Whale evolution: The blowhole

but, but... it's not proper evolution, it's just micro-evolution so we can ignore it. It's not like it PROVES anything for evolution. Those fossils are probably just mutated fish or something anyway, not PROPER whales.

Wikipedia has a brief article "Evolution of cetaceans". I just glanced at it, so I don't know whether it's worthwhile. If it is, it should be referred to. If it isn't, someone should put some work into it.

Ah, anyone can find stuff from reality that happens to match their preconceptions. Repeatedly. And testably. To within astonishing levels of accuracy.

Richard: but, but... it's not proper evolution, it's just micro-evolution so we can ignore it. It's not like it PROVES anything for evolution. Those fossils are probably just mutated fish or something anyway, not PROPER whales.

Venus Mousetrap: Ah, anyone can find stuff from reality that happens to match their preconceptions. Repeatedly. And testably. To within astonishing levels of accuracy.

Walking whales and evolutionary tales:

Whales have one or two blowholes on top of their heads from which they breathe. The blowhole connects to the trachea and then to the lungs, with no connection to throat and mouth. (Whales CANNOT breathe through their mouth.)

At some point during the ‘transition,’ the throat and the trachea MUST be separated, which would obviously present a problem for the ‘transitional whale.'

What would cause random mutations to begin and completely separate the nostrils and trachea from the mouth and throat and how could they be separated without harm to the creature?
Why don’t you guys give it a shot:
1. Present a step-by-step hypothetical genetic change and mechanism(s) used that created all the changes
2. If you consider this "simple mutation", estimate many base pairs in the DNA had to change
3. Explain how the precise timing of the separation of the nostrils and trachea would work so the ‘transitional whale’ doesn’t die first

Here are some interesting ‘claims’ to earlier challenges in regard to blowholes:

"Who knows. But since whales are alive and do have blowholes it obviously happened. The mutation therefore is more probable then an alternative answer of someone creating it."
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/709679
WIYC response:
So, a creation explanation is supernatural, but “But since whales are alive and do have blowholes it obviously happened” is considereda ‘scientific’ or ‘naturalistic’ explanation?

“You ask how the nostrils could be separated from the mouth. Developing embryos start off with the nasal passage separate from the mouth. In whale embryos, the nostrils start at the front of the head, migrate back, and never connect to the mouth.”
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/710090
WIYC response:
If you state that, “Developing embryos start off with the nasal passage separate from the mouth” openly admit to using supernatural explanations for change. Embryos don’t miraculously begin change without a preliminary genetic mechanism causing it - and it must occur WITHIN a germ cell.

“A particularly dramatic example of allometry in evolution comes from skull development. In the very young (4- to 5-mm) whale embryo, the nose is in the usual mammalian position. However, the enormous growth of the maxilla and premaxilla (upper jaw) pushes over the frontal bone and forces the nose to the top of the skull. This new position of the nose (blowhole) allows the whale to have a large and highly specialized jaw apparatus and to breathe while parallel to the water's surface (Slijper 1962).
WIYC asked for the genes involved in blowhole evolution. The homeobox gene L3/Lhx8 is expressed in the maxilla during development and seems to be controlled by fibroblast growth factor FgF-8b and transforming growth factor TGF-beta3. Mutations affecting the regulators of these genes clearly could cause the maxilla to grow faster, forcing the nose backward as seen in embryos.”
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/710163
WIYC response:
1. Present a hypothetical step-by-step process of how mutation in L3/Lhx8 regulators caused the location change
2. What mechanism(s) cause the breathing/swallowing apparatus to completely change?

And, while you’re working on that, why don’t you get ready to add these following changes that are required to get your ‘walking whale’ into the water:

A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth

Hey, What Is Your Problem, guess what?

Real scientists are working on those questions.
Seems a lot more worthwhile activity to me than just crossing your arms and saying "Nuh-uh, God did it."

Grow up.

who is your creator:Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

fnxtr: Hey, What Is Your Problem, guess what? Real scientists are working on those questions. Seems a lot more worthwhile activity to me than just crossing your arms and saying "Nuh-uh, God did it." Grow up.

Am I correct that the theory state that whales evolved from land animals in 10 million years?

talkorigins D. Theobald macrocevolution Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

WTF said :
"1. Present a hypothetical step-by-step process of how mutation in L3/Lhx8 regulators caused the location change"

To which I reply :
Please present a hypothetical, step by step process of how your favourite explanation (the intervention of some supernatural being) caused the progressive migration of the blowhole from the tip of the snout to the top of the head, as documented by the fossil record. Please explain if the miraculous intervention happened once or several times, and if so, what areas were affected and in which order. If you don't have an answer, please detail how it would be theoretically possible to reach one, through which method, with the help of which new data.

Of course, any reference to a 4,000 years old book will be forbidden. Since said book lists whales as fish, anyway, I don't see how it could bring us any nearer to a solution.

WIYC - We're not talking about Creationst Blowhards... we're talking about Whale Blowholes. There is a difference - one has evolved, and one has not. Can you tell which is which? Please try to stay on target.

Whales' nostrils migrated from the front of the snout (in early whales) to the top of the head (in modern whales). The evidence that this happened is so clear-cut that it cannot reasonably be denied. The fossils and the ontogeny speak with one voice.

Asking for exact details of the precise biological mechanisms concerned is reasonable, in one sense. Geneticists, molecular biologists and others are working to provide the answers, because the scientists would like to know them, too. Some of the answer is known, and there's no doubt that it's very, very complex.

But whatever the precise mechanism might be, it is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution explains the migration of the nostrils of the whale. The process demonstrably happened. Natural selection explains why. Separate creation doesn't. "God did it that way" does not explain the observation, because that's exactly the same as saying, "and then a miracle happened". "In the environment, individuals were advantaged by having nostrils higher up and further back, and were therefore naturally selected", does explain the observation.

It's as simple as that. Any attempt to obfuscate is nothing more than a rhetorical trick, and fraudulent.

Joe Pieri claims (Letters, October 17) that a watertight cap around the nipples of whales that fits tightly around the baby’s snout to prevent sea water entering is a perfect illustration of intelligent design (ID) as any gradual transitional form would result in the baby whale’s death. If this is the best example a supporter of ID can muster, it only helps to illustrate how flawed this non-scientific idea is and why it has absolutely no place in the science classroom. First, as a whale biologist, I can say with some certainty that no such structure exists. Baby whales use “fringes” around the edge of their tongue to help channel milk from the nipple to their thoats. This does not to prevent the entrance of sea water into the baby whale’s mouth, nor is it intended to, but only serves to reduce the mixing of sea water and milk. This leaves plenty of possibilities for functional transitional forms where the tongue is only slightly more fringed and, therefore, only slightly better at keeping the milk and sea water separate, making the milk less dilute and, therefore, beneficial to the calf as it gets more concentrated milk faster. Secondly, there is no need for baby whales to prevent sea water entering their mouths as it will not kill them. Presumably, Mr Pieri thinks that the reason the baby whale would die if sea water entered the mouth is because it might get into the airway causing the animal to drown. However, unlike humans, the windpipe of a whale sticks right through its oesophagous, completely separating the airway and the digestive tract (a requirement for all whales, whether adult or baby, as they need to be able to open their mouths underwater to feed) so there is no risk of drowning while nursing in baby whales. A similar, but not as complete, separation of the digestive tract and the airway is found in all young terrestrial mammals, including humans, to allow them to breath while nursing, and while adaptation is lost in older humans through a descent of the larynx, this basic mammalian separation has been enhanced by natural selection in whales because it is beneficial to their life in the sea. Incidentally, this positioning of the larynx through the digestive tract limits the size of fish whales can swallow because if the fish is too big it may displace the larynx and allow water into the airway, resulting in death. In fact, whales are not uncommonly found washed up on the shore having died due to suffocation with large fish wedged in their throat, demonstrating that while this design works most of the time, it is far from perfect and certainly not evidence of any ID. Therefore, Mr Pieri’s “perfect” example for ID is a figment of his imagination based a poor understanding of biology and no facts.

Whales’ nostrils migrated from the front of the snout (in early whales) to the top of the head (in modern whales). The evidence that this happened is so clear-cut that it cannot reasonably be denied. The fossils and the ontogeny speak with one voice.

Show me the evidence and this happened in 10 million years?

Jacob,

NO! Not only are you completely wrong, but you demonstrate your complete ignorance of all of the evidence. Here is a list of some of the intermediates between Cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors and their time of appearance in the fossil record:

1. Pakicetus 50 M
2. Ambulocetus 48 M
3. Procetus 45 M
4. Rodhocetus 46 M
5. Kutchicetus 43 M
6. Basilosaurus 36 M
7. Dorudon 37 M
8. Aetiocetus 26 M

National Geographic 200(5):64-76

Now, what is yur explanation for this evidence? How do you explain the fact that this evidence corresponds precisely with the embrylogical evidence? What is your alternative explanation?

Once you are done with that, please explain all of the genetic evidence. I'll give you a hint, it corresponds exactly with the embrylogical and palentological evidence as well. Please explain why modern cetaceans share the same retroviral transpositions with terrestrial artiodactyls. Please explain why all of the other genetic data gives exactly the same answer. Remember, this evidence was discovered prior to the palentological data that confirmed it.

In regard to the posting:

“GSLamb said:

who is your creator:
Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Wasn’t this showed to be utter bunk a few months ago, when whales were the big topic du jour?
Comment #146864 on March 19, 2008 9:17 AM | Quote

WIYC response
Since you believe that the creation of the ‘fringes’ are “utter bunk,” why don’t you explain to us how and why they randomly evolved for no special purpose.

Here’s an excerpt from the ‘rebuttal’ and NOTE that I never claimed that the ‘fringes’ were “to prevent sea water entering.”

“Joe Pieri claims (Letters, October 17) that a watertight cap around the nipples of whales that fits tightly around the baby's snout to prevent sea water entering is a perfect illustration of intelligent design (ID) as any gradual transitional form would result in the baby whale's death. If this is the best example a supporter of ID can muster, it only helps to illustrate how flawed this non-scientific idea is and why it has absolutely no place in the science classroom. First, as a whale biologist, I can say with some certainty that no such structure exists.
Baby whales use "fringes" around the edge of their tongue to help channel milk from the nipple to their thoats. This does not to prevent the entrance of sea water into the baby whale's mouth, nor is it intended to, but only serves to reduce the mixing of sea water and milk. This leaves plenty of possibilities for functional transitional forms where the tongue is only slightly more fringed and, therefore, only slightly better at keeping the milk and sea water separate, making the milk less dilute and, therefore, beneficial to the calf as it gets more concentrated milk faster.”

The cowardly creationism apologist currently hiding behind the anonymous username who is your creator asked: "And, while you’re working on that, why don’t you get ready to add these following changes that are required to get your ‘walking whale’ into the water:"

Jacob the creo troll being lazy and stupid: Show me the evidence and this happened in 10 million years?

Google Whale Evolution Results 1 - 10 of about 347,000 for whale evolution.

David Stanton: Jacob, NO! Not only are you completely wrong, but you demonstrate your complete ignorance of all of the evidence. Here is a list of some of the intermediates between Cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors and their time of appearance in the fossil record: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now, what is yur explanation for this evidence? How do you explain the fact that this evidence corresponds precisely with the embrylogical evidence? What is your alternative explanation? Once you are done with that, please explain all of the genetic evidence. I'll give you a hint, it corresponds exactly with the embrylogical and palentological evidence as well. Please explain why modern cetaceans share the same retroviral transpositions with terrestrial artiodactyls. Please explain why all of the other genetic data gives exactly the same answer. Remember, this evidence was discovered prior to the palentological data that confirmed it.

WIYC isn't too bright.

His lists are just the centuries old fallacies Arguments from Ignorance and Incredulity. "I can't see how my foot evolved, so god exists."

These fallacies have a worth of zero. 0 times 1 million or X still equals 0.

You won't get anything intelligent out of him except bouncing a troll for light exercise.

Jacob the creo troll being lazy and stupid: Show me the evidence and this happened in 10 million years?

Google Whale Evolution Results 1 - 10 of about 347,000 for whale evolution.

Since none of you want engage in my original challenge, nor do any of you provide proof for your ridiculous claims, I'll leave you with this:

Walking Whales’

"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles' J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com"

Ambulocetus

LOCOMOTION

LAND:Ambulocetus moved on land with no hindrances.
“In Ambulocetus, the radius, ulna, wrist, and much of the hand are preserved. They show that Ambulocetus had mobile joints at elbow, wrist, and fingers, and that the fingers were not embedded in a flipper. All of these features are similar to land mammals and unlike modern cetaceans … The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals … In Ambulocetus and Kutchicetus, the pelvis is much like that of a land mammal.”
J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)

SWIMMING: Ambulocetus could possibly swim like an otter.
“We use mustelids and other amphibious mammals to analyze the morphology of the Eocene cetacean Ambulocetus natans, and we conclude that Ambulocetus may have locomoted by a combination of pelvic paddling and dorsoventral undulations of the tail, and that its locomotor mode in water resembled that of the modern otter Lutra most closely. We also suggest that cetacean locomotion may have resembled that of the freshwater otter Pteronura at a stage beyond Ambulocetus.”
J. G. M. Thewissen, Department of Anatomy, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio 44242
F. E. Fish. Department of Biology, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380

EVOLUTIONARY BIASED THINKING:

Instead of assuming that Ambulocetus is an extinct creature similar to an otter or a crocodile (Thewissen imagined Ambulocetus as a ‘furry crocodile’ – page 199 of ‘At the Water’s Edge’), evolutionists are certain that the ‘pre-whale’ type of locomotion is proof that Ambulocetus was, without a doubt, slowly transitioning into a whale.

Since evolutionists claim that evolution is not directional, it’s an interesting assessment:

“Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, page 50.

TEETH

Due primarily to dental characteristics, evolutionists previously linked whales to mesonychids. Now that the whale family tree has been turned upside down by artiodactyls being the new predecessor, citing teeth for proof of evolution is quite questionable at the very least.

“Although there is a general resemblance of the teeth of archaeocetes [ancient whales] to those of mesonychids, such resemblance is sometimes overstated and evidently represents evolutionary convergence. “
Gingerich, et al., Science, Vol. 293, 21 September 2001, “Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protodetidae from Pakistan”, page 224 (Ev)

"Teeth are the best preserved and most numerous fossils, and analysis of teeth is very important in paleontology, but they are subject to lots of environmental processes and can quickly adapt to the outside world. So, most characteristics are not dependable indications of relationships between major groups of mammals. Teeth are not as reliable as people thought."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/24_hippo.shtml

SALT OR FRESH WATER?

“Ambulocetus, a crocodile-like predator with short legs that lived 2 million years later, has been found in shallow marine deposits. But its teeth also show freshwater isotope ratios, suggesting that it would have had to return to rivers to drink.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg15020322.700&print=true

“Although Ambulocetids are found only in marine deposits, their isotope values indicate a range of water ingestion behaviors. These include specimens that show no evidence of seawater consumption. However, the data reflect the drinking behavior at the time that the animal was mineralized it teeth (before they erupt). …Some specimens of Ambulocetus show marine values, demonstrating that these individuals did not ingest fresh water at the time their teeth mineralized. Although several explanations are possible, it is clear that Ambulocetus tolerated a wide range of salt concentrations.”
J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)

EARS

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHALE AND LAND MAMMAL EARS
The obvious difference between how land mammals hear and how whales hear is where the sound is received into the middle ear. Land mammals receive sound through the external auditory meatus (ear hole) and it is converted into vibrations in the eardrum. Whales receive vibrations transmitted through bones and tissues of their heads into the middle ear.

The following is what evolutionists cite as proof that Ambulocetus has evolved new hearing capabilities:

“In pakicetids, the mandibular foramen is small, similar in size that of modern land mammals. It did not house a fat pad and probably had no role in sound transmission. The mandibular foramen of Ambulocetus is larger than in pakicetids, and it is larger yet in remingtoncetids and protocetids. the mandibular foramen of basilosaurids and dorudontids cover the entire depth of the mandible, as it does in modern odontocetes."
Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution J. G. M. Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, Bioscience Vol. 51 No. 12 (1040)

Without any connection to hearing, the mandibular forament (an opening) is present in all mammals so that nerves and vessels can go through the bone. It has no connection to hearing underwater without fat pads.

Where is the proof that:
1. Adjusted for skull size, the mandibular foramen was larger than expected for terrestrial hearing
2. Fat pads were in place for channeling sound

As a side note:

Do any of your ‘theories’ as to how evolution occurs qualify as being ‘naturalistic’?

“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, third edition, page 10.

7.5, maybe an 8. The projection, doubled with full twist, was textbook, and the flounce was executed in classic style, but the exit into the huff was just a little over-rotated, possibly because the lower lip was too far extended, resulting in loss of balance.

Jacob,

You hypocrite. You come here completely ignorant of all of the evidence, refuse to answer our questions, refuse to provide any alternatives, then accuse us of not being civil.

I did answer your question. It took at least 50 million years for whales to evolve. Read the article I cited. If you disagree state why.

Now you answer my question. Explain the shared retrotransposition events. You are familiar with that evidence aren't you?

What Is Your Problem may soon be awarded the Noble Prize in physics, for discovering the slowest and densest of all particles, the moron.

WIYP, go read the 347,000 Google hits on whale evolution, then come back with some interesting questions.

Bye, now.

jacob:

David Stanton: Jacob, 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now, what is your explanation for this evidence?

How long did it take land animals to evolve into whales?

David Stanton: Jacob, You hypocrite. You come here completely ignorant of all of the evidence, refuse to answer our questions, refuse to provide any alternatives, then accuse us of not being civil. I did answer your question. It took at least 50 million years for whales to evolve. Read the article I cited. If you disagree state why. Now you answer my question. Explain the shared retrotransposition events. You are familiar with that evidence aren't you?

WIYC,

You want to take a shot at my question?

WIYC response Since you believe that the creation of the ‘fringes’ are “utter bunk,” why don’t you explain to us how and why they randomly evolved for no special purpose.

Well you are showing complete ignorance of the scientific method and statistical analysis specifically. Again this is like a mathematical proof.

When two independently determined trees mismatch by some branches, they are called "incongruent". In general, phylogenetic trees may be very incongruent and still match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance (Hendy et al. 1984; Penny et al. 1982; Penny and Hendy 1986; Steel and Penny 1993). Even for a phylogeny with a small number of organisms, the total number of possible trees is extremely large. For example, there are about a thousand different possible phylogenies for only six organisms; for nine organisms, there are millions of possible phylogenies; for 12 organisms, there are nearly 14 trillion different possible phylogenies (Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). Thus, the probability of finding two similar trees by chance via two independent methods is extremely small in most cases. In fact, two different trees of 16 organisms that mismatch by as many as 10 branches still match with high statistical significance (Hendy et al. 1984, Table 4; Steel and Penny 1993). For more information on the statistical significance of trees that do not match exactly, see "Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees". The stunning degree of match between even the most incongruent phylogenetic trees found in the biological literature is widely unappreciated, mainly because most people (including many biologists) are unaware of the mathematics involved (Bryant et al. 2002; Penny et al. 1982; Penny and Hendy 1986). Penny and Hendy have performed a series of detailed statistical analyses of the significance of incongruent phylogenetic trees, and here is their conclusion:

"Biologists seem to seek the 'The One Tree' and appear not to be satisfied by a range of options. However, there is no logical difficulty in having a range of trees. There are 34,459,425 possible [unrooted] trees for 11 taxa (Penny et al. 1982), and to reduce this to the order of 10-50 trees is analogous to an accuracy of measurement of approximately one part in 106." (Penny and Hendy 1986, p. 414)

For a more realistic universal phylogenetic tree with dozens of taxa including all known phyla, the accuracy is better by many orders of magnitude. To put the significance of this incredible confirmation in perspective, consider the modern theory of gravity. Both Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity rely upon a fundamental physical constant, G, the gravitational constant. If these theories of gravity are correct, independent methods should determine similar values for G. However, to date, very precise independent measurements of the gravitational constant G disagree by nearly 1% (Kestenbaum 1998; Quinn 2000). Here is how David Kestenbaum describes the current scientific status of the theory of gravity, as reported in the prestigious journal Science:

"While the charge of the electron is known to seven decimal places, physicists lose track of G after only the third. For some, that's an embarrassment. 'It grates on me like a burr in the saddle,' says Alvin Sanders, a physicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Over the past few decades, he and a handful of other physicists have dedicated themselves to measuring G more accurately. To their dismay, they've come up with wildly different values. 'You might say we've had negative progress,' says Barry Taylor, a physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland. ... 'Nobody understands it [the far-out results of the PTB, the German standards lab in Braunschweig],' says Meyer. 'They must have made an unbelievable mistake, but we cannot find it.' ... says Terry Quinn, 'we may just have to throw the PTB result out.'" (Kestenbaum 1998)

Over two years later, the same Terry Quinn (of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures [BIPM] in Sèvres, France) summarized the situation in a review for the journal Nature:

"The current interest in measuring G was stimulated by the publication in 1996 of a value for G that differed by 0.6% from the accepted value given in the previous 1986 CODATA report. To take account of this, the 1998 CODATA report recommends a value for G ... with an uncertainty of 0.15%, some ten times worse than in 1986. Whereas the other fundamental constants were more accurately known in 1998 than in 1986, the uncertainty in G increased dramatically. The G community appeared to be going backwards rather than forwards." (Quinn 2000)

Nevertheless, a precision of just under 1% is still pretty good; it is not enough, at this point, to cause us to cast much doubt upon the validity and usefulness of modern theories of gravity. However, if tests of the theory of common descent performed that poorly, different phylogenetic trees, as shown in Figure 1, would have to differ by 18 of the 30 branches! In their quest for scientific perfection, some biologists are rightly rankled at the obvious discrepancies between some phylogenetic trees (Gura 2000; Patterson et al. 1993; Maley and Marshall 1998). However, as illustrated in Figure 1, the standard phylogenetic tree is known to 38 decimal places, which is a much greater precision than that of even the most well-determined physical constants. For comparison, the charge of the electron is known to only seven decimal places, the Planck constant is known to only eight decimal places, the mass of the neutron, proton, and electron are all known to only nine decimal places, and the universal gravitational constant has been determined to only three decimal places.

Jacob, I believe Stanton did answer your question. 10-15 million years is about right. Are you going to answer his question?

Duh-de, don't pull down your pants and show your dirty ass in public.

whoisyourcreator said:
Since none of you want engage in my original challenge, nor do any of you provide proof for your ridiculous claims, I’ll leave you with this ...

What I sense here from this wiyc writer and other creationists who are contributing to this site is their egotistical demand:

"Up against the wall, evolutionists, we demand answers NOW, NOW, no delays. You can't dilly-dally, make up hypotheses, investigate, search out for evidence, give us your answers immediately. We have no time to wait for you or your millions of years of evolution. You have to fill in every minute detail down to the last atom, the last second, and even then you won't satisfy us. Just as a straight line is made up of an infinite number of infinitesimal dots, we likewise expect you to produce an infinite number of infinitesimal changes that happened along the way to answer our questions. We can explain everything with our simple mouse trap, why must you delay?"

Those who actually do the studies will certainly correct me, but from images I've seen, it's not so much a migration of the blowhole as an extension of the rostrum in front of it. A longer snout = more likelihood of catching prey.

www.smm.org: Instead, Thewissen and his colleagues conclude, whales' hind limbs regressed over millions of years via "Darwinian microevolution": a step-by-step process occurring through small changes in a number of genes relatively late in development. Abstract from PNAS: Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan Among mammals, modern cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) are unusual in the absence of hind limbs. However, cetacean embryos do initiate hind-limb bud development. In dolphins, the bud arrests and degenerates around the fifth gestational week. Initial limb outgrowth in amniotes is maintained by two signaling centers, the apical ectodermal ridge (AER) and the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA). Our data indicate that the cetacean hind-limb bud forms an AER and that this structure expresses Fgf8 initially, but that neither the AER nor Fgf8 expression is maintained. Moreover, Sonic hedgehog (Shh), which mediates the signaling activity of the ZPA, is absent from the dolphin hind-limb bud. We find that failure to establish a ZPA is associated with the absence of Hand2, an upstream regulator of Shh. Interpreting our results in the context of both the cetacean fossil record and the known functions of Shh suggests that reduction of Shh expression may have occurred {approx}41 million years ago and led to the loss of distal limb elements. The total loss of Shh expression may account for the further loss of hind-limb elements that occurred near the origin of the modern suborders of cetaceans {approx}34 million years ago. Integration of paleontological and developmental data suggests that hind-limb size was reduced by gradually operating microevolutionary changes. Long after locomotor function was totally lost, modulation of developmental control genes eliminated most of the hind-limb skeleton. Hence, macroevolutionary changes in gene expression did not drive the initial reduction in hind-limb size.

DavidK: whoisyourcreator said: Since none of you want engage in my original challenge, nor do any of you provide proof for your ridiculous claims, I’ll leave you with this ... What I sense here from this wiyc writer and other creationists who are contributing to this site is their egotistical demand: "Up against the wall, evolutionists, we demand answers NOW, NOW, no delays. You can't dilly-dally, make up hypotheses, investigate, search out for evidence, give us your answers immediately. We have no time to wait for you or your millions of years of evolution. You have to fill in every minute detail down to the last atom, the last second, and even then you won't satisfy us. Just as a straight line is made up of an infinite number of infinitesimal dots, we likewise expect you to produce an infinite number of infinitesimal changes that happened along the way to answer our questions. We can explain everything with our simple mouse trap, why must you delay?"

I do not see anyone here willing to walk through the logic. Just cutting and pasting large sections of text proves nothing. Cladistical analysis is based on the subjective data that is put into the program. GIGO.

OK I do have a confirmation lets give whale evolution some slack and say in happened in 15 million years

Next question:

How far did the nostril move in those 15 million years?.

Let see how good that basic math is out there.

Jacob,

David Stanton old you in the other thread that it took whales 50 million years to evolve.

Here it is ...

David Stanton said:
Jacob,

So, you really aren’t familiar with the evidence after all. No, the evolution of whales from terrestrial ancestors took about 50 million years.

Here is your circular reasoning: I don’t want to believe that whales evolved, therefore I refuse to believe it, therfore it didn’t happen. Now that is circular reasoning.

Every adaptation that is known evolved in this way. Slight differences in fitness allow selection to operate over many generations eventually causing changes in characters. If you don’t want to believe it then you tell us, why didn’t God just make fish that could do what whales do?

Comment #146871 on March 19, 2008 9:39 AM | Quote

whoisyourcreator? Certainly not Jesus.

This is simple:

1. Evolution is no problem for anyone who is a deist, as they would assume that any creator God would be smart enough to make a universe that would make itself by many processes, including evolution.

2. So, evolution deniers must belong to particular religions whose particular creation-myths are incompatible with evolution.

3. All such specific religions have been completely refuted by their own self-contradictions and false truth-claims.
-Mark 16:18
-Matthew 24:34
-Genesis 1:1
-Koran 2:65-66
(The mere tip of the iceberg, read the skeptics bible: great resource)

4. Therefore, we can ignore your fractal ignorance (ignorance at all scales. Shown the fossil record and DNA relatedness and you switch to the trachea. When that mystery is solved (if it hasn't been already), you'll no doubt move onto some other bit of ignorance and some other half-baked argument why interesting evolutionary research topics somehow equal evolution is a lie and Godiddit) and get on with our own lives, productive discussion, and scientific research.

Later, troll.

Stacy S.: Jacob, David Stanton old you in the other thread that it took whales 50 million years to evolve.

Jacob said: "I need an apology."

Sorry you were "home skooled", or otherwise were not taught scientific methodology nor critical thinking.

Jacob wrote:

"Well you are showing complete ignorance of the scientific method and statistical analysis specifically. Again this is like a mathematical proof. Do you have the patience to walk through the logic here?"

And this guy wants me to give him an apology, Well, here it is, I'm sorry you are not familiar with the evidence. I'm sorry you can't see that I answered your question. I'm sorry you refuse to answer my question. I'm sorry if you don't see how you have insulted every real scientist with your ignorant approach to reality.

I presented evidence that there were intermediate forms in the fossil record going back 50 million years. That means that the transition had to take at least 50 million years. That is the answer to your question. You copied and pasted the answer in the same post in which you demanded an answer again. Do you have the patience to walk through the logic here? Do you call that being civil?

Now you answer my question. How do you explain the genetic evidence? You can cry about being insulted all you want. You can even run away if you want, but that isn't going to fool anybody. Here I'll help get you started:

1. Mitochondrial DNA
J. Mol. Evo. 50:569-578 (2002)

2. Casein Genes
Mol. Bio. Evo. 13:954-963 (1996)

3. Overlapping Genes
Nuc. Acid Res. 30(13):2906-2910 (2000)

4. SINE Insertions
Nature 388:666-370 (1997)

When you can provide an alternative explanation for this evidence, then perhaps we can have a civil discussion. Until then I find your refusal to answer my question rather insulting and most uncivil.

Stacy S.: Here it is ... David Stanton said: Jacob, So, you really aren’t familiar with the evidence after all. No, the evolution of whales from terrestrial ancestors took about 50 million years. Here is your circular reasoning: I don’t want to believe that whales evolved, therefore I refuse to believe it, therfore it didn’t happen. Now that is circular reasoning. Every adaptation that is known evolved in this way. Slight differences in fitness allow selection to operate over many generations eventually causing changes in characters. If you don’t want to believe it then you tell us, why didn’t God just make fish that could do what whales do? Comment #146871 on March 19, 2008 9:39 AM | Quote

Jason Failes: Jacob said: "I need an apology." Sorry you were "home skooled", or otherwise were not taught scientific methodology nor critical thinking.

Jacob,
If you go to the top of this thread - you will see your name. I believe it is because you were the inspiration for THIS thread. Click on your name. It will take you there. I have provided the comment number in My comment number 146916.

David Stanton: Jacob wrote: "Well you are showing complete ignorance of the scientific method and statistical analysis specifically. Again this is like a mathematical proof. Do you have the patience to walk through the logic here?" And this guy wants me to give him an apology, Well, here it is, I'm sorry you are not familiar with the evidence. I'm sorry you can't see that I answered your question. I'm sorry you refuse to answer my question. I'm sorry if you don't see how you have insulted every real scientist with your ignorant approach to reality. I presented evidence that there were intermediate forms in the fossil record going back 50 million years. That means that the transition had to take at least 50 million years. That is the answer to your question. You copied and pasted the answer in the same post in which you demanded an answer again. Do you have the patience to walk through the logic here? Do you call that being civil? Now you answer my question. How do you explain the genetic evidence? You can cry about being insulted all you want. You can even run away if you want, but that isn't going to fool anybody. Here I'll help get you started: 1. Mitochondrial DNA J. Mol. Evo. 50:569-578 (2002) 2. Casein Genes Mol. Bio. Evo. 13:954-963 (1996) 3. Overlapping Genes Nuc. Acid Res. 30(13):2906-2910 (2000) 4. SINE Insertions Nature 388:666-370 (1997) When you can provide an alternative explanation for this evidence, then perhaps we can have a civil discussion. Until then I find your refusal to answer my question rather insulting and most uncivil.

As a side note: Do any of your ‘theories’ as to how evolution occurs qualify as being ‘naturalistic’?

OK - I think we're on track now :-)
@ Jacob, in answer to your question - I have no idea ... sorry. I could not even give you an educated guess.

I do not see anyone here willing to walk through the logic. Just cutting and pasting large sections of text proves nothing. Cladistical analysis is based on the subjective data that is put into the program. GIGO.

OK I do have a confirmation lets give whale evolution some slack and say in happened in 15 million years Next question: How far did the nostril move in those 15 million years?. Let see how good that basic math is out there.

Those who actually do the studies will certainly correct me, but from images I’ve seen, it’s not so much a migration of the blowhole as an extension of the rostrum in front of it. A longer snout = more likelihood of catching prey.

— fnxtr

And, while you’re working on that, why don’t you get ready to add these following changes that are required to get your ‘walking whale’ into the water: A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming. Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure. Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure. Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber. Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss. Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth

Tooth-buds are observed on the upper and lower jaws of whale fetuses in the early stage of pregnancy. As the fetus grows, baleen plates appear on the upper jaw while the tooth-buds completely disappear. These are evidence that baleen whales evolved from ancestors with teeth in their upper and lower jaws. In other words, ontogeny repeats itself phylogenically.

"So, you really aren’t familiar with the evidence after all. No, the evolution of whales from terrestrial ancestors took about 50 million years."

Stanton, you did not say the above. Again I am sticking to what mainstream biologists accept as the time it took for whale evolution: 10 million years. I do not know where you are getting your info but you better double check it. 50 million to be is off by a factor of at least five. Do you have a source for your 50 million figure?

Jacob,...
Stanton and David Stanton are different people

And most mainstream biologist believe whale evolution took about 10 million years. So maybe you need to do a little more studying

— Jacob

"I find it fascinating how creationists like Jacob come here to challenge evolution and ignore the data presented only to keep moving the goal posts further and further to finally reach an area where science has no answers yet and that’s where they decide to hide their God. My God is found not in gaps of our ignorance."

I am not even a theist. So it is wrong to try to disprove a theory? Isnt that what real scientists are supposed to try to do? Try to think of every reason why their theory might be wrong and walk through the logic and see where it goes? When I make a hypothesis I go over and over what I might be assuming that is incorrect. Really you do not believe that should be done. Just accept things on faith?

Anyhow you cannot give any estimate on how far the nostrils moved. To me 4 feet would be a good estimate. This does not seem to be that difficult of an estimation. The whole whale evolution time frame is an estimation you do realize that?

Stacy S.: Jacob,... Stanton and David Stanton are different people

I get the impression that this post presented a bit of new evidence regarding cetacean evolution. But some visitors here say, "Your argument is based on evidence that is incomplete. Therefore, your theory is incorrect, and must be replaced by my theory, for which there is no evidence whatsoever."

fxntr said "...it’s not so much a migration of the blowhole as an extension of the rostrum in front of it." That certainly looks possible in the case of the pictured embryos. I wonder if the genetic regulation might be such that large shifts, rather than small incremental shifts, might have been at work. Perhaps additional research will address that possibility.

If you cannot converse civilly I do not want to discuss this with you. Please go away

Jacob (again): "I am not even a theist. So it is wrong to try to disprove a theory? Isn't that what real scientists are supposed to try to do?"

Yeah, like your "10 million year theory" that you could disprove in about 5 seconds by going to wikipedia and looking up evolution of cetaceans. Look I'll save you the trouble of Googling it even:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Not sure if it will hyperlink when I post: You may have to copy and paste it into your browser window yourself. I know, life is hard.

Oh, and "real scientists" tend to not only do a lot of reading, but also use this knowledge to help them determine which theories are factually the weakest, and focus on disproving those. They don't just pick the theories at random, or that they personally don't like, or don't know much about.

PvM:

And most mainstream biologist believe whale evolution took about 10 million years. So maybe you need to do a little more studying

— Jacob

That is a confused interpretation of the evidence as I have ever seen it.

jacob: "So, you really aren’t familiar with the evidence after all. No, the evolution of whales from terrestrial ancestors took about 50 million years." Stanton, you did not say the above. Again I am sticking to what mainstream biologists accept as the time it took for whale evolution: 10 million years. I do not know where you are getting your info but you better double check it. 50 million to be is off by a factor of at least five. Do you have a source for your 50 million figure?

Since evolutionists claim that evolution is not directional, it’s an interesting assessment: “Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.”

If no one here cannot, in one simple blog comment, present ALL of the evidence for the ENTIRE evolution of life on this (and other) planets, then evolution must be false.

Also, please be advised that I will not accept the following:

- Links to the actual evidence
- Evidence given
- Sciencey stuff like this:

1. Mitochondrial DNA J. Mol. Evo. 50:569-578 (2002) 2. Casein Genes Mol. Bio. Evo. 13:954-963 (1996)
3. Overlapping Genes Nuc. Acid Res. 30(13):2906-2910 (2000)
4. SINE Insertions Nature 388:666-370 (1997)

Torborn:

"Sure I was uncivil"

And I see no reason to converse with people who are rude. Please go away.

I have updated the original posting to address the countercurrent heat-exchange 'argument' raised by creationists. From an evolutionary perspective the simplicity of the solution and the inevitable selective advantages seem to suggest that plausible scenarios cannot easily be rejected. But perhaps our creationist friends can explain how they believe the countercurrent system arose?

Anyhow you cannot give any estimate on how far the nostrils moved. To me 4 feet would be a good estimate. This does not seem to be that difficult of an estimation. The whole whale evolution time frame is an estimation you do realize that?

Then how long in your estimation did whale evolution take?

Robin, excellent analysis, showing how these superficially simple issues become quite complex.

Pakicetus to Blue Whale is 50 million years, But look up the creatures in his list. Which do you think was the last land animal, and which was the first whale? 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M

creature, Indohyus, which lived about 48 million years ago in Kashmir.

Basilosaurus (discovered in 1840 and initially mistaken for a reptile, hence its name) and Dorudon lived around 38 million years ago, and were fully recognizable whales which lived entirely in the ocean. Basilosaurus was a monstrous creature, up to 18m (60 feet) long; dorudontids were within the range of modern cetacean size, about 5m (16 feet) long.

the above from wiki:

so Indohyus, land animal 48 million

and dorudon 38 miilion

and for the math challengeed 48-38 = 10

hmmm

both quotes from wiki

Joe Pieri claims (Letters, October 17) that a watertight cap around the nipples of whales that fits tightly around the baby’s snout to prevent sea water entering is a perfect illustration of intelligent design (ID) as any gradual transitional form would result in the baby whale’s death. If this is the best example a supporter of ID can muster, it only helps to illustrate how flawed this non-scientific idea is and why it has absolutely no place in the science classroom. First, as a whale biologist, I can say with some certainty that no such structure exists. Baby whales use “fringes” around the edge of their tongue to help channel milk from the nipple to their thoats. This does not to prevent the entrance of sea water into the baby whale’s mouth, nor is it intended to, but only serves to reduce the mixing of sea water and milk. This leaves plenty of possibilities for functional transitional forms where the tongue is only slightly more fringed and, therefore, only slightly better at keeping the milk and sea water separate, making the milk less dilute and, therefore, beneficial to the calf as it gets more concentrated milk faster. Secondly, there is no need for baby whales to prevent sea water entering their mouths as it will not kill them. Presumably, Mr Pieri thinks that the reason the baby whale would die if sea water entered the mouth is because it might get into the airway causing the animal to drown. However, unlike humans, the windpipe of a whale sticks right through its oesophagous, completely separating the airway and the digestive tract (a requirement for all whales, whether adult or baby, as they need to be able to open their mouths underwater to feed) so there is no risk of drowning while nursing in baby whales. A similar, but not as complete, separation of the digestive tract and the airway is found in all young terrestrial mammals, including humans, to allow them to breath while nursing, and while adaptation is lost in older humans through a descent of the larynx, this basic mammalian separation has been enhanced by natural selection in whales because it is beneficial to their life in the sea. Incidentally, this positioning of the larynx through the digestive tract limits the size of fish whales can swallow because if the fish is too big it may displace the larynx and allow water into the airway, resulting in death. In fact, whales are not uncommonly found washed up on the shore having died due to suffocation with large fish wedged in their throat, demonstrating that while this design works most of the time, it is far from perfect and certainly not evidence of any ID. Therefore, Mr Pieri’s “perfect” example for ID is a figment of his imagination based a poor understanding of biology and no facts.

Robin:

Anyhow you cannot give any estimate on how far the nostrils moved. To me 4 feet would be a good estimate. This does not seem to be that difficult of an estimation. The whole whale evolution time frame is an estimation you do realize that?

I would say that 4 feet is a far too great an estimation. More likely whale nostrils "moved" only about 6 inches to a foot. Why do I say this? Because the skull changed shape drastically and this in turn chanced the "position" of the nostrils relative to the jaws. Try this: how for do the nostils of a Pug "move" to become the nostils of a bloodhound? Indeed both dogs are from a single species and yet the morphological differences do not actually move the nostrils from one dog to the other. The morphological differences between their skulls do change the placement of their nostrils however. So, if an animal the size of a seal had offspring with nostrils that appeared higher and higher on its head to finally ending between it's eyes while it's skull expanded, the total distance of nostil movement would only be around 8 inches while the rest of the extension from the nostil location to end of the mouth would be due to skull change.

What Jacob and Whoever his name is are doing here sounds a lot like the approach recommended by AIG and others to small and obnoxious children who, when their teachers bring up evolution, are directed to ask trivial questions, the answers to which they are incapable of understanding, but which they keep asking over and over again until said teacher gives up in exhaustion. Small and obnoxious children then declare victory, with no net gain of knowledge in either direction.

I do not see anyone here willing to walk through the logic.

Cladistical analysis is based on the subjective data that is put into the program.

so Indohyus, land animal 48 million

raven:

Pakicetus to Blue Whale is 50 million years, But look up the creatures in his list. Which do you think was the last land animal, and which was the first whale? 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M

Doesn't look like Jacob can or will read the scientific info we copy and paste. We copy and paste stuff because it is more useful than ranting or raving or Making Stuff Up. In the above list 50 M means 50 million years ago, etc. These are the ages of the fossils of ancient whale ancestors found. Jacob, if you have a point just say it. It seems to be "Whale evolution is impossible so god or UFO aliens exist."

OK for arguments sake we can use your estimate of 1 foot. Is that acceptable to you? But to me its longer if you measure the distance between the tip or the nose of a whale and its blow hole. But I can work with your estimate

— Jacob

PvM:

so Indohyus, land animal 48 million

Why do you consider Indohyus a 'land animal', perhaps semi-aquatic is a better description

PvM:

OK for arguments sake we can use your estimate of 1 foot. Is that acceptable to you? But to me its longer if you measure the distance between the tip or the nose of a whale and its blow hole. But I can work with your estimate

— Jacob

Work with it, show us your argument. Is it, how could evolution possibly explain something moving a foot? Is that the gist of your argument?

PvM:

OK for arguments sake we can use your estimate of 1 foot. Is that acceptable to you? But to me its longer if you measure the distance between the tip or the nose of a whale and its blow hole. But I can work with your estimate

— Jacob

Work with it, show us your argument. Is it, how could evolution possibly explain something moving a foot? Is that the gist of your argument?

jacob: so Indohyus, land animal 48 million and dorudon 38 miilion and for the math challengeed 48-38 = 10 hmmm both quotes from wiki

And I see no reason to converse with people who are rude.

jacob: Anyhow you cannot give any estimate on how far the nostrils moved. To me 4 feet would be a good estimate. This does not seem to be that difficult of an estimation. The whole whale evolution time frame is an estimation you do realize that?

Jacob: OK for arguments sake we can use your estimate of 1 foot. Is that acceptable to you?

But to me its longer if you measure the distance between the tip or the nose of a whale and its blow hole. But I can work with your estimate

Hmm ... 10 million years to evolve whales ... let's try to make a
video of whale evolution. Assume conservatively 20 years per
generation, meaning 500,000 generations, take a "snapshot" per
generation, and display them at a reasonable video rate of 30
frames per second.

In one minute we have 1,800 generations. It's not hard to think
we would notice a visible change, and though assigning a
"percent" measurement to the amount of overall change would be
troublesome, but assuming such a thing, we probably wouldn't notice
anything less than percent.

For 500,000 generations we have a video over 4 and a half hours long.
Assuming a percent change per minute, well, we've got about a 275%
change. Again, the "percent" measure is tricky, but it would
be certainly hard to say that if we got a noticeable change in
a minute, in 4.5 hours we wouldn't get accumulated changes all out
of recognition.

10 million years is, believe or not, a long time. There may be
valid arguments about the evolution of whales, but claiming there
wasn't enough time for it isn't one of them.

Jacob,

Your protestations about how "civil" or not the other commenters happen to be is getting boring. Get to the point of your argument. The age range that you pick matters much less than how realistic your modeling is.

Jacob: so Indohyus, land animal 48 million

PvM: Why do you consider Indohyus a ‘land animal’, perhaps semi-aquatic is a better description

Jacob: Did it walk on land? Were its ‘feet’ adapted to land or water. A dolphin cannot walk. Is a beaver a land animal?

Jacob: "Did it walk on land? Were its ‘feet’ adapted to land or water. A dolphin cannot walk. Is a beaver a land animal?"

Well, that's exactly it, isn't it?

That's why everyone thought you were off your nut, because it's a lot easier and more precise to talk about time since last common ancestor then to try to determine when exactly enough change had occurred to call said organism a "whale". Everyone was thinking time since last common ancestor with related land animals (hippo 53 million years) to modern whales. No one was thinking time from a primarily terrestrial life to a primarily aquatic one, and that should have been obvious to you from the first time someone said 50 million years. Why didn't you mention you were actually asking a different question? There really isn't any excuse for it. You intentionally misled everyone so you could be adversarial and obtuse for as long as possible, then do your best to make everyone look stupid by finally showing what you *really* meant by the 10 million year statement.

It's like asking how long humans took to evolve. Are you human if you're bipedal, use tools, have language, syntax, symbols? Whatever. Again, the easiest and most precise way is to take time since common ancestry with our closest living primate relatives.

Please explain how embryology is a mimic of evolution?

Please explain how embryology is a mimic of evolution?

Modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, and explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.

Did it walk on land?

Were its ‘feet’ adapted to land or water.

A dolphin cannot walk.

Is a beaver a land animal?

How about manatees?

I have good news for jacob and who is your creator. I heard that the eminent marine biological scientists Casey Luskin, Philip Johnson and William Dembski are doing research in whale-evolution. They have been in the South Atlantic now for three years and there is talk they found some very good evidence that the existing theory on whale evolution is dead-wrong. Their results will be published in Nature somewhere in 2009.

Gosh jinkers!~...I hope they have Jack Chick illustrate the article!

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: @ jacob:

And I see no reason to converse with people who are rude.

Fortunately for you I'm not as close minded as I noted in the comment you refer to. While you were rude, I find it necessary to defend science against anti-scientific movements such as creationism. The destruction of children's education or the public awareness of science has terrible aspects, none of which creationists care for in their perverted sense of 'moral' (as in "lie for the cause"). Now one could discuss if blog comments is a method of raising public awareness of science, but such a discussion on a blog render itself moot. :-P Instead I will continue to point out the falsehoods on science, where I meet them.

Can we conclude from all this posturing that there are no longer any disputes or confusions about whales?

Going back to the 'whale nipple, calf mouth, perfect fit = God" argument for a moment. When scuba diving I find my mouth often gets dry, it's very easy to take a water bottle with you and drink from it. It's easier if the bottle has a sports nipple, but it can be done even woth a regular screw top with only minor mixing with sea water. A function my mouth and the water bottle were never designed for.

As a training exercise in breath control we sit on the bottom and eat a banana. Much as The Little Ray of Comfort might like to think bananas were intelligently designed, I doubt this was the intended purpose.

In other words this argument is even more fatuous than most ID arguments

BGT: Jacob, Your protestations about how "civil" or not the other commenters happen to be is getting boring. Get to the point of your argument. The age range that you pick matters much less than how realistic your modeling is.

Stacy S.: How about manatees?

Eddie Janssen: I have good news for jacob and who is your creator. I heard that the eminent marine biological scientists Casey Luskin, Philip Johnson and William Dembski are doing research in whale-evolution. They have been in the South Atlantic now for three years and there is talk they found some very good evidence that the existing theory on whale evolution is dead-wrong. Their results will be published in Nature somewhere in 2009.

Flint: There seems to be a subtext here that evolution isn't an ongoing process, but rather a collection of discrete events that clearly start at some point and clearly end at another. And this misconception results in terminology problems (and the resulting use of different interpretations of words). What exactly do we mean by a "whale"? Some strictly land animals perhaps 50 million years ago (or more) became increasingly aquatic. As they did so, they underwent gradual morphological changes of many sorts. At what point in this gradual development (which also includes speciation into many different sorts of whales) do we say whale evolution "ended" and we have "true whales"? Does this question even make sense? I don't know what "case" anyone is trying to make here. We have multiple (and very different) sorts of evidence to give us roughly the time frame over which specific morphological changes happened - movement of blowholes, shape changes of snout, gradual (and still happening!) disappearance of hind limbs, development of the original tail into flukes, etc. These changes didn't all occur at the same rate, or occur the same way in the different whale lineages.

Did it walk on land?

Initially, yes.

Were its ‘feet’ adapted to land or water.

Yes. Recall we're talking very gradual change from hoof to flipper; adaptation isn't something that was or was not, adaptation is a process of change over time.

A dolphin cannot walk.

But we observe that orcas emerge from the water and move across the land to snag seals basking on the land.

Is a beaver a land animal?

This is an insightful question. How much of an organism's time must be spent in the water, to qualify as being aquatic? 50%? Or should we look at whether the critter's lifestyle as followed today could more easily take place entirely on land or in water? Or should we look at the trajectory, to see if beavers over the last few million years are becoming more or less aquatic? And how about related species like nutria?

James Bishop: Jacob: "Did it walk on land? Were its ‘feet’ adapted to land or water. A dolphin cannot walk. Is a beaver a land animal?" Well, that's exactly it, isn't it? That's why everyone thought you were off your nut, because it's a lot easier and more precise to talk about time since last common ancestor then to try to determine when exactly enough change had occurred to call said organism a "whale". Everyone was thinking time since last common ancestor with related land animals (hippo 53 million years) to modern whales. No one was thinking time from a primarily terrestrial life to a primarily aquatic one, and that should have been obvious to you from the first time someone said 50 million years. Why didn't you mention you were actually asking a different question? There really isn't any excuse for it. You intentionally misled everyone so you could be adversarial and obtuse for as long as possible, then do your best to make everyone look stupid by finally showing what you *really* meant by the 10 million year statement. It's like asking how long humans took to evolve. Are you human if you're bipedal, use tools, have language, syntax, symbols? Whatever. Again, the easiest and most precise way is to take time since common ancestry with our closest living primate relatives.

Hmm ... 10 million years to evolve whales ... let's try to make a video of whale evolution. Assume conservatively 20 years per generation, meaning 500,000 generations, take a "snapshot" per generation, and display them at a reasonable video rate of 30 frames per second. In one minute we have 1,800 generations. It's not hard to think we would notice a visible change, and though assigning a "percent" measurement to the amount of overall change would be troublesome, but assuming such a thing, we probably wouldn't notice anything less than percent. For 500,000 generations we have a video over 4 and a half hours long. Assuming a percent change per minute, well, we've got about a 275% change. Again, the "percent" measure is tricky, but it would be certainly hard to say that if we got a noticeable change in a minute, in 4.5 hours we wouldn't get accumulated changes all out of recognition. 10 million years is, believe or not, a long time. There may be valid arguments about the evolution of whales, but claiming there wasn't enough time for it isn't one of them.

Robin:

Jacob: so Indohyus, land animal 48 million

PvM: Why do you consider Indohyus a ‘land animal’, perhaps semi-aquatic is a better description

Jacob: Did it walk on land? Were its ‘feet’ adapted to land or water. A dolphin cannot walk. Is a beaver a land animal?

Are otters considered land animals? What about hippopotamuses? (man I love that word - hippopotamus - what a great name. Pity it doesn't do justice to just how tough and mean they are. Sorry...divergence here.)

Jacob,
Have you ever seen a whale skull?
and compared it to another mammal skull?

michaelf: Jacob, Have you ever seen a whale skull? and compared it to another mammal skull?

Wow a poster willing to quantify a bit! Now we are getting scientific. OK I will use the worse scenarios I have seen here. Lets go with 40 million years to have the nostrils drift 4 inches. Can you agree to those numbers?

GuyeFaux:

Wow a poster willing to quantify a bit! Now we are getting scientific. OK I will use the worse scenarios I have seen here. Lets go with 40 million years to have the nostrils drift 4 inches. Can you agree to those numbers?

I want to see where this is going. Yes, 40 myo, 4 inches, plus all the caveats that people brought up (and you shouldn't expect unqualified quantities.) Now what?

My point is you wouldn't be questioning the movement of the external nares in whales if you had actually seen a whale skull and compared it to other mammal skulls.

Why do you believe an Indohyus is semi-aquatic?

Robin:

Why do you believe an Indohyus is semi-aquatic?

From Wikipedia, among other sources: "δO18 values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the racoon-like or chevrotain-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δC13 values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans." "About the size of a racoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous deer-like creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such the hippopotamus, and reduces buoyancy so that they can stay underwater. This suggests a similar survival strategy to the African mousedeer or water chevrotain which, when threatened by a bird of prey, dives into water and hides beneath the surface for up to four minutes.[4][2][5]"

michaelf: My point is you wouldn't be questioning the movement of the external nares in whales if you had actually seen a whale skull and compared it to other mammal skulls.

Without research, no I do not. So I am glad these 3 are doing research.

I want to see where this is going. Yes, 40 myo, 4 inches, plus all the caveats that people brought up (and you shouldn’t expect unqualified quantities.) Now what?

PvM wrote:

WW wrote: Please explain how embryology is a mimic of evolution?

A good question. It traces back to von Baer and Haeckel. While Haeckel's 'strong recapitulation' ideas have been found flawed, science also realized that embryos do pass through stages reminiscent of our evolutionary past.

Eddie Janssen: Without research, no I do not. So I am glad these 3 are doing research.

Jacob,
So I take it the answer is no - you have never seen a whale skull or dolphin skull or probably any skull for that matter. You have never taken a comparative anatomy course and you know nothing about the subject.

The question was extremely straight forward. I think YOU are trying to intentionally mislead right now with this post. Shame on you.

Jacob,

I think these guys are playing with you. They don't really think you can take an estimation of divergence time, and estimation of morphological change, and prove from these two estimates that evolution is a logical impossibility. How little faith they have in genius.

Regarding skulls: The point being made here, if I am not mistaken, is that mileage is really important. The folks that do this work (ie study the various structures in skulls and other bones) put what they see in the context of thousands of specimens studied over years. If they see features that consider intermediate, it is because from their EXPERIENCE the features are between that of two common types. For example, the ear bones of terrestrial vs aquatic mammals. These guys have seem many many specimens of skulls, both from living and extinct animals, so they know what they are looking at. Courses on comparative anatomy are nice, but the true experts are experts because of mileage in the field. For us to dismiss their opinions on these matters is silly. (or arrogant) I see this in my own profession; chemists passing judgment on fossil evidence, or physicists on DNA, or computer programmers on primate behavior. It happens elsewhere too; laypeople claiming to know more about medicine than doctors, more about teaching than teachers, more about law enforcement than police officers.

When did I ever claim there was not enough time? Are you reading OK?

I got the impression from: "Show me the evidence and this happened
in ten million years." -- that this person had problems believing
it.

I would have to say, then, that I don't understand what this guy
was getting at -- but then somebody might think I wanted an
explanation.

Flint:

The question was extremely straight forward. I think YOU are trying to intentionally mislead right now with this post. Shame on you.

The reason the question was "extremely straighforward" is because it ASSUMED that something was either pure black, or pure white, and asked which it was, precisely. Posts intended to describe the complex multifaceted dynamic messy reality aren't trying to "intentionally mislead", they are attempting to show that the black/white assumption being mistakenly projected onto reality is causing misunderstandings for the simple reason that reality doesn't work that way. jacob needs to tell us whether he has stopped beating his wife. ONLY yes and no are permitted answers. Anything else is "intentionally misleading."

Flint:

The question was extremely straight forward. I think YOU are trying to intentionally mislead right now with this post. Shame on you.

The reason the question was "extremely straighforward" is because it ASSUMED that something was either pure black, or pure white, and asked which it was, precisely. Posts intended to describe the complex multifaceted dynamic messy reality aren't trying to "intentionally mislead", they are attempting to show that the black/white assumption being mistakenly projected onto reality is causing misunderstandings for the simple reason that reality doesn't work that way. jacob needs to tell us whether he has stopped beating his wife. ONLY yes and no are permitted answers. Anything else is "intentionally misleading."

Nice try Jacob. So, because you have absolutely no answer for my questions you claim that you won't respond because you feel insulted. Great, let's see how many people are convinced by that argument.

As for my estimate of the time required for whale evolution, at least 50 million years were required for the transition from terrestrial ancestors to modern cetaceans. I cited a reference, did you read it? Can you disprove any of the evidence? If you want to know the rate at which the nostrils migrated, just take the time between each intermediate and measure the distance that the nostrils moved in that period. The rate does not have to be constant.

I did not use circular reasoning. My assumption that whales have evolved is based on by knowledge of the evidence, evidence which you still seem completely comfortable ignoring. Your reasoning however is based entirely on your ignorance of the evidence. Now that is bad reasoning.

If you want an apology just answer my questions and I might admit that I may have jusged you prematurely. Complaininig about how you are treated while failing utterly to discuss the evidence will not get you an apology or any sympathy.

R Ward: Jacob, I think these guys are playing with you. They don't really think you can take an estimation of divergence time, and estimation of morphological change, and prove from these two estimates that evolution is a logical impossibility. How little faith they have in genius.

michaelf: Jacob, So I take it the answer is no - you have never seen a whale skull or dolphin skull or probably any skull for that matter. You have never taken a comparative anatomy course and you know nothing about the subject.

David Stanton: Nice try Jacob. So, because you have absolutely no answer for my questions you claim that you won't respond because you feel insulted. Great, let's see how many people are convinced by that argument. As for my estimate of the time required for whale evolution, at least 50 million years were required for the transition from terrestrial ancestors to modern cetaceans. I cited a reference, did you read it? Can you disprove any of the evidence? If you want to know the rate at which the nostrils migrated, just take the time between each intermediate and measure the distance that the nostrils moved in that period. The rate does not have to be constant. I did not use circular reasoning. My assumption that whales have evolved is based on by knowledge of the evidence, evidence which you still seem completely comfortable ignoring. Your reasoning however is based entirely on your ignorance of the evidence. Now that is bad reasoning. If you want an apology just answer my questions and I might admit that I may have jusged you prematurely. Complaininig about how you are treated while failing utterly to discuss the evidence will not get you an apology or any sympathy.

KL: Regarding skulls: The point being made here, if I am not mistaken, is that mileage is really important. The folks that do this work (ie study the various structures in skulls and other bones) put what they see in the context of thousands of specimens studied over years. If they see features that consider intermediate, it is because from their EXPERIENCE the features are between that of two common types. For example, the ear bones of terrestrial vs aquatic mammals. These guys have seem many many specimens of skulls, both from living and extinct animals, so they know what they are looking at. Courses on comparative anatomy are nice, but the true experts are experts because of mileage in the field. For us to dismiss their opinions on these matters is silly. (or arrogant) I see this in my own profession; chemists passing judgment on fossil evidence, or physicists on DNA, or computer programmers on primate behavior. It happens elsewhere too; laypeople claiming to know more about medicine than doctors, more about teaching than teachers, more about law enforcement than police officers.

jacob:

michaelf: Jacob, So I take it the answer is no - you have never seen a whale skull or dolphin skull or probably any skull for that matter. You have never taken a comparative anatomy course and you know nothing about the subject.

You assume a lot without evidence. You might doing this about whale evolution also

jacob:

Robin:

Why do you believe an Indohyus is semi-aquatic?

From Wikipedia, among other sources: "δO18 values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the racoon-like or chevrotain-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δC13 values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans." "About the size of a racoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous deer-like creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such the hippopotamus, and reduces buoyancy so that they can stay underwater. This suggests a similar survival strategy to the African mousedeer or water chevrotain which, when threatened by a bird of prey, dives into water and hides beneath the surface for up to four minutes.[4][2][5]"

So the Indohyus had similarities to a racoon and hippo. Do you consider those land or sea animals?

2 years ago as a kindergartener, my son did a sciece fair exhibit on whale evolution that showed a better understanding of the facts than 'who is your creator' has. Jeez dude. Do a little reading, or look at some of the great images available on the internet.
--
Giles

Am I correct that the theory state that whales evolved from land animals in 10 million years?

Whoah. No I am not going to engage with people who are rude and insutling. And again follow my threads. Do you want to discuss this or just ‘piss and moan’ about my ‘pissing and moaning’ And please clean up the language. What if kids are reading this. You know it just occurred to me these might junior high kids with nothing to do here. I think YOU are the one being dense. If you cannot behave in a well-mannered way please go away.

Flint: jacob: Here is one of your original questions:

Am I correct that the theory state that whales evolved from land animals in 10 million years?

Now, what I did was pointed out that (1) You didn't clearly define what you meant by a "land animal" - would that apply to a hippo? Beaver? Otter? (2) You didn't clearly define what you meant by a whale - would that be something entirely aquatic only, or would you want to specify some morphology (especially considering how often modern whales have hind legs). And so maybe 10 million years might take you from a mostly sorta landish critter (beaver?) to a mostly sorta aquatic critter (sea lion?). But the point was fairly clearly made that whales are still evolving. The exact number of years required to produce "a whale" from "a whale's forerunner" depends on where you chose to drive stakes in the evolutionary process and say "Before this point isn't even a proto-whale" and "Beyond this point are whales." Your question assumes clear end points. There are none. You seem unwilling to deal with this in any reasonable way.

Flint: When challenged to produce something substantive, jacob evades:

Whoah. No I am not going to engage with people who are rude and insutling. And again follow my threads. Do you want to discuss this or just ‘piss and moan’ about my ‘pissing and moaning’ And please clean up the language. What if kids are reading this. You know it just occurred to me these might junior high kids with nothing to do here. I think YOU are the one being dense. If you cannot behave in a well-mannered way please go away.

I think we can reasonably assume he HAS nothing of substance, and if only everyone would go away as he requests, nobody would remain to realize it.

William Wallace:

PvM wrote:

WW wrote: Please explain how embryology is a mimic of evolution?

A good question. It traces back to von Baer and Haeckel. While Haeckel's 'strong recapitulation' ideas have been found flawed, science also realized that embryos do pass through stages reminiscent of our evolutionary past.

Embryonic stages as a reflection of theorized multi-generational changes seems on its face rather pseudoscientific.

I haven't even read anything by Behe or Wells on this subject, but I was previously aware of Haeckel's embryonic forgeries.

Is there a scientific explanation? Or do you admit it is pseudoscience?

Jacob:

Sometime ‘experts’ have tunnel vision and are myopic.

I believe that you think that when experts don't come to a conclusion you like. Do you have evidence for such as statement? It smacks of arrogance. What experience can you draw from to refute their findings? This was my point. If you have not seen many skulls of many animals, how can you pass judgment on their findings? Other experts can. It's called "peer review". You, sir, are not a peer.

""The scientific explanation of why embryos are quite similar to each other during development is EVOLUTION and COMMON DESCENT.""

Very interesting: and before I believe it was asserted that the proof of evolution and common descent was ***ontogeny***

Before anyone can do any form of meta-analysis someone has to do some research.
Methinks.

Jacob,

You are typical of those opposed to TOE who come here, toss down some fringe statement and then get all tweaked when they get bombarded with flack. Acting all “taken aback” is disingenuous on your part.

You were the one who precipitated the tone of this thread with your condescending, smarmy attitude.

Either make your point or find the door.

KL: Jacob: Sometime ‘experts’ have tunnel vision and are myopic. I believe that you think that when experts don't come to a conclusion you like. Do you have evidence for such as statement? It smacks of arrogance. What experience can you draw from to refute their findings? This was my point. If you have not seen many skulls of many animals, how can you pass judgment on their findings? Other experts can. It's called "peer review". You, sir, are not a peer.

Jacob appears to have more than enough time to bitch about every little percieved slight to his person, intellect, and motives, but somehow he hasn't found the time to run these numbers he was to desperately trying to get just so that he could "be fair" to the poor, ignorant, uncivil PT posters.

I predict a 97.6528431729% probablity that jacob will never actually present any numbers at all.

I further predict a 100% probaility that this won't stop him from flinging a whole lot more crap on this thread.

Jacob asserted:

I feel I have the right not to be treated abusively.

You are wrong, and if you insist on evidence I will happy to oblige. Or you could just get on with your so-called logical argument. Your choice. If you decline to flesh out your mathematical argument and instead continue to whine about how you are treated, after nearly 100 posts, we can all be forgiven for concluding that you are, as they say here in Texas, all hat and no cattle.

Jacob,
You are the one who refuses to answer my question.

All mammals have the same bones in the same relative positions in the skull. This has been known long before Darwin and is one of the original pieces of evidence pointing to common descent. The paired premaxillae in the front of the upper jaw and the paired maxillae following behind contain the incisors and the remaining teeth (canines, premolars & molars) respectively. The opening for the external nares is directly above the premaxillae. The upper surface of the nares is roofed by the paired nasals. Behind the nasals are the frontals and behind the frontal are the parietals. In most mammals, the nasals are found anteriorly on the skull directly above the incisors. In whales, the bones are in exactly the same relative positions. The maxillae and premaxillae have elongated anteriorly and the nasals (still dorsal and posterior to the external nares are found above the eyes and the frontals and parietals are shortened in the anterior-posterior plane so that they almost disappear when looking at the dorsal surface of the skull.
There is nothing magic about a whale skull - it is just a mammal skull with no new bones.

You know nothing about my math skills - and if you now as much about math as you do about anatomy, then you don't know much.

jacob:

KL: Jacob: Sometime ‘experts’ have tunnel vision and are myopic. I believe that you think that when experts don't come to a conclusion you like. Do you have evidence for such as statement? It smacks of arrogance. What experience can you draw from to refute their findings? This was my point. If you have not seen many skulls of many animals, how can you pass judgment on their findings? Other experts can. It's called "peer review". You, sir, are not a peer.

No I do not base it on what I like but what the logical walk throughs of evidence show me. And I have studied Gingerich and you sir, are no Phillip Gingerich.

jacob:

KL: Jacob: And I have studied Gingerich and you sir, are no Phillip Gingerich.

Ah, the Lloyd Bentsen gambit. Favorite of civilized debaters everywhere.

Jacob,
Have you ever seen a skull?

Which scientific method are we talking about?

The comparative method is a very common approach in biology....

jacob:

skyotter:

jacob: I feel I have the right not to be treated abusively.

well, you don't. surprise! that "right" doesn't actually exist in the real world so i hope you've learned at least one thing today

I disagree. I can remove my self from situations where people are rude. This type of behaviour I see here would not be allowed in a debate on a college campus. The moderator would throught the violators off the stage.

Jacob, you are typical of those opposed to TOE who come here, toss down some fringe statement and then get all tweaked when they get bombarded with flack. Acting all “taken aback” is disingenuous on your part.

You were the one who precipitated the tone with your condescending, smarmy attitude.

Either make your point or find the door.

jacob:

Flint: jacob: Here is one of your original questions:

Am I correct that the theory state that whales evolved from land animals in 10 million years?

Now, what I did was pointed out that (1) You didn't clearly define what you meant by a "land animal" - would that apply to a hippo? Beaver? Otter? (2) You didn't clearly define what you meant by a whale - would that be something entirely aquatic only, or would you want to specify some morphology (especially considering how often modern whales have hind legs). And so maybe 10 million years might take you from a mostly sorta landish critter (beaver?) to a mostly sorta aquatic critter (sea lion?). But the point was fairly clearly made that whales are still evolving. The exact number of years required to produce "a whale" from "a whale's forerunner" depends on where you chose to drive stakes in the evolutionary process and say "Before this point isn't even a proto-whale" and "Beyond this point are whales." Your question assumes clear end points. There are none. You seem unwilling to deal with this in any reasonable way.

Jeez I asked if 'I was correct'. It was not a 'did you quit beating your wife' type of question. It was very open ended and anyone if in doubt could have said: 'well it depends on whether you mean from indohyus to basilosaurus or going further back to pakicetus and continuing all the way up to squaladon' It was very open ended and not black/white or yes/no. I think you are just avoiding quantification.

if anyone other than Jacob can point out ANY rudeness or vulgarity in ANY of my posts, please do let me know

and i don't just mean this thread, but any on PT. any at all. ever.

[i ask because i'm starting to think that Jacob actually has a different definition of "rudeness" than most people. in everyday usage, it's more or less a synonym for "inappropriately insulting behavior". Jacob is the first person i've seen use it to mean "oh snap, i've been out-thunk!"]

thanks in advance =)

Well that sure was on topic. Please stop spamming.

I was trying to establish a time line for whale evolution I think it is closer to 10 but other feel it is more like 40 million. I will acquiesce for the arguments sake so lets please, please move on.

Please stop the vulgarities. I think there might be young studious children who come here. You are making the internet a place where parents should not allow their children and making Pandas Thumb sound like a porn site. Please behave!

[re. what is the Panda's Thumb]: Second, it is the legendary virtual bar serving the community of the legendary virtual University of Ediacara somewhere in the Ediacaran hills of southern Australia, growing out of the lore of the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup.

Jacob: what exactly is your definition of meta-analysis?

I have to admit that this Jacob has strung more people along by saying nothing than almost anyone I can remember. It's not that he's made silly argumnents, it's that he's made NO arguments and kept it up for dozens of posts. Kind of amazing, really. Life's too short to waste time on such morons.

Jacob,
If you do not accept common descent then the term mammal means nothing. To say that a whale and a hippo are both mammals means they share a common ancestor at some time in the past. You can calculate all of the probabilities on all of the mathematical models you want, but they cannot erase the homologies in the skulls. A whale is a mammal and it shares common ancestry with all other mammals. This is what the morphological evidence tells us.

OK so we have established a value of 40 million for time it took whales to evolve and 4 inches for the distance the nostrils migrated. that comes to 1 inch in 10 million , .1 in 1 million, .01 in 100,000, .001 in 10,000 , .0001 in 1000 years can we agree on these figures and math?

Jacob,

You are annoying...at best. Make your point or step off.

My guess is, it is either laughable, fall-down laughable or based on some long-debunked misinformation

Please prove me wrong……quickly

jacob said

OK so we have established a value of 40 million for time it took whales to evolve and 4 inches for the distance the nostrils migrated.

that comes to 1 inch in 10 million , .1 in 1 million, .01 in 100,000, .001 in 10,000 , .0001 in 1000 years..."

(I'll ignore the silly goal posts, and whats a whale, what's aquatic etc)

Jacob's "analysis"? / question

"can a nostril move 1/1000 of an inch in 500 generations"?

since these is fossil evidence that a nostril DID then it can!

Would someone PUHLEEEESE open a thread for this gentleman on After the Bar Closes!

jacob: OK so we have established a value of 40 million for time it took whales to evolve and 4 inches for the distance the nostrils migrated. that comes to 1 inch in 10 million , .1 in 1 million, .01 in 100,000, .001 in 10,000 , .0001 in 1000 years can we agree on these figures and math? (trolls please do not spam this so I can make my point. Thank You )

jacob:

KL:

jacob: OK so we have established a value of 40 million for time it took whales to evolve and 4 inches for the distance the nostrils migrated. that comes to 1 inch in 10 million , .1 in 1 million, .01 in 100,000, .001 in 10,000 , .0001 in 1000 years can we agree on these figures and math? (trolls please do not spam this so I can make my point. Thank You )

I'm not sure where you are headed with this, but this may help a little: I am a chemist; one misconception I had early on is the graphical representation and application of mathematics in the life sciences. My husband is a psychologist who studies primate behavior. I learned from him that finding simple mathematical functions in living creatures is not valid, because the variables cannot be controlled. Animals grow and behave in response to their environment which varies in weather, resources, competition etc. Statistics are useful, but only where statistical applications are valid; large sized samples. Trying to calculate speed of blowhole migration in distance/year has very limited value. You don't have a continuum of fossils, you don't have variables such as maturity, nutrition, size of social group, environment, condition at death, etc under control. Therefore such a calculation would be a curiousity, but not much more. I would not say that more complex mathematics might not have a use, but that is not what you are suggesting with these figures.

Math and stats are used often in the soft sciences. and of course these are averages for a general population. look up darwins and haldanes dilemna. Well we really do know the average speed of the migration of the nostrils: its and inch per million years. at least according to the values we have established

jacob: OK so we have established a value of 40 million for time it took whales to evolve and 4 inches for the distance the nostrils migrated. that comes to 1 inch in 10 million , .1 in 1 million, .01 in 100,000, .001 in 10,000 , .0001 in 1000 years can we agree on these figures and math? (trolls please do not spam this so I can make my point. Thank You )

jacob: OK so we have established a value of 40 million for time it took whales to evolve and 4 inches for the distance the nostrils migrated. that comes to 1 inch in 10 million , .1 in 1 million, .01 in 100,000, .001 in 10,000 , .0001 in 1000 years can we agree on these figures and math? (trolls please do not spam this so I can make my point. Thank You )

When I was in grade school, I had a friend that would ask other kids if they wanted to hear a good joke. If they said "yes", he would tell this long, convoluted joke with an excruciatingly lame punch-line. Turns out, it was actually a practical joke, because the innocent person hoping for a laugh would waste several minutes following the arc of the joke before learning that there was no pay-off for the time invested.

Jacob is retelling that joke.

This thread is the creationism debate in a microcosm. We've waited years for their point to be made, and we're still waiting. Jacob, you're an idiot and I'm an idiot for reading all your idiocy.

One inch in one generation? It would be highly unlikely, I would imagine, although the speed could vary somewhat. However, one inch in one generation in the same species would be unusual indeed, given that we are talking about skull structure. A few generations of an isolated group could produce some differences between that group and the original group, but they would be superficial (color, hair length, etc) I am drawing some parallels in prosimians; I don't know much about cetaceans.

jacob: Next question. Can we jump say from the nostril at 4 inches to 3 inches or is it necessary to go gradually in thousands according to Darwinian evolution??

Looks like nothing happened in the last 5 hours.

We can estimate that the whale blowhole moved 1 inch/million years based on the fossil record. Or maybe it was 6 inches/million years. Or .5 inch/million years.

So what? What is/was the point?

I think Jacob is just practicing a Monty Python skit and has no point or interest. Trolled again.

If you want some real gosh wow stuff, the avian dinosaur's wings used to be arms as was the bat's wing or the pterodactyl wing. And both were derived from the front fins of a lobe finned fish. And the fish came from a prokaryote way back when.

One of my minor criticisms of creationism, it is boring. God poofed everything into existence 6,000 years ago, killed 99% of it off 4,000 years ago in a spectacularly inept salvage operation, it has been running down ever since. Not that it matters, god will show up any day, destroy the earth, and kill 6.7 billion people.

The real world is so much more complicated and interesting and we can spend forever and never understand all of it. We now know that other solar systems are common. We have no idea if they have life bearing planets or what they are like. Really need to send out some interstellar probes here.

I suspect (at least what I have read from Gould) that evolutionary change is not constant; a large population that mixes freely might remain relatively unchanged for long periods when the environment is stable.(think: schools of fish, insects, forests) Evolutionary change happens faster in organisms that have shorter lifespans and more offspring; whales are the other extreme. Defining the line between species is difficult; new information from DNA and biogeography overlays old classification based on external appearance, behavior, reproduction.

BTW, can we cut to the chase here? I don't see how any of this is a challenge to modern evolutionary theory.

jacob:

KL: I suspect (at least what I have read from Gould) that evolutionary change is not constant; a large population that mixes freely might remain relatively unchanged for long periods when the environment is stable.(think: schools of fish, insects, forests) Evolutionary change happens faster in organisms that have shorter lifespans and more offspring; whales are the other extreme. Defining the line between species is difficult; new information from DNA and biogeography overlays old classification based on external appearance, behavior, reproduction.

But even Gould says the change will be in small increments correct? It might be more rapid than other times but in small increments, correct?

Holey smoke batman, this thread is on fire, over 200 comments.

Jacob:

OK, I went through all the posts that you put up here. Most of them have to do with civility and tone, and have no substance. But you did have a question, I think, about how long it took whales to evolve. For all here, the question is interesting. But responding to Jacob, it is a bit of a red herring. Step back for a few minutes and consider that there are multiple things going on with this issue.

To begin with the larger picture -- for many years, our understanding of whale evolution was poor to non-existent. Transitional fossils were unknown, and there was significant debate about which modern mammalian taxa are even the sister group of whales, and of course about which fossil group most likely gave rise to whales. That whales are mammals is unquestionable. The embryonic evidence alone demonstrates the types of modifications necessary to transform a basic mammal body plan into a whale.

The lack of fossil evidence, though, was a boon to creationists, who used whale evolution as a standard example of a lack of transitional fossils, and therefore somehow a failure of evolution (as if science starts with the premise that all questions are answered from the beginning). Now, if whales evolved, we should see a fossil record that illustrates transitional taxa. What should they look like? Because evolution is mosaic, it is difficult to be exactly specific about the details of any one animal, but we can make predictions about characters. For example, we should see animals with an intermediate position of the nostrils, animals with derived whale features that also have legs, animals with changes to the axial skeleton that would indicate dorso-ventral movement of the tail in swimming, and so on. Creationists tauted the lack of fossils as "proof" of the absurdity of evolution (I have even seen cartoon pictures of cows with whale tails, mocking evolution). Duane Gish delighted in the lack of transitional fossils. Such people should be huimiliated by the absolute refutation of this position. But as WIYC demonstrates above, no amount of empirical evidence will satisfy YECs (remember, Answers in Genesis makes their "scientists" sign a statement a priori denying any evidence against a young earth).

Finally, Phil Gingerich, Hans Thewissen, and colleagues hit the jackpot by finding whales with legs. They are known to be whales from derived features of the skull, but they have legs. It is EXACTLY what evolution predicted. How this does not constitute a test of a scientific hgypothesis is beyond me. It is a slam dunk. An in-your-face triumph against YECs.

As the fossil record for whales has grown, our understanding of whale evolution has grown too. However, like any other group of animals, we expect de facto that the fossil record will record a variety of animals with various features in various stages of development, most of which went extinct. In this light, the fossil record for whale evolution is still pretty thin.

Consequently, the question of how long whale evolution took depends on your view. How long did it take modern whales to evolve? 50 million years. A fine estimate given the current evidence. How long did the transition take from quadrupedal land animal to obligate aquatic animal? 10 million years, maybe. The record is thin, but it is a good estimate. In order to argue an exact timeline, you have to specify exactly what you are talking about. But you also have to couch the question in terms of other things that we know about character evolution and development, and the fossil record itself.

Now, turning to the blowhole. Rhodocetus nostrils were intermediate. True. An animal with such a form is predicted by evolutionary theory, and the presence of that animal corroborates the model with a vengeance. But it is probably misleading to try to use this to predict a linear transition from a nostril at the tip of the nose to a modern blowhole. Morphology can be remarkably plastic, and character transformations can occur dramatically and rapidly, and in many cases do not show linear rates of transition from one type to another (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't). The position of the nostril in whales is an outcome of the relative growth of several blocks of tissue -- very little novel structure is present -- which includes both a lengthening of the jaw and a shift in the position of the nostril. Furthermore, the rate of transition can only be understood as a meaningful question if the adapative sigficance of the form can be understood. For example, the Rhodocetus nostril obviously worked fine. Otherwise the animal would have died. But is the modern blowhole position optimized for all whales, or do different positions correspond to different behaviors and morphotypes? Such questions are very difficult to answer, and constitute some of the most interesting questions in paleontology. Ultimately, what this means is that the question of the rate of transition can only be answered by a more complete fossil record. Sorry, but that is the answer to your question.

As for the trachea question, I suggest that WIYC look at some comparative anatomy first, and reformulate the question. The trachea is separate from the esophagus, but the espophagus splits around the trachea. In other words, the basic mammalian crossing is retained, with a modification to block the trachea. Developmental evidence backs this up. The lack of understanding of the exact genetic mechanism is completely irrelevant. It constitutes a scientific question -- not evidence that the structure could not be modified.

If you want a more civil discourse with the folks here, I strongly suggest that you frame your questions precisely and concisely, and as in any other discourse about science, answer questions with substantial points of fact or interpretation, and indicate directly what you are trying to achieve, so that people don't think that you are playing rhetorical games.

PvM: Holey smoke batman, this thread is on fire, over 200 comments.

here is my next question: could the nostrils jump from 4 inches to 3 inches in one generation or would it always have to be an incremental change in very small like 1/100th or 1/1000 inch increments?

I've reached the extent of my limited knowledge, as I am not an evolutionary biologist. The only large beneficial mutation I know of is sickle cell. Of course, it has its detriments, too. But I fail to see where you are going with this, and people more qualified will have to step in. Besides, I don't know what you mean by "Darwinian" theory. Darwin certainly had the original published idea, but it hasn't been called "Darwinian" for a long time because it has expanded to other areas of science and in ways Darwin could never anticipate.

Signing off...

jacob: But are there any examples of large beneficial mutations?

jacob: Give me an example of a huge beneficial mutation. And OK here is where we are having the problem. Darwinian theory says we must go by small steps. Maybe we will have to walk thru Darwinian first and then Saltation next to show the point. But are there any examples of large beneficial mutations?

jacob:

Dave Lovell:

jacob: Next question. Can we jump say from the nostril at 4 inches to 3 inches or is it necessary to go gradually in thousands according to Darwinian evolution??

Have a look at your friend's nostrils and measure how far they are from the top their heads. The natural variation between individuals is many orders of magnitude higher than your rate of evolution. Only a statistical answer is possible to your question. Also changes can occur quickly. Only one gene change is required to turn an individual from a full height adult into a dwarf.

OK so you feel that we could go from 4 inches to 3 in one generation? And I agree with your individual variance concept. Yes and of course there are tall and short giraffes but they all are taller than most other animals. yes we are taking the average. But can we jump or not? Can we agree that Darwinian theory would say no and stick to that?

Embryonic stages as a reflection of theorized multi-generational changes seems on its face rather pseudoscientific. I haven’t even read anything by Behe or Wells on this subject, but I was previously aware of Haeckel’s embryonic forgeries. Is there a scientific explanation? Or do you admit it is pseudoscience?

PvM: Holey smoke batman, this thread is on fire, over 200 comments.

jacob: Again sometimes a small gene change can make a large body plan change.

I was really interested in learning about the blow holes ...oh well. :-(

Science Avenger: Jacob: Well it seems like we are having a troll attack so I better go. That's akin to Ann Coulter complaining about other people making shit up, or Genghis Khan complaining about violence.

raven, I'm glad you are back ... was it you that referred to the HIPPOS earlier?

Nitpicking about whale blowholes and how far or fast they could move up the whale's snout is pointless anyway. The fossils already show the process well enough.

Dale Husband: Nitpicking about whale blowholes and how far or fast they could move up the whale's snout is pointless anyway. The fossils already show the process well enough.

Stanton:

Dale Husband: Nitpicking about whale blowholes and how far or fast they could move up the whale's snout is pointless anyway. The fossils already show the process well enough.

Actually, no it doesn't. That we can't put a stopwatch to see how fast the nostrils are moving up means that evolution doesn't actually occur, apparently.

raven, I’m glad you are back … was it you that referred to the HIPPOS earlier?

We even know some of the molecular events: "Our data indicate that the cetacean hind-limb bud forms an AER and that this structure expresses Fgf8 initially, but that neither the AER nor Fgf8 expression is maintained. Moreover, Sonic hedgehog (Shh), which mediates the signaling activity of the ZPA, is absent from the dolphin hind-limb bud. We find that failure to establish a ZPA is associated with the absence of Hand2, an upstream regulator of Shh. Interpreting our results in the context of both the cetacean fossil record and the known functions of Shh suggests that reduction of Shh expression may have occurred {approx}41 million years ago and led to the loss of distal limb elements.

raven, thanks for responding anyway - I guess I'll have to re read the thread. UGH!!

Mike Elzinga: I think jacob’s posts were simply passive-aggressive behavior that comes from a deep hatred of evolution. It reminds me of an incident I witnessed many years ago while standing in one of several long lines at a fast-food place during the noon hour. The lines were moving fairly quickly since people figured out what they wanted as they waited. However, a woman, two or three persons ahead of me, got up to the clerk and started staring at the menu for a long time. She then stated her order, and as the clerk rang it up and gave her the cost, she decided to change her order. She took several minutes to decide on the new order. Again the clerk rang it up, quoted the cost, and she changed her order again. She repeated this at least four times. It took over 15 minutes; and then she decided she wasn’t hungry, cancelled the order, glared at the people behind her, and walked out. That’s called passive-aggression.

Sometime ‘experts’ have tunnel vision and are myopic.

prof weird wrote: The scientific explanation of why embryos are quite similar to each other during development is EVOLUTION and COMMON DESCENT.

PvM wrote Science also realized that embryos do pass through stages reminiscent of our evolutionary past.

If that is where it stops (hey, we see certain similarities) fine. But if you think you can learn something about evolution by studying embryo development, something certainly seems wrong without further explanation.

To state it a different way, why do you (or some) believe a modern Dolphin’s fetal development is somehow a facsimile of blow hole evolution?

PvM:

Sometime ‘experts’ have tunnel vision and are myopic.

Perhaps but more often creationist have shown to suffer from said afflictions. In this case, I wonder who is more myopic here. You asked some good questions and we answered now you are moving the goal posts.

Charles Darwin said: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

Science Avenger: Thank you Stanton for that most enlightening education on Genghis Khan. Isn't it amazing how the knowledge flows when the trolls are gone.

I think you misunderstood the question. It was “Please explain how embryology is a mimic of evolution?”
To state it a different way, why do you (or some) believe a modern Dolphin’s fetal development is somehow a facsimile of blow hole evolution?

Wallace is just setting you up for the "Haeckel fallacy".

before he does so, I would instead suggest he make his "complaints" here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php

that way, he would at least be familiar with the actual arguments involved before he attempts to spout further.

jacob said: Darwinian theory says we must go by small steps.

Actually it doesn't. But small steps are the norm in evolution.

I think your 0.0001 inches every 1000 years would qualify as small steps.

Ichthyic: I think you misunderstood the question. It was “Please explain how embryology is a mimic of evolution?” To state it a different way, why do you (or some) believe a modern Dolphin’s fetal development is somehow a facsimile of blow hole evolution? Wallace is just setting you up for the "Haeckel fallacy". before he does so, I would instead suggest he make his "complaints" here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php that way, he would at least be familiar with the actual arguments involved before he attempts to spout further.

Man spring cleaning is early

Jacob is concerned that his ill informed comments about whale hole evolution have allowed science to score a touch-down.

Keep your eyes on PT, Jacob provides us with another gem, namely how could a heart have evolved from a single to multi-chambered hearts with 2, 3 and 4 chambers. Surely evolution could not explain this...

You'll be surprised with the answer.

HT: Jacob

Kids, grow up, whining and impolite posting will be moved to the bathroom wall.

Class dismissed