Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Whales And Dolphins Have Lungs And Not Gills?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 19 December 2009 - 04:01 PM

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

Aquatic mammals like whales have lungs. Not good. The ToE explains that whales evolved from land mammals. The evidence is based on many different strands of science, and is summarised here:

http://animals.howst...mals/whale1.htm (Basic)

http://www.talkorigi...eatures/whales/ (Less basic)

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

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 December 2009 - 04:57 PM

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.

#3 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 December 2009 - 05:04 PM

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

Aquatic mammals like whales have lungs. Not good. The ToE explains that whales evolved from land mammals. The evidence is based on many different strands of science, and is summarised here:

http://animals.howst...mals/whale1.htm  (Basic)

http://www.talkorigi...eatures/whales/  (Less basic)

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

View Post



They have lungs because they are MAMMALS. Not because they evolved from land mammals. I have a National Geographic that explains that some antelope type creatures were the ancestors of whales... dropping the wolf-like creature all together. Of course the evolutionist magicians are very quick to switch ancestors over and over... as they see fit.

So antelopes magically started eating plankton and growing fins??? Hmmm most antelopes and grass grazers live in parched climates nowhere near the ocean.

Plus no land dwelling mammal has Mouth FILTERS or BLOW HOLES. Which also poses a problem for the evolution magicians. Blubber would also need a nice explaination too. Plus the entire BODY of the whale is purposfully designed for water navigation. From sonar location... all the way to grooves on the belly of the whale for faster traveling through the ocean. In fact many ocean dwelling mammals are far more advanced than fish.

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

So sea dwelling mammals having lungs is not a good excuse for a major problem, when in fact it's no problem at all. Nor is there any evidence for it being a problem in the first place.

#4 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 19 December 2009 - 05:35 PM

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


Hi there,

The fossil record is discussed at length in the talkorigins link. Have a look, and please come back with any queries.

Anyway, I was asking a question about the Theory of Creationism. Is there an answer?

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 December 2009 - 05:46 PM

Hi there,

The fossil record is discussed at length in the talkorigins link. Have a look, and please come back with any queries.

Anyway, I was asking a question about the Theory of Creationism. Is there an answer?

View Post

Hi JMcP,

Welcome to EFT. :o

I would strongly recommend using the search feature to review the past threads pertaining to this topic. Until you feel comfortable navigating our forum I would be pleased to provide a couple of pertinent threads dealing with this subject.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2364

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1953

The next thread is not directly related but it shows the amount of nonsense that surrounds the rigmarole of morphology or homology:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2474

You see, creationists would waste their time trying to disprove whale/dolphin evolution because there is no evidence beyond anecdote and ad hoc hypotheses that support it.

#6 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 19 December 2009 - 06:06 PM

Hi JMcP,

Welcome to EFT.  :o

I would strongly recommend using the search feature to review the past threads pertaining to this topic. Until you feel comfortable navigating our forum I would be pleased to provide a couple of pertinent threads dealing with this subject.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2364

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1953

The next thread is not directly related but it shows the amount of nonsense that surrounds the rigmarole of morphology or homology:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2474

You see, creationists would waste their time trying to disprove whale/dolphin evolution because there is no evidence beyond anecdote and ad hoc hypotheses that support it.

View Post


Hi, and thanks for the warm welcome. I will have a lot of reading to do. In the meantime, can you kindly summarise the evidence behind the Theory of Creationism, as applied to whales, for me?

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 December 2009 - 06:28 PM

In the meantime, can you kindly summarise the evidence behind the Theory of Creationism, as applied to whales, for me?

View Post

Whales were made on Day 5 after their kind. :o The evidence is that we will always see whales producing whales. You know what? That's exactly what is observed. :o

#8 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:49 AM

Whales were made on Day 5 after their kind.  :o  The evidence is that we will always see whales producing whales. You know what? That's exactly what is observed. :o

View Post


Since we can't observe the future, we can't back up a comment like that one. Whales might evolve in the future, or go extinct.

#9 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:09 AM

Since we can't observe the future, we can't back up a comment like that one. Whales might evolve in the future, or go extinct.

View Post

A silly standard you probably don't employ elsewhere. Since you can't observe the future, do you abandon all knowledge? When you posted, you couldn't observe the future, yet you trusted people would still be able to read English.

#10 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:21 AM

A silly standard you probably don't employ elsewhere. Since you can't observe the future, do you abandon all knowledge? When you posted, you couldn't observe the future, yet you trusted people would still be able to read English.

View Post


Well, in the example you give, of course not. But since we already know that the whale has evolved from land mammals over the course of millions of years, then it is silly to assume that it will not continue to evolve in the future, if it doesn't go extinct first.

To say that we don't observe any change in the whale in the very short timespan of a human lifetime, is to state the obvious. No-one would expect to see any observable change.

#11 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:51 AM

Well, in the example you give, of course not. But since we already know that the whale has evolved from land mammals over the course of millions of years, then it is silly to assume that it will not continue to evolve in the future, if it doesn't go extinct first.

To say that we don't observe any change in the whale in the very short timespan of a human lifetime, is to state the obvious. No-one would expect to see any observable change.

View Post

In no example will you apply the standard you used. None! Unless you have occasion to trump up a bogus objection, that is.

Thanks for the gratuitous "we already know" propaganda. Threads are here aplenty any time you're ready do demonstrate any of your "knowledge". Spouting hype rather than presenting even any mock justification for the standard conveys more than you suspect about the validity thereof.

Lest you bank on folks forgetting, here it is again

Since we can't observe the future, we can't back up a comment like that one. Whales might evolve in the future, or go extinct.

Now any time you want to justify it, go right ahead.

#12 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:57 AM

Thanks for the gratuitous "we already know" propaganda. Threads are here aplenty any time you're ready do demonstrate any of your "knowledge". Spouting hype rather than presenting even any mock justification for the standard conveys more than you suspect about the validity thereof.

View Post


You seem angry.

Spouting's a great word in the context of whales. What aspect of the multiple lines of evidence supporting whale evolution do you dispute?

And do you have any alternative evidence other than "it says so in the Bible"?

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:00 AM

You seem angry.

View Post

CTD is just assertive. ;)

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:02 AM

Since we can't observe the future, we can't back up a comment like that one. Whales might evolve in the future, or go extinct.

View Post

Might Shmight. We're talking about observational science. I gave you some. It's not my fault that you reject reality for the fantasy of evolution, then add insult to injury by calling it scientific. ;)

#15 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:16 AM

Might Shmight. We're talking about observational science. I gave you some. It's not my fault that you reject reality for the fantasy of evolution, then add insult to injury by calling it scientific. ;)

View Post


You are not talking about observational science, all you are doing is saying whales haven't changed much recently, therefore they can't possibly have changed in the past, despite all the evidence that they have changed.

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:31 AM

You are not talking about observational science, all you are doing is saying whales haven't changed much recently, therefore they can't possibly have changed in the past, despite all the evidence that they have changed.

View Post

Define what type of change you're talking about and what is your evidence?

#17 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:05 AM

Define what type of change you're talking about and what is your evidence?

View Post


Evolution. See the OP for a couple of links.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:36 AM

Evolution. See the OP for a couple of links.

View Post


The problem with the evolution of whales is that the Fossil record does not contain any transitionals for Whales like your links supposedly suggest.

Show these fossils which don't exist please, because your links have failed to show what you are trying to show: Evolution of Whales.

#19 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:38 AM

You are not talking about observational science, all you are doing is saying whales haven't changed much recently, therefore they can't possibly have changed in the past, despite all the evidence that they have changed.

View Post


Well the Evolution of whales is not observable nor are the transitionals. Especially when there aren't any transitionals within whale evolution.

#20 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:08 AM

The problem with the evolution of whales is that the Fossil record does not contain any transitionals for Whales like your links supposedly suggest.

Show these fossils which don't exist please, because your links have failed to show what you are trying to show:  Evolution of Whales.

View Post


Is this really the best you can do? Ask for evidence, and then either refuse to view or believe the evidence when it is presented?

Yes they do exist, follow the talkorigins link where they are discussed (at length).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users