How cows evolved into whales.

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
First off, all drawings were reconstructions made from paleontological evidence. Secondly, it is not proof. It is evidence that such animals did exist. For those who are willing to accept it this is evidence that whales had an ungulate ancestor. For those who need to cling to a YEC view of origins inorder to cleanse themselves from the guilt of their past it appears as it does to you.
:squint:

So what if that animal existed? I'm not arguing against that. I'm asking for proof that these animals evolved into whales. I haven't even seen evidence of such. Only evidence that a certain animal once existed.

And why are those who accept this one fossil, with no transitional fossils, the ones who are right? Those who follow blindly lose their vision.

Well if what you use to do has an effect on your current thinking then it still must be considered. It was not an attack, just something I felt should be considered.
You're a fool.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Ever notice how evolutionists can never stay on topic?

Ever notice the fascination evolutionists have with Noah's ark?

Typical conversation.....


Creationist: Isn't it a bit far fetched to think that a whale evolved from a cow?

Evolutionist: Not really, after all.... cow's have been discovered with vestigial hind legs!

Creationist: Actually that isn't true and here is proof.....

Evolutionist: How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark? Huh??? Huh??? Tell me how he did that. :ha:

Creationist: :sigh:

Well Knight perhaps you have difficulty in critically analysing your own world view, but this does not mean others should share in your difficulty.
 

noguru

Well-known member
:squint:

So what if that animal existed? I'm not arguing against that. I'm asking for proof that these animals evolved into whales. I haven't even seen evidence of such. Only evidence that a certain animal once existed.

One more time, there is no proof, only evidence. You refuse to accept this as evidence that whales evolved from a common ungulate ancestor. I strongly suspect that your reasons for such are emotional rather than logical.

Tell me Lighthouse, what in your mind would qualify as evidence that these are transitionals between an extinct ungulate and modern whales?

And why are those who accept this one fossil, with no transitional fossils, the ones who are right? Those who follow blindly lose their vision.

One more time Lighthouse, it clearly says that all the pictures are reconstronstructions made from paleontological evidence.

How is this following blindly? It sure seems like this is the pot calling the kettle black.

You're a fool.

Thank you sir. Coming from you I take this as a compliment. Oh and I see that just calling me a fool was not enough for you. You had to neg rep me as well. Bravo, my friend. I hope this helps you sleep better tonight.

You do realize that for a YEC on this site with the amount of post you have that your rep meter is very low. If you calculated what my rep meter would be had I the amount of posts you have I would have a much higher score. :rotfl:
 
Last edited:

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
One more time, there is no proof, only evidence. You refuse to accept this as evidence that whales evolved from a common ungulate ancestor. I strongly suspect that your reasons for such are emotional rather than logical.
One skeleton is not enough evidence, twit.

Tell me Lighthouse, what in your mind would qualify as evidence that these are transitionals between an extinct ungulate and modern whales?
Images of those transitional fossils, that aren't drawings of what someone think happened.

One more time Lighthouse, it clearly says that all the pictures are reconstronstructions made from paleontological evidence.
And? Where are the fossils that are the supposed paleontological evidence?

How is this following blindly? It sure seems like this is the pot calling the kettle black.
It's believing someone because they're a scientist, without enough evidence that they're telling the truth.

And how is it the pot calling the kettle black?

Thank you sir. Coming from you I take this as a compliment. Oh and I see that just calling me a fool was not enough for you. You had to neg rep me as well. Bravo, my friend. I hope this helps you sleep better tonight.
You're more than a fool. And it has nothing to do with your being an evolutionist.:nono:

You do realize that for a YEC on this site with the amount of post you have that your rep meter is very low. If you calculated what my rep meter would be had I the amount of posts you have I would have a much higher score. :rotfl:
And that's supposed to mean something? Of course, I highly doubt it. Your rep would be much lower, actually. More posts to neg rep.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(Barbarian shows lighthouse a skeleton of the earliest known whale)

So, what features does it have that are only found in whales?

The skull, mostly. The teeth and jaws are those of whales, and the sigmoid bone in the ear is only found in whales, and this one has it, and the nostrils are set back on the skull somewhat.

The first hint that they were probably right came in 1983, when researcher Phil Gingerich found a 52-million year old skull in shallow deposits in Pakistan. Although fragmentary, the skull had teeth that were nearly identical with those of Mesonychids and the Archaeocetes. The configuration of the bones at the rear of the skull, however, were different from those in the Mesonychids, and were identical to that of the Archaeocetes. Gingerich thus concluded that the animal, which he named Pakicetus, was a very primitive whale. "In time and in its morphology," Gingerich reported, "Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales." (Gingerich, The Whales of Tethys, Natural History, April 1994, p. 86)
http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html

Ironically, the first specimen was only of a skull, and people were very surprised to see that the next one was connected to the skeleton of an ungulate.

And, yes, I would like to see some more "evolved" versions.

Sure. Here's a somewhat more evolved whale...

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/images/ambulocetus2.jpg

Ambulocetus had an even more whale-like skull, more adapted for hearing underwater. But it had functional legs, and could still move clumsily on land, a bit more so than a sea lion. And the oxygen isotopes in the teeth indicate that while it was capable of venturing out to sea, it still had to return to land to drink fresh water.

And then there's...

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/520Cetartiodactyla/Images/ProtocetidaeA5.jpg

Rhodocetus was larger, and with smaller legs that would have made moving about on land rather difficult (but still possible) and the oxygen isotope ratios in the teeth now show that it drank salt water, and therefore did not need to return to land at all.

And then...
http://www.toyohaku.gr.jp/sizensi/03event/tmnh-h16/tmnh-h16tokuten/dorudon1.jpg

Dorudon was pretty much like Rhodocetus, but much larger, with smaller legs, and the pelvis was no longer connected firmly to the spine. It could not leave the water at all.

And then...

http://daley.med.harvard.edu/assets/Willy/Basilosaurus.jpg

Basilosarus was truly huge, with even smaller legs, and the rear legs were now tiny relative to the huge body.

There were other trends as well. The nostrils of these are gradually moved farther back on the skull until in Basilosaurus, they are almost like the modern blowhole.

And the spine changed gradually from a very rigid ungulate spine to an extremely flexible whale spine. And this transition explains why whales have horizontal flukes. Ambulocetus had large, wide feet, like that of an otter, and swam by vertical undulations, as an otter does. And more evolved whales with broader tails, used the same motion, which required a horizontal fluke, rather than a vertical fin.

I'd like to see the "process" that took that and turned it into a whale.

This is only an outline. You might want to read "At the Water's Edge" by Carl Zimmer, to get more detail. It's a fascinating and well-documented story.

Also, if there were no platypuses would you think Ducks and Beavers evolved from them, since they have features that are only found in ducks,

Platypuses have no features found only in ducks. They do have some features found only in reptiles and other monotremes, however. The "bill" is just a figure of speech; it is not remotely like the beak of a duck, although it does resemble the "bill" of some extinct reptiles. Since genetic studies show that they are not the ancestors of placental mammals, I would not think that they are ancestral to beavers, either. Beavers are more closely related to the advanced therapsid reptiles,(they share a simplified mammalian shoulder girdle) and platypuses don't have any features found otherwise only in beavers.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
So he concluded it was a whale, and when the next one was found attached to a skeleton with legs, they decided that whales descended from an animal with legs, rather than explore more thoroughly to see if they were wrong? Sounds like evolution theory to me.
 

SUTG

New member
So he concluded it was a whale, and when the next one was found attached to a skeleton with legs, they decided that whales descended from an animal with legs, rather than explore more thoroughly to see if they were wrong? Sounds live evolution theory to me.


I can see where your problems is.
 

noguru

Well-known member
One skeleton is not enough evidence, twit.

There is more than just one skeleton. There are fossils from other transitionals used for the reconstructions.

Images of those transitional fossils, that aren't drawings of what someone think happened.

You obviously have a poor understanding of what paleontologists do.

And? Where are the fossils that are the supposed paleontological evidence?

They are kept in a very potected place. But you might be able to see the casts made from the fossils, if you ask the right people.

It's believing someone because they're a scientist, without enough evidence that they're telling the truth.

Well what evidence do you want?

And how is it the pot calling the kettle black?

You're more than a fool. And it has nothing to do with your being an evolutionist.:nono:

Great, I am glad you settled that. Now can you explain the logic behind this claim?

And that's supposed to mean something? Of course, I highly doubt it. Your rep would be much lower, actually. More posts to neg rep.

Well I am not suprised you fail to understand. What comes around goes around, my friend.

So you rep meter started very high and has been decreasing all this time? :confused:
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
There is more than just one skeleton. There are fossils from other transitionals used for the reconstructions.
And where are they? How many are there? Enough to prove that they evolved into whales, slowly over millions of years? Are there enough to show each step that took place, as they evolved?

You obviously have a poor understanding of what paleontologists do.
They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.

They are kept in a very potected place. But you might be able to see the casts made from the fossils, if you ask the right people.
They can't take pictures and post them on the internet? Have you ever seen these fossils? Or are they like the golden plates Joseph Smith "found."

Well what evidence do you want?
I already told you.

Great, I am glad you settled that. Now can you explain the logic behind this claim?
You are a fool, because you brought up something in my past, that I didn't even do that much, and used it against me as if it prohibited me from doing anything else. And you're a hypocrite.

Well I am not suprised you fail to understand. What comes around goes around, my friend.
Rep means nothing, because too many people are cheating the system. So my rep meter is no reflection on my beliefs, or my post count, dipstick.

So you rep meter started very high and has been decreasing all this time? :confused:
You would have more posts to neg rep, moron. Not to mention, when I started posting here they didn't have rep. It's fairly new. And I also haven't posted on here as regularly as I am this week, for the past four years, either. So of course my rep isn't going to be extremely high. Of course, that idiot BillyBob didn't help any when he neg repped me three times a day, every day for months when I told him his joke was getting old.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Well Knight perhaps you have difficulty in critically analysing your own world view, but this does not mean others should share in your difficulty.
In this case we aren't analyzing "my world view", which only further demonstrates the point I was making.
 

mighty_duck

New member
They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.
This isn't limited to paleontologists, or even to scientists, but is true of all humans and all their proclamations of truth.

We humans have limited knowledge, and yet we still proclaim to know things. It isn't an "absolute" truth (such things are reserved for omniscient beings), but it is what us humans would call truth, knowledge or facts.
 

noguru

Well-known member
And where are they? How many are there? Enough to prove that they evolved into whales, slowly over millions of years? Are there enough to show each step that took place, as they evolved?

They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.

They can't take pictures and post them on the internet? Have you ever seen these fossils? Or are they like the golden plates Joseph Smith "found."

I already told you.

You are a fool, because you brought up something in my past, that I didn't even do that much, and used it against me as if it prohibited me from doing anything else. And you're a hypocrite.

Rep means nothing, because too many people are cheating the system. So my rep meter is no reflection on my beliefs, or my post count, dipstick.

You would have more posts to neg rep, moron. Not to mention, when I started posting here they didn't have rep. It's fairly new. And I also haven't posted on here as regularly as I am this week, for the past four years, either. So of course my rep isn't going to be extremely high. Of course, that idiot BillyBob didn't help any when he neg repped me three times a day, every day for months when I told him his joke was getting old.

Your comments give me a good understanding of your character. :yawn:
 

Mim...

New member
Lighthouse, are you going to actually address all the evidence Barbarian presented? It's a well researched post, I think it deserves acknowledgment at the very least.

Lighthouse said:
They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what paleontologists do. Or all scientists, for that matter. They don't "proclaim truth", which (as is very clear from the many posts regarding truth and "Truth"®) is very subjective. It is evidence. Evidence which you seem to be completely ignoring. You ask for transitional fossils, they are presented to you, so now what?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
So he concluded it was a whale,

Right. Remember, he only found the skull on the first one. So it had a skull shaped like a primitive whale, Archaeocyte (primitive whale) teeth, and the unique structure of the ear found only in whales. Go figure.

and when the next one was found attached to a skeleton with legs, they decided that whales descended from an animal with legs,

This had been predicted long before, of course, based on other anatomical data. But no. The first question was "are you sure these are really the right skull for the right body?" And it was. And later, others were found like it. Then it was "let's go back and take another look at the skull." And it was confirmed to be the skull of a whale. So, there really wasn't another way to look at it.

Sounds like evolution theory to me.

You're a little confused. The process is the scientific method. The facts uncovered are evidence. The theory merely predicted that such animals as Pakicetus must have existed.

But it didn't end there. Turns out that there are whales from time to time that are born with hind legs, complete with femur and tibia. And they have an ungulate digestive system.

And when we were able to do DNA studies, it turns out whale DNA fits nicely into the ungulate group.

It is confirmations of predictions from the theory, such as these that make scientists so confident in it.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
You people are idiots. All I got was four pictures of actual skeletons, and everything else were drawings. Where are the fossils, and why are there no pictures of them available, if they have been found? And why does it have to mean that an animal evolved into something else, just because it no longer exists?

You say you have all this evidence, and yet, none of it proves anything. You even admit that. So why should I believe it, if nothing has been proved? There's a shadow of doubt remaining, can you remove it?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You people are idiots. All I got was four pictures of actual skeletons,

You asked for transitionals. There they are. Don't get angry. Get smart. Why do you think they told you that these skeletons didn't exist? They lied to you. And these are far from the only ones. Some species now have dozens of skeletons available.

Where are the fossils,

Mostly in museums (you may have noticed that several I showed you were on public display) or in research labs.

and why are there no pictures of them available, if they have been found?
Those are photographs.

And why does it have to mean that an animal evolved into something else, just because it no longer exists?

We call them intermediates, because we can show how the population of whales changed over time. The nostrils, you might have noticed, gradually moved back in the skull, as we looked at whales over that time.

You say you have all this evidence, and yet, none of it proves anything. You even admit that.

Science never "proves" anything. It just accumulates enough evidence to make it foolish to deny a theory. We can't prove the sun will be shining tomorrow, but the evidence is incontrovertable that it will.

So why should I believe it, if nothing has been proved?

For the same reason you don't walk off the top of high buildings. We can't prove you'll fall, but we have enough evidence to be sure you will.

There's a shadow of doubt remaining, can you remove it?

For an honest and rational person, it's gone.
 

Mim...

New member
So let me get this straight, Lighthouse. You're saying that we are idiots for believing something for which we have huge amounts of evidence, yet you believe stories written in a book, thousands of years ago, with no evidence?
 
Top