• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Whales

UTEOTW

New Member
There is a fairly rich history of whale evolution in the fossil record. There are many young earthers who deny the whale series. My goal here is to very briefly describe the whale fossil series and then to add a bit of genetic evidence that supports the fossil record.

The evolution of the whales started with a land dwelling, hooved animal. For a while, there was dispute over exactly which group the whales came from. Recently, evidence has converged on the artiodactyls, even-toed ungulates. Other artiodactyls include pigs, hippos, camels, llamas, giraffes, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, and antelopes. For now, we will stick with the fossil evidence for this.

The fossil evidence includes ankle bones in early whales that match those of the artiodactyls. For a good description please see "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan." http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDFfiles/PDG381.pdf

From these early land dwelling "whales" we can trace the evolution of the whales through various stages of amphibious behavior and into fully marine life. Some of this involves morphology changes as the legs and body become better adapted for life in the water. In parallel we can measure changes in the ratios of oxygen isotopes that indicate where the creature got their water and therefore how much time they spent on land and in marine water.

For example see the following.

Roe, L. J., J. G. M. Thewissen, J. Quade, J. R. O'Neil, S. Bajpai, A. Sahni, and S. T. Hussain. Isotopic approaches to understanding the terrestrial to marine transition of the earliest cetaceans. 1998. In: Thewissen, J. G. M., Editor: The Emergence of Whales, Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea. Pp. 399-421. Plenum Press.

Thewissen, J.G.M., L. J. Roe, J. R. O'Neil, S. T. Hussain, A. Sahni, and S. Bajpai. 1996. Evolution of cetacean osmoregulation. Nature 381:379-380.

Some of the fossil whales along these lines include Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus. After this point, the whales split into the baleen whales and the toothed whales. The intermediates continue through these groups, but the point is made. For these transitions, see the chart on the following page.

http://www.archaeocete.org/UhenCetaceanPhylogeny.html

For an early write up on the early land dwelling whales, see the following paper.

"Origin of Whales in Epicontinental Remnant Seas: New Evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan"

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDFfiles/PDG133.pdf

That is a brief overview of the fossil record. We may return to some specifics.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
For for a bit of genetic evidence. Genetic testing of whales, other ungulates, and outside (control) animals has confirmed the common descent of whales with the even toed ungulates. Included in the DNA testing were Hippopotamus, Cow, Sperm Whale, Humpback Whale, Red Kangaroo, Human, Mouse, Cat, Asiatic Elephant, Domestic Horse, Pig, and Bactrian Camel.

"Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates," Shimamura M, Yasue H, Ohshima K, Abe H, Kato H, Kishiro T, Goto M, Munechika I, Okada N, Nature. 1997 Aug 14;388(6643):666-70.

The origin of whales and their transition from terrestrial life to a fully aquatic existence has been studied in depth. Palaeontological, morphological and molecular studies suggest that the order Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) is more closely related to the order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, including cows, camels and pigs) than to other ungulate orders. The traditional view that the order Artiodactyla is monophyletic has been challenged by molecular analyses of variations in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. We have characterized two families of short interspersed elements (SINEs) that were present exclusively in the genomes of whales, ruminants and hippopotamuses, but not in those of camels and pigs. We made an extensive survey of retropositional events that might have occurred during the divergence of whales and even-toed ungulates. We have characterized nine retropositional events of a SINE unit, each of which provides phylogenetic resolution of the relationships among whales, ruminants, hippopotamuses and pigs. Our data provide evidence that whales, ruminants and hippopotamuses form a monophyletic group.
 

Paul of Eugene

New Member
You can tell the alledged results are merely fairy tales because . . . (insert logical reasoning here) . .

Oh, there is no logical reasoning to oppose it. Well, then, insert something else. Perhaps you have a religious bias against evolution?
 

UTEOTW

New Member
"You can tell the alledged results are merely fairy tales because . . . (insert logical reasoning here) . ."

I would not hold my breath waiting for a response based on the last few days. Though there will be an inevitable post to get his name listed last on the thread again, it will not follow your suggested pattern in a logical and factual way.

And now we continue the story of whales.

There are two classes of olfactory genes. One class is optimized for detecting odors in water and one is optimized for detecting odors in air. For the most part, fish have the detectors for water only. Land dwelling animals only have the detectors for odors in air. Some animals, such as amphibians, have some of both.

Let's think about what one should predict for whales.

If you support recently created kinds, then you should expect one of two things. Either an intelligent designer would give these marine animals olfactory genes for detecting odors in water or, less likely, they would be given no olfactory genes at all.

If you accept the common descent of whales from land dwelling animals, then you would expect that whales would have initially started with the genes for detecting odors in air. Since these are of no use in water, they should have not been subject to selective forces for keeping them intact and would be expected to have turned into junk.

Which is it? Well, as it turns out whales have deactivated genes for detecting odors in the air. One more point for the predictive power of biology and one against the predictive power of recently created kinds.

"Olfactory receptors in aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates," J. Freitag, G. Ludwig, I. Andreini, P. Rössler, H. Breer, Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, Volume 183, Number 5, November 1998, Pages: 635 - 650.

In species representing different levels of vertebrate evolution, olfactory receptor genes have been identified by molecular cloning techniques. Comparing the deduced amino-acid sequences revealed that the olfactory receptor gene family of Rana esculenta resembles that of Xenopus laevis, indicating that amphibians in general may comprise two classes of olfactory receptors. Whereas teleost fish, including the goldfish Carassius auratus, possess only class I receptors, the `living fossil' Latimeria chalumnae is endowed with both receptor classes; interestingly, most of the class II genes turned out to be pseudogenes. Exploring receptor genes in aquatic mammals led to the discovery of a large array of only class II receptor genes in the dolphin Stenella Coeruleoalba; however, all of these genes were found to be non-functional pseudogenes. These results support the notion that class I receptors may be specialized for detecting water-soluble odorants and class II receptors for recognizing volatile odorants. Comparing the structural features of both receptor classes from various species revealed that they differ mainly in their extracellular loop 3, which may contribute to ligand specificity. Comparing the number and diversity of olfactory receptor genes in different species provides insight into the origin and the evolution of this unique gene family.
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=h07c7mrqtp6rvgnhxnby&referrer=parent&backto=issue,8,10;journal,72,94;linkingpublicationresults,1:100424,1
 

jcrawford

New Member
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
You can tell the alledged results are merely fairy tales because . . .
(some adults enjoy them as historical myths, others believe in them as if they were true and some like them as science fiction stories)
 

jcrawford

New Member
UTEOTW posted November 24, 2004 05:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And now we continue the story of whales."

Oh, Goody. More tall tales about whales!

I love fish stories.
 

jcrawford

New Member
Originally posted by The Galatian:
Karl, as you may have noticed, is remarkably resistant to evidence.
Who's Karl? Or are you imagining disembodied spirits again, as Darwin once did?
 

The Galatian

Active Member
laugh.gif
 

Paul of Eugene

New Member
Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
You can tell the alledged results are merely fairy tales because . . .
(some adults enjoy them as historical myths, others believe in them as if they were true and some like them as science fiction stories) </font>[/QUOTE]Uh - where's the part about the logical reasoning for calling them merely fairy tales? For example, whales possess pseudo genes that appear to be designed for air smelling not because they are descended from animals that could use air smelling genes once, but because . . . .

We await your non-evolutionary explanation.

JC isn't alone here - hey, he could use some help from anybody with a good explanation!
 

jcrawford

New Member
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
For example, whales possess pseudo genes that appear to be designed for air smelling not because they are descended from animals that could use air smelling genes once, but because . . . .

We await your non-evolutionary explanation.
[/QB]
As your post seems to indicate;

"whales possess pseudo genes that appear to be designed ... "
 

The Galatian

Active Member
It's another reason scientists realize that whales evolved from land animals.

That explains these damaged genes. They are no longer needed, and so mutations damaging them are of no consequence.

Creationists can only shrug and suggest God was just being (playful?)
 

jcrawford

New Member
Originally posted by The Galatian:
It's another reason scientists realize that whales evolved from land animals.

That explains these damaged genes. They are no longer needed, and so mutations damaging them are of no consequence.

Creationists can only shrug and suggest God was just being (playful?)
The creation of whales by evolutionary means is still creation, it seems.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
Finally something I can agree with.

No matter the means God used to create, this is still His creation. Even though all the evidence in God's own creation points to the common descent of all life over a period of at least a few billion years, this does not detract in any way from God's role as the Creator or from His power.
 

jcrawford

New Member
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Finally something I can agree with.

No matter the means God used to create, this is still His creation. Even though all the evidence in God's own creation points to the common descent of all life over a period of at least a few billion years, this does not detract in any way from God's role as the Creator or from His power.
This is theistic evolution though.

Do you think it fair that your version of theistic evolution be taught in tax-payer funded public schools while atheistic evos are screaming that religion should be kept of public schools?

Obviously, your version of evolution is not the true one.

Or are their two versions of evo?

The theo-evo version and the atheistic version?

Will the real and true evos please stand up?
 

Paul of Eugene

New Member
Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Galatian:
It's another reason scientists realize that whales evolved from land animals.

That explains these damaged genes. They are no longer needed, and so mutations damaging them are of no consequence.

Creationists can only shrug and suggest God was just being (playful?)
The creation of whales by evolutionary means is still creation, it seems. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that's what I've been trying to say all along! Glad to see you come around!
 

Paul of Eugene

New Member
Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Finally something I can agree with.

No matter the means God used to create, this is still His creation. Even though all the evidence in God's own creation points to the common descent of all life over a period of at least a few billion years, this does not detract in any way from God's role as the Creator or from His power.
This is theistic evolution though.

Do you think it fair that your version of theistic evolution be taught in tax-payer funded public schools while atheistic evos are screaming that religion should be kept of public schools?

Obviously, your version of evolution is not the true one.

Or are their two versions of evo?

The theo-evo version and the atheistic version?

Will the real and true evos please stand up?
</font>[/QUOTE]I expect the science of evolution to be taught in schools without prejudice against theological views that God was behind it.
 

UTEOTW

New Member
There is a thread going off topic by bringing up whales. Since we already have a "Whale" thread, I thought I might transfer the relevant bits over here and hope to keep the other thread from straying too far and maybe making this thread more interesting and lively.

Paul of Eugene said
OK I've observed a presumably natural change in the design of whales - that is, the feet have been reduced to vestigal bones. The direct observation is of the vestigal bones. That they were once feet is seen by the intermediate examples preserved in the fossil record.

A method of testing that they are vestigal feet instead of useful platforms for something in the whale would be to determine what genes are involved in making legs in land animals and then see if the same genes exist, though repressed mostly (except for those that make the bone scraps that remain) within whales today.

Here's a link to my webpage that shows the vestigal bones:

http://www.epud.net/~richmond/science/science.htm
Gup20 responded
No one was there to observe these whale's tranformations, they must be inferred based upon the assumption that they weren't created as full discreet organisms, and based upon uniformitarian assumptions of millions of years.

As a creationist I would say that I have evidence that these were not the evolution of the same whale, but rather two separate species of whale. I would then show the same pictures of the bones that PauloE showed. There is no observational evidence that says these were not created separately... and no observational evidence that says one evolved from the other. It is pure assumption and speculation.
To which I (UTEOTW) responded
Read back throug the whole thread. The fossil record is just part of the story. YOu ahve fossils that show a progression from a land based creature through an amphibious stage and into a marine creature of today. These are in the correct temporal location. (Just how a flood would have sorted them as such is still a question you cannot answer!) The ratio of oxygen isotopes in their fossils agree with the transition. The morphology changes agree. The legs get shorter and shorter until they no longer exist.

That you still have whales born with atavistic legs is a testament to this. The whales still have the genes for legs but they are not expressed. Why would created whales have such? Look at the evidence presented above about vestigal olfactory genes. Just how do you explain this? Why would whales be created with disabled versions of genes for a sence of smell? Genes that match those of land animals.

It is a complete picture. You try and dissect it into pieces and vaguely attack the pieces. Even at that, you have to pretend that we cannot learn about the past in the present. YOu have to pretend that observations and predictions cannot be made about past events. Whales having vestigal olfactory genes would be a prediction of evolution and not of creationism. But, most importantly, you ignore how the whole of the evidence fits together. You cannot offer any coherent, factual, logical scenario to explain what common descent explains so well.

He is the URL for the whale thread you should read.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html

Here are pictures of one atavistic whale leg.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/whale_legs.htm

And you should read the following:

Andrews, R. C. (1921) "A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale." Amer. Mus. Novitates. No. 9. June 3, 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.

And

"Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss," Lars Bejder* and Brian K. Hall, Evolution & Development, Volume 4 Issue 6 Page 445 - November 2002
and Paul again
A question for Jc: Finding atavistic whale legs is, or is not, an observation?
 
Top