Why Whales are not understood by Creationists (Testable)

[vjtorley (Vincent Torley)]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks very much for the article on apelin, and for the information about how the cooling system is a conserved mechanism in mammals. I think the evidence you’ve presented undercuts the argument that two mutations had to occur simultaneously in the evolution of whales. Cheers.

[vjtorley (Vincent Torley)]

Hi beaglelady,

As far as I know, they haven’t. I might get in touch with him myself. Thanks very much for the link to his Webpage on whales.

[vjtorley (Vincent Torley)]

I’d like to second what Jim said. The Slate article was highly informative. Thanks again, beaglelady.

[sfmatheson]

@vjtorley

I think the evidence you’ve presented undercuts the argument that two mutations had to occur simultaneously in the evolution of whales

Hi Vincent,

That evidence does undercut the testes/cooling story as an argument for extremely fast or extraordinary evolutionary change. But I think the more basic problem is that the arguments were advanced without any evidence, indeed without any reported attempt to obtain evidence.

It may very well be that there are aspects of the whale evolution trajectory that are peculiar enough to require extraordinary explanation. For at least some of these aspects, there are available data (genomics, anatomy, paleontology, physiology) that could be analyzed to look for abrupt changes. There are places to publish such analyses, even in progress, to get feedback and critique from other experts. There are lots of scientists who, like me, would be very interested in such work. It doesn’t seem that Sternberg is doing any of it. That’s a shame.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

I didnt even know who Paul Nelson was…

But apparently he visited BioLogos for a few days and never posted a thing…

@Swamidass

This movie gets creationism wrong, and is getting some very thoughtful criticism from both Jeff Zeerwink at RTB and even @Paul_Nelson, one of the YEC experts they have in the movie. Both of their critiques are really good reads.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@vjtorley

I’d like to second what Jim said. The Slate article was highly informative. Thanks again, beaglelady.

@vjtorley,

How did you get entangled into this argumentative aspect of whale evolution? As soon as he said ten million years… I knew he wasn’t defending the YEC position.

But what position is he really defending… especially if he is a Pythagorean?

[beaglelady]

@vjtorley

As far as I know, they haven’t. I might get in touch with him myself. Thanks very much for the link to his Webpage on whales.

@vjtorley

I’d like to second what Jim said. The Slate article was highly informative. Thanks again, beaglelady.

You are very welcome. Whale evolution is fascinating.

[vjtorley (Vincent Torley)]

Hi George,

The term “creationist” (which you use in the title of your piece) is a very broad one. It certainly includes old-earth creationism. I wouldn’t call Sternberg a creationist, but I do know that there are quite a few old-earth creationists in the Intelligent Design movement, and they are fond of citing Sternberg’s writings on whale evolution in support of their position that the first “true whales” (Basilosaurids) were created by the agency of God. Many of them would dispute the notion that the Basilosaurids were descended from the protocetids, which they regard as fundamentally different.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@vjtorley

Many of them would dispute the notion that the Basilosaurids were descended from the protocetids, which they regard as fundamentally different.

@vjtorley

Wait, what? You are telling me that people who believe the Earth is way older than 6000 years… and that walking proto-whales evolved in 10 million years… reject the idea of common descent from protocetids?

Are you saying

[1] that they think Basilosaurids descended from a different lineage?

Or, are you saying

[2] they reject that Basilosaurids descended from any other whale lineage?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@sfmatheson

The argument is made in part 2. It involves no analysis at all. Instead it raises standard ID talking points (claims of need for coordinated mutations, most centrally) without any specific genetic data from cetaceans or anywhere else.

Which seems ridiculous, since most of the major morphological differences studied to date have turned out to be caused by loss-of-function alleles. IIRC the major differences in the genomic sequences between cetaceans and their closest terrestrial relatives are duplications, not suggestive of “coordinated mutations.”

Do they even go into the genomic data?

[sfmatheson]

@benkirk

Do they even go into the genomic data?

There is apparently a part 3 of the podcast series, and I have not watched the YouTube video with Nelson (linked above somewhere by @vjtorley) or watched the DVD. So it is possible that they looked at data (any data). From what I heard, I thought it was clear that they have done no analysis of any kind, on genomic data or any other data from cetaceans. The argument amounts to “whale evolution was fast, I don’t see how it could have all happened,” accompanied by a list of physiological differences that we know to be exaggerated (see discussion of countercurrent exchange above).

It’s hard to tell whether anyone at the DI has the expertise to look for lineage-specific genomic changes.