Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Whales And Dolphins Have Lungs And Not Gills?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#41 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 December 2009 - 10:44 AM

You saying so doesn't make it so.

View Post


That actually could be better used against your opening premise.

#42 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 28 December 2009 - 12:52 PM

Posted Image



Darwin Under The Microscope from Phil Holden on Vimeo.

OK thats better.

#43 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 28 December 2009 - 08:31 PM

Here is a video saying that the morphological changes necessary to go from a land based creature to a water based creature, using the whale as an example, number near 50,000. And these changes are all linked, such as if you change an organisms visual system, you need to change parts of its cerebellum and its nervous system. Evolutionary changes are random and are not linked to the change before it or after it, so it doesn’t work, it can’t work.

http://www.youtube.c...52CB2B4&index=4

#44 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 05 January 2010 - 03:20 PM

Sorry, that's not a fact, it’s nothing more than a guess. Adams opinion is based on inductive evidences (i.e. we have seen over and over again, whales producing after their own kind. And have NEVER observed anything differently) and is therefore FAR more substantial than the unsupported proposition you are attempting to pass off as fact here.

View Post


Far from it Ron.

Evolution also claims that whales reproduce after their own kind. How could it not? That's what we observe. But the evidence is that the whale 'kind' has slowly changed over millions of years.

- We have a series of fossils that show over time a series of steps from land animals to whales - fossils that include increasing numbers of whale-specific features over time, and show a transition from land to fresh water to marine environments (shown by the other fossils they are found with). The first creatures that really look like whales appear in the fossil record around 35m years ago, but the evolutionary split with their land ancestors seems to have started around 55m years ago. Of course, God could have individually created a series of creatures that give the impression of a coherent set of evolutionary changes. But why would He do that?

(see http://scienceblogs....as_a_mud-g.php)

- molecular evidence shows that whales are most similar to the land animals from groups which the fossils suggest they evolved. Why would that be if they were created? After all, they don't look much like those land animals now.

- Whales have a vestigial pelvis and back legs. There is no evidence that these have any function. This is completely expected under evolution given their ancestry. I have seen creationist claims that these vestigial bones do have function, but I've never seen any evidence to back that up.

- Whales also have small muscles corresponding to the muscles land animals use to move their ears. Same point, same question.

- While developing in the womb, some whales develop and lose hair. Why would they do that if they were created? Of course, there's a good reason for this under evolution. By the way, humans do that too, which is part of the evidence that we share a common ancestor with other primates.

- the nostrils in whale embryos start of in the usual place, at the tip of the snout, but migrate before birth to the top of the head to form the blowhole. This answers the question raised earlier about the origin of the blowhole. Again, why would this happen under creation? It's natural under evolution.

There's plenty more evidence out there, but that's enough to be going on with. Note that it comes from a number of different kinds of analysis - fossils, embyology, molecular analysis, all of which are consistent.

#45 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 January 2010 - 04:07 PM

Far from it Ron.

View Post

So far, that it’s nonexistent…

Evolution also claims that whales reproduce after their own kind.

View Post

Actually, evolution doesn’t claim anything. God designed whales do reproduce after their own kind.

How could it not?

View Post

Because evolution isn’t sentient, therefore it cannot say anything.

That's what we observe.

View Post

Yes, this is true. We do observe, within the bounds of empirical observation, that whales factually reproduce after their own kind. But, outside of that empiricism, everything else you’ve said is mere assumptive presupposing.


But the evidence is that the whale 'kind' has slowly changed over millions of years.

View Post

Really? And you were there to empirically substantiate said allegations? That would make you what; at least one million and one years old? That, my friend is miraculous in deed!

#46 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 05 January 2010 - 04:32 PM

So far, that it’s nonexistent…
Actually, evolution doesn’t claim anything. God designed whales do reproduce after their own kind.

Because evolution isn’t sentient, therefore it cannot say anything.

Yes, this is true. We do observe, within the bounds of empirical observation, that whales factually reproduce after their own kind. But, outside of that empiricism, everything else you’ve said is mere assumptive presupposing.
Really? And you were there to empirically substantiate said allegations?  That would make you what; at least one million and one years old? That, my friend is miraculous in deed!

View Post


I wish I were that old! Sadly I'm starting to decay at a mere 48.

We can draw conclusions about the past from what we see in the current world. We do that all the time. Things that happen leave traces and we can study them.

#47 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 06 January 2010 - 12:01 PM

...God could have individually created a series of creatures that give the impression of a coherent set of  evolutionary changes. But why would He do that?

View Post

He didn't, He created them as He created them - not to "give the impression..." :)

(see http://scienceblogs....as_a_mud-g.php)

I read the entire article, there was nothing in it that persuaded me to abandon my knowing that God created and that evolution did not.

- molecular evidence shows that whales are most similar to the land animals from groups which the fossils suggest they evolved. Why would that be if they were created? After all, they don't look much like those land animals now.

That evo's look for similarities, and "suggest" they found similarities, doesn't mean that one evolved into the other. It simply means they found things that are similar. (the eyeball of a whale is "similar" to the human eyeball, a lot bigger though :P )

- Whales have a vestigial pelvis and back legs. There is no evidence that these have any function. This is completely expected under evolution given their ancestry. I have seen creationist claims that these vestigial bones do have function, but I've never seen any evidence to back that up.

Just because we don't know what the function is doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Even if we never discover what the function is, it doesn't mean that we must assume evolution!

-  Whales also have small muscles corresponding to the muscles land animals use to move their ears. Same point, same question.

same answer

- While developing in the womb, some whales develop and lose hair. Why would they do that if they were created? Of course, there's a good reason for this under evolution. By the way, humans do that too, which is part of the evidence that we share a common ancestor with other primates.

No, it just means that mammals in the womb experience "similar" things as other mammals in the womb.

- the nostrils in whale embryos start of in the usual place, at the tip of the snout, but migrate before birth to the top of the head to form the blowhole. This answers the question raised earlier about the origin of the blowhole. Again, why would this happen under creation? It's natural under evolution.

Why should it not happen under creation? (rhetorical)

There's plenty more evidence out there, but that's enough to be going on with. Note that it comes from a number of different kinds of analysis - fossils, embyology, molecular analysis, all of which are consistent.

All of which also fit the creation model quite well.

#48 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 06 January 2010 - 02:32 PM

...God could have individually created a series of creatures that give the impression of a coherent set of  evolutionary changes. But why would He do that?


He didn't, He created them as He created them - not to "give the impression..."
...
I read the entire article, there was nothing in it that persuaded me to abandon my knowing that God created and that evolution did not.


Hi bobabelever

Neither you nor anyone else can look into God's mind and measure His intention.

However, the progression of whale fossils certainly does create a very clear impression of evolutionary changes, when you take into account similarities and differences as well as progression through time. Since nature is obedient to God and through nature we can discern His divinity and wisdom (Romans 1:20), then clearly God intended modern science to perceive the impression of evolutionary changes in whale fossils.

That evo's look for similarities, and "suggest" they found similarities, doesn't mean that one evolved into the other.  It simply means they found things that are similar.  (the eyeball of a whale is "similar" to the human eyeball, a lot bigger though  :) )


This is not correct. Modern biologists look at patterns of similarities and differences. This is extremely different from just looking at similarities.

The pattern of similarities and differences in the lineage of whales is a nested hierarchy, which is the mathematically necessary result of a branching process like descent with modification. Thus, the clear impression of evolutionary change is present.

Just because we don't know what the function is doesn't mean it doesn't have one.  Even if we never discover what the function is, it doesn't mean that we must assume evolution!


The conclusion (not assumption) of evolutionary change is based on the pattern of similarities and differences between organisms, not on whether something has a function.

the nostrils in whale embryos start of in the usual place, at the tip of the snout, but migrate before birth to the top of the head to form the blowhole. This answers the question raised earlier about the origin of the blowhole. Again, why would this happen under creation? It's natural under evolution.

Why should it not happen under creation? (rhetorical)


If evolution is God's method of creation, then this should happen under both creation and evolution!

All of which also fit the creation model quite well.

View Post


Exactly. :-)

Cheers
SeeJay

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2010 - 03:25 PM

I wish I were that old! Sadly I'm starting to decay at a mere 48.

We can draw conclusions about the past from what we see in the current world. We do that all the time. Things that happen leave traces and we can study them.

View Post


Drawing conclusions and inferring conclusive evidence based upon the a priori uniformitarianisim concerning presupposed millions (or billions) of unobserved years may be done all the time. But it is neither empirical, nor is it scientific. It is, although, a travesty to call it the scientific method.

#50 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 06 January 2010 - 03:41 PM

First you say:

Neither you nor anyone else can look into God's mind and measure His intention.

View Post

But then you say:

...then clearly God intended modern science to perceive the impression of evolutionary changes in whale fossils.

:)

It's the same thing I read in ALL evo-babble:
Here is our theory; the evidence implies; it looks like
BUT THEN
undoubtedly; this is fact; that thing happened

At least we YEC'ers admit openly that we apply faith to our understanding.

Edit:
God does not want us to "percieve the impression"! He made things the way He made them, that's all, no perception necessary, it soooooo simple. Geeeeesh !! :P

#51 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 06 January 2010 - 03:59 PM

Far from it Ron.

Evolution also claims that whales reproduce after their own kind. How could it not? That's what we observe. But the evidence is that the whale 'kind' has slowly changed over millions of years.

- We have a series of fossils that show over time a series of steps from land animals to whales - fossils that include increasing numbers of whale-specific features over time, and show a transition from land to fresh water to marine environments (shown by the other fossils they are found with). The first creatures that really look like whales appear in the fossil record around 35m years ago, but the evolutionary split with their land ancestors seems to have started around 55m years ago. Of course, God could have individually created a series of creatures  that give the impression of a coherent set of  evolutionary changes. But why would He do that?

(see http://scienceblogs....as_a_mud-g.php)

- molecular evidence shows that whales are most similar to the land animals from groups which the fossils suggest they evolved. Why would that be if they were created? After all, they don't look much like those land animals now.

- Whales have a vestigial pelvis and back legs. There is no evidence that these have any function. This is completely expected under evolution given their ancestry. I have seen creationist claims that these vestigial bones do have function, but I've never seen any evidence to back that up.

-  Whales also have small muscles corresponding to the muscles land animals use to move their ears. Same point, same question.

- While developing in the womb, some whales develop and lose hair. Why would they do that if they were created? Of course, there's a good reason for this under evolution. By the way, humans do that too, which is part of the evidence that we share a common ancestor with other primates.

- the nostrils in whale embryos start of in the usual place, at the tip of the snout, but migrate before birth to the top of the head to form the blowhole. This answers the question raised earlier about the origin of the blowhole. Again, why would this happen under creation? It's natural under evolution.

There's plenty more evidence out there, but that's enough to be going on with. Note that it comes from a number of different kinds of analysis - fossils, embyology, molecular analysis, all of which are consistent.

View Post


Good list...

One more point...

Atavisms?

Hind limbs on a bottlenose dolphin
Posted Image


Posted Image

Article Link
shows the bones from the atavistic legs of a humpback whale. These bones are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919. Two officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company were understandably impressed by this discovery, and they removed one of the legs and presented the skeletal remains to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, B.C. (The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship). The museum's director, Francis Kermode, presented the bones to Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. Andrews reported the findings, along with photographs of the whale from the whaling crew, in American Museum Novitates, the journal of the AMNH. Andrews identified in the remains a shrunken cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal. Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin. For comparison, an average adult female humpback is around 45 feet long. The femur, composed of unossified cartilage, had shrunken from 15 inches to 4.5 inches. When attached to the whale, the femur was completely inside the body cavity and attached to the pelvic rudiments (humpback whales have vestiges of a pelvis inside the abdominal wall). This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966, after sixty years of uncontrolled human predation had decimated the population.


Both of these are examples of atavisms...vestigial DNA from evolutionary ancestors, that are normally 'switched' off.

There are many cases of humans that are born with atavistic tails.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K11knFKqW4s&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K11knFKqW4s&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Nova had a great episode on DNA and how they located these atavistic 'switches' in a program called "What Darwin Never Knew"

What Darwin Never Knew

Peace

#52 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 07 January 2010 - 02:46 PM

SeeJay: Neither you nor anyone else can look into God's mind and measure His intention.
Bobabelever: But then you say:
SeeJay: ...then clearly God intended modern science to perceive the impression of evolutionary changes in whale fossils.
It's the same thing I read in ALL evo-babble:
Here is our theory; the evidence implies; it looks like
BUT THEN
undoubtedly; this is fact; that thing happened

At least we YEC'ers admit openly that we apply faith to our understanding.


Hi bobabelever

You missed my point so I will restate it.

We cannot read God's mind, so all we have to go on is the evidence He left lying around.

The evidence from whale fossils shows a clear pattern of similarities and differences through time. Do you agree this pattern exists? I'm not asking you to agree this proves evolution, just that there is a pattern e.g. the migration of the nostrils backwards, reduction of hind limbs etc. -- essentially a progression of changes that are more and more adapted to a marine environment.

I openly admit my faith that God created all things. I also openly admit my faith that when we find evidence of things, they are real things, not fakes or illusions, and the evidence is there because it is part of God's plan that it should be there, and that we should find it.

God does not want us to "percieve the impression"! He made things the way He made them, that's all, no perception necessary, it soooooo simple. Geeeeesh !! 


On the contrary, the Bible teaches that God's nature can be perceived through the things that He made.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


I grant you, some things God made are not simple. Why should they be? (Isaiah 55:89) However, God promises us the wisdom to understand things (James I:5).

Cheers
SeeJay

#53 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:34 AM

Whales are mammals,so ofcoarse they would'nt have gills,but you also have'nt realized that some fish will drown because they need to gulp air to breath (e.g. Arapaima,lungfish).I hardly doubt if they have an evolutionary origin from any land based creature.

I've also heard of a lungfish with a moveable neck that is able to lift it's head out of the water to gulp air like Tiktaalik.
Enjoy.

View Post


So why did God create Dolphins and Whales as mammals and not fish?

#54 Wallace

Wallace

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Portsmouth

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:50 AM

I'm still waiting for a better explanation than common descent for why cetaceans have the remnants of genes for making legs, as well as those used in air-based olfaction and vision.
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3122

It seems to me that all anti-evolutionists are still in a state of massive scale denial of the facts of comparative genomics. The entire YEC 'research community' still seems to be operating under a don't-ask-don't-tell policy.
Todd Wood apparently tried to begin to drag 'creation research' into the 21st century, but he unfortunately laid out too many uncomfortable truths that other creationists simply don't want to hear. In his paper he basically refuted every single anti common descent argument going and has since been despised by various organisations, such as ICR. He was informed that there would be no public response to his paper, which you will not find any trace of on any creationist site. So much for being an honest creationist, eh?

#55 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:48 AM

So why did God create Dolphins and Whales as mammals and not fish?

View Post


God did create fish...

#56 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:58 AM

At no point does the fossil record actually record the evolution of Whales.  Giving more evidence that evolution really is a wishful thinking fairytale.


View Post


http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils
scroll down to a bit under the middle of the page...

#57 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 11:16 AM

God did create fish...

View Post

That has nothing to do with my question. Why weren't dolphins and whales created as fish?

#58 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:29 PM

I'd love to know why whales are obviously tetrapods as well.

#59 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:24 AM

That has nothing to do with my question.  Why weren't dolphins and whales created as fish?

View Post


Actually, it has everything to do with your question. Because, obviously you misspoke your question, and corrected that mistake in the above reply by rewording it (without admitting your mistake I might add).

Now, my answer to the above: Why did they need to be crated as fish?

There is no reason dolphins and whales had to be created as fish. Why were the birds of the air created to fly? Why were turtles created with shells?

Because that is the way they were created! To fullfill a nich in this world.

#60 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 12 February 2010 - 12:50 PM

Now, my answer to the above: Why did they need to be crated as fish?

because gills are far far far superior to lungs in water. I can even seen that, I wonder why your God didn't.


There is no reason dolphins and whales had to be created as fish. Why were the birds of the air created to fly? Why were turtles created with shells?

Because that is the way they were created!

View Post


So basically "goddidit" is your answer.

To fullfill a nich in this world.


Whales and dolphins using lungs instead of gills fulfills a niche? And what niche would that be?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users