Explosive Evolution of Whales Followed by Little Change

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 1, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

You know the drill, new forms appeared rapidly followed by little change. This time it’s whales, the late comers turned allstars of the ocean. Somehow the whale ancestors lost their hind limbs, grinding teeth and pelvises and developed a host of new features with great efficiency. These new features include the fluke tail with its unique vertical propelling motion, the huge filter-feeding jaw, and the ability to give live birth and raise its young in the marine environment. All this while acquiring superior skills in its new marine environment. The latest entry to the community could swim, dive and feed better than most fish and sharks. It all just happened to happen, and with great evolutionary speed. Read more

Comments

Collin. #8. Yes there must be a mechanism for physical change. Physical change is a great fact and diversity in the fossil record or living insists upon it. Since YEC and I.D both deny evolution/change by selection/mutation then its fine to invoke that other mechanisms are about. Since there is change and limited time, as YEC sees it indeed, then its fair to invoke instant great changes from innate triggers are present in physical bodies. Evidence for evolution /selection fails and so we are free to suggest other ideas. I.D folks must not be restrained in ideas by none witnessing of evolution today. In order for life to continue and thrive there must of been instant adaptation of life as niche demanded. Creationism must not just destroy wrong ideas on evolution but introduce better ones.Robert Byers_{June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Robert, So you believe there is a mechanism within living things that allows it to adapt to sudden changes? Perhaps a front-loading-type hypothesis?Collin_{June 2, 2010
June
06
Jun
2
02
2010
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

YEC here. This biblical creationist accepts and welcomes water mammals being first ground creatures. Whales are a post flood ground creature that instantly adapted to a empty sea. no evolution by selection/mutation but another mechanism for, relatively, minor changes. it couldn't change the breathing but it did the limbs. Dogs have webbed feet also because of instant, early , adaptation. I.D folks are right to uestion whale "evolution' but surely these creatures were ground creatures once and rare indeed among creatures have evidence of a former anatomical lifestyle. Evolution , of coarse, if true would have all creatures with remnants of past biology. its not true but animals etc changing their bodies is true. Mechanism is just not figured out.Robert Byers_{June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, Thanks for pointing that out to me.Collin_{June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Genome-wide differences in humans, using the very latest in mapping programs, demonstrate huge and multiple differences between individual humans. The 'Neutral Theory' came about when Kimura correctly understood that proteins vary too widely for those differences to be explained by 'balancing selection'. The huge level of heterozygosity now documented 'intra species' just simply cannot be explained by current population genetics. This has become so obvious now, that I don't even want to spend the energy debating it. It's beyond debate. It's simply a matter of waiting for the Darwinists to finally 'throw in the towel.' BTW, in Kimura's classic book, he uses the example of a population of 500,000 elephants to demonstrate the limitations of neo-Darwinism, knowing that their low reproductive rate represented the greatest challenge to the theory. As in the Casey Luskin's quote that bornagain77 provides, neo-Darwinism is now a joke when it comes to explaining the currently available evidence of whale evolution. Darwinism is making a mockery of science. They're the very 'flat-earthers' they themselves decry.PaV_{June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Well Collin according to the lead article of this post cited by Dr. Hunter, size was established early for whales and stayed the same.
We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on.
Thus it seems the man in the video has far more going for his assertion than just incredulity.bornagain77_{June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Bornagain, Whale evolution has major problems. I think the guy in this video (your link) makes some good points. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568/whale_evolution_exposing_the_deception_in_the_fossil_record_dr_terry_mortenson/ But he says something that is a little inaccurate. He says that the Pakiacetus and the Beluga whale cannot be connected by a Baleen whale because modern Baleen whales are 2 to 40 times bigger than Beluga whales. I don't think that follows, although I am sympathetic with the sentiment that it seems unlikely that a baleen whale is really a precurser to a beluga who has teeth (not baleen). But he shouldn't imply that the size of modern baleen whales makes it unlikely that an ancient baleen whale couldn't be an ancestor to the beluga whale.Collin_{June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

One explanation for whale diversity is simply that they have been accumulating species and evolving differences in shape as a function of time. The more time that goes by, the more cetacean species one would expect, and the more variation in body size one would expect to see in them. "Instead, what we found is that very early in their history, whales went their separate ways from the standpoint of size, and probably ecology," Alfaro said. "This pattern provides some support for the explosive radiation hypothesis. ... Alfaro said. "Whatever conditions allowed modern whales to persist allowed them to evolve into unique, disparate modes of life, and those niches largely have been maintained throughout most of their history. "We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently -- but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on."
Of course it's .... just what evolution would have predicted.Charlie_{June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Here is a cool audio of Dr. Sternberg, a PhD in evolutionary biology, addressing whale evolution from the viewpoint of population genetics: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using echolocation to hunt a giant squid: Sperm whale Vs giant squid - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710 Here is a video of Dr. Berlinski trying to put a ballpark figure on whale evolution What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM further notes: "Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned: Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568 Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm In fact the entire argument for inferring the supposed sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is based on the erroneous readings of "bone homology", or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence, is anything but "certain", as this following video clearly points out: Investigating Evolution: Homology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18bornagain77_{June 1, 2010
June
06
Jun
1
01
2010
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply