Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Whales And Dolphins Have Lungs And Not Gills?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2010 - 03:51 PM

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

View Post


I don't know about this. It depends on the environment. For example an algae bloom or infestation of water plants could lead to the oxygen in an area being depleted. Having lungs and being able to breath air could be an advantage under such circumstances.

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

View Post


I'd like to know the answer to this as well.

#62 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 12 February 2010 - 03:55 PM

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

View Post

Really??? If that were the case, evolution would be false because dolphins and whales are highly successful. Pretty much the top of their food chain.



So basically "goddidit" is your answer.

View Post



Makes FAR more sense than “evolutiondidit” or “naturedidit”…

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

View Post


The top of their food chain… That looks like a pretty good niche…

#63 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

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

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:55 PM

Really??? If that were the case, evolution would be false because dolphins and whales are highly successful.

The top of their food chain… That looks like a pretty good niche…

View Post


Can you show me that dolphins and whales are highly successful because they have lungs? Does that mean that they won't be successful if they had gills instead? Sharks are even more successful and they have gills.

Pretty much the top of their food chain.


Dolphins and Whales are by no means on top of the food chain.



Makes FAR more sense than “evolutiondidit” or “naturedidit”…


Instead of your strawman, the real explanation is that Whales and Dolphins have lungs instead of gills because their ancestors were land animals. That's a whole lot different than saying "evolution did it"



In any case, the reason whales and dolphins are so successful is because they are intelligent, not because they have lungs. What a ridiculous argument.

#64 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

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

Posted 12 February 2010 - 06:13 PM

I don't know about this.  It depends on the environment.  For example an algae bloom or infestation of water plants could lead to the oxygen in an area being depleted. 


In the environment they live in it's not.

#65 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 February 2010 - 05:53 AM

Can you show me that dolphins and whales are highly successful because they have lungs? 

View Post


Can you show me that they’re not?


Does that mean that they won't be successful if they had gills instead? 

View Post

Yes, because thy don’t have gills, thy have lungs.


Sharks are even more successful and they have gills. 

View Post


You really have no idea about the difference between dolphins and sharks and which one is superior in the ocean. But, the bottom line is that sharks cannot hold a candle to the success of dolphins because of the total package of the dolphin design.

Dolphins and Whales are by no means on top of the food chain. 

View Post


Really? Can you name just one successful oceanic predator of the dolphin?
Can you name just one successful oceanic predator of the whale?

In any case, the reason whales and dolphins are so successful is because they are intelligent, not because they have lungs.  What a ridiculous argument.

View Post


It is the total package, not any one element. And they are highly successful because of the design of the system. The silliness of the argument is that you pretend gills are superior to lungs in water, and yet whales and dolphins totally destroy you argument.

#66 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 13 February 2010 - 06:51 AM

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


For the same reason a bat was'nt created with feathers. Because it's a mammal and not a bird. If whales evolved,then why did'nt evolution give whales gills? God also created swimming reptiles called Ichthyosaurs. How did they also end up with the same perfect design as fish by chance?

Although ichthyosaurs looked like fish, they were not. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said the ichthyosaur was his favorite example of convergent evolution, where similarities of structure are analogous not homologous, for this group:

    converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. These structures are all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing — the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to serve as a precursor.



Enjoy.

#67 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:42 AM

Can you show me that they’re not?


If lungs are better than gills in water than why didn't god create all fish with lungs?

Yes, because thy don’t have gills, thy have lungs.

that's circular logic

You really have no idea about the difference between dolphins and sharks and which one is superior in the ocean. But, the bottom line is that sharks cannot hold a candle to the success of dolphins because of the total package of the dolphin design.  
Really? Can you name just one successful oceanic predator of the dolphin?
Can you name just one successful oceanic predator of the whale?


Dolphins and whales are routinely preyed on by sharks and even polar bears.


It is the total package, not any one element. And they are highly successful because of the design of the system. The silliness of the argument is that you pretend gills are superior to lungs in water, and yet whales and dolphins totally destroy you argument.

View Post

That's not what you said before. You said whales and dolphins are successful because they had lungs. Please show me how dolphins and whales would become any less successful if they had gills.

#68 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:47 AM

For the same reason a bat was'nt created with feathers. Because it's a mammal and not a bird.


So why did God create bats as mammals and not as birds? Let's not make the question more complicated. We're talking about whales and dolphins here

If whales evolved,then why did'nt evolution give whales gills? God also created swimming reptiles called Ichthyosaurs. How did they also end up with the same perfect design as fish by chance?

View Post


Easy. Whales and dolphins don't have gills because their ancestors didn't. And it didn't happen by chance at all

#69 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 February 2010 - 12:28 PM

If lungs are better than gills in water than why didn't god create all fish with lungs?
that's circular logic

View Post


No, circular logic is attempting to argue that gills are better than lungs in water, when they obviously are not.

Dolphins and whales are routinely preyed on by sharks and even polar bears.

View Post

Actually, they do not. Sharks rarely prey on dolphins because when they attempt it, dolphins routinely defeat sharks attempts. And polar bears routinely preyed on dolphins; I’d like to see the evidence of that.

You grossly overstate with your accusations, and do so with little to no substantiation.


That's not what you said before.  You said whales and dolphins are successful because they had lungs. 

View Post

Sorry flatland, I never said that. You, once again, either misread what I did say, or you are purposefully twisting what I did say.

Please show me how dolphins and whales would become any less successful if they had gills.

View Post


Why, they are highly successful with lungs, they have no need for gills. In fact, there is no aquatic life more successful, therefore your entire premise is totally flawed and illogical.

#70 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 February 2010 - 04:04 PM

No, circular logic is attempting to argue that gills are better than lungs in water, when they obviously are not.

What's circular about that? In the environment they live in, gills are better than lungs any way you put it.

Actually, they do not. Sharks rarely prey on dolphins because when they attempt it, dolphins routinely defeat sharks attempts. And polar bears routinely preyed on dolphins; I’d like to see the evidence of that.


Dolphins defend themselves against sharks when they can but they don't always succeed. Sharks can and will eat dolphins given the opportunity.

Here's a video of a shark found with a dolphin in its stomach.

http://www.livevideo...in Stomach.aspx

Here's a video of polar bears hunting whales



Can you show me a video of a whale hunting a polar bear?

You grossly overstate with your accusations, and do so with little to no substantiation.
Sorry flatland, I never said that. You, once again, either misread what I did say, or you are purposefully twisting what I did say.


Please clarify what you said then. I asked you why did god create dolphins and whales with lungs instead of gills and you said it made them more successful. It's exactly what you said.

Why, they are highly successful with lungs, they have no need for gills. In fact, there is no aquatic life more successful, therefore your entire premise is totally flawed and illogical.

View Post


Again, sharks are more successful than whales and dolphins.

Anyways, if lungs are better than gills in water why did god create fish with gills in the first place? Why didn't he create them with lungs?

#71 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 13 February 2010 - 07:22 PM

Can you show me a video of a whale hunting a polar bear?


No. But they have been observed killing almost everything else.

DWsN63PRCW8&hl=en_US&fs=1

Anyways, if lungs are better than gills in water why did god create fish with gills in the first place? Why didn't he create them with lungs?


That is shear nonsense. He created different kinds,if that is not acceptible then please provide the following;

1) Experimental data confirming a lung or gill evolving from a non-lung or non-gill.

2) The number of and location of mutations in the genome of said organism.

God creating mammals with lungs is consistent with creation accounts. Evolution,on the other hand,has to account for the origin of the lung from an ancestor without lungs. Are you up to the task? If so,good luck.

If your theory predicts that all organisms in the water (mammal,reptile,and fish) should have gills,then please tell us why we find the opposite (i.e. lungfish)? And why are they found millions of years before gilled lobe finned fish in the fossil record. It would appear that your theory falls apart by your own logic.




Enjoy.

#72 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 08:35 PM

God creating mammals with lungs is consistent with creation accounts. Evolution,on the other hand,has to account for the origin of the lung from an ancestor without lungs. Are you up to the task? If so,good luck.
Enjoy.

View Post


Lungs aren't such a problem. Some amphibians can respire through their skin and some reptiles breathe through a single lung. Avian and mammalian lungs are further improvements in efficiency with time as might be expected.

#73 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2010 - 01:16 AM

What's circular about that?  In the environment they live in, gills are better than lungs any way you put it.
Dolphins defend themselves against sharks when they can but they don't always succeed.  Sharks can and will eat dolphins given the opportunity. 

Here's a video of a shark found with a dolphin in its stomach.

http://www.livevideo...in Stomach.aspx

Here's a video of polar bears hunting whales



Can you show me a video of a whale hunting a polar bear?
Please clarify what you said then.  I asked you why did god create dolphins and whales with lungs instead of gills and you said it made them more successful.  It's exactly what you said.
Again, sharks are more successful than whales and dolphins.

Anyways, if lungs are better than gills in water why did god create fish with gills in the first place?  Why didn't he create them with lungs?

View Post


Lol, excellent ownage flatland.

Even so, I'd love to know why all cetaceans have membrane enclosed eggs and four paired appendages. Every organism with these two traits lives on land to at least some extent except for cetaceans and sirens. Why weren't those two "designed" similarly??? Instead, whales actually have more in common deer and sea cows share more traits with elephants than either do with each other. Why the horizontal tales??? Fish seem to do just fine with vertical tails. Why do whales possess pelvic bones???


What's the point of "designing" multiple ways to do the same thing??? As an engineer myself, I find it is most productive to solve one problem then move onto the next.

#74 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 14 February 2010 - 05:51 AM

What's circular about that?  In the environment they live in, gills are better than lungs any way you put it.

View Post

It is circular because you come to the argument “gills are better than lung in an aquatic environment”, and yet whales and dolphins clearly prove that assumption incorrect.



Dolphins defend themselves against sharks when they can but they don't always succeed.  Sharks can and will eat dolphins given the opportunity. 

View Post

Absolutely, BUT, sharks ARE NOT very successful in their attempts. The dolphin packs are far more successful against the shark, thus proving their superiority. If you actually did your research, you’d know this fact instead of propagandizing your weak stance.


Here's a video of polar bears hunting whales


View Post


And how successful is the polar bear in hunting the Blue whale (etc…) as opposed to the polar bear hunting fish, seals or even trash?

Can you show me a video of a whale hunting a polar bear?

View Post

How about this: It is a well know fact that killer whales kill and eat polar bears and sharks-
http://www.seaworld....-whale/diet.htm

And here’s a video of a killer whale eating a human being. So, by your analogy, killer whales are superior to humans.

:blink: (p.s. that was a joke)

Please clarify what you said then.  I asked you why did god create dolphins and whales with lungs instead of gills and you said it made them more successful.  It's exactly what you said.

View Post


Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. And, it seems, you are doing so with reason and malice. Show me where I said that lungs make whales and dolphins more successful than sharks. What I did to was show where your presupposition was incorrect.

Again, sharks are more successful than whales and dolphins.

View Post


Again, you are incorrect…

Anyways, if lungs are better than gills in water why did god create fish with gills in the first place?  Why didn't he create them with lungs?

View Post


I’m sure you’ll have the opportunity to ask Him firsthand. But until that time, you’ll still be able to wonder.

#75 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

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

Posted 14 February 2010 - 01:52 PM

It is circular because you come to the argument “gills are better than lung in an aquatic environment”, and yet whales and dolphins clearly prove that assumption incorrect.


Dolphins and whales clearly prove that lungs suck in water because they actually drown.

Absolutely, BUT, sharks ARE NOT very successful in their attempts. The dolphin packs are far more successful against the shark, thus proving their superiority. If you actually did your research, you’d know this fact instead of propagandizing your weak stance.


If you did any research you'd know that sharks prey on dolphins a lot more than dolphins prey on sharks. When encounter happens, dolphins are almost always on the defensive.

And how successful is the polar bear in hunting the Blue whale (etc…) as opposed to the polar bear hunting fish, seals or even trash?


Actually they are very successful at hunting whales and dolphins.

How about this: It is a well know fact that killer whales kill and eat polar bears and sharks-


Still doesn't change the fact that sharks and polar bears eat whales more than the other way around.

And here’s a video of a killer whale eating a human being. So, by your analogy, killer whales are superior to humans.


Humans hunt killer whales a lot more than killer whales hunt humans. So by my analogy humans are still superior (more successful are actually the correct words).

Btw, more successful is not the same thing as superior.


Again, you are incorrect…


Sharks are more successful because they are more numerous, they occupy more biological niches, they out-compete whales and dolphins for food, they are quicker and more agile and they also don't need to resurface for air. Now please show me how dolphins and whales are more successful than sharks.

I’m sure you’ll have the opportunity to ask Him firsthand.


I'll have the opportunity to ask him first hand? Prove it

But until that time, you’ll still be able to wonder.


Why would I have to wonder? I thought creationists have the answers already.



The original question of this thread was why were dolphins and whales created with lungs instead of gills. After 4 pages, no one has even attempted to answer the question.

#76 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 14 February 2010 - 10:20 PM

The original question of this thread was why were dolphins and whales created with lungs instead of gills. After 4 pages, no one has even attempted to answer the question.


Rejecting 4 pages of answers because it wrecks the only strawman you have,does'nt invalidate any of the answers that were given.

Until you can tell us why they should'nt,and also why some fish have lungs,then you're the only one that has not attempted to give an answer.

Whales are warm blooded mammals and have a high metabolism "they need thick layers of blubber to stay warm" and lungs are much more efficient at absorbing O2 than gills. So from a design prespective,lungs are needed. In fact,with gills instead of lungs,they would die.

The Relative Efficiency of Gaseous Exchange Across the Lungs and Gills of an African Lungfish Protopterus Aethiopicus

1. The efficiency of gas exchange over the lung and gill surfaces of Protopterus has been investigated.

2. Animals confined in water or in air showed an increased respiratory frequency in the remaining medium, indicating that both routes were important in the total gas exchange.

3. Direct measurement of the oxygen and carbon dioxide tensions of pulmonary air and inspired and expired branchial water showed gas exchange ratios ® of 0.2 for the lung and 5.0 for the gills approximately, demonstrating that more oxygen was consumed via the lungs and more carbon dioxide excreted via the gills.

4. Oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were measured directly in a respirometer in which respiratory air and water streams could be kept separate except during lung ventilation. At least 90% of the animals' oxygen consumption occurred in the lung, while 60 % of the carbon dioxide excreted passed via the aquatic route.


http://jeb.biologist...abstract/52/1/1


Comparatively,Great White sharks have a very slow metabolism "they can go months without a meal" and their body temp. remains a few degrees above the water temp. making less efficent gills a more likely design than lungs.





Enjoy.

#77 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 15 February 2010 - 02:18 AM

This is an interesting one. Fish use gills to breathe. This means they can't drown, and don't need to surface to breathe.

Does The Theory of Creation have a parallel explanation, with evidence?

View Post


God is creative. Evidence; look around.

There will not be a "parallel" explanation. Parallel implies similarity to evolution but in a creation manner. Regarding creation, the origin ancestors were created as is. There is no lineage which ends in the original whale. It was the first whale. All the ocean organisms which swam with it on its first day, were the original ancestors of the organisms we see today.

It is amazing to me how many arguing against YEC actually understand what YEC is.

#78 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 15 February 2010 - 06:23 AM

Rejecting 4 pages of answers because it wrecks the only strawman you have,does'nt invalidate any of the answers that were given.

Until you can tell us why they should'nt,and also why some fish have lungs,then you're the only one that has not attempted to give an answer.

View Post


It's called denial Jason. Flatland doesn't like the answer given on page one, so he simply denies it even happened. And wah-lah, with the waive of a hand, no answer! See how easy that was...

He then denies all the evidence against his unsupported hypothesis how? By simply saying he's right, and everyone else is wrong. And wah-lah, with the waive of a hand, he thinks he's won!

It's easy to do when you can simply say "evolutiondidit" or "naturedidit"...

#79 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2010 - 10:34 AM

Whales are warm blooded mammals and have a high metabolism "they need thick layers of blubber to stay warm" and lungs are much more efficient at absorbing O2 than gills. So from a design prespective,lungs are needed. In fact,with gills instead of lungs,they would die.

View Post


Except there really isn't any correlation between an animal being cold blooded and having lungs. This is pure speculation on your part. Mammals' high metabolism is a result of a four chambered heart. A fish with two circulatory systems and a four chambered heart would do just fine with gills. If you consider the fact that water has a lower oxygen concentration than air, you could easily argue gas exchange in gills is better than in lungs.

It is amazing to me how many arguing against YEC actually understand what YEC is.


Lol, it goes both ways.

#80 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 February 2010 - 11:38 AM

Except there really isn't any correlation between an animal being cold blooded and having lungs.  This is pure speculation on your part.  Mammals' high metabolism is a result of a four chambered heart.  A fish with two circulatory systems and a four chambered heart would do just fine with gills.  If you consider the fact that water has a lower oxygen concentration than air, you could easily argue gas exchange in gills is better than in lungs.
Lol, it goes both ways.

View Post


The whale could not survive with gills, and be warm blooded at the same time. Jason is not speculating on this. It's just a fact that Warm Blooded, and Cold Blooded creatures have very different systems. Even though they seem very similar by design, yes I say design because it's an absolute fact that their designs are similar based on empiracle, witnessed studies. Not wishy washy speculating.

You claim Jason is speculating, but he isn't, his claim is scientifically targeted right on the point, because you haven't provided any evidence against his, nor have you shown how it works. Jason's claim is going about empiracly through what we see in nature, but we do not see Whales with gills. Of course if Jason is speculating then Scientist are speculating too, based on the claims being made.

I'll use the evolutionist answer to why Whales don't have gills: Because the ocean is full of water. It's much harder for gills to gather oxygen from water. It's not very efficient. Lungs are much more efficient.

From doing a simple search I found that lungs have to move 3.5 grams of air, while gills have to move 100,000 grams. Proving Jasons point. Of course this is still speculating on the question as to why on the scientist part, because they didn't witness the happening, but it still proves Jasons point. No one knows exactly why.


Now, this thread was created by the OP, because evolutionist want sneak in the idea that because Whales have lungs, that must automatically mean that they evolved from land Creatures. Which is not supported by empiracly witnessed evidence whatsoever.

So, with that being said, the Faith based claim that us Creationist use that God created whales as they are, without evolution still stands, because evolutionist have yet to knock it down. It's still all just speculating on why.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users