Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Whale Evolution? Darwinist ‘Trawlers’ Have Every Reason To Be Concerned

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“Of all whale species, by far the noisiest, chattiest, most exuberant, and most imaginative is the humpback. It is the noisemaker and the Caruso of the deep, now grating like an old hinge, now as melodious as an operatic tenor” (1). These were the words of the late oceanographer Jacques Cousteau in his epic volume Whales, originally written in French under the more descriptive title La Planete Des Baleines. The male humpback in particular had been a source of fascination for Cousteau’s exploration team precisely because of its exquisite song-making capabilities. Star Trek aficionados will no doubt remember the long-range distress calls of these ocean-faring giants in the movie blockbuster The Voyage Home.

Humpbacks can be heard for hundreds or even thousands of kilometers creating discernible noise sequences or ‘themes’ that can last as long as 20-30 hours (1,2). The available repertoire of vocalizations requires that “bursts of air” be channeled up from the lungs and through the trachea (3). The frequency range of these vocalizations is formidable- 8-4000 Hz (compared to 80-1300 Hz for a singing human; (4)). While certain sounds might serve to maintain contact between distant herds (2) others are clearly used to attract mates in the shallow breeding grounds of the tropics (5).

The sperm whale’s characteristic clicking has likewise been intensely studied and marine biologists have in the last decade described this creature’s ‘pneumatic sound generator’ in great detail (6). Usual clicks serve for echo location while so-called ‘coda’ clicks are used for maintaining the “complex social structure in female groups” (6). Remarkably the amount of air used to make each click is so small that even at depths of 2000 m, where the air volume is significantly reduced, sperm whales can phonate successfully (6). The mechanism of sound generation is exquisitely selective for the two modes of communication: “the marked differences between coda clicks and usual clicks are caused by differential sound propagation in the nasal complex” (6).

Other whale species are known to ‘talk to each other’: blue whales, fin whales, rights and bowheads all display the use of what has tentatively been called a rudimentary language (7). Equally captivating is the auditory apparatus that picks up these sounds (8). Unlike terrestrial mammals, whales sport freely-vibrating ossicles in the middle ear for more sensitive distance hearing:

“The bones of the middle ear, although fused to each other, are not directly connected to the rest of the skull; they are suspended from it by means of ligaments. All around them is a complex network of cavities and sinuses filled with a foamy mucus that further insulates the ear from the skull and provides yet another means by which whales filter out all but the essential sounds.”(9)

What are we to make of the evolutionary origins of these key designs? In the summer of 2009 a seminal publication in the journal Mammalian Biology provided fodder for one popular idea (10). Using the aquatic escape behavior of Bornean mouse deer as primary evidence for their claims, researchers from Indonesia and the Australian National University in Canberra proposed that whales might have descended from ancient members of the ruminant family tragulidae which today includes cattle, sheep, goats and deer (11). Local villagers have observed tragulids submerging themselves in rivers and streams for over five minutes at a time as a way of eschewing would-be predators (10).

The Australian-Indonesian publication came hot on the heels of a cladistic study that claimed to have found a whale ‘sister group’ called Indohyus – “a middle Eocene raoellid artiodactyl from Kashmir, India” (10, 12). The overarching conclusion of this earlier work was nothing short of profound:

“Our analysis identifies raoellids as the sister group to cetaceans and bridges the morphological divide that separated early cetaceans from artiodacyls.” (12)

We might therefore reasonably expect that the hearing and vocalization of modern cetaceans could be drawn into a gradual evolutionary sequence, perhaps going as far back as the land-sea transitioning mammals from which they are supposed to have been derived. But like so many evolutionary just-so stories, the devil is in the details. Indeed Darwinists admit that significant differences in the morphology of sensory organs make cetaceans unique (12).

In 2004 a group headed by professor of anatomy Hans Thewissen published what appeared to be the definitive answer on the evolution of whale hearing (13). Their ‘integrated interpretation of evolving sound transmission mechanisms’ came as a result of fossils that were collected from 35-50 million year-old deposits (13). The base specimen of their cladistic interpretation, a 50 million year old fossil of a terrestrial mammal called pakicetus, benefited from bone conduction of sound through a loosely suspended tympanic bone (13). Later aquatic mammals such as remingtoncetus and protocetus possessed large so-called mandibular fat pads that further improved bone-mediated sound transmission (13). For all three phyletic groups a terrestrial auditory structure called the external meatus allowed efficient capture of airborne sounds (13). Thewissen’s final chronological group, the basilosauroids, sported yet one further innovation- air-filled sinuses that acoustically isolated the ear from the rest of the skull (13).

The most striking omission in the above sequence, and perhaps the most important of all, is the explanation for how a fleeting mouse deer somehow adapted to the acoustic rigors of underwater living. A five minute escapade in the shallows of a river is a far cry from the mate searches that would have been so vital for an aquatic lifestyle. Pakicetus was in fact a fast-running, land-dwelling long-necked quadruped (more like a dog than a deer) that lacked any sort of sub-aquatic anatomy (14, 15). Indeed one alternative interpretation of the data is that the pakicetus middle ear structure was more consistent with what one might expect for a subterranean habitat in which the head is in direct contact with the ground (14).

While Remingtoncetus was undoubtedly a four-legged semi-aquatic mammal that had a long slender snout, small eyes and ears and an overall size perhaps no bigger than a sea otter (16, 17), the above descriptive of the origins of its auditory innovations fits more in line with what one might expect for, say, a saltationist view of life than any sort of gradual evolutionary process. The same can be said of the supposed transition from protocetus to basilosauroids. In fact the fossil evidence reveals that in remingtoncetus the foundations of the modern whale underwater auditory mechanism had already been realized (13). Ironically the most convincing set of ear transitional forms in the whale evolutionist’s armory- that of the decrease in size of the semicircular canal system of the inner ear (involved in balance) – only shows evolution bringing about small changes to already existing functional innovations (15).

Hippopotamids are of course hot favorites for the title of the closest living terrestrial relatives of whales (18, 19). Like whales, modern hippos are furnished with bone-mediated hearing and exhibit effective underwater communication (18). Still, morphology-based phylogenies to-date have yielded conflicting results and the identification of intermediates that supposedly spanned the divide between hippos and the common ancestor is controversial (20). Different analyses show anywhere between 3 and 40 million years of unrecorded evolution depending on which sister groups one chooses to grab along the way (20).

Over a decade ago one high school biology textbook asserted that there were no clear transitional fossils linking land mammals to whales (21). Such a position has been upheld by the most recent peer-reviewed literature. In fact hypotheses on the evolution of sound generation in whales and delphinids hinge upon the selective “drivers” that purportedly brought about change (eg: hunting, increased sociality, predator avoidance) while leaving out the mechanistic details of how such change took place (22, 23, 24). In contrast, the co-integrated nature of whale sound transmission, both in its vocalization and capture, has led some to the inference that intelligent rather than mindless design is at play. 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. Perfect acoustical and other constructions are required for their serenades and way of life in the vastness of the ocean; they could only exist from a detailed preliminary plan. Employing sounds to allure their mates has another interesting feature, considering the entirety of the animal kingdom. Although each species emits sound signals that resemble signals of other species, the animals never mistake the sounds for those of other species…Harmony between sounds and sound-receiving organs likewise presupposes the…requirement of simultaneous appearance, while excluding the possibility of gradual evolution.” (8)

In short, the latest evidence on whale communication cuts deep into the fishing nets of evolutionary dogma. Darwinist trawlers have every reason to be concerned.

Literature Cited
1.Jacques Cousteau and Yves Paccalet (1986) Whales, W.H. Allen & Co, London, pp. 236-38.

2.Eduardo Mercado III (1998) Humpback Whale BioAcoustics: From Form To Function, PhD thesis, University of Hawaii, http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~emiii/diss.pdf p.16.

3. Ibid p.25.

4. Ibid p.37.

5. Planet Earth Series: Shallow Seas, Narrated by David Attenborough, BBC Video, 2008.

6. P. T. Madsen, R. Payne, N. U. Kristiansen, M. Wahlberg, I. Kerr and B. Mohl (2002) Sperm whale sound production studied with ultrasound time/depth-recording tags, The Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 205, 1899-1906.

7. Jacques Cousteau and Yves Paccalet (1986) Whales, W.H. Allen & Co, London, p.234.

8. Balazs Hornyanszky and Istvan Tasi (2009) Nature’s IQ: Extraordinary Animal Behaviors That Defy Evolution, Torchlight Publishing, Badger, CA, pp.102-104.

9. Jacques Cousteau and Yves Paccalet (1986) Whales, W.H. Allen & Co, London, p.161.

10. Erik Meijaarda, Umilaela, GehandeSilva Wijeyeratne (2009), Aquatic escape behaviour in mouse-deer provides insight into tragulid evolution, Mammalian Biology, doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2009.05.007

11. Matt Walker (2009) Aquatic Deer And Ancient Whales, BBC Earth News, 7th July, 2009, See http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8137000/8137922.stm

12. J. G. M. Thewissen, Lisa Noelle Cooper, Mark T. Clementz, Sunil Bajpai & B. N. Tiwari (2007) Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India, Nature, Vol 450, pp.1190-1194.

13. Sirpa Nummela, J. G. M. Thewissen, Sunil Bajpai, S. Taseer Hussain, Kishor Kumar (2004) Eocene evolution of whale hearing, Nature, Vol 430, pp.776-778.

14. J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe & S. T. Hussain (2001) Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature, Vol 413, pp.277-281.

15. F. Spoor, S. Bajpai, S. T. Hussain, K. Kumar & J. G. M. Thewissen (2001) Vestibular evidence for the evolution of aquatic behaviour in early cetaceans, Nature, Vol 417, pp.163-166.

16. Remingtoncetidiae, See http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Remi.html

17. Sunil Bajpai and J. G. M. Thewissen (2000) A new, diminutive Eocene whale from Kachchh (Gujarat, India) and its implications for locomotor evolution of cetaceans, Current Science, Vol 79, pp.1478-1482, See http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/nov252000/1478.pdf

18. The Animal Communication Project, See http://acp.eugraph.com/elephetc/hippo.html

19. Whale and hippo ‘close cousins’ BBC News, Monday, 24 January, 2005, See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4204021.stm

20. Jean-Renaud Boisserie, Fabrice Lihoreau, and Michel Brunet (2005) The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, Vol 102, pp.1537-1541.

21. Percival Davis, Dean H Kenyon, Charles Thaxton (1993) Of Pandas And People: The Central Question Of Biological Origins, Haughton Publishing Company, Richardson, Texas.

22. Laura J May-Collado, Ingi Agnarsson, Douglas Wartzok (2007) Phylogenetic review of tonal sound production in whales in relation to sociality, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2007, Vol 7, p.136, See http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-7-136.pdf

23. Migrating Squid Drove Evolution Of Sonar In Whales And Dolphins, Researchers Argue
http://migration.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/squid-migration-drives-whale-sonar-evolution/

24. Morisaka T, Connor RC (2007) Predation by killer whales (Orcinus orca) and the evolution of whistle loss and narrow-band high frequency clicks in odontocetes, Journal Of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 20, pp.1439-58.

Comments
Joseph, Wow. How you persevere in the presence of such obstinacy is to be commended. Stop. Take a breath. Review everything the "critics" have said. Is it consistent? Is it factual? Is it relevant?Mung
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Joseph,
It means that no one knows whether or not duplicating or changing HOX genes produces a new body plan. We know genes change. We also know that the vast majority of genes to not affect body plans as they are used for every-day maintenance and sustainability- metabolism, etc.
I beg to differ; there is a rich literature describing exactly how HOX genes determine body plans. As far as I know, lots of the changes responsible for differences in body plans have been identified and I’d be surprised if not a great deal more have been discovered since Carroll (2005) or Shubin (2008). I suppose there must be lots of people working full time on such research. How much progress has ID done since, say, 1995? At page 109 of Your Inner Fish are some beautiful diagrams showing the correlation between HOX genes as they are located in DNA and the body plans of flies – or people. There’s lots more relevant stuff about HOX genes in Endless Forms Most Beautiful.Cabal
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Now you are just blowing smoke. Sermonti is making an assertion. There is no footnote next to it that says 'supported by published research X'. His assertion, his burden of proof. Everyone else since Darwin invented the idea of sexual selection is saying sexual selection is a driver of evolution, not something that stops evolution. If the peacock's feathers are a result of sexual selection, have peacock feathers existed since tetrapods climbed out of the water? Get real.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Joseph: YOU think that Common Descent leads to a nestedc hierarchy.
Just to reiterate, so that it is very clear to our readers; if we can't objectively group organisms by their character traits, then we won't be able to identify any objective pattern, nested hierarchy or otherwise. But everyone knows that we *can* objectively group organisms, and it's obvious you just won't make the attempt. For everyone else, when we examine the pattern of these groupings, it leads to strong correlations between seemingly unrelated traits, such as having horns and hooves implying a rumen.Zachriel
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, The burden is on you to support your position. You have failed to do so. And Sermonti's material supports what I said. Perhaps you should read it. Sermonti's prose is proven with every observation and experiment. That you refuse to accept that fact does not refute it. And if you are limiting the discussion to peer-review then your position doesn't have anything to discuss!Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, I understand that you don’t like what Sermonti said even though it is based on observations, experiences and experimentation. Well then, all we need is the references to those observations, experiences and experimentation. The burden of proof is on Sermonti to support his flowery prose. That is going to be difficult to come by I guess. If he can make precise what he means by 'Venus' (sexual selection?) stopping 'progress' and get it published in a peer reviewed journal, I'd be happy to engage in a discussion about it. It remains that Sermonti's material does not support your claim about sex and Common Descent.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Have you ever said whether whales better group with mice or fish? Joseph: This thread is about whale evolution from a land mammal. If you have any evidence that supports the claim now would be a good time to present it.
But when someone tries to lead you through what the vast majority of biologist consider to be important evidence, you cover your eyes and start saying "nannynah." From Darwin on, evidence of Common Descent has been found in taxonomy. We can't possibly discuss the overall pattern when you refuse to admit that we can group organisms by traits. Indeed, there is only one consistent way to classify organisms, and it leads to a very specific pattern, a pattern that has empirical consequences.
One of George Cuvier's students dressed as the Devil with horns on his head and hoof-shaped shoes burst into Cuvier's bedroom when he was asleep and said, "I am the Devil. I have come to devour you!" Cuvier woke up and replied, "I doubt whether you can. You have horns and hooves. You eat only plants."
Zachriel
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Acipenser:
If you aren’t going to use characteristics (those used for taxonomy and construction of nested hierarchies) to define common descent what would you suggest be used?
That's your problem, not mine. As I said and evidence supports- characteristics can be lost as well as gained. But anyway as I said above an asterisk would be a pattern that could be produced via descent with modification (given traits can be lost or gained).Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
And Nakashima-san, I understand that you don't like what Sermonti said even though it is based on observations, experiences and experimentation. However all you have to do is provide the data which refutes him. If you can't do that then all you have is whining.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Acipenser and Nakashima, This thread is about whale evolution from a land mammal. If you have any evidence that supports the claim now would be a good time to present it. Your continued distractions tell me you cannot support the claim.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Cabal, It means that no one knows whether or not duplicating or changing HOX genes produces a new body plan. We know genes change. We also know that the vast majority of genes to not affect body plans as they are used for every-day maintenance and sustainability- metabolism, etc.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Zachriel, You have avoided all my questions. YOU think that Common Descent leads to a nestedc hierarchy. IOW Zach you are not in any position to discuss evidence.Joseph
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Ya see with sexual reproduction only 1/2 of each parent’s genome gets passed on. That means there isn’t any guarantee that even the most beneficial mutation will make it to the next generation. And that Chinese law limiting whales to only one offspring really is a problem, because if they had more than one offspring during their reproductive life, the possibility that the best parts of both parents genomes would combine would be much higher. What's that you say, Bunkie? Your whale doesn't speak Chinese? It's allergic to MSG? Look on the bright side - it won't steal the leftover lo mein out of the refrigerator. BTW there is a huge difference between common descent- humans giving rise to humans, horses giving rise to horses, and Common Descent- the premise that all living organisms can trace back to some population(s) of common ancestor(s). Thanks for clearing that up. It makes it much clearer why sexual reproduction poses a problem for Common Descent. The Nefilim.Nakashima
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Joseph, Have you ever said whether whales better group with mice or fish? It's not that difficult a question. Here's a simpler case. Based on character traits, do sparrows group better with eagles or toads?Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
JHospeh:"I explained why I used wikipedia as a reference." My question wasn't one of why you cited wikipedia but rather if you recognized the glaring error, and fatal, error in that citation. Joseph:"Did you not understand what I posted?" Yes, and I was wondering if you understood what you posted as well. Which is why I asked if you about the error in your citation. If you aren't going to use characteristics (those used for taxonomy and construction of nested hierarchies) to define common descent what would you suggest be used? "Acipenser
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
I responded to this
OW no one took an embryo of one animal, added HOX genes and got a different body plan as a result.
and couldn't help wondering "What is that supposed to mean? A refutation of what is known about the function of hox genes? AFAIK, hox genes have been extensively researched and have provided exquisite insight in how body plans are determined by hox genes. All you have to do to prove what i perceive as the point you want to make is to show how genetic changes - HOX or not - are not the result of natural processes. We know that genes do change, who can say he knows that genetic changes are irrelevant? Experiments have been and are being performed all the time, who can say the experiments are worthless? What about references to an ID experiment?Cabal
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
As for slitting throats you slit your own throat when you triued to say that mice and whales have gills. You slit it again when you said that horses giving rise to horses actually helps your position. And you keep slitting it every time you post without supporting your position.Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
BTW there is a huge difference between common descent- humans giving rise to humans, horses giving rise to horses, and Common Descent- the premise that all living organisms can trace back to some population(s) of common ancestor(s).Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, What Sermonti said is based on ALL of the evidence. As for the word "progress" you are taking it out of context. He is talking about progressing to the next form- as YOUR position requires. But anyways you don't appear to know very much about biology. Ya see with sexual reproduction only 1/2 of each parent's genome gets passed on. That means there isn't any guarantee that even the most beneficial mutation will make it to the next generation. And if you are dealing with a slowly reproducing population such as whales that is a big deal. So what we have is your misrepresenting what Sermonti is saying because you are ignorant in biology. It is also very telling that you can't produce any data that refutes what he said.Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Sermonti is a geneticist therefore he can twaddle evidence free? The asymmetry between what you demand of your sources and your opponents is vast. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. Let's start with the idea that evolution equals progress. Whether this is Sermonti's own belief or one he ascribes to his opponents, it is wrong. The rest is suggestive that sexual selection is similar to artificial selection. Sermonti is not aruging that sex itself has any effect on descent or speciation, though it is pretty clear that he accepts the idea of common descent when he speaks of the lineage of living things. The next quote has two ideas, both wrong. Sermonti grudginly admits that species traits track changes in their niche, but denies that these changes in niche are never permanent. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. Giuseppe, wake up and smell the plate tectonics. Then there is the assertion that species are real objects. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; Besides the unsupported Platonism, Sermonti is claiming both "progress" and typical form, both stability and "destiny". It slits its own throat. And none of it is a prooftext to your position. Which wouldn't help you anyway. Ya see, prooftexts don't win arguments in science, evidence does. So try finding some.Nakashima
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Cabal:
it’s not that I don’t like what you are saying, it’s just that I am not certain that I can be certain that the words you use for refutational purposes are equivalent with or have the explanatory power of refutational data.
IOW you don't have any data and just wanted to stick your nose into the discussuion. Got it.Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Are Cold-Blooded Animals Really 'Cold Blooded'?Variable temperature is more precise
The great white shark and its relatives (like mako sharks) have a "rete mirabile" ("wonderful net" in Latin), a close web-like structure of veins and arteries, located along each lateral side of the shark, that keep heat by warming the cooler arterial blood with the venous blood that has been warmed by the working muscles. This way, these sharks have temperatures of 14?C above the water, while the heart and gills remain at sea-temperature, enabling them to hunt such rapid and agile prey like marine mammals.
Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
It is also worth repeating that nested hierarchy was FIRST used as evidence for a common design and all evos did when they took over was to replace archetype with common ancestor:
One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.-- Ernst Mayr
Simpson echoed those comments:
From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.
IOW nested hierarchy was and is used as evidence for Common Design.Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
If you don’t like what I am saying then find some data to refute it.
it's not that I don't like what you are saying, it's just that I am not certain that I can be certain that the words you use for refutational purposes are equivalent with or have the explanatory power of refutational data.Cabal
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Acipenser, I explained why I used wikipedia as a reference. Did you not understand what I posted? Also this thread is about the alleged whale evolution from a land mammal. Yet not one evolutionist has put forth any data that supports their claim. Why is that?Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
Cabal:
I am not certain what you’re trying to say, is it that what science says about hox genes is rubbish, hogwash.
Science didn't say it. Biased scientists did without justification.
So the function of hox genes in body development is just another evolution fairytale?
That does not have anything to do with what I posted. Also it is questionable/ doubtful that HOX genes "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Embryological studies are useless, their interpretation imaginary?
If they imagine new body plans arising then yes it is imaginary as it does not have any support.
Just to got this clear, have you done in-depth studies into the subject, i.e. do you know what you are talking about?
If you don't like what I am saying then find some data to refute it.Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
Acipenser:
If taxonomy is based on characteristics and nested hierarchies are based on characteristics if seems to follow that a discussion of taxonomy is reasonable when speaking about whale evolution and nested hierarchy.
Not when discussing evidence for Common Descent. Ya see as I have been telling you- and you seem to be ignoring- Common Descent does not expect (predict) a nested hierarchy for all the reasons provided.Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, A horse "evolving" into a horse does not help your position. And as a matter of fact supports my claim. I also have the word of a geneticist: Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.
Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.
It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.
The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.Joseph
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
IOW no one took an embryo of one animal, added HOX genes and got a different body plan as a result.
I am not certain what you're trying to say, is it that what science says about hox genes is rubbish, hogwash? So the function of hox genes in body development is just another evolution fairytale? Embryological studies are useless, their interpretation imaginary? Just to got this clear, have you done in-depth studies into the subject, i.e. do you know what you are talking about?Cabal
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Also sexual reproduction pretty much squashes Common Descent. Yes, all those racehorse breeders can keep track of the lineage of the horse only because horses reproduce asexually. What? Horses reproduce sexually? Curses, foaled again!Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply