouth (the one you drew), once you get it to “gape” again, please let me know immediately!

1 Like

Sorry. No ring! Just some shark teeth! And oddly a human hair… I guess the YECS were right. We lived along side Mosasaurs.

3 Likes

You are cheating! You’ve examined the evidence!

1 Like

I am just asking a very fundamental question.

  1. How do you know Similarity is caused by Common descent in two so called related organisms?
    We know for a fact, that simlarities also arise convergently. And i have been trying to demonstrate here that those similarities are not as easy to distinguish as between the wings of a bat and a bird.
    What we have are (ever changing) hypothetical stories based on an assumption of some particular similarities being caused by common descent.
    Before somebody claims Homologs are identical or something of that sort, pls look into the similarities between the Pakicetus/ambulocetus and the whale… The are just similarities… A

i have asked a question here that everyone has ignored. How many intermediate forms are required to move from a CA of the Pakicetus/Whale to a whale?(If the whale evolved, then it must have a direct sequence of sncestors moving from either the Pakicetus or the common ancestor of the Pakicetus and the whale) Through a step by step process of gradual change, the no: would be 100’s or 1000’s… How many interim forms do we actually have? I think its fair to say the fossil record does not show what it should if evolution happened.

As to me thinking in terms of a linear progression… We can draw evolutionary trees or bushes all we want. However, it must have happened in history in a linear progression. In fact, evolution requires actual linear progressions to exist.
The fact that we cant find any and have to resort to unknown CA’s at the nodes of the tree all the time is a strike mark against common descent. It means that either there was no linear progression… or that its impossible to identify whether a creature is a direct ancestor of another.Like you yourself said, there is no reason that an intermediate form cannot survive alongside its ancestor… so why aren’t there any real intermediates in an evolutionary tree?
No extant or even extinct creature can be connected by direct lineage… they all need unknown and perhaps unknowable common ancestors in between.
This is why i have said from the beginning that CA is unfalsifiable.

If you are talking about “inherited change in alleles”… is that explanatory enough to be a theory?
The equivalent in theory of gravity would be “masses attract”.

I think you are confusing what i said. Pls read my first comment. I classified cars by Drive.
That would be - Animal drawn, Internal combustion engine, Hybrid and electric motor.
Then we can go into smaller subdivisions in those…

Cars/Trucks in the ICE clade with same engine points to relatedness. You are right. They are Homologs.
Same tires in most cases point to a common ancestor. Though the Fords look similar, the similarities are only convergent/parallel… (I will point to small differences between models to make my point).
Besides, there could also be a few cases of horizontal transfer, Ervs etc… So some of the similarities happened that way.

Awesome and congratulations!

Can you help me out and list out the convergences between whales and MOSasaurs? (If any)

I already pasted the pictures before… Will repaste… This si definitely more similar than either the Pakicetus or the ambulocetus. If this can happen covergently, why not the siilarities between Pakicetus and teh whale ear?
image

Agreed… Only thing is , i would replace “context” with “convenience”… there is no actual reason/principle that says so and so similarity points to common descent… its all a matter of how the evidence can be fitted into the narrative.

That really doesnt answer my question. If you look at an evolutionary tree, all extant and extinct organisms are dead-ends. The only places where we see a linear/direct link is in the nodes which denote unknown common ancestors. This tells us clearly that scientists cannot really determine whether there is a direct linear descent between organisms…
either that, or its worse… They can detect direct descent but they just dont find it among extant organisms.
The first is a problem for falsifiability (you cant falsify linkage to an imaginary CA).
The second is itself a falsification or atleast strong evience against CA.
In your opinion. Which is it?

I think there is some ammount of room for modification in Organisms. i think this is mainly driven by programmed adaptability (Phenotypic plasticity, Epignetics, genetic drift etc) and not by chance events/natural selection.
As to when God intervened.I believe he intervened at various stages of life emerging… There are several instances in the development of life where we see sudden bursts of change usually accompanied by the emergence of many de-novo genes. i see life as more of an information system. The first life had some ammount of information programmed into it and certain mechanisms to generate various permutations and combinations of genetic material to create new information…
In short, phenotypes are determined by genotypes which are determined by regulatory mechanisms designed by God.
The changes are sudden and programmed.(Because of how i interpret Genesis, i view this programming to have happened in stages)
Such a scenario would create the diversity we see. Common descent with inherited modifications driven by chance will not.It will just lead to a confused ridiculous picture that we see today.

@Ashwin_s (@Mervin_Bitikofer)

There’s really not much point in discussing it then, right? You’ve already made up your mind? So, there’s not much point in having you read the analysis by highly trained professionals, who know a bone from a rock[from the Wiki article]:

Possible semi-aquatic nature
Somewhat more complete skeletal remains were discovered in 2001, prompting the view that Pakicetus was primarily a land animal about the size of a wolf, and very similar in form to the related mesonychids. Thewissen et al. 2001 wrote that “Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir.”[6]

However, Thewissen et al. 2009 argued that “the orbits … of these cetaceans were located close together on top of the skull, as is common in aquatic animals that live in water but look at emerged objects. Just like Indohyus, limb bones of pakicetids are osteosclerotic, also suggestive of aquatic habitat”[7] (since heavy bones provide ballast). “This peculiarity could indicate that Pakicetus could stand in water, almost totally immersed, without losing visual contact with the air.”[8]

Sensory capabilities
The Pakicetus skeleton reveals several details regarding the creature’s unique senses, and provides a newfound ancestral link between terrestrial and aquatic animals. As previously mentioned, the Pakicetus’ upward-facing eye placement was a significant indication of its habitat. Even more so, however, was its auditory abilities. Like all other cetaceans, Pakicetus had a thickened skull bone known as the auditory bulla, which was specialized for underwater hearing.[9] Cetaceans also all categorically exhibit a large mandibular foramen within the lower jaw, which holds a fat pack and extends towards the ear, both of which are also associated with underwater hearing.

“Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular foramen is small, as is the case in all terrestrial animals. It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial mammals. Thus the hearing mechanism of Pakicetus is the only known intermediate between that of land mammals and aquatic cetaceans.”[10] With both the auditory and visual senses in mind, as well as the typical diet of Pakicetus, one might assume that the creature was able to attack both aquatic and terrestrial prey from a low vantage point.

Fossil distribution
The first fossils were uncovered in Pakistan, hence their name. They were found within the Kuldana Formation located in northern Pakistan and were dated as early to early-middle Eocene in age.[11][12] The fossils came out of red terrigenous sediments bounded largely by shallow marine deposits typical of coastal environments caused by the Tethys Sea.[13] Speculation is that many major marine banks flourished with the presence of this prehistoric whale. According to the location of fossil findings, they preferred a shallow habitat that neighbored decent-sized land. Assortments of limestone, dolomite, stonemud and other varieties of different colored sands has been predicted to be a favorable habitat for such.

@Ashwin_s, nobody has the answer to that question… because the best definition for a species is the definition that uses reproductive compatibility - - and fossils are not able to tell us how reproductive compatibility changes over time.

This complaint has no traction. No matter how many intermediate (not interim) forms we produce, you would say that is not enough. What’s more, the alternative to the evolutionary theory is that these whales all drowned while proto-horses and proto-rhinos were happily swimming around during the Great Flood.

So YOU tell us what your theory is? Are all the species of the world special creations of God? When was the Great Flood according to YOUR timeline? I notice that you have ducked these questions once already. Will this be the second time you avoid answer the questions that show you have an even less sensible theory than Evolutionists do…

Thank you for re-posting the pictures… because now all I can do is wonder what your problem exactly is? I’ve already replaced this exhibit (which is decades old and probably not the best illustrations) with a 2014 illustration and link of up-to-date analysis.

So drop this one… really… I insist. Or shall I start pointing out how wrong Isaac Newton was about
Christianity? Relevant? No. But parallel to your continued use of obsolete imagery.

I wanted to treat your last 2 sections separately, @Ashwin_s:

In my opinion, the problem is in your analysis. Instead of trying to answer all your questions about common descent from a schematic diagram … try READING the articles… and learn why the schematics are the way they are.

Here is an article on the LOGIC of “intermediate forms” - - which has nothing to do with proving a particular fossil is directly descended from another fossil… because by most anyone’s admission, there is no way of knowing which fossils are part of an offshoot or not. The point is to show that natural processes generated forms that demonstrate plausible transitions from one time frame to another.

Here - - - read this …

[[ Really, I’m not kidding. The thread discusses the very questions you have raised about the point
of these schematic diagrams, and the use of intermediate fossils. Read it, and it will be less
chaotic to you. ]]

.
.
.

Thank you … you do attempt to answer my earlier question about your own personal scenario. What surprised me was to find out how we only differ on one point: Can God use Evolutionary principles or not!

You write:
“I think there is some amount of room for modification in Organisms. i think this is mainly driven by programmed adaptability (Phenotypic plasticity, Epignetics, genetic drift etc) and not by chance events/natural selection.”

So all this disputation of yours is because you think God guided evolution? Well, no kidding! Lots of us supporters of BioLogos say the same thing! So where do we differ?

You write:
“As to when God intervened.I believe he intervened at various stages of life emerging… There are several instances in the development of life where we see sudden bursts of change usually accompanied by the emergence of many de-novo genes… . . . In short, phenotypes are determined by genotypes which are determined by regulatory mechanisms designed by God.”

So, @Ashwin_s, how often do you think god made “special creation” templates? Every 10 or 20 million years? Or every 100 million years? Why do you suppose God spent so much time making brand new “special creations” of species - - and doing it in such a way as to convince the modern scientist that it was by Evolutionary processes? That’s pretty odd, right?

You conclude:
“The changes are sudden and programmed.(Because of how i interpret Genesis, i view this programming to have happened in stages) Such a scenario would create the diversity we see. Common descent with inherited modifications driven by chance will not.It will just lead to a confused ridiculous picture that we see today.”

But isn’t that denying God the power to trigger the necessary mutations? If he didn’t trigger the mutations, then he wouldn’t have had to make each Special Creation of Earth’s life forms so genetically gradated from one group to another, right?

What may be the hardest thing for you to explain is why you accept modern physics and geology enough to reject Young Earth scenarios… but then reject the very same physics and geology that also says creatures evolved. And since you and I agree that God is behind all of these life forms… your insistence that God couldn’t do it through Evolutionary science sounds, well, practically superstitious !

Evolutionary principles?
what are those? Random mutations and natural selection?
This does not describe an intelligent agency using a designed process to arrive at a desired result.

No, i dont think God guided evolution… because evolution is a random/unguided process.
I believe God designed the Genome in ways that led to the various organisms that we see.

What exactly do you mean by " special creation templates"? Think of it as new programmes into a system which converts information into phenotypes.
As to the modern scientist; God did not convince him that life evolved. The scientist convinced himself … often when the evidence says otherwise.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

I never said that geology is a problem for YEC. Geology poses challenges for evolution in many circumstances forcing organisms to traverse seas and oceans on “natural rafts” to populate various areas.
I dont see Physics “saying” that creatures evolved. Rather Physics/chemistry tells us how difficult and improbable it is for complexity to emerge by unguided, unintelligent processes.

The picture places a MOSasaurus Skull next to that of a Dorudon… The MOSasaurs are reptiles… How is this picture obsolete? Can you clarify yourself?

I will get back to you on your link on the missing links once i finish reading it.

In BioLogos’ mission statement, the group qualifies the use of Evolution to mean Evolution WITH God’s engagement… and it goes further to imply REJECTION of notions of evolution based on seemingly random events.

In a Christian cosmos no other kind of Evolution can exist!

I don’t know why you are saying the skulls are similar. The only similarity is they have a triangular shape. And even that isn’t completely similar. That’s where the similarities end. Look at the difference in the parietal. You asked why wouldn’t a a Mosasaur be considered a whale intermediate. Other than not being in the right temporal range? Because it’s a reptile. And their skulls are filled with reptilian characteristics. Especially in the jaw. As far as convergence goes, the position of the nostrils (both mosasaurs and whales need to surface to breathe) and their shape to help them move through the water efficiently. That’s it. You also seem to think Pakicetus’ classification as a cetacean is just based on the ear. That’s false. We look at other characters and other fossils. Chemical analysis of bones and teeth. Shapes of bones. Ridges on bones. We never classify based on a single character. And convergence doesn’t really make perfect copies. So its cumulative. All the evidence we have points to Pakicetus being an early cetacean

5 Likes

@Ashwin_s

If God made multiple special creations… as you propose… he did so in exactly the way fossil remains would have to be left to:

  1. to disprove the Flood;
  2. to prove common descent;
  3. and to prove that no large mammals ever emerge until dinosaurs and their like have been wiped out by sonething Other than a flood.

@Ashwin_s,

You have to come to terms with the reality that there is more than one way to engage in the creation of life on Earth:

God can use special creation to make a rain cloud… or a wildebeest.

And God can use non-supernatural methods to make a rain cloud … or a whale.

George. How does Speciation work?
A population gets isolated… over time change accumulates and slowly the population becomes a distinct species. The original species will continue to exist as long as they don’t become extinct for a unrelated reason (or the small isolated population was all that was left of the original species). I think you will agree with me that speciationneed not lead to the disappearance of the parent species.
This process repeats again and again and you get a diversity of organisms.
So, every species must directly descend from another species.
In reality; there must exist an unbroken chain of direct lineage from the first common ancestor to any modern species, because evolution is inherited change. If evolution is true, these relationships of lineage exist in reality.
There can only be two possible reasons why evolutionary science cannot find these direct relationships with any confidence -

  1. They don’t really exist.
  2. There is no way to know for certain that a species is derived from another.

If its option 2. I would love to know why.
The nodes in the evolutionary tree must represents one or more unknown species that existed historically with intermediate traits. Otherwise, whats the point of claiming a relationship of lineage?

Now if you believe the tree represents something else… can you describe the process as its supposed to happen in realtime?
or is the evolutionary tree an imaginary construct with little to do with reality?

It’s 2. We can’t know for sure. It’s statistical inference.

@Ashwin_s

  1. immunologists use Evolutionary theory to design vaccines… vaccines that work! …and save lives. So your first premise is flat dead incorrect.

  2. You would make a terrible police detective if you kept telling your boss blood analysis is USELESS … we just cant know for certain. In fact, we can sometimes know to a virtually certain degree.

  3. Finally, speciation works (almost inevitably given enough years) when 2 sub-populations virtually stop exchanging genetic information during reproduction of the next generation. Once such isolation is established, God can send one sub-population in one evolutionary direction… and send the other in a different trajectory.

Isolation can be triggered by a new physical barrier, or in song birds it can be triggered by a new song with limited appeal. Or in many animals by the appearance of some new color or ornamental enlargement of some feature!

Hi George.you are engaging in circular reasoning. Forget God, not even all human beings (including a small percentage of scientists) agree with you that the fossil evidence supports common descent.
Your argument is like atheists blaming God for creating a world without any evidence of God’s existence! They don’t realise the problem is their perception tainted by sin.

Our Perception of things, or the scientific perception of things is not Gods Problem. Its ours!

Like i have said before. I expect scientific explanations to stand on their own two feet. if physicicts claim rain is caused by purely natural causes, i expect an explanation for it that does no include God. And i will evaluate their explanation according to their claims.
Same with Biologists.

@Ashwin_s The pot doth call the kettle black?

It is not necessary that “all” agree. It is only necessary that an efficient elite are able to perform molecular interventions, based on evolutionary evidence, that works.

As for fossils, no matter how you slice it, Australia’s genetic legacy and fossil legacy, fits no known Creationist scenario other than: God intentionally made serial special creations in such a way as to convince scientists that God did NOT use special creation.

Thanks for the reply. Can you tell me if the below statement by @gbrooks9 is true?

If so, what are the levels of certainty. whats the repeatability with different phenotypes/ biomolecules when comparing the same set of species.

1 Like

“efficient elite”???
I would love to see what exactly God tells this efficient elite when they meet up!

If you want to make any specific point about Australia’s genetic legacy, pls do. I will reply.

Actually, yes it does. That’s how your sat-nav computes the fastest route from A to B for example.

Try reading up about evolutionary algorithms sometime. Evolution is an algorithm. And algorithms have to be designed.

4 Likes

@Ashwin_s

That term ‘efficient elite’ came to mind when I was pondering the genetic work of immunologists… or CSI scientists who can produce virtually certain evidence that a particular man is “the perp”… or certain evidence that another is not the perp!

The usual “Australia premise” explored on this list is the one that presumes all life on Australia was wiped out by a year of global flooding.

But do you even think there was a global flood? When did it happen in your scenario?