[_ Old Earth _] Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian observes:

That's what scientists usually do with creationists. Beat them down with a thousand bits of evidence.

Very effective.

Crying Rock wrote:

Aren't you nice. ;)

Barbarian wrote:

Scientists do it with each other, too.

CR wrote:

Yeah, but we're Christian Brothers, not merely scientists.

Barbarian wrote

Read about the row within ornithology on the origin of birds. Rough game, but it works better than anything else we can do to learn about the world.

CR wrote:

I agree, it's still very controversial. But that no reason to be ugly with one another.
Especially if we claim to be Christian brothers. You and LK have said pretty demeaning
things to me. I think that's uncalled for. It just makes me not want to participate anymore.
I participate on pro boards and you guys would have been warned or booted already with
the statements you've made. O.K., this is my absolute last post for this thread. I'm not
interested in discussing whale evolution anymore. Ya'll have made your points and I have
made mine:

CR wrote:

Just my opinion, but the leap from Rodhocetus to Dorudon is rather large...

LK wrote:

It is my understanding - though I may well be wrong as I am not a palaeontologist - that it is not proposed that Rhodocetus is directly ancestral to Dorudon; there is no 'leap', only evidence of transitional features amongst the various remains.

CR wrote:

O.K. then, demonstrate, with physical evidence, that an evolutionary relationship exists between Elomeryx, Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and Dorudon. If you can’t do this, then we’re dealing with conjecture, not science.

LK wrote:

You are falling into the common error that, because a fossil species is identified as displaying transitional features between earlier and later species, that species must in some ways be a descendant of the one and ancestral to the other.

CR wrote/ quoted:

So the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution aren’t even directly related, according to current theory? That just makes the case weaker, IMO. If this is the case then we don’t even have the weak skeletal evidence, just conjecture to a higher order:

“…In reality, it is most likely that these "transitional forms" were only "collateral" (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their "cousins" that did evolve into modern whales…â€Â

Likely found in their imaginary cousins? The case seems to be progressing from weak to weaker.

“…10. CAUTION: Unfortunately, students may come away from this lesson with the mistaken conclusion that each of the intermediate whale forms were in the direct (lineal) line of descent between the land-dwelling tetrapods and fully aquatic whales. IN REALITY, it is most likely that these "transitional forms" were only "collateral" (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their "cousins" that did evolve into modern whales. This subtle distinction may seem unimportant, but to assume that fossils generally fit into a lineal (direct) line of descent conveys the erroneous impression of the long-outdated "Ladder of Evolution" concept. Rather, students should recognize that what we are seeing are the vestiges of many side branches in a diverse BRANCHING TREE of evolution…â€Â

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

As the following reference points out, there are contradictions, inconsistencies, and flat out failures of the molecular data to provide a clear picture of phylogenetic history and common descent (Tree of Life):


“…As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023)…â€Â

“…For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change…â€Â

“…More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either. "There are problems even in that little corner," says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches…â€Â

“…the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary...â€Â

“…The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century…â€Â


Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

CR quoted:

And, as the image caption says:

“…Pakicetus skull from Gingerich et al. (1983). Terrestrial interpretation is pure speculation…â€Â

LK wrote:

But also based on diagnostic features of the skull, and the rest of the caption does indicate that what skeletal information there is resembles Rhodocetus.

CR wrote:

Resembles Rhodocetus, which isn’t even the direct descendent of Pakicetus, but are only related via an imaginary cousin?

I don’t know, all those question marks makes the proposition appear even weaker:


This creature is extinct, so who knows what the body looked like.

CR wrote:

To what vestigial structures do you refer?

LK wrote:

For example, vestiges of the pelvic bones, tibiae and femora;

CR wrote/ quoted:

I assume you’re referring to “penis girdersâ€Â:

“…whale hind parts are internal and reduced, and they serve as anchor for the muscles of the genitalia…â€Â

Penis Girders:

http://www.darwinisdead.com/HMPBK02.JPG

Basilosaurus "vestigal hind limbs" look like the bones to which muscles attach that regulate lateral movement of the penis in modern whales:

http://bps-al.org/files/links/Basilo_ce ... 3diag1.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/paleoArt/His ... saurus.jpg

These "vestigal hind limbs" play a very important role in modern whales, and they have nothing to do with locomotion.

LK wrote:

…olfactory nerves…

CR wrote/ quoted:

“…The olfactory (smell) lobes of the brain and olfactory nerves are absent in all toothed whales, indicating a lack of smell…â€Â

“…During the foetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs, but they are greatly reduced in the adult brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

http://bcarchives.bc.ca/School_Programs ... ty-17.html

“…Scientists are still learning about a whale’s sense of smell. The olfactory nerves and bulbs are greatly reduced in the adult baleen whale’s brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

http://www.aquarium.org/documents/Whalebackground.pdf

If scientists haven’t figured out if baleen whales olfactory nerves and bulbs are functional then they haven’t figured out if they’re vestigial or not.

LK wrote:

…muscles devoted to external ears which no longer exist.

CR wrote:

Will you point me to a good academic reference addressing these alleged vestigial external ear muscles.

Crying Rock wrote:

O.K. then, demonstrate, with physical evidence, that an evolutionary relationship exists between Elomeryx, Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and Dorudon. If you can’t do this, then we’re dealing with conjecture, not science.

lordkalvan wrote:

Would you argue that if I propose that, because of shared traits, you are related in some way to Ramesses II of Egypt, but yet because I cannot show with physical evidence that a direct ancestral relationship exists between you and Ramesses II, then the claim of relatedness through shared traits is conjecture rather than science?

Crying Rock wrote:

You’re comparing human to human. The point here is that you propose land dwelling mammals evolved into very able marine creatures. I’m sure you understand the difference between micro and macroevolution…

CR wrote:

So the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution aren’t even directly related, according to current theory? That just makes the case weaker, IMO.

lordkalvan wrote:

Again, what do you mean by 'directly related'?

CR wrote:

Like make a convincing case that the skeletons that are normally displayed as evidence for whale evolution are well grounded in the scientific method:

“…I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena…â€Â

CR wrote/ quoted:

If this is the case then we don’t even have the weak skeletal evidence, just conjecture to a higher order:

“…In reality, it is most likely that these "transitional forms" were only "collateral" (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their "cousins" that did evolve into modern whales…â€Â

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html

CR wrote:

Likely found in their imaginary cousins? The case seems to be progressing from weak to weaker.

LK wrote:

You are only voicing the common complaint that gaps in the fossil record are sufficient cause to invalidate any suggestions of evolutionary relationships that bridge those gaps.

CR wrote:

Common complaints that point out the fact that an evolutionary relationship between land mammals and whales has not been established: AKA conjecture.

LK quoted:

"The tree of life was useful. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on." (Bapteste)

CR wrote:

The tree of life “WAS†useful. The next statement is too funny:

“…It helped us to understand that evolution was real…â€Â

LOL! A theory that lies in shambles helped us to understand that evolution was real! I guess ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny also helped us to understand that evolution was real.

CR quoted:

And, as the image caption says:

“…Pakicetus skull from Gingerich et al. (1983). Terrestrial interpretation is pure speculation…â€Â

LK wrote:

But also based on diagnostic features of the skull, and the rest of the caption does indicate that what skeletal information there is resembles Rhodocetus.

CR wrote:

Resembles Rhodocetus, which isn’t even the direct descendent of Pakicetus, but are only related via an imaginary cousin?

I don’t know, all those question marks makes the proposition appear even weaker:



This creature is extinct, so who knows what the body looked like.




We can speculate, but is that science?

LK wrote:

You appear obsessed with the need to establish a direct relationship amongst species that display transitional or intermediate features between earlier and later species.

CR wrote:

Yeah, I want hard evidence, not conjecture about some imaginary cousins that were the direct ancestors of today’s whales.

CR wrote:

I assume you’re referring to “penis girdersâ€Â:

“…whale hind parts are internal and reduced, and they serve as anchor for the muscles of the genitalia…â€Â

These imaginary, "vestigal hind limbs" play a very important role in modern whales, and they have nothing to do with locomotion.

LK wrote:

Sperm whales with visible, protruding hind limbs indicate that these features are vestigial and at some point in the animal’s evolutionary past played a part very much to do with locomotion. You should maybe refer to John Struthers' dissection of Greenland Right whales more than a century ago.

CR wrote:


1893? I don’t recall Struthers discussing protruding hind limbs.

Maybe you’re referring to:

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

However, I’ve never been able to find anything except a drawing of one the putative legs already detached from the whale. Supposedly the fishermen cut the two structures from the whale, gave one to a museum and kept the other as a souvenir:

“…These bones are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919. Two officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company were understandably impressed by this discovery, and they removed one of the legs and presented the skeletal remains to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, B.C. (The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship)…“

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

Note the caption for Figure 2.2.1:

“…the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale…â€Â

Arranged as found in situ by whom?

We all know fishermen are known to tell whoppers.

I can’t find a single image of the imaginary legs attached to the whale, or even the whale from which they came.

Were these imaginary legs even external:

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

Using this as “evidence†is laughable. The whole process was uncontrolled and unobserved by anyone but the crew. How convenient:

“…The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship…â€Â

“…This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966, after sixty years of uncontrolled human predation had decimated the population…â€Â

Oops, no repeatability.

LK wrote:

The Wiki reference you cite also notes that whales are known to develop what it calls ‘miniature legs’. Genital muscles always attach to the pelvis, so claiming that vestigial hind limbs (which also attach to the pelvis) are actually an important part of the reproductory system is simply a misrepresentation.

CR wrote:

Are you referring to these structures:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG

How does claiming that these imaginary “vestigial hind limbs†are actually an important part of the reproduction system qualify as a misrepresentation?

“…The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis…â€Â

James G. Mead, Ph.D.
Curator of Marine Mammals, MRC 108
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
P.O. Box 37012
Washington, DC 20013-7012

CR quoted:

“…The olfactory (smell) lobes of the brain and olfactory nerves are absent in all toothed whales, indicating a lack of smell…â€Â

LK wrote:

You omitted to refer to the fact that while olfactory sense organs are wholly lacking in adult odontocetes, in the animal’s early embryonic development the olfactory sense organ is present, but lost in later stages of foetal development.

CR wrote:

Reference? Fetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs but I haven’t read that fetal stage, toothed whales do.

CR wrote/ quoted:

“…During the foetal stage, baleen whales have olfactory nerves and bulbs, but they are greatly reduced in the adult brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

“…Scientists are still learning about a whale’s sense of smell. The olfactory nerves and bulbs are greatly reduced in the adult baleen whale’s brain. Scientists have not yet discovered whether these structures are functional…â€Â

If scientists haven’t figured out if baleen whales olfactory nerves and bulbs are functional then they haven’t figured out if they’re vestigial or not.

LK wrote:

Not all whales are baleen whales. Again, the reduction in olfactory systems from the foetal to adult stage is indicative of the evolutionary past of these animals’ ancestors.

CR wrote:

Are you claiming ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in baleen whales? Surely you know this is a completely falsified theory.

CR wrote:

Will you point me to a good academic reference addressing these alleged vestigial external ear muscles.

LK wrote:

What do you call a ‘good academic reference’? Does this meet your criteria?

CR wrote/ quoted:

‘Vestigial auditory features also exist in modern whales, including…small muscles for nonexistent external ears, which were probably used to function for moving the ears in directional hearing, a feature that is used today by most land mammals.’

Source: The Evolution of Whales, Nancy Steckler, Bellarmine University at

Nonexistent external ears? Probably = Conjecture.

CR wrote/ quoted:

I’ve never been able to find anything except a drawing of one the putative legs already detached from the whale. Supposedly the fishermen cut the two structures from the whale, gave one to a museum and kept the other as a souvenir:

“…These bones are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919. Two officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company were understandably impressed by this discovery, and they removed one of the legs and presented the skeletal remains to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, B.C. (The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship)…“

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

Note the caption for Figure 2.2.1:

“…the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale…â€Â

Arranged as found in situ by whom?

We all know fishermen are known to tell whoppers.

I can’t find a single image of the imaginary legs attached to the whale, or even the whale from which they came.

Were these imaginary legs even external:

“…Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin…â€Â

…The whole process was uncontrolled and unobserved by anyone but the crew…

“…The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship…â€Â

“…This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966, after sixty years of uncontrolled human predation had decimated the population…â€Â

Oops, no repeatability.

The Barabarian wrote:

I don't think "the whalers were lying" is a sufficient answer.

CR wrote:

Only one of many possibilities. People are known to forge things for a profit. A set of bones, not in situ, and the other purported set missing doesn’t make for solid evidence of whale evolution from land mammals or whales with legs. There are no images of the whale from where these bones were supposedly removed. And there are no images of where these bones were supposedly remove the whale.

The Barabarian wrote:

A pair of vestigial rear fins recently was documented on a dolphin.

CR wrote:

You’re begging the question. How do you know these rear fins are vestigial?

Are these extra heads vestigial:

How about these extra limbs:

And remember, you're claiming vestigial fins, not legs.

The Barabarian wrote:

We see it in various primitive whales

CR wrote:

We do? Show me vestigial legs in primitive whales. No begging the question now.

The Barabarian wrote:

The genes for legs are still there, albeit largely suppressed by other genes now.

UF scientist honored who found genes for legs, flippers, fins

[quote:yolixumm]

CR wrote/ quoted:

“…His group has discovered the evolutionary origin of the genetic program for fin development, has shown how this program was modified to form fingers and toes, and has identified the molecular basis for loss of legs during the evolution of the whale…â€Â

All this is just begging the question: “…identified the molecular basis for loss of legs during the evolution of the whale…†is not the same as “loss of legs during the evolution of the whaleâ€Â. Note that “loss of legs during the evolution of the whale†is already assumed to be true.

[/quote:yolixumm]


***All references for this post are contained on page 9 of this thread. Only ten URL’s are allowed per post.

 

[lordkalvan]

Crying Rock, what on earth is the point and intent of your last post? It seems to be nothing more than a series of C&Ps from previous posts that sheds no understanding at all on what your model of and evidence for the origin of whales might be, or on any of the discussion that has preceded that question. I'm sorry if you feel anything I have posted has demeaned you in any way; where I come from there is a certain element of verbal rough-and-tumble give-and-take in discussions. Perhaps you should grow a thicker skin.

 

[Barbarian]

It's true, CR; just copying a mass of material and reposting it with barely discernable new commentary is no a very good way to argue. Most people won't even read it, and those of us who still think there might be something worth reading in it, are greatly inconvenienced. At least improve the formatting.