Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

MSNBC.com is reporting on the discovery of a jawbone of an ancient whale in Antarctica: the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered. The news story reports,

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, Argentine scientists said Tuesday.

A scientist not involved in the find said it could suggest that whales evolved much more quickly from their amphibian precursors than previously thought.

Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.

Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.

“The relevance of this discovery is that it’s the oldest known completely aquatic whale found yet,” said Reguero, who shared the discovery with Argentine paleontologist Claudia Tambussi and Swedish paleontologists Thomas Mors and Jonas Hagstrom of the Natural History Museum in Stockholm.

Paul Sereno, a University of Chicago paleontologist who wasn’t involved in the research, said that if the new find withstands the scrutiny of other scientists, it will suggest that archaeocetes evolved much more quickly than previously thought from their semi-aquatic origin in present-day India and Pakistan.

“The important thing is the location,” Sereno said. “To find one in Antarctica is very interesting.”

As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time.  Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

Previously, the whale series looked something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

Comments
I saw that article several months ago, probably about the time you posted it. What do I make of it? Another extinct amphibious mammal that evolutionists are quick to say is an ancestor of another, fully aquatic mammal fully suited for the sea. With no proof that the former eventually became the latter. You either find these amphibious skeletons, or you find full blown whales. Why can't the forms leading to the full-blown whale be found? "four legs with hoofed toes that were likely webbed, making the creature well-adapted to both land and sea." I see a few "maybes" and "possibilities ". "It likely had webbed feet", but there's nothing to suggest that it actually did. And yet, the accompanying painting depicts the animal with webbed feet. Many would see the picture and take it as fact. I see a partial skeleton, but no ball vertebra, which is the hallmark of true whales. I had a sense of Deja Vu when I'd read the article and seen the picture. It reminded me of pakicetus, discovered by Philip Gingerich. When it was first discovered, there were only a few fragments of fossil: cheek teeth, parts of the back end a skull and a very small part of a lower jaw . So why was there a fully "reconstructed " image of this animal on the cover of SCIENCE depicting it swimming with a fluked tail? Evolutionists say that whales and hippos share similar DNA, this proving common descent. Long before evolution was dreamt of, it was said all life shares a common creator. One could argue creatures share similar traits because they have the same person "coding" them. I would also like to comment on something someone said some time ago about the supposed imperfections found in organic structures proving that life was not designed by a perfect God. First of all, who are we to define what is "perfect "? Scientists have jumped to many conclusions about supposedly useless body parts only to be corrected later, or have at one time considered some elements of DNA to be "junk" only to find out differently. I'm not actually saying that organisms of today at perfect in design. The Bible says that there originally was perfection throughout the earth--animal perfection obviously being different from man's--but perfect in their own way. That perfection was lost. Any "imperfections " evolutionists perceive today are probably a result of that loss of perfection. I think it was the late Stephen J. Gould who claimed that scientists could better design the human anatomy than "nature " has. Have they? Or do engineers turn to nature for design ideas?PREDATORbyDESIGN
November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Another walking whale found. What do you make of this UD? https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/ancient-4-legged-whale-walked-on-land-and-swam-in-the-sea-scientists-say/ar-BBVDwKN?ocid=spartandhpPeterJ
April 5, 2019
April
04
Apr
5
05
2019
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
The Cambrian explosion and the specified information in DNA nullify neo-darwinian or any other type of naturalistic theory - I don't really know why first life and the Cambrian simply did not end the debate - there is no debate - creatures were formed at different periods of time, fully formed, all at once. Just because its called supernatural, makes it no more so than the digital coding and self-repairing mechanisms of the DNA molecule... evonuts are lunatics. All predictions of this pseudo theory FAIL - game over.[email protected]
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
There should be 100's if not thousands of transnationals compared to fully formed creatures - but their are NONE. There are 10K whale fossils, but you can only scrape up a few hopeful monsters - not to mention tails have been drawn on to the pictures, its junk science. Evolution requires more faith than a created creature - go down to the level of the internal organs and then down into the metabolic changes, and developmental embryonic changes that need to occur to make a car into a nuclear submarine and it is a bedtime story for atheists.[email protected]
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
So, the most we're getting from evolutionists seems to be that this and other revelations still in no way disprove evolution. Well, I think it is enough for theists to get a tacit admission that evolution is so far from fact it isn't funny and that you are not an IDiot for being a creationist. I mean how many times have we heard "Evolution is FACT! And you're just ignorant and don't understand evolution if you disagree" It is part con, part bluster, part denial. Yes, natural selection is fact. That's a far as it goes. Period.pbaylis
August 17, 2014
August
08
Aug
17
17
2014
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
How can you use an outdated phylogenetic tree?Thrinaxodon
April 17, 2013
April
04
Apr
17
17
2013
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, You said there is a lot of evidence from cladistics for the evolutionary model... But is this so? I doubt that. As I know,regarding the transition from terrestrial mammals to whales, usually the evolutionists show a fossil transition from a wolf-like creature to whales; but from a morphological point of view, whales are more similar to pigs than to wolfs; and from a molecular point of view, whales have more affinity with hippos than with wolfs. Each line of evidence leads to a different conclusion, which argues against the validity of this particular story. See (or rather listen) also: http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/whales-may-have-come-from-deer-like-animal .valy
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Hi Robert- Creationist organiizations like AiG disagree with you- that the sea was destroyed. Marine mammals did not exist before the flood? It doesn't state that in the Bible so where did you get that from?Joseph
October 18, 2011
October
10
Oct
18
18
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
The sea like the land was destroyed. God simply saved a remnant of everything himself. After it was over different ratios of creatures came to dominate and extinction came also. However its possible somewhere is anything that ever exist in the seas. Marine mammals did not exist before the flood. tHey are simple adaptations of land creatures. In fact there was probably all sorts of land creatures that took to the sea and we now just have a few remaining. After the flood diversity was fantastic and fossils from then show this. no intermediates but only types that quickly developed.Robert Byers
October 18, 2011
October
10
Oct
18
18
2011
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
What if the sea organisms weren't wiped out by the flood? What did God have against cetaceans, pinnepeds, fish, etc.?Joseph
October 17, 2011
October
10
Oct
17
17
2011
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Talk about silly responses- Nick Matzke said::
1. You guys, from Sternberg on down, have not shown that the origin of whales would take some huge amount of extra sequence change, nor have you shown that it would take lots of simultaneous double mutations, triple=mutations, etc. There is no particular reason to think that either of these premises of the argument is true, but you are just brazenly pulling this assumption out of nowhere. What we know, though, is that the amount of genome change involved in adaptation via natural selection is a tiny amount of the total amount of genetic change that happens over, say, 10 million years, just due to random genetic drift. And it seems likely that most morphological change is due to not adaptive changes in gene sequences (although there is some of this), but due to regulatory changes that influence gene expression and development. Altering gene expression is essentially a matter of quantitatively bumping up or bumping down the strength of binding, which is just the sort of thing that single point mutations are good at.
Dude, buy a vowel. It isn't up to anyone to demonstrate that the origin of whales is beyond genetic variation. It is up to YOU to demonstrate that the transformations required are even possible via genetic variation. And guess what? To date the entire field of evolutionary biology has failed to do so. IOW Nick, yours is just a bedtime story, but I bet you think it is scientific evidence.Joseph
October 17, 2011
October
10
Oct
17
17
2011
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
This YEC creationist insists marine mammals are from land mammals in a post flod world. Change was instant by innate triggers. its fine and welcome to find fossils of these whales since all whales were here with a century or two after the flood. once again its the geology that is the foundation for the evolutionists and ID folks biological conclusions. Geology is not to be a player in biology where conclusions are made on remaining evidence. ID and YEC creationists will fain to deny marine mammals are just land mammals adapted to the seas. They clearly are alike to land creatures and simply filled a post flood empty sea because the great previous creatures were wiped out by the flood .Robert Byers
October 17, 2011
October
10
Oct
17
17
2011
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
I liked your analogy of the evolutionary tree and a linear fit to data points. You would agree with me that the closer the points are to the average line, the stronger the case one has for saying that there is a correlation, right? So if the points tend to move farther and farther away, and become more circular than linear, it would weaken the case for the correlation. So here’s my question, I seem to be remembering that the tree of life keeps getting bushier and less connected; am I wrong?
I'm glad you liked my analogy, so let me take it a step further. If our model - our hypothesis - is for a linear correlation between two variables, each data sample should give us a linear correlation. However, the parameters of the best fit line will differ with every dataset. And we n estimate the confidence bounds of the parameters. But if new data tends to contradict our hypothesis, and repeatedly we do not find significant, or trend-to-significant linear fits, we may want to revise not only the parameters of our linear fit line, but the model itself. Perhaps a quadratic function will fit the model better. And with many bivariate correlations this is the case - the "inverted U" function is a fairly common relationship in empirical variables, for instance the correlation between arousal and performance. To apply this to the tree model of biological characters: new data may well cause us to alter the parameters of the tree model; we may have to move nodes around, insert new branches, adjust the length of branches, etc. None of that falsifies the tree, just as adjusting the parameters of a linear fit falsfies the linear relationship. But if our data seriously violated the tree - started to look like a network, rather than a tree, and tree models consistently produced a less good fit than network models - then we would have to concede that a network model was a better fit to the data than a tree model. That network would then become an explanandum - what processes would give rise to a network distribution of characteristics? Now, as you point out, recent research has found some network characteristics at the base of the tree, specifically in molecular phylogenies, and most notably in cloning species. There is still a tree, but there are the branches also reconnect. So that requires explanation. It cannot be explained by vertical heritability, a core feature of Darwinian processes. So we look for an explanation - and we find it: horizontal gene transfer - means by which segments of genetic material are transfered between lineages, not down them. However, this doesn't make much different to the phenotypic trees because all this does is potentially introduce a new source of phenotypic variance, which will propagate through the populations in the usual way, and be selected if beneficial. So certainly our understanding of the distribution of phenotypic and genetic characters has complexified, and required biologists to hypothesise new processes to explain the data. But that is quite different from saying, oh, Darwinist just change the model to fit their preconceptions! (Not that you were doing that). Models must always be fitted to data, not the other way round, and if the best-fitting model requires new explanations, these must be sought. And are :)Elizabeth Liddle
October 17, 2011
October
10
Oct
17
17
2011
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
PaV, we're cool man. Re-read my comment a bit more carefully, especially the first line! :)Eric Anderson
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
PAV... I may be wrong... but wasn't EA joking? - SonfaroSonfaro
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: I think you've been smoking something Eric. It's not the ID people who make such statements; rather it's the Darwinists. They're the ones who say: "Oh, look at the human eye, why are the blood vessels in front of the retina! This is obviously a "flawed" design. Ergo, a "designer" is nonsense." And, the ID people say: "Wait a minute. There may be some good reason for this." And, of course, they are almost always right. So, your premise is a straw man. And you're conclusion about the i-Phone, flawed. Or, at least, imperfect! And the second paragraph above, is but a description of Darwinism and the absurdities it contains. It has nothing at all to do with ID.PaV
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
kellyhomes @ 21.1.2:
Let me ask you, what “positive evidence” do you have that Intelligent Design caused a land mammal to become aquatic?
But you've already asked me that question. I simply turned it around and asked you. You think you have evidence. Well, where is it? These putative "transitional forms" for the whale series demonstrate common ancestry; not necessarily common descent. But that's not what is at issue here. What is at issue is how did the 'transitions' take place. IOW, what is the mechanism behind these transitions? This is a very different question. You say this:
The explanation I have (or rather, which exists as I will not be spoon feeding you here or anywhere) is based on evidence.
But then you say this:
So who are you to talk about “positive evidence” in such a superior tone?
Who's guilty of the 'superior tone' here? Along the way you cite a reference with the title: "Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archaeocete whales." I'm asking for biochemical/genetic evidence to support a Darwinian scenario for what the fossils show. Hence, this reference misses the mark I'm afraid. In the talk-origins quote you present, the author also conjectures that whale evolution took 10-15 million years. With this discovery, you have the archeoacete---that is the "ancient" whale---Pakicetus, with a head size of only one foot, that is said to be 52 million years old. And now we have a full aquatic whale that is 49 million years old. Instead of 10-15 million years, we have 3 million years, or LESS! So it appears that the very learned author of the talk-origin article was way wrong. That's the point of the opening post (OP).PaV
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
PaV,
What “positive evidence” do you have that Darwinian mechanisms caused a land mammal to become aquatic? Could you point out how Mendelian genetics provided for the new information, the new mutations, etc., etc. Or, are you just simply going to use a label, “natural selection”, and provide no actual detail.
Where you were studying biology, did the course cover evolution as such? Where did you study? I'm genuinely interested because I have to wonder how you can say "natural selection" as if that's all anybody knows about how life came to be. Let me ask you, what “positive evidence” do you have that Intelligent Design caused a land mammal to become aquatic? The explanation I have (or rather, which exists as I will not be spoon feeding you here or anywhere) is based on evidence. Or a single reference
Thewissen JGM, Hussain ST, Arif M. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archaeocete whales. Science 1994; 263: 210-2.
to some significant step forward in understanding in this subject based on ID. Can you provide such? So who are you to talk about "positive evidence" in such a superior tone? Scoff, as I know you will, but here goes: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic. However, evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics - it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, and other mammals correlated with evolutionary relatedness between groups. It should be no surprise that this is what we find, and since the findings in one biological discipline, say biochemistry, is derived without reference to the findings in another, say comparative anatomy, scientists consider these different fields to provide independent evidence of the evolution of whales. As expected, these independent lines of evidence all confirm the pattern of whale evolution that we would anticipate in the fossil record. "
Whatever you might think of the evidence and arguments presented on that page can you give me a link to a single page like that that makes the case for the Intelligent Design of Whales, supported by physical evidence (fossils etc)?kellyhomes
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
But, PaV, based on the impeccable logic of many design critics, if something is not "perfect" design, or has "flaws", or if there is something we can point to in the design and say "gee, why would anyone do that", then it can't have been designed. So, therefore, the iPhone was not designed. After all, you remember the antenna reception bungle, right? Imperfect, flawed, why on earth they put the antenna right there, etc. The iphone can't have been designed. And I'll go you one further. Given that it can't have been designed, it must have come about through purely natural and materialistic processes (please don't ask me how that could happen in the real world). Further, all the good stuff about the iPhone -- all the parts that work flawlessly -- that just proves how amazing my bumbling natural process is. Why, my process is so great it can even create the illusion of design. :)Eric Anderson
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Nick Matzke @ 6.4.2.1.3:
If you go in for a front-loading-evolution explanation, you are giving up on all the bafflegab put forward in the initial post about how there was no time for whale evolution, Darwinian processes insufficient, etc. etc.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too! OTOH, you seem to be willing to accept the ID notion of "front-loading", while on the other hand, you want to make the claim that Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain whale evolution. But if you accept an ID understanding of how things got started, then how can you simply switch over to Darwinian mechanisms later on. You can't have it both ways. But even if "front-loading" is conceded, Darwinian mechanisms are still too feeble to explain whale evolution. Behe has recently pointed out the difficulty scientists had in taking an ancient protein configuration and mutating it to a modern (later) configuration. One, relatively simple, protein reconfiguration seems beyond Darwinian mechanisms. So in what way can they be used to explain whale evolution over a relatively short period of time. So, instead of "having your cake and eating it too", you're really facing a "lose-lose" proposition.PaV
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
In fact, if Pav wrote a critque based on the idea that the traits the Grants measured "might have nothing to do whatsoever with genetic changes" he'd rightly be rejected. The Grants showed the traits in question are heritable, even given the environmental variance they recorded, and some of the genetic variance in the population came from migrants. Being able to "sequence check" each bird they capture is in the realms science fiction for the time being.wd400
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle @ 6.4.2.1.2:
PaV, this is an error you are making. Adaptation is evolution. Absolutely it is.
What else would evolution be? There is no “bait and switch”. Darwin could have entitled his book “Origins of adaptations” and written exactly the same book.
Very good. I propose that from now on, we at UD should only talk about Darwin's theory of adaptation. Feel better?
What Darwin didn’t quite get right was the diversification part, not surprising as he had no idea even of the mechanism of inheritance.
If you study a little bit of the history of Darwin's publication of OofSp, you quickly learn that he did so upon receipt of a letter from Alfred Wallace, who, basically, was proposing what Darwin would call the Principle/Law of Divergence. Was Wallace correct? Was Darwin correct? Well, to answer this we need to look at the next statement you make:
But what he described was how adaptation happens, and he was correct. Speciation is simply what happens when a sub-population adapts independently of the parent population.
Yes, Darwin "described" what adaptation looks like. He proposed NS as the causative agent. But, increasingly, cellular processes are being discovered suggesting that the cells themselves have built-in mechanisms of adaptation. So, is it really NS that is the causative agent, or the cell? ID predicts it will principally, if not exclusively, the cell. We shall see what we shall see! According to Wallace and Darwin, the Law of Divergence tells us that a sub-species will, under changed circumstances, replace its parent species. And so Darwin declares that "subspecies" are really "incipient" species. But where do we see this happening in nature? Let's also remember that neither Wallace nor Darwin knew about Mendelian genetics. We know about recessive traits showing up in the f1 or f2 generation. They didn't. This means that the phylogeny might change without the ontology (the underlying genetic structure) changing. Was this a mistake on their part, then? So, without knowing more, and based on what we know fairly well now, your statement: "Speciation is simply what happens when a sub-population adapts independently of the parent population." should read: "Sub-speciation is simply what happens when a sub-population adapts independently of the parent population."PaV
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
kellyhomes:
Likewise you fail to present any mechanism for the creation of information apart from “design”. Which in and of itself is not actually very helpful, is it? Sure, it might be design or it might not. But given that you are unable to say a single thing about who how or why then you can hardly complain about what you perceive to be others failure to explain it. Can you?
Where to begin? Without equivocating about the common sense understanding of information, please give me one instance where material processes brought information into existence. Can you do this? Next: I suppose you would agree that an i-Phone is designed. Now do you know anything at all about who designed it, or how they designed it? Don't say Steve Jobs, because he had engineers working for him that did the design work, probably using techniques and materials with which he wasn't that versant. So, it becomes a bogus complaint to say, as you seem to suggest, that not knowing who and how something was designed makes it impossible to know that an object has nevertheless been designed. Finally:
All you actually have is a label, “design”, no actual detail. No positive evidence.
Ahemmm. What "positive evidence" do you have that Darwinian mechanisms caused a land mammal to become aquatic? Could you point out how Mendelian genetics provided for the new information, the new mutations, etc., etc. Or, are you just simply going to use a label, "natural selection", and provide no actual detail. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks! (I couldn't resist.)PaV
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
kellyhomes @ 19: You can 'huff and puff, but you won't blow this house down'. Open your eyes. Don't be naive about things.
I've previously asked for examples of such rejection letters where papers are rejected solely because they support ID. You know know many examples I’ve been given? Zero. You don’t even have any evidence to support your claim that it would be rejected by the Darwinian thought police.
I once asked a girl if she would like to go out on Friday. She told me she was busy. Now, do you think she was really busy? I'm supposing you're smart enough to figure this out on your own.PaV
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
This has happened. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/haldanes-dilemma-and-peer-review/Collin
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Let me put it another way: you fail to present any mechanism for the creation of information—you simply say that this information (where ever it came from) is changed around as needed.
If you go in for a front-loading-evolution explanation, you are giving up on all the bafflegab put forward in the initial post about how there was no time for whale evolution, Darwinian processes insufficient, etc. etc.NickMatzke_UD
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
PaV, this is an error you are making. Adaptation is evolution. Absolutely it is. What else would evolution be? There is no "bait and switch". Darwin could have entitled his book "Origins of adaptations" and written exactly the same book. What Darwin didn't quite get right was the diversification part, not surprising as he had no idea even of the mechanism of inheritance. But what he described was how adaptation happens, and he was correct. Speciation is simply what happens when a sub-population adapts independently of the parent population.Elizabeth Liddle
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
PaV
Let me put it another way: you fail to present any mechanism for the creation of information—you simply say that this information (where ever it came from) is changed around as needed.
Likewise you fail to present any mechanism for the creation of information apart from "design". Which in and of itself is not actually very helpful, is it? Sure, it might be design or it might not. But given that you are unable to say a single thing about who how or why then you can hardly complain about what you perceive to be others failure to explain it. Can you? All you actually have is a label, "design", no actual detail. No positive evidence.
Once all this is pointed out, the rest of your post really has no strength.
Exactly so.kellyhomes
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke above:
What we know, though, is that the amount of genome change involved in adaptation via natural selection is a tiny amount of the total amount of genetic change that happens over, say, 10 million years, just due to random genetic drift.
This is very cleverly worded so as to be true. But "adaptation" is not "evolution". As I've said many times over, if Darwin had entitled his opus, Origin of Adaptations, there wouldn't be very much to quibble with. So, Nick, I'm almost tempted to say that you've employed a kind of "bait-and-switch" tactic here. But let us move on.
And it seems likely that most morphological change is due to not adaptive changes in gene sequences (although there is some of this), but due to regulatory changes that influence gene expression and development. Altering gene expression is essentially a matter of quantitatively bumping up or bumping down the strength of binding, which is just the sort of thing that single point mutations are good at.
Nick, your description is no more than a form of "front-loading", a concept ID has put forth for years. Let me put it another way: you fail to present any mechanism for the creation of information---you simply say that this information (where ever it came from) is changed around as needed. Once all this is pointed out, the rest of your post really has no strength.PaV
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
heh. It's so obvious I forgot to point it out!Elizabeth Liddle
October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply