Jump to content


Photo

Whales Designed Or Evolved?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 January 2009 - 01:30 AM


Darwin Under The Microscope from Phil Holden on Vimeo.

Here is a video by Dr. Marc Surtees.He goes through the fossil evidence and recent genetic studies that have searched for the "vestigal genes" for whales legs.

As we have all been told a large ear size to body mass means you have a whale.When we compare the semi-cirrcular canal size to body mass of Pakicetus,Ambulocetus,Basilosaurus and other fossils and living Cetaceans,we find that they are either aligned with terrestrial animals or marine animals.NO INTERMEDIATE FORM IS FOUND.


Enjoy.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 January 2009 - 01:43 AM

Here is more relavent data that cast doubt on the chronolgy (accurate dating) of these fossils and more data Marc did'nt have time for.

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus (see note 16). One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain.

In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian.[18] If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan.[19] Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus.[20] This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.[21]

In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian.[22] If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus. In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.[23]

Given the significance evolutionists have attributed to these fossils in their battle with creationists, one cannot help but wonder whether their stratigraphical arrangement in the standard scheme has been influenced by their morphology. One committed to evolution would tend to be less critical of dates that placed these fossils in a morphological sequence and more critical of dates that disrupted that sequence.[24] As the diversity and shifts of expert opinion indicate, stratigraphical correlation is more an art than is commonly appreciated.

ARCHAEOCETES TO MODERN CETACEANS

The third claim in the evolutionists’ chain of events is that archaeocetes gave rise to modern cetaceans. This is sometimes asserted as a fact, but the relationship between these suborders has long been debated.
There are major differences between the archaeocetes and cetaceans (e.g., body shape, thoracic fin structure, and skull arrangement) which have led many experts to deny that archaeocetes gave rise to odontocetes or mysticetes.[29] As George Gaylord Simpson concluded:


Thus the Archaeoceti, middle Eocene to early Miocene, are definitely the most primitive of cetaceans, but they can hardly have given rise to the other suborders. The Odontoceti, late Eocene to Recent, are on a higher grade than the Archaeoceti and, on the average, lower than the Mysticeti, middle Oligocene to Recent, but apparently were not derived from the former and did not give rise to the latter.[30]

The point was reiterated two decades later by A. V. Yablokov, who wrote, “It is now obvious to most investigators that the Archaeoceti cannot be regarded as direct ancestral forms of the modern cetaceans.”[31] This was the consensus opinion until relatively recently.[32]
The current leaders in the field believe that archaeocetes were ancestral to modern whales, but there is no agreement on which family of archaeocetes was involved. In fact, all three families (Protocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, and Basilosauridae) have been proposed.[33] This is particularly revealing when one considers how radically different Remingtonocetidae is from the other archaeocetes.[34]

In addition, no chain of descent from archaeocetes to modern whales has been identified. The phylogenetic relationships among major lineages within the Cetacea continue to be “very poorly understood,” which is why recent phylogenies are dominated by dead ends, broken lines, and question marks.[35] As for Basilosaurus isis, it is generally recognized that Basilosaurinae was an isolated subfamily that had nothing to do with the origin of modern whales.[36]

http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp




Enjoy.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 March 2009 - 06:37 AM

That's a great video, Jason. I have come to the conclusion that the evolutionists favorite arguments for evolution are indeed usually the best arguments against it. It allows for a three part smoke screen:

1. It allows for confusion because they use ad hoc constraints to hide embarrassing facts right in the open.

2. They claim ownership of evidence as if alternate views must be supported by new and unrelated facts.

3. Loud ballyhoos can be used to complain how creationists only criticize evolutionists work rather then doing their own but it's the evolutionists work that is most amply flawed and useful to argue for creation. So why not use it? <_<

#4 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 12 March 2009 - 03:21 PM

There's something about this guy which bothers me........ is he a scientist?

He seems to jump around like a jack-in the-box in the science of the 1800's a lot, sniping in a really smug lip smacking way which i find irritating......

He doesn't say by which *surer* method he arrives at 'debunking' whatever he doesn't like in whatever field he's struggling to understand.....

So far, all I can really know from his inane excitable babbling is that he doesn't rely on Carbon 14 dating techniques, he doesn't like raiometric dating, he doesn't trust genome testing and in the case of the above video he doesn't base his 'findings' on DNA tests........ by what 'scientific methodology' does he trust to make judgements?

Call me new fangled....... but I thought current knowledge (like 10 years ago) pointed to the modern hippopotamus as being the closest living relative of the whale? Did he check the DNA links? Not apparently..........

Very odd......... no doubt he'll get a round to giving his unique explanation for his whole whale 'problem' in time........

Perhaps less than the 8 -15 million years he scoffs about........ lemme guess...... 6,000 years?

An element of detachment from received knowledge can be a fine thing ('question everything' as they quote Dawkins saying) - BUT really........ where does all this received knowledge start and end.....?

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 March 2009 - 05:51 PM

An element of detachment from received knowledge can be a fine thing ('question everything' as they quote Dawkins saying) - BUT really........ where does all this received knowledge start and end.....?

View Post

This is a good question.

While your commentary may be entertaining for a while. I would like to point out that you aren't offering reasons for why a Biblical view of creation is false. Merely, telling us that it is passé and no longer in vogue has little argumentative appeal to those here who have thought through this and actually abandoned the view that you currently hold precisely because of the evidence and the arguments.

So please do tell us; where does all this received knowledge start and end? Charles Darwin? Don't forget he was bucking the establishment a mere 150 years ago with some unpopular ideas.

The question really should be "What is truth?" Charles Darwin, influenced by another unpopular dreamer of the time, Charles Lyell, may have had an idea that captured the minds of our current culture but does that make it true? We should check our Chronological Snobbery before being swept away in lies just because we believe them due to a current fad.

#6 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 17 March 2009 - 07:00 PM

This biblical creationist, unlike many, accepts, desires, insists, that whales/water mammals are a simple post flood adaptation to a empty sea and so fulfilling Gods order to fill the earth. The sea as the land as been depopulated and ther was time for land creatures to populate the sea . plus the ratio of types of creatures in the sea had changed.
FRom innate triggers in bodies many mammals made the seas their permanent home.
Creationism is wrong to say the few creatures with unique mammal attributes, and actual bones showing a previous anatomical life, and not found in fossils from below the k-t line, TO ME THE FLOOD LINE, are from creation week.
The whales should be seen as simple land creatures who soon after the flood took to the sea.
In fact creatures like water mammals embarass evolution for the fact they are the few with bones remaing showing a actual different former life. There should be heaps of them.
What do fellow creationists think of this.

#7 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 March 2009 - 07:25 PM

This biblical creationist, unlike many, accepts, desires, insists, that whales/water mammals are a simple post flood adaptation to a empty sea and so fulfilling Gods order to fill the earth. The sea as the land as been depopulated and ther was time for land creatures to populate the sea . plus the ratio of types of creatures in the sea had changed.
FRom innate triggers in bodies many mammals made the seas their permanent home.
Creationism is wrong to say the few creatures with unique mammal attributes, and actual bones showing a previous anatomical life, and not found in fossils from below the k-t line, TO ME THE FLOOD LINE, are from creation week.
The whales should be seen as simple land creatures who soon after the flood took to the sea.
In fact creatures like water mammals embarass evolution for the fact they are the few with bones remaing showing a actual different former life. There should be heaps of them.
What do fellow creationists think of this.

View Post


We accept "hyper-evolution" (the diversification of approx. 13,000 kinds after the flood to produce all species we see today), but your idea not only is void of any evidence, it borders on the hopeful monster stuff of evolutionists. I have a spoof of whales that only briefly touches on the complexity of this animal, that was anything but "simple" (ie sonar, bouyancy, etc) and was clearly not designed for land:

http://www.evolution....com/whale1.htm

Fred

#8 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 March 2009 - 07:52 PM

The newest relative Evolutionist think whales are closest to are Antelopes, but this view is realized by the encredible likeness between the Whale anke bone, and the antelopes ankle bone... Do whales even have ankle bones??? Anyways it doesn't matter because we have done a group study on this, and we are the head of the Old Earth Society, so this has merit.

We also fully understand that antelopes eat grass, and that they would never intentionally start going into the water for no reason... especially when crocodiles eat them like popcorn... No, we have a different theory... Bigfoot, YES bigfoot played a big role in Antelope to whale evolution.

The Bigfoot economy was getting small around 20 million years ago, so they decided to boost the economy by creating a game called: Antelope chunking, where lots of Bigfoot people, would pay good money to see who could throw the biggest, fattest antelope the farthest into the ocean.

Well, upon doing this, the antelopes, which were naturally healthy began to build at taste for plankton, because they would accidentaly swallow some each time they were thrown into the ocean, this also built the antelopes swimming capabilties. So over time Antelopes realized they could devolve their legs back into flippers, and loose their hair, and eat plankton to escape from being Chunked back into the ocean by a pack of Bigfeet.

Well, that sums up the evolutionary explanation this time, because the Wolf-like creature just didn't cut it with only having a few fragments of its skeleton which turned out to be an incomplete skeleton of a whale anyways... until we found this important ankle bone information...yes we are still waiting to see if whales actually have bones that qualify as ankle bones.

Thank you, and good day.

#9 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 20 March 2009 - 08:00 PM

We accept "hyper-evolution" (the diversification of approx. 13,000 kinds after the flood to produce all species we see today), but your idea not only is void of any evidence, it borders on the hopeful monster stuff of evolutionists. I have a spoof of whales that only briefly touches on the complexity of this animal, that was anything but "simple" (ie sonar, bouyancy, etc) and was clearly not designed for land:

http://www.evolution....com/whale1.htm

Fred

View Post


I read your llink and know my fellow creationists opinions here.

I agree with hyper evolution, without random mutations/selection, but instead some other mechanism.

The evidence for whales being first land creatures is the non existence in fossils below the k-t line. I see the k-t line as the flood line.
They only appear above this line and never with dinos and company.
likewise with seals, manatees etc.

Then these water mammals have the unique "mammal" features unlike other sea creatures and the sea creatures before the flood that lived in the sea.
These features at least hint at a former life in a different state. These features are not needed for sea life and unlikely from creation week.

Then whales, manatees etc have anatomical evidence of once being leggy. These bones can't be dismissed easily. They are just where one would find them if they once walked the land.

Then for whales or manatees or seals there is fossils showing these creatures with more bones etc of a land creature.

There should be a desire for creationism to see rather unique water creatures as just post flood adaptations to fill a empty world.
They really are from the land first and were on the ark.
This a good case that evolutions uses and so we should take it from them.
Few creatures have telltale bones despite the claims of massive evolution.

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 March 2009 - 08:34 PM

With all due respect, Robert. These bones aren't legs and they never were: :blink:

Posted Image

#11 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 20 March 2009 - 11:50 PM

The evidence for whales being first land creatures is the non existence in fossils below the k-t line. I see the k-t line as the flood line.

That is not evidence of evolution, because it assumes evolution. It assumes that the vertical order of the geological column represents an evolutionary history. So you cannot use that order to prove anything about evolution. We deny that evolution ever happened, beyond variation within the kinds that God created in the first place.

They only appear above this line and never with dinos and company.
likewise with seals, manatees etc.

Since they lived in different environments, it is not very likely that they will be found together. The chance operations of the floodwaters might put some together, but generally, sea creatures will have been buried before land ones, because they were already underneath.

There should be a desire for creationism to see rather unique water creatures as just post flood adaptations to fill a empty world.
They really are from the land first and were on the ark.

View Post

In that case you are effectively saying that whales etc evolved from land creatures since around 2350BC. How?

#12 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 21 March 2009 - 05:09 AM

With all due respect, Robert. These bones aren't legs and they never were: :P

Posted Image

View Post


I dunno Adam, those are pretty straight leg bones extending down from the spinal column. What's at the bottom of those leg bones? And why didn't you include that in the picture? :blink:

Are you creationists trying to hide something? :D

#13 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 21 March 2009 - 05:55 AM

With all due respect, Robert. These bones aren't legs and they never were: :blink:

Posted Image

View Post

Of course not.

The whale's problem was that it grew an extremely long body (that was why it had to take to the sea). As an interim measure it developed a set of trainer wheels to keep the back part of its body off the ground; the remnants of the axle assembly can be seen in the right foreground.

Once in the sea, the trainer wheels proved to be an encumbrance; it is thought that some species tried converting them to paddle wheels but because the top of the paddle was working in the opposite sense to the bottom they never managed to do more than stay in one place, or at the most, spin on the spot. Naturally this led to their being deselected. In other species the trainer wheels atrophied and there is now nothing left but the asymmetric major spokes, as seen in the picture.

#14 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 21 March 2009 - 06:20 AM

Of course not.

The whale's problem was that it grew an extremely long body (that was why it had to take to the sea).  As an interim measure it developed a set of trainer wheels to keep the back part of its body off the ground; the remnants of the axle assembly can be seen in the right foreground.

Once in the sea, the trainer wheels proved to be an encumbrance; it is thought that some species tried converting them to paddle wheels but because the top of the paddle was working in the opposite sense to the bottom they never managed to do more than stay in one place, or at the most, spin on the spot.  Naturally this led to their being deselected.  In other species the trainer wheels atrophied and there is now nothing left but the asymmetric major spokes, as seen in the picture.

View Post


Thanks Oliver, I was wondering what those were :huh:

Biology 101 should have coverd that! :angry: What a grip-off <_<

#15 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 21 March 2009 - 09:58 AM

Thanks Oliver, I was wondering what those were  :huh:

Biology 101 should have coverd that!  :angry:   What a grip-off  <_<

View Post

Of course the specimen in the picture is another evolutionary dead end. This species, Balaenoptera stupidus fixatus, tried to deal with the problem of swimming against the current and consequent fatigue by developing long prongs that extended down to anchor it to the sea bed. Unfortunately, these tended to set hard and, when used in shallow tidal water, frequently left the whale high and dry, unable to move; these unfortunate creatures were then quickly reduced to skeletons by predatory gulls. This has evidently been the fate of the pictured specimen.

Subsequent tectonic plate movement raised the specimen permanently above sea level to leave it in its present rather unlikely location.

#16 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 21 March 2009 - 11:24 AM

Of course the specimen in the picture is another evolutionary dead end.  This species, Balaenoptera stupidus fixatus, tried to deal with the problem of swimming against the current and consequent fatigue by developing long prongs that extended down to anchor it to the sea bed.  Unfortunately, these tended to set hard and, when used in shallow tidal water, frequently left the whale high and dry, unable to move; these unfortunate creatures were then quickly reduced to skeletons by predatory gulls.  This has evidently been the fate of the pictured specimen.

Subsequent tectonic plate movement raised the specimen permanently above sea level to leave it in its present rather unlikely location.

View Post


Don't you mean "Gull-A-Dactyls?

+ I could imagine trying to walk around on the sea floor with those stilts <_<

#17 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 23 March 2009 - 10:27 PM

With all due respect, Robert. These bones aren't legs and they never were: :rolleyes:

Posted Image

View Post


I can't judge these fossils. I just know that researchers strongly say whale bones show former hips or whatever they are. other creatures, manatees etc lso.
I your insisting theres no reason to see these bones as of a former leggy creature i don't have the knowledge to debate it. yet my impression is its solid and i am a very suspicious creationist.
Yes we must question evolution but bones are bones and must be explained.

#18 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 23 March 2009 - 11:08 PM

That is not evidence of evolution, because it assumes evolution. It assumes that the vertical order of the geological column represents an evolutionary history.  So you cannot use that order to prove anything about evolution.  We deny that evolution ever happened, beyond variation within the kinds that God created in the first place.

Since they lived in different environments, it is not very likely that they will be found together.  The chance operations of the floodwaters might put some together, but generally, sea creatures will have been buried before land ones, because they were already underneath.

In that case you are effectively saying that whales etc evolved from land creatures since around 2350BC.  How?

View Post


I am being shown as a evolutionist on my profile. i have reedited it.
Below the k-t line, whether sea or land there is no whale fossils or very much mammals.
This is the flood line.
Above this line whales etc are found plenty as its a post flood world.

The fossils of water creatures were fossilized in special post flood events.
Whale adaptation was not from slow evolution but due to sudden triggers allowing them to obey gods command to fill the earth. All kinds of whales that ever existed including those who could live on land and in sea and those who lived on land were here and done within a few centuries after the flood. no additions since.

As i said creationism is very wrong to not see these unique water mammals as simple post flood adaptations to a emptied sea. I removes problems and allows the same flexibility for land adaptions demanded by the fossil record in time lines demanded by scripture.
How can we determine if whales were once land creatures. Presumptions are leading everyone here.

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 March 2009 - 11:24 PM

I am being shown as a evolutionist on my profile. i have reedited it.
Below the k-t line, whether sea or land there is no whale fossils or very much mammals.
This is the flood line.
Above this line whales etc are found plenty as its a post flood world.

The fossils of water creatures were fossilized in special post flood events.
Whale adaptation was not from slow evolution but due to sudden triggers allowing them to obey gods command to fill the earth. All kinds of whales that ever existed including those who could live on land and in sea and those who lived on land were here and done within a few centuries after the flood. no additions since.

As i said creationism is very wrong to not see these unique water mammals as simple post flood adaptations to a emptied sea. I removes problems and allows the same flexibility for land adaptions demanded by the fossil record in time lines demanded by scripture.
How can we determine if whales were once land creatures. Presumptions are leading everyone here.

View Post

Do 'creationists' duck the issue of transitional forms, or can you explain the alleged migration of the nose from the snout to the rear of the skull behind the brain?

#20 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 30 March 2009 - 06:03 PM

Do 'creationists' duck the issue of transitional forms, or can you explain the alleged migration of the nose from the snout to the rear of the skull behind the brain?

View Post


A creationist never needs to duck nothing.
There are no transitional forms. I see innate triggers as the origin for creatures adaptions to their niches. Yes things can be moved around but unrelated to selection pressures. Everything has what it needs for its existence. So creationism need only see rapid genetic change from some innate prompt to account for diversity within the whale kind.
The whale like other water mammals is a simple land creature that took to the sea because it was empty and not dangerous anymore . It is a mammal and unique for its life in the water with special adaptations to help it. IT does have vestiges of its leggy past as does a few others.
This should be welcomed by creationists as good evidence and a accusation against evolution for the poverty of creatures otherwise having anatomical evidence of previous lives.
Whales make the creationist case and creationism has been wrong to resist these critters land origins.
The whale, in the bible, is not mentioned until after the flood.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users