Rate this post:
|I still want to see the common ancestor that you are sure existed according to the theory.
Sure, get digging. The evidence for Hippos and whales having a common ancestor has been presented, you ignore it. From here:
"In 2001 key fossil whale discoveries revealed the ocean dwellers to be descended from artiodactyls [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong, Scientific American, May 2002]. And several DNA analyses have concluded that whales and hippos in particular share a common ancestor. But some paleontologists have been reluctant to embrace the molecular findings because whereas the oldest known whales date back to more than 53 million years ago, the earliest hippos yet found are only around 15 million years old. The fossil trail of anthracotheres, however, doesn't peter out until some 41 million years ago. An anthracothere origin of hippos could thus reduce the gap between them and whales to just 12 million years. "This is the best work so far to link anthracotheres to hippos," comments fossil-cetacean expert J.G.M. (Hans) Thewissen of the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. "
Remember there were the other supposed ancestors based on similarity of teeth.
Yes, this was explained in the original site posted:
""In this particular case, you can't really rely on the dentition, however," Boisserie said. "Teeth are the best preserved and most numerous fossils, and analysis of teeth is very important in paleontology, but they are subject to lots of environmental processes and can quickly adapt to the outside world. So, most characteristics are not dependable indications of relationships between major groups of mammals. Teeth are not as reliable as people thought.""
Now genetic similarities place the hippo closer than anything else despite having flat grinding teeth and a vegetarian diet as opposed to the whale’s carnivorous diet.
We've already seen that teeth aren't a good comparison factor and I fail to see what one being carnivorous and one being a vegatarian means. Esplain it for us and how this falsifies the premise of whales and hippos being related.
Amazing the differences that genetics has wrought!
Yes, the differences are amazing, evolution is amazing.
“To the paleontologist, this is nonsense because whales have been around in the fossil record about 5 times as long as the hippos have. Hippos were very late on the scene, at which stage whales had already been around for tens of millions of years… and to associate these two is really an absurdity to anyone who takes the fossil record seriously.”
Yes, what's Dr. Domning's reaction to this newest data? Typical creationist quote mine, it's vague and incomplete, I'd like to see the source and the context of the quote, but you didn't provide us with it.
Perhaps Demon should get hold of Dr Domning and explain that whales and hippos had a common ancestor and there is nothing to worry about. In fact shit on him and ask him if he is a moron or what.
Well, since Dr. Domning fully supports evolution, you're the one who thinks he's a moron, not me. Interesting how you use a biologist who supports evolution when you don't accept everything else he says. And looking up Dr. Domning, we see that his specialty isn't whales and hippos but sirenians. Why should his claims carry more weight than actaul experts on whales and hippos? I mean, he's not doing the research on whales and hippos, he's not peer reviewing the claims of Boisserie and his French colleagues, what evidence does he put forward to falsify their claims, besides this one quote. We don't even know if he's seen this information yet.
The supposed common ancestor is in fact just an excuse for the hippo appearing so long after the whales.
It's a conclusion based on the latest evidence, evidence that you and your sources have been unable to falsify.
It makes the genetic info look stupid but there’s always a way around for the evolutionist –that’s why evolution is really pseudo-science as it is impossible to falsify.
How does it make the genetic evidence look stupid? And of course, we all know evolution isn't a pseudo science since it is the unifiying concept of modern biology and virtually all biologists accept it. Evolution and common descent are facts.
Ambulocetus could both walk on land and swim and had whale-like teeth. We have seals and sea lions these days that can get up and maneouver on the land a bit, that is because they were made for that.
No, seals and sea lions evolved to live on land and in the water. From here:
"We found another "missing link" this month. Or, to be more precise, a team of Canadian and American scientists found a missing link between modern seals and their land-dwelling ancestors. A report in this week's Nature magazine described fossils of an extinct land-dwelling animal, now called Puijila darwini, discovered in the Canadian arctic. Its remarkable skeletal structure provides a spectacular demonstration of how evolution modified the limbs of a land-dwelling animal to produce the flippers of modern seals and sea lions.
So, another mystery is solved, and even more evidence is piled up in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution – as if we didn't have enough already."
There’s no whale’s skeleton here Demon and the only reason Ambulocetus is called a ‘walking whale’ is because it has been placed in the hypothetical line leading to whales.
Sorry, the experts say you are wrong (what a surprise), Ambulocetus was most sertainly a whale, from here:
"In the same area that Pakicetus was found, but in sediments about 120 meters higher, Thewissen and colleagues (1994) discovered Ambulocetus natans, "the walking whale that swims", in 1992. Dating from the early to middle Eocene, about 50 million years ago, Ambulocetus is a truly amazing fossil. It was clearly a cetacean, but it also had functional legs and a skeleton that still allowed some degree of terrestrial walking. The conclusion that Ambulocetus could walk by using the hind limbs is supported by its having a large, stout femur. However, because the femur did not have the requisite large attachment points for walking muscles, it could not have been a very efficient walker. Probably it could walk only in the way that modern sea lions can walk - by rotating the hind feet forward and waddling along the ground with the assistance of their forefeet and spinal flexion. When walking, its huge front feet must have pointed laterally to a fair degree since, if they had pointed forward, they would have interfered with each other.
The forelimbs were also intermediate in both structure and function. The ulna and the radius were strong and capable of carrying the weight of the animal on land. The strong elbow was strong but it was inclined rearward, making possible rearward thrusts of the forearm for swimming. However, the wrists, unlike those of modern whales, were flexible.
It is obvious from the anatomy of the spinal column that Ambulocetus must have swum with its spine swaying up and down, propelled by its back feet, oriented to the rear. As with other aquatic mammals using this method of swimming, the back feet were quite large. Unusually, the toes of the back feet terminated in hooves, thus advertising the ungulate ancestry of the animal. The only tail vertebra found is long, making it likely that the tail was also long. The cervical vertebrae were relatively long, compared to those of modern whales; Ambulocetus must have had a flexible neck.
Ambulocetus's skull was quite cetacean (Novacek 1994). It had a long muzzle, teeth that were very similar to later archaeocetes, a reduced zygomatic arch, and a tympanic bulla (which supports the eardrum) that was poorly attached to the skull. Although Ambulocetus apparently lacked a blowhole, the other skull features qualify Ambulocetus as a cetacean. The post-cranial features are clearly in transitional adaptation to the aquatic environment. Thus Ambulocetus is best described as an amphibious, sea-lion-sized fish-eater that was not yet totally disconnected from the terrestrial life of its ancestors."
AFJ’s question is a good one.
You mean the one about why we don't think Ambulocetus is a crocodile??? Don't be ridiculous.
It had eyes raised up on top of it’s head in a very strange way and is unusually large for an early whale…..maybe it’s not on the main line (in whale evolution)” according to Dr Gingerich of the University of Michigan, one of the leading authorities on whale evolution. Don’t tell me I am misquoting Dr Gingerich either, that’s exactly what he said even though he’s a true evolution believer; he nonetheless is allowed to express his worries or doubts just like the rest of us.
Here we see your ignorance of evolution AGAIN. Gingerich expresses his doubts about
Ambulocetus (i guess it's about Ambulocetus, once again it's a vague quote with no source for us to check) being on the main line of whale evolution. So what? This doesn't mean he doubts it's a whale, it doesn't mean he doubts it's evidence of evolution. It means he has his doubts that it is directly ancestral to modern whales, that's all. And that doesn't support your claim one bit.
Some evolutionists say that Basilosaurus couldn’t have been a precursor to modern whales because this whale lived at the same time as the more modern forms and therefore could not be the precursor.
Yeah, so what? Biologists know what transitionals are, they know that they can live at the same time as more modern species. It's still transitional, it's still evidence for evolution. You don't know what transitional means.
Of course other evolutionists may have a more slippery excuse for that, like ‘just because you’re alive at the same time as your grandfather does not mean he was not your ancestor.’ I can just hear it.
Yes and it's a valid response, that you don't understand it is obvious.
As for the vestigial ‘legs’ –how do we know that they were not designed for reproduction by a creator? How do we know they are vestigial at all?
Because they are legs that are not used for walking, that's how. Why would the creator go to all that trouble to form legs the same way other mammals form legs and not use them for locomotion? Why didn't the creator give the whale a different structure specifically suited to reproductive clasping? No, they are legs, they have all the same bones as other mammilian legs, they are vestigial.
I suspect we are in fact guessing again.
Yes you are, since the only explaination you can give is "Goddidit" and God works in mysterious ways.
Nobody even mentioned Rodhocetus here –has it been duly removed from the line? I wouldn’t be surprised, they do come and
Yes, Rodhocetus is another excellent example of the evolving whale, from here:
"Rodhocetus's skull was rather large compared to the rest of the skeleton. The premaxillae and dentaries had extended forward even more than its predecessors’, elongating the skull and making it even more cetacean. The molars have higher crowns than in earlier whales and are greatly simplified. The lower molars are higher than they are wide. There is a reduced differentiation among the teeth. For the first time, the nostrils have moved back along the snout and are located above the canine teeth, showing blowhole evolution. The auditory bullae are large and made of dense bone (characteristics unique to cetaceans), but they apparently did not contain the sinuses typical of later whales, making it questionable whether Rodhocetus possessed directional hearing underwater.
Overall, Rodhocetus showed improvements over earlier whales by virtue of its deep, slim thorax, longer head, greater vertebral flexibility, and expanded tail-related musculature. The increase in flexibility and strength in the back and tail with the accompanying decrease in the strength and size of the limbs indicated that it was a good tail-swimmer with a reduced ability to walk on land."
Nobody is ignoring it and you can't explain it.
Actually you’re wrong, the evidence for creation is utterly overwhelming so it is intellectually perverse to deny it.
Then why was creationism disproven over 200 years ago?
The story of whale evolution is nothing but a story, a story developed by scientists and artists anxious to prove evolution.
Wrong again, you ignore all the evidence. Whale evolution is a fact.
There are large ancestral gaps in the fossil record indicating that animals did not evolve.
No there is not.
If whale evolution is the ‘best example’ of evolution that people like Niles Eldredge are prepared to stand behind then the theory is, for all practical purposes, dead.
Ha ha ha, keep telling yourself that. You creationists have been saying the same thing for 150 years. It still isn't dead, in fact it keeps getting stronger and stronger. The theory of evolution keeps gaining new evidence, being put to better use, becoming more and more confirmed. Evolution and common descent are a fact