Whale Evolution, a tail of a wail.

[Arikay]

First section.
Evidence for whale evolution.

I have written about this multiple times, and since it has come up I thought I would gather it up into a post or two.
I may add more later.

Biological

-Limbs
Here are three pictures of Mammal limbs

From: http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/skeleton.html

From: http://www.ftexploring.com/
Whales have retained the hand bones of their earlier land dwelling ancestors. This is a commonality between practically all mammals no matter where they are. In whales the hand bones are fussed together to create a single flipper. Other aquatic life that don't have the same evolutionary lineage as the whale also don't share their flipper design, for example, a sharks flippers are made from a single piece of cartilage and not a hand like bone structure.

Legs

Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Whales have also retained leg bones, although inside their body. Some have even been found to have feet connected to these bones with complete digits.

-Hair
Whales develop body hair in the womb but lose all expect for sensory bristles around the blowhole.


-DNA
"Molecular studies by Goodman and others (1985) show that whales are more closely related to the ungulates than they are to all other mammals."
"Irwin and Arnason (1994), Milinkovitch (1992), Graur and Higgins (1994), Gatesy and others (1996), and Shimamura and others (1997) also identified the whales as closely related to the artiodactyls"
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

This means that the DNA in whales is more closely related to ungulates and artiodactyls (a type of ungulate) than to other aquatic mammals. Providing evidence for their lineage. This also helped us understand the lineage better. It was originally thought whales evolved directly from Mesonychids (an extinct form of ungulate) because the fossils showed similar characteristics. The new DNA evidence shows that they most likely split from artiodactyls not long after artiodactyls split from Mesonychids, giving early whales the characteristics of mesonychids but DNA more closely related to artiodactyls.



Fossil
Summarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html
• Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) -- Similar to the early exyclaenid condylarths, had strong canine teeth, blunt cheek teeth and flattened claws.
• Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the Mesonychids. Its molar teeth are reorganized to look like premolars. It was adapted more toward carnivory.
• Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- Molars closer to premolars and other tooth changes.
• Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- Very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shape zygomatic arch and vascularized areas between the molars. probably a close relative to the whale ancestor.
• Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Terrestrial ears, not that good for underwater sound location or deep diving. Molars have very mesonychid like cusps but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils are still at the front of the head.
• Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- Still retains four legs, although they were stubby. Had large back feet that stuck out like tail flukes but lacked real tail flukes and had a simple long tail. Long snout with no blowhole.
• Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Smaller hind legs with a powerful tail. Nostrils had moved back from the tip of the snout.
• Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- Still retained hind legs but most likely couldn't walk on them anymore. B isis might have bee a cousin to the modern whale.
• Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Hind legs almost gone but still present. 6" hind legs on a 15 foot body.
• Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene -- More advanced whales, that had lost their hind legs, but retained more primitive skull and teeth with unfused nostrils. Much larger streamline bodies with a tail fluke.

In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
1. Toothed whales:
• Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- partly telescoped skull with cheek teeth still rooted.
• Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Fully telescoped skull with nostrils on top
• Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped but still symmetrical.
2. Baleen (toothless) whales:
• Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- Most primitive mysticete whale. Most likely the stem group for all baleen whales. mysticete style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but retained its teeth
• Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) --- lost its teeth.
• Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.


-Strata
I should point out that not only does the morphological appearance show an evolution but if the fossils were organized by strata and age we would get the same list.


Conclusion
Whale evolution is a good transitional set because we not only have transitional fossils but multiple pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction. This is also a quick way around the "kind" game, since I have yet to see a definition of "kinds" that considers land mammals and aquatic mammals to be within a kind.

 

[Matthew777]

The Overselling of Whale Evolution


by Ashby L. Camp
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp

A Whale Fantasy
from National Geographic

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]by Harun Yahya[/font]
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

 

[Arikay]

Second section.
Response to AiG.


The AiG paper
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp

Sections of AiG article in bold, and quotes from AiG in blue.

Wonderful Whales
Here they mainly talk about what the adaptations of a whale are.
One thing to expand on briefly. Whales don't completely lack hair. In the womb they begin to develop hair but most of it is lost except a few bristles around the lips or blowhole depending on the species.


"because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use."

Not much here except a claim that something can't evolve because it would have had no use. We have heard AiG and others use the argument against vestigial, that just because it doesn't appear to have a use, doesn't me it doesn't.
In this case, we don't have enough information to make any assumptions about whether it would be of use or not.



Missing links
"Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution , page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids .’"

This is outdated. Current evidence shows that whales are a form of Artiodactyl that took to the water after the family split with Mesonychids.
Early whales were Artiodactyls that retained features of the Mesonychids.



"One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable."

The fossils show that the pelvis did indeed shrink. A shrinking pelvis would be able to support the hindlimbs until they were no longer needed. The pelvis would shrink in proportion to the use of it's tail. The ability to swim even slightly better than land animals that might hunt the early whales does not make them extremely vulnerable as long as they stay around water. It would actually provide a way for them to escape and survive.



"Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement."

There is no evidence the tail movement needed to be converted. The tail is an extension of the spine which can move up and down quite well, a movement which is needed for running on land. The only evidence AiG provides for this sideways movement is in another article where they compare the side to side swishing of a cows tail to the primitive wales. A poor comparison.



"The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’ 3"

If we take a look at the source for this quote, we see it is from 1962. AiG had to go back to 1962 (before much of the evidence was discovered) to provide a quote from a scientist who says we don't have fossils. What was the point?



"The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared."

Untrue, mainly because this is out of date. Pakicetus is generally considered one of the first whales and was primarily a land mammal. Ambulocetus was also able to walk on land.



"The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:
Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)"

Again, out of date. Although AiG tries to update this full article later, they seem to be hit and miss.



Ambulocetus
"This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil: "

1) The skull can tell us a lot of information. The teeth and ear designs in the 1994 fossils show that this animal was most likely related to whales. whales have a specific ear design that isn't found in any other animal, thus a similar ear design can point towards a relation.

2) This hasn't been true since 1996, a picture of the Ambulocetus fossils,

It is interesting that even though AiG has updated this article, they failed to update the fact that a more complete skeleton has been found. They even provide a quote from 1994 of the scientist who later collected the remaining skeleton in 1996. AiG tries to dodge this find in an update to another article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp) where they claim that the new find hasn't been properly peer reviewed, thus it isn't valid. Using that logic, practically nothing on AiG's site is valid. It is also not true as not only are the fossils from the same animal that AiG accepted earlier (they had to leave before they could remove the entire fossil because of fighting in the area) but Thewissen has published papers in 1996 and 2001 that refer to this find. AiG then goes on to say that even if these fossils are true, it doesn't mean anything. Again trying to dodge the fact that they are in error, and their claims that large parts of the ambulocetus fossils are missing is false.



Basilosaurus

Their entire complaint about Basilosaurus seems to be how it was drawn. Yes it is much larger than previous fossils. They downplay the important parts of this fossil. Such as the small but still existent hind-limb. The Dorudontids lived around the same time and were considerably smaller than the Basilosaurus.



Pakicetus
"A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus , and published their work in the journal Nature .13 The commentary on this paper in the same issue 14 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See illustration, above right.) "

Read the quote carefully, "All the postcranial bones" so what about the cranial bones? Guess what, they show aspects of whales. The cranial bones in the pakicetus show the beginning development of an ear made for underwater hearing. although the pakicetus's ear is poor at underwater hearing it is better than normal land mammals. This ear design is only found in whales. So we have a fossil that has an ear that only exists in whales and allows it to hear underwater, but walks well on land. Sounds like the beginning of the transition from land to water.



Vestigial legs
"Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females."

It is important to understand that evolutionists do not claim vestigial organs are useless. Vestigial means something that is rudimentary or stunted, degenerated or not used for it's original purpose.



"One myth promulgated by some evolutionists says that some whales have been found with hind legs, complete with thigh and knee muscles. However, this story probably grew by legendary accretion from a true account of a real sperm whale with a 5.5 inch (14 cm) bump with a 5-inch (12 cm) piece of bone inside. "

Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html​

That's a bit bigger than 5 inches.

AiG's whale leg article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp) chooses to ignore this piece of evidence, and they have never addresses it.



Conclusion
This article is out of date and in some places dishonest and misleading and does not refute whale evolution.

 

[Arikay]

Why thanks Matthew for most likely not bothering to read my post and link spaming it.
If you are curious (which would require the reading of my post) the "more" I was planning on adding was a response to trueorigins. But I get the feeling you wont read that either.
If you bother to actually read what I have written you will notice I have already refuted some claims in the articles you posted.

Please, don't spam my thread.

 

[Edx]

Why thanks Matthew for most likely not bothering to read my post and link spaming it..

At the risk of sounding flame-like have you noticed the way Matthew cannot come up with anything of substance in his own words? Its always a link he posts which he is telling us to go and read, and even if you do post their errors, he doesnt care.

 

[Matthew777]

At the risk of sounding flame-like have you noticed the way Matthew cannot come up with anything of substance in his own words? .

In matters of theology and philosophy, I can speak with substance and in my own words. But when it comes to the scientific side of the question, I'd much rather provide articles from people who actually care.

 

[Arikay]

And if you continue to not even bother to read or understand the threads people are going to start ignoring you.

Like I have begun.
Similar to the way I treat Bevets, I will only reply to things you have written. Using links to support your claims or pulling quotes of links that directly address an issue in the thread is acceptable.

And yes, I will eventually get around to True origins, unrelated to your post.

 

[JohnR7]

Whale evolution is a good transitional set because we not only have transitional fossils but multiple pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction.

Evos like to use Whales as a example of evolution when in reality it is one of the worst examples they can try to produce. There are many factors that severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes. Some of the more significant are: !) Their relatively small population levels. 2) They have very long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth) 3) They have a very low number of progeny produced per adult. 4) They have a high complexity of morphology and biochemistry. 5) Their size is enormous. 6) They have a specialized food supply. Because of these factors the invironmental changes needed to bring about evolution could rapidly drive whales to extinction. While extinctions of whale species have taken place there has never been a measureable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.

 

[Arikay]

So, did you bother to read the post?

You know that part where I asked people don't spam the thread, I also ment plagiarism as well (next time, post your source, http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_creationmodel.html )

Now lets quickly look at your points,

!) So you can tell the population levels of the pakicetus? What about the Ambulocetus? Nope? Thus this is irrelavent. Whales today have a small population but that doesn't mean anything when we are talking about 50 millions years ago. Using this logic because the Dodo bird has a population of 0, it must not have existed.

2) Again, this is refering to whales today, not the whales of the past, thus it's meaningless unless you can tell me the generation span of the pakicetus?

3) Again, how many babies did a pakicetus have? If you can't tell me, then this isn't a point against whale evolution either.

4) You obviously didn't read the thread. Their "complexity of morphology and biochemistry" is evidence For whale evolution. Morphology exists in the whale that relates to it's evolutionary lineage. Whales are often refereed to as a junkyard because although their DNA is complex, it is full of past genes that aren't needed or used anymore.

5) What about their size? Not all whales are enormous, the dolphin for example.

6) Specialized food suply? Ok, so now fish or plankton is considered "specialized"


You know, it would be nice if creationists actually read the thread before replying. I guess I'm asking too much.

Evos like to use Whales as a example of evolution when in reality it is one of the worst examples they can try to produce. There are many factors that severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes. Some of the more significant are: !) Their relatively small population levels. 2) They have very long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth) 3) They have a very low number of progeny produced per adult. 4) They have a high complexity of morphology and biochemistry. 5) Their size is enormous. 6) They have a specialized food supply. Because of these factors the invironmental changes needed to bring about evolution could rapidly drive whales to extinction. While extinctions of whale species have taken place there has never been a measureable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one.

 

[Asimov]

Thanks ARikay, that was awesome!

 

[JohnR7]

2) Again, this is refering to whales today, not the whales of the past, thus it's meaningless unless you can tell me the generation span of the pakicetus?.

What does a pakicetus have to do with a whale?

 

[Arikay]

Good one John.

What does a pakicetus have to do with a whale?

 

[paulrob]

First section.
Evidence for whale evolution.



Fossil
Summarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

Well, I do thank you for those beautiful pictures. As an art critic (not really), when I go to the Louvre I can readily identify a Rembrant from a Picasso. Now its not really that hard with some training - you look for brush strokes, light features etc - and you can identify an unknown painting by its commonality with another of known painter.

All you've shown in these neat little pictures is the touch of a single artist at work, and that's great proof for creation by a Designer.

No evolution involved - just a master Craftsman who created each type of body with the perfect unique specialized parts for that individual. AND that special Designer also gave each organism a great array of what I call redundant DNA that allows that organism to adapt to a wide range of environments - because if circumstances change rapidly, they need that built-in flexibility. Waiting for random chance to come up with an adaption is a sure fire way to become extinct. Eg darwin's finches can have major beak changes within two years if ther environment changes from rainy to drought. Evolution just aint that quick.

But know what? when its all over, they're still finches . . .

• Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Terrestrial ears, not that good for underwater sound location or deep diving. Molars have very mesonychid like cusps but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils are still at the front of the head.

Now I may not know much of whale evolution, but you are certainly wrong on this one, I'm sure - first there was only fragments of skull and a jaw found, and it was found along with landbased fossils - sp where do you get off adding this into the family tree for whales? As you say, terrestial ears, upper nostrils, no blowhole (we assume it didnt - not enough there to tell for sure).

So its molars look like a molar in another species of whale? just cause a squids eye looks like mine, or a dog has a prostate is no reason to assume lineage.

• Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- Still retains four legs, although they were stubby. Had large back feet that stuck out like tail flukes but lacked real tail flukes and had a simple long tail. Long snout with no blowhole.

Again, no evidence that this was a whale. So it has stubby legs - so so otters, and their feet stick out backwards, as if you could tell that from the follilized remains. No extended spine as required for whales.
Its as likely this was a giant otter as a whale

I'll pick away at other stuff in time . . .

-Strata
I should point out that not only does the morphological appearance show an evolution but if the fossils were organized by strata and age we would get the same list.

This is in error. As its been a number of years since I was here (this subject) last, I don't have the information handy, but I can assure you that several of the later whales were found in strata older then the supposedly earlier whales-in-waiting.

What you're saying is simply not fact.

Conclusion
Whale evolution is a good transitional set because we not only have transitional fossils but multiple pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction. This is also a quick way around the "kind" game, since I have yet to see a definition of "kinds" that considers land mammals and aquatic mammals to be within a kind.

Well, we do consider the martin and the mink to be land and aquatic animals, respectively. But then when was science ever affected by the facts . . O! did I say that?

Again, you only have a stream of transtion if you ignore the evidence of misplaced strata, use partial land mammals to fill in gaps, ignore the physiology of these extinct water mammals that were contempraneous with whales, etc.

Mainly conjecture with a bit of pixie dust thrown in for good measure. Sounds much like the NG version - all fancifull and full of imagination, but short on real facts.

 

[Split Rock]

Good one John.

John is just sticking to the creationist dogma that any transitional whale is really either a whale or a cow, since, by definition, there are no transitionals.

I know I posted this before, but I think that whale embryology provides good evidence for whale evolution as well as the examples you provided in the OP.

Whale embryos produce small leg-buds that in terrestrial mammals develop into legs. In whales, they are reabsorbed after forming. Also, whales start with nostrils at the tip of the snout (like most mammals). The nostrils then migrate to the top of the head during development. Great pics at: http://darla.neoucom.edu/DLDD/

In addition, whale embryos produce rudimentary teeth which are reabsorbed

Amongst toothed whales and certain seals, there is only one functional generation of teeth; this condition is called monophyodont. In those creatures, a rudimentary deciduous dentition is formed, but is resorbed without erupting.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/2_1OrganizationOfTheDentition.htm

 

[corvus_corax]

Good one John.

This was given to me by another forumite.
For future use, the next time somebody refuses to recognize transitional fossils and calls them "fully formed" by some creator, a wholly appropriate gif for your use-

It has served me well, and will likewise serve you well

 

[Arikay]

"Now I may not know much of whale evolution, but you are certainly wrong on this one, I'm sure - first there was only fragments of skull and a jaw found, and it was found along with landbased fossils - sp where do you get off adding this into the family tree for whales? As you say, terrestial ears, upper nostrils, no blowhole (we assume it didnt - not enough there to tell for sure)."

I asked you to do some research in the other thread and it is apparently you haven't bothered. You also haven't bothered to read this thread, AiG's article should have alerted you that your information is old and outdated.

First of all, the most important part of Pakicetus is the skull which contains ear bone developments similar to a whales.
Second, more bones have been found,

From, http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html

"Again, no evidence that this was a whale. So it has stubby legs - so so otters, and their feet stick out backwards, as if you could tell that from the follilized remains. No extended spine as required for whales."

Except that it contains the ear bone similar to Pakicetus

"This is in error. As its been a number of years since I was here last, I don't have the information handy, but I can assure you that several of the later whales were found in strata older then the supposedly earlier whales-to-be.
What you're saying is simply not fact."

Ok, it's an error but you can't provide evidence that it's an error.
I would like to see some evidence for this.

It could be related to one of the things I was going to address with True origins. That evolution isn't a straight line. It is believed that some of the later fossils aren't a direct line but close relatives. Close enough that they can stand in for the direct line. The branching of species also means that some whale transitionals will continue on and may live at the same time as the next transitional.
I plan on explaining a bit more when I talk about true origins.

"Again, you only have a stream of transtion if you ignore the evidence of misplaced strata, use partial landmammals to fill in gaps, ignore the physiology of these extinct water mammals that were contempraneous with whales, etc."

A stream a transitionals, no evidence of misplaced strata has been given. You need to explain the others more.

"Mainly conjecture with a bit of pixie dust thrown in for good measure. Sound much like the NG version - all fancifull and full of imagination, but short on real facts."

Hmm, I was going to say the same thing about your post.
Presenting evidence and reading the thread will get you much farther. IMHO.

 

[paulrob]

John is just sticking to the creationist dogma that any transitional whale is really either a whale or a cow, since, by definition, there are no transitionals.

I know I posted this before, but I think that whale embryology provides good evidence for whale evolution as well as the examples you provided in the OP.

Whale embryos produce small leg-buds that in terrestrial mammals develop into legs. In whales, they are reabsorbed after forming. Also, whales start with nostrils at the tip of the snout (like most mammals). The nostrils then migrate to the top of the head during development. Great pics at: http://darla.neoucom.edu/DLDD/

In addition, whale embryos produce rudimentary teeth which are reabsorbed

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/2_1OrganizationOfTheDentition.htm

WOW, it sounds like Haekel was doing the wrong fraud to mislead scientists - he should have been doing whale embryology.

Now fess up, how much oif this is fact, and how much is fiction . . .?

What things look like in embryology aint necessarily whay it gets to be, nor is it necessarily where it came from. There are no gill slits in the human baby, but some people insist on trying to prove there is. How certain are you those those buds in the baby whale have no whale-only function? the supposed tail on humans is the spine base for the muscleculture, but since we know so little about whale embryos, isn't it possible that this is the area that we don't know yet?

As in humans, the supposed gil slits develop from different tissue with different chemistry than any other look-alike structure. So simply looking like something else is no guarantee of decendancy.

 

[Arikay]

You know what is amazing, so far Every creationist post has shown that they didn't bother to read or understand the opening posts in this thread.


Paul: I would ask you to stay on topic, and provide evidence to support your claims. You constantly talk about how evolutionists produce only conjecture and full of imagination, yet that is exactly what you post. Please don't waste our time, if you want to play, go do it in another thread, I wont deal with it in this one, which is supposed to try and let people know about the evidence for whale evolution and have meaningful discussions.


Split: Thanks for the additional information.

 

[Split Rock]

Now I may not know much of whale evolution, but you are certainly wrong on this one, I'm sure - first there was only fragments of skull and a jaw found, and it was found along with landbased fossils - sp where do you get off adding this into the family tree for whales? As you say, terrestial ears, upper nostrils, no blowhole (we assume it didnt - not enough there to tell for sure).

So its molars look like a molar in another species of whale? just cause a squids eye looks like mine, or a dog has a prostate is no reason to assume lineage.


Again, no evidence that this was a whale. So it has stubby legs - so so otters, and their feet stick out backwards, as if you could tell that from the follilized remains. No extended spine as required for whales.
Its as likely this was a giant otter as a whale

I'll pick away at other stuff in time . . .

No need to bother, once you get to fully aquatic animals like Basilosaurus and Dorudon (see:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm) you will simply say they are "just whales," even though they have small rear legs. You have to draw the line somewhere, right? While you are at it, perhaps you would like to explain why none of these primitive whales have baleen. Could it be because teeth are the primitive (ancesteral) condition and baleen is advanced? Nah! That would infer evolution, and we can't have that!

This is in error. As its been a number of years since I was here (this subject) last, I don't have the information handy, but I can assure you that several of the later whales were found in strata older then the supposedly earlier whales-in-waiting.

What you're saying is simply not fact.

While there is overlap, there are no advanced forms occurring before the appearance of primitive forms. There are two possible reasons for overlap:
1. The fossil dates have an error associated with them, and it may not be true that they really overlaped in time.
2. They may have been contemporaries. No one is saying that each species evolved into the next species. We are not dealing with a straight line from Pakicetus to modern whales. Instead we are looking at twigs in a large bush with many branches.

Again, you only have a stream of transtion if you ignore the evidence of misplaced strata, use partial land mammals to fill in gaps, ignore the physiology of these extinct water mammals that were contempraneous with whales, etc.

Where is this misplaced strata?
Where were partial land mammals used to fill in gaps?
What physiology was ignored?

Mainly conjecture with a bit of pixie dust thrown in for good measure. Sounds much like the NG version - all fancifull and full of imagination, but short on real facts.

You ignore all the "real facts" that conflict with your dogma. When you put all the facts together (not just the fossil record, but the rest you ignored)) there is really only one conclusion, but it is one you must reject out of hand. Fairy dust probably comes in handy for that, huh?

 

[Split Rock]

WOW, it sounds like Haekel was doing the wrong fraud to mislead scientists - he should have been doing whale embryology.

What has any of this to do with Haekel? Whales do not go through a "fish" stage any more than humans do. Is it possible for you to do something other than repeat Creation-Scientist complaints about Haekel's Drawings?

Now fess up, how much oif this is fact, and how much is fiction . . .?

The link I provided has PICTURES. Did you look at them? Maybe you can go to the website I provided and close your eyes and pretend you don't see anything. It worked for the church back in Galileo's day.

What things look like in embryology aint necessarily whay it gets to be, nor is it necessarily where it came from. There are no gill slits in the human baby, but some people insist on trying to prove there is. How certain are you those those buds in the baby whale have no whale-only function? the supposed tail on humans is the spine base for the muscleculture, but since we know so little about whale embryos, isn't it possible that this is the area that we don't know yet?

No one said anything about gill slits. Gill slits are also called "Pharyngeal Arches." You can call them that if you feel "gill slits" implies too much. In fish they develop into gills, just like leg buds develop into legs in every mammal except whales. In whales they are reabsorbed. That is a fact. Deal with it.

As in humans, the supposed gil slits develop from different tissue with different chemistry than any other look-alike structure. So simply looking like something else is no guarantee of decendancy.

Again with the gill slits!! Can you stick to the subject at hand, or not??