A New ANTI-Evolution website!!!

[Mastriani]

The discovery of two 50-million-year-old whales from the family Pakicetidae suggest that the previously thought link between the mesonychians and whales seems unlikely, according to Dr. Hans Thewissen (Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine). The fact that these fossils have more primitive teeth than the mesonychians from which they were supposed to have evolved led Dr. Thewissen to conclude that there was "considerable doubt" that cretaceans (whales) are closely related to mesonychians. Paleontologists now are attempting to link whales with the hippopotamus (artiodactyls). However, Dr. Maureen O'Leary (State University of New York) stated, "it's difficult to connect hippos with whales in the fossil record."

The whale phylogeny is a fairy tale which has been strongly disproven by genetic testing as well as the fossil record. Your argument is logically invalid because you appeal to authority-the authority which is bent on proving naturalism. This so called evidence was strongly debated in 2004 by John Renee and Fuz Rana and Rana not only blew him away, but completely shut down his argument. Just because you see a conspicous homological line up does not make it true. Homology has proven to be strongly inaccurate when contrasted with the genetic record.

Dan

Rana is not, I repeat, not a paleontologist. His background is in biochemistry, so any further discussion by/about him in this matter is moot, his refutations amount to less than that of a high school biology teacher, he simply does not have the background.

On the other hand, Dr. Thewissen has undergone the scrutiny of peer review, along with his companion Mark Uhen.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cet ... acean.html

The argument is simply ridiculous. Point A.) transition of species does not occur in straight lines. Point B.) A large number of transitional forms of whale species have been found, including ones with presence of protruding
rear limbs. Point C.) Whales are mammals, and all mammals, with the exception of cetaceans, are land creatures. Refuting this is like denying the fact that the Sun is a hydrogen reactor, yet I know someone will ... LOL!!!

(edited for spelling)

[BGoodForGoodSake]

BGood: That really doesn't say much.

Mastrini: People are sometimes born with scales. Does that mean we once lived in the water? I'll have to read more of your site, but I didn't see much convincing information. I am sure it will be just as accurate as the human evolutionary timeline or the horse.

I indicated in red the differences in the gene sequence.

I mean this in no disrespect, perhaps your not analytically inclined.

Genes we know change over time.
This particular gene is passed down from mother to children through the mitochondria.

As you may have missed it, animals such as the sheep and whale share much more commonalities than say, the whale and kangaroo.

This same technique is applied to determine geneology in humans.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

The whale phylogeny is a fairy tale which has been strongly disproven by genetic testing as well as the fossil record. Your argument is logically invalid because you appeal to authority-the authority which is bent on proving naturalism. This so called evidence was strongly debated in 2004 by John Renee and Fuz Rana and Rana not only blew him away, but completely shut down his argument. Just because you see a conspicous homological line up does not make it true. Homology has proven to be strongly inaccurate when contrasted with the genetic record.

Dan

Rana is not, I repeat, not a paleontologist. His background is in biochemistry, so any further discussion by/about him in this matter is moot, his refutations amount to less than that of a high school biology teacher, he simply does not have the background.

On the other hand, Dr. Thewissen has undergone the scrutiny of peer review, along with his companion Mark Uhen.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cet ... acean.html

The argument is simply ridiculous. Point A.) transition of species does not occur in straight lines. Point B.) A large number of transitional forms of whale species have been found, including ones with presence of protruding
rear limbs. Point C.) Whales are mammals, and all mammals, with the exception of cetaceans, are land creatures. Refuting this is like denying the fact that the Sun is a hydrogen reactor, yet I know someone will ... LOL!!!

(edited for spelling)

Perhaps, but Rana may have a point as genetic studies do suggest that whales came from an older group of ungulates.

[Mastriani]

The whale phylogeny is a fairy tale which has been strongly disproven by genetic testing as well as the fossil record. Your argument is logically invalid because you appeal to authority-the authority which is bent on proving naturalism. This so called evidence was strongly debated in 2004 by John Renee and Fuz Rana and Rana not only blew him away, but completely shut down his argument. Just because you see a conspicous homological line up does not make it true. Homology has proven to be strongly inaccurate when contrasted with the genetic record.

Dan

Rana is not, I repeat, not a paleontologist. His background is in biochemistry, so any further discussion by/about him in this matter is moot, his refutations amount to less than that of a high school biology teacher, he simply does not have the background.

On the other hand, Dr. Thewissen has undergone the scrutiny of peer review, along with his companion Mark Uhen.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cet ... acean.html

The argument is simply ridiculous. Point A.) transition of species does not occur in straight lines. Point B.) A large number of transitional forms of whale species have been found, including ones with presence of protruding
rear limbs. Point C.) Whales are mammals, and all mammals, with the exception of cetaceans, are land creatures. Refuting this is like denying the fact that the Sun is a hydrogen reactor, yet I know someone will ... LOL!!!

(edited for spelling)

Perhaps, but Rana may have a point as genetic studies do suggest that whales came from an older group of ungulates.

I noted Rana's refutation, and the counter claims to his refutation are clear. There is still ambiguity as to the direct descendent, but it is nonetheless, a land dwelling mammal. Berkeley has found the genetic refutations to be poorly substantiated and methodology was called into question. There is an 80/20 break of scientists on the disagreement, which leans me towards Thewissen and Uhen. Again, peer review is the check and balance for scientific information. Rana is not "widely" accepted as being an authority within the scientific community, (ie. case in point, one of his recent lectures netted a total of 150 people, only 20-30 were from the scientific community.
Although I can always respect the opinion of an estute academic, there is a line where one is stepping too far outside one's prescribed field of study, and speculating out of hand.

Again, I hate quoting "the internets" because it fails so miserably in subjectiveness, where books, with reference indexes make it clear as to what has been used.

[Jbuza]

Again, peer review is the check and balance for scientific information.

The great censors. Yes peer review has a history of rediculing and resisting new ideas. After all if it isn't what we accept we must be wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong.

[Mystical]

I mean this with no disrespect, perhaps your not analytically inclined.

I knew you would be upset by that whole platypus issue. But I think you're wrong again. Because you haven't said anything still...red or not (maybe you should try another color and see what happens). You know analytical skills imply the ability to use logic? Funny it is you who seems stumped by an issue loaded by illogical conclusions, lacking in proof, and horrendously flawed...you who continues to perseverate on an idea that is beyond ridiculous and has been proven time and again to be inconclusive and erroneous. The inability to alter one's opinion when shown to be consistently wrong is the purest form of the analytically challenged. No disrespect, of coarse.

As you have missed it, evolution has no basis in reality. Whales never crawled out of the see and monkeys did not become humans. There is absolutely no proof. Until there is, don't be so quick to flatter yourself, it's an easy way to look foolish.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I mean this with no disrespect, perhaps your not analytically inclined.

As you have missed it, evolution has no basis in reality. Whales never crawled out of the see and monkeys did not become humans. There is absolutely no proof. Until there is, don't be so quick to flatter yourself, it's an easy way to look foolish.

Care to explain then why a gene would have different sequences, when the gene's function is identical in each organism?

And why does a sheep, and a cow have almost the same sequence, while the sequence for the kangaroo is relatively different?

[aa118816]

Your statement is laughable. Rana is more than qualified to discuss the whale phylogeny. Your special pleading is ridiculous as the facts are the facts and a peer reviewed post doctorate in biochemistry can discern basic science fiction writing even if it is dressed up as "fact". There are not so many tranisitions-just different types of whales. The whale "legs" are not shown to be legs unless you let your imagination run wild-they are used for copulation. Also, Rana's information does come from a group of biologists and paleontologists at Cal Tech and SFU including one of the foremost biologists in the world, Dr. Paul Chien. Also, once you find out what "murky" transition there might be, then bring it on. Also, the peer reviewed article is like haveing an ID scholar peer review another ID scholars work and saying that it is demonstrable because it fits into his interpretation of the evidence.

Dan

[sandy_mcd]

Also, Rana's information does come from a group of biologists and paleontologists at Cal Tech and SFU including one of the foremost biologists in the world, Dr. Paul Chien.

Quibble: it is Caltech, not Cal Tech.

[Mystical]

Care to explain then why a gene would have different sequences, when the gene's function is identical in each organism?

If evolution was accurate, the same function would accompany the same sequences. Especially if all life came from one source. So, I ask you, why? And, does your question really make sense?

And why does a sheep and a cow have almost the same sequence while the sequence for the kangaroo is relatively different?

Almost the same, and the same are not the same thing.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Care to explain then why a gene would have different sequences, when the gene's function is identical in each organism?

If evolution was accurate, the same function would accompany the same sequences.

No, this is incorrect, functionality arises from protein shape, many different proteins and variations of proteins can perform the same function. DNA is not specified like a computer program, proteins don't work like parts in an automobile. Evolution does not predict that specific sequences have specific functions. It is the variation in sequence which actually bolsters the theory. This variation in gene sequence was predicted by evolution.

Especially if all life came from one source. So, I ask you, why?

Exactly if all life comes from one source and mutations are introduced over time, the non harmful ones(mutations which do not alter protein function)will remain; making descendants sequences less and less like those of their predacessors.

And, does your question really make sense?

If it was designed why would this protein which works just as well in yeast cells as in humans have a different sequence for each organism? Yes, the question makes sence.

And why does a sheep and a cow have almost the same sequence while the sequence for the kangaroo is relatively different?

Almost the same, and the same are not the same thing.

Here are the sequences.
The cow and the sheep have the exact same sequence and differ from the whale by only two amino acids.
whale......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
sheep......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE REDLIAYLKK ATNE
cow..........GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE REDLIAYLKK ATNE
And these for contrast
kangaroo.GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLNGIFGRKT GQAPGFTYTD ANKNKGIIWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
bat..........GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EATLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKSAE RADLIAYLKK ATKE

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Your statement is laughable. Rana is more than qualified to discuss the whale phylogeny. Your special pleading is ridiculous as the facts are the facts and a peer reviewed post doctorate in biochemistry can discern basic science fiction writing even if it is dressed up as "fact". There are not so many tranisitions-just different types of whales. The whale "legs" are not shown to be legs unless you let your imagination run wild-they are used for copulation. Also, Rana's information does come from a group of biologists and paleontologists at Cal Tech and SFU including one of the foremost biologists in the world, Dr. Paul Chien. Also, once you find out what "murky" transition there might be, then bring it on. Also, the peer reviewed article is like haveing an ID scholar peer review another ID scholars work and saying that it is demonstrable because it fits into his interpretation of the evidence.
Dan

Regarding Rana's scientific basis of argument, personal beleifs aside, what you have left is a scientific refutation for certain mammals being the ancestors of whales.

The argument then just comes down to which mammal lineage whales descended from.

Whale forms appear to have changed through time.

[sandy_mcd]

The discovery of two 50-million-year-old whales from the family Pakicetidae suggest that the previously thought link between the mesonychians and whales seems unlikely, according to Dr. Hans Thewissen ... Dr. Thewissen to conclude that there was "considerable doubt" that cretaceans (whales) are closely related to mesonychians. ...
The whale phylogeny is a fairy tale which has been strongly disproven by genetic testing as well as the fossil record.

The argument is now limited to which ungulate gave rise to whales. I don't see how this gives creationists any comfort.

As The Barbarian has pointed out, what is the point of including the paragraph on Thewissen ? He certainly does not think whale phylogeny is a fairy tale [2001 ?, intro to article]:

BioScience: Vol. 51, No. 12, pp. 1037—1049.
Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution
Fossils collected in the last decade document the ways in which Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) became aquatic, a transition that is one of the best documented examples of macroevolution in mammals

J. G. M. THEWISSEN, and SUNIL BAJPAI



Whales indisputably are mammals, which is clear from their means of oxygen intake (they breathe with lungs), their care of newborns (mothers nurse their calves with milk), and a host of other features. This implies that whales evolved from other mammals and, because ancestral mammals were land animals, that whales had land ancestors. What happened in the transition to life in the ocean has been hard to imagine for scientists and laypeople alike. In the first edition of the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin suggested that a bearlike animal swimming with an open mouth might be a precursor of a filter-feeding baleen whale. This statement attracted much ridicule; in a letter, Darwin observed, “It is laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented about this bear” (Gould 1995). In later editions, Darwin deleted this reference to evolution entirely and merely noted that a bear sifting water for insects is “almost like a whale.”

Nearly 150 years later, we can fill in much of the gap that embarrassed Darwin. The last two decades have witnessed an explosive growth in the number of fossils documenting the origins of Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). An excellent morphological series of transitional cetaceans is now available to document the transition from land to sea, and many sophisticated analyses detail the biology of these archaic cetaceans. The origin of whales now offers a spectacular example of evolutionary change, allowing us to chart changes in anatomy and physiology as whales first moved into the water and then gradually explored the open seas.

Although Darwin didn't have the details right—bears did not evolve into whales—his basic point was correct: We can now show that whales are in fact hoofed mammals that took to sea. Yet in spite of the wealth of new evidence, certain segments of popular and creationist literature continue to use cetaceans as examples of animals that could not possibly have evolved through modified descent. Much of the blame for these misconceptions is the deliberate spread of misinformation by those who deny evolution, as well as simple ignorance on the part of those unaware of published research. However, the sheer volume and pace of recent research also cause problems. For those outside of the circle of specialists actively studying whale origins, it is hard to keep up with all the new discoveries.

In this article, we first introduce the families of archaic cetaceans that lived in the Eocene (approximately 55 million to 34 million years ago), the oldest period from which cetaceans are known. After that, we discuss the several organ systems that underwent dramatic changes. Then, we put the functional morphology and evolution of two organ systems, locomotion and osmoregulation, in a broader perspective. We show that the differences among these extinct animals make sense only in the context of evolving adaptations to an aquatic environment. We cannot provide a comprehensive review of early cetacean evolution, as this would take up many pages. The two chosen organ systems make compelling examples of macroevolutionary change, showing a stepped transition from land to water for archaic cetaceans. From these beginnings, the order Cetacea expanded into a wide variety of aquatic groups, including mostly large, filter-feeding baleen whales (suborder Mysticeti), and predatory toothed whales (suborder Odontoceti, which includes, among others, dolphins, porpoises, sperm whales, beaked whales, and killer whales).

What we do know of early cetaceans amounts to an overwhelming and dramatic record of evolving adaptations. The field of whale origins is progressing quickly, and new finds will add new insights, so that this article cannot be the final synthesis of whale origins. But even as specialists continue to debate important questions such as that of the sister group of cetaceans and the age of the oldest whale, it is clear that we already know more than enough to trace the general outline of whale evolution. Though important, the remaining questions are essentially details of a broader story of adaptation to a new environment, and their eventual resolution will amplify the story described here without changing its essence. ...

[sandy_mcd]

The discovery of two 50-million-year-old whales from the family Pakicetidae suggest that the previously thought link between the mesonychians and whales seems unlikely, according to Dr. Hans Thewissen (Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine).

Lest anyone think that Dr Thewissen has changed his mind since the 2001 article referenced in my previous post, the information aa118816 refers to was also published in 2001. Here is the intro to that:

Nature 413, 277-281 (20 September 2001) | doi: 10.1038/35095005
Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls

J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe and S. T. Hussain

Abstract

Modern members of the mammalian order Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are obligate aquatic swimmers that are highly distinctive in morphology, lacking hair and hind limbs, and having flippers, flukes, and a streamlined body. Eocene fossils document much of cetaceans' land-to-water transition, but, until now, the most primitive representative for which a skeleton was known was clearly amphibious and lived in coastal environments. Here we report on the skeletons of two early Eocene pakicetid cetaceans, the fox-sized Ichthyolestes pinfoldi, and the wolf-sized Pakicetus attocki. Their skeletons also elucidate the relationships of cetaceans to other mammals. Morphological cladistic analyses have shown cetaceans to be most closely related to one or more mesonychians, a group of extinct, archaic ungulates, but molecular analyses have indicated that they are the sister group to hippopotamids. Our cladistic analysis indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to artiodactyls than to any mesonychian. Cetaceans are not the sister group to (any) mesonychians, nor to hippopotamids. Our analysis stops short of identifying any particular artiodactyl family as the cetacean sister group and supports monophyly of artiodactyls.

In contrast to the debate about the cetacean sister group, the relationships among Eocene cetaceans and the content of Cetacea itself are not controversial1, 2, 3, 4, 5. All phylogenetic studies indicate that pakicetids are more closely related to living cetaceans than to artiodactyls and mesonychians, and that pakicetids share the cetacean synapomorphies of the ear2, 3, 6. Pakicetids are followed by ambulocetids in the cladogram, and modern cetaceans (toothed and baleen whales) are closely related to late Eocene basilosaurids and dorudontids1, 3, 4, 5. The most archaic cetacean for which the skeleton is known is the amphibious Ambulocetus natans7, 8. It was a powerful, walrus-sized animal that lived in coastal environments and resembled a crocodile, with the exception of long hind limbs that were used in swimming9. Although Ambulocetus is unlike modern cetaceans, it also differs strongly from its land mammal relatives, be they artiodactyls or mesonychians. Adaptations for life in water in Ambulocetus and later whales complicate determination of their closest relatives among the land mammals. Data from fossil whales that are more basal on the cetacean phylogenetic tree and have fewer aquatic adaptations could presumably yield new phylogenetic insights10, 11. Pakicetids are in this position and can be used to test mesonychian and hippopotamid hypotheses.

There are three genera of pakicetid cetaceans: Pakicetus, Nalacetus and Ichthyolestes2. Pakicetus is the largest, followed by Nalacetus (approximately 5% smaller in linear dimensions), and Ichthyolestes (approximately 29% smaller). Until now, only teeth, jaws and one braincase have been described for pakicetids2, 3, 12. We excavated four partial skulls, two of which retain the orbital region, several snout fragments, and approximately 150 isolated postcranial bones of pakicetids from multiple individuals. These were found at a single site in the early Eocene Kuldana Formation of Pakistan. We use these fossils to show (1) that these archaic cetaceans were land mammals; and (2) that cetaceans are more closely related to artiodactyls than to mesonychians.

[aa118816]

Thanks for the post and you are correct that he seems to have changed his position, but in no way has he solved the suppossed puzzle and his source material is sparse. If you think you can recreate a complete phylogeny based on 150 bones, you are on drugs. His conclusions are based upon his commitment to methodological naturalism. If you read through the whole article carefully, you will only see speculation. I also wonder if he got an earful from his colleauges after his statement in 2001. A good example of this is Peter Ward completely changing his position after being hammered by his colleauges for many of his conclusions in Rare Earth and then Priviledged Planet.

Dan