Evidence for God from Science

aa118816 wrote: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

Mystical wrote: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.

Mastriani wrote:

aa118816 wrote: 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 wrote:

Mastriani wrote:

aa118816 wrote: 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 wrote: Again, peer review is the check and balance for scientific information.

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

Mystical wrote:

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.

aa118816 wrote: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.

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?

Mystical wrote:

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.

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

Mystical wrote:And, does your question really make sense?

Mystical wrote:

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.

aa118816 wrote: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

aa118816 wrote: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 Barbarian wrote:The argument is now limited to which ungulate gave rise to whales. I don't see how this gives creationists any comfort.

J. G. M. THEWISSEN, and SUNIL BAJPAI wrote: 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. ...

aa118816 wrote: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).

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