Science v Intelligent Design: Whales illustrate intelligent design

And yet, ID proponents feel no need to explain why an intelligent designer would bother to design an aquatic animal that is incapable of extracting oxygen from water.

Is this the best ID has to offer?

yes, yes it is.

...but you already knew that.

ID is just the usual Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity. Given the complexity of the biosphere they could pick out examples for centuries. Oh, wait, they have been doing this since before Darwin, 150 years and counting.

It's boring and leads nowhere.

They've ignored the fossil record which shows early whales with legs, what you expect for a transitional form between land and water. Plus the DNA and embryological data.

And occasionally today, whales and dolphins are found with atavistic...legs.

It only shows how IDiots are willing to lie and show off their ignorance. Most whales have no legs, and all whales have no lungs, yet they are ocean dwellers who cannot live on land at all. Only an idiot would design a whale like that. And only an idiot would beleive in such an idiotic designer as well.

It only shows how IDiots are willing to lie and show off their ignorance. Most whales have no legs, and all whales have no lungs, yet they are ocean dwellers who cannot live on land at all. Only an idiot would design a whale like that. And only an idiot would beleive in such an idiotic designer as well.

Now let's see, if I'm an intelligent designer, how would I design an aquatic mammal? Would I give the females caps that the young could use for suckling? No, actually I think that I would put the nipples higher up on the body so that the young could suckle out of the water. Or maybe I would give the females long tubes, sort of elaborate nipples, that the young could put into their mouths to avoid ingesting sea water. Or maybe I would have them reared in nurseries in underwater caves so that they could feed out of the water. Or maybe I would know better than to try to have marine mammals in the first place and just have the young fed by regurgitation as in penguins.

Come on, really. The cap is obviously an add on that could be advantageous in intermediate forms. It might even be the best that evolution could be expected to do given historical contingency. It certainly is not the best that an intelligent designer could do, given even a little bit of planning and foresight. Why have aquatic mammals at all when fish and sharks do just fine without breasts? If you can interpret this as intelligent design you can rationalize anything. You could even say that the baleen was intelligently designed when obviously a really intelligent designer would have just given the whales fishing boats and nets. Then they could fight back against the whalers a little better as well.

"all whales have no lungs"

might want to clarify that typo

It only shows how IDiots are willing to lie and show off their ignorance. Most whales have no legs, and all whales have lungs but no gills, yet they are ocean dwellers who cannot live on land at all. Only an idiot would design a whale like that. And only an idiot would beleive in such an idiotic designer as well.

Please delete the last two comments of mine. OUCH!

if I’m an intelligent designer,

might want to clarify that typo

Hooray for saving the whales!

I'd give 'em laser-shooting eyeballs, yeah! yeah! And cool-looking flames on their flanks, like a hot rod!

the new ID: Immature Design.

Another thread that sucks! Perhaps the Disco gang can now explain male nipples.

Only an idiot would design a whale like that.

Conclusion: neither whales nor ID have legs to stand on. :)

Henry

They might want to check out The Whale Kiosk

an Intelligent Design supporter makes the claim that Whales illustrate intelligent design.

Just when you think that you have heard it all, an Intelligent Design supporter makes the claim that Whales illustrate intelligent design. I kid you not.

Well of course. Everything illustrates intelligent design. There is nothing that does not illustrate intelligent design. Even our location in the galaxy illustrates intelligent design. Shrug!

The best essay on whale evolution and creationists, is by Stephen Jay Gould (of course):

Hooking Leviathan by Its Past

My favorite line:
Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument...

As a summary for the above comments:

"If I were God, I would have done it much better"

As a summary for the above comments:

"If I had been in God's place, I would have done it much better"

Lots of questions arise when we consider a land dwelling mammal slowly turning into an exclusively sea dwelling animal:

1. Why would he want to "get back into water" ?

2. When did suckling apparatus supposedly evolve? Was it while the land mammal was evolving into a water mammal? Was it after it was totally aquatic?

3. Was the locomotion system evolving at the same time, and in total sync with the breast feeding system?

4. Was the seeing system evolving at the same time as well?

5. Whales are voluntary breathers, who have an highly sophisticated system to help them preserve oxygen (for example, in their muscles). Was this system evolving at the same time that the locomotion, the seeing, the suckling apparatus were evolving ?

6. The nostrils of the whale are placed on its back. How did it evolve all the way there, from the place it is in many land mammals? Let me guess: "Slow and gradual steps!", right?

7. Back to the suckling system. The text says:

"a watertight cap around the mother’s nipple which fits tightly around the baby’s snout so as not to allow the entrance of sea water"

Whatever happened to all those babies who had to suckle on a nipple that was not "water proof"? (Was there any?) Did they have to wait for millions of years until (finally!) natural selection gave the mother a watertight cap around her nipple?

8. Still concerning locomotion, what about the fusiform? Did it evolve at the same time, and at the same rate, as the other systems mentioned above (specially, the breathing apparatus, since whales have their nostrils on the back) ?

9. Finally, how could we falsify the belief that whales evolved from a land mammal?

I am sure many questions could be added to these.

Mats didn't even bother to read the Gould essay, did he? The ignorance, it burns.

Mats: As a summary for the above comments: "If I had been in God's place, I would have done it much better"

Lots of questions arise when we consider a land dwelling mammal slowly turning into an exclusively sea dwelling animal: 1. Why would he want to “get back into water”?

Lots of questions arise when we consider a land dwelling mammal slowly turning into an exclusively sea dwelling animal...

1. Why would he want to “get back into water”?

Mats, when you were recently accused of lying, you admitted it, then tried to justify it. You’ve repeatedly proven that you have the mentality of an obnoxious junior-high mouth-breather, whose word is absolutely worthless; and you have brought nothing of value to any adult debate on this blog. Now go back to bed and stop pretending to be an adult, or a Christian.

1. Why would he want to “get back into water”?

6. The nostrils of the whale are placed on its back. How did it evolve all the way there, from the place it is in many land mammals? Let me guess: “Slow and gradual steps!”, right?

It does so by means of a watertight cap around the mother’s nipple which fits tightly around the baby’s snout so as not to allow the entrance of sea water. Such a mechanism does not allow of a transitional form which adapts slowly to its environment.

That's what passes for argument in the ID camp? That's pathetic. The lips of a human baby are just as capable of forming a "watertight cap." (Perhaps if those oh-so-uptight Christians were a bit less squeamish about breasts and breast-feeding, they'd remember this.) So it's quite possible that the species from which whales evolved had that "watertight cap" feature BEFORE they went aquatic.

Another thing about that watertight cap: yes, it CAN evolve via transitional forms: start with no cap, then go to something that covers the baby's mouth a little more, then a little more, until you have a perfect seal. And in the meantime, as I said before, the baby's mouth can still do a lot of the work of making a sealed connection.

Also, are we sure that whales always sucled their young underwater during the period in which this feature evolved? Perhaps their nursing behavior changed over time as well: perhaps they nursed above water, and then those born with the "watertight cap" began nursing underwater.

6. The nostrils of the whale are placed on its back. How did it evolve all the way there, from the place it is in many land mammals? Let me guess: “Slow and gradual steps!”, right?

Mats shows how science deals with lots of cool questions

What does ID have to offer? Nothing, nada, niente.

Is Mats familiar with the evidence that supports the proposed transition leading to the modern whale?

I doubt it.

And Stanton wins. End of conversation.

In many embryonic whales, external hind limb buds are visible for a time but then disappear as the whale grows larger. Also visible in the embryo are rudimentary ear pinnae, which disappear before birth (except in those that carry them as rare atavisms). And, in some whales, the olfactory lobes of the brain exist only in the fetus. The whale embryo starts off with its nostrils in the usual place for mammals, at the tip of the snout. But during development, the nostrils migrate to their final place at the top of the head to form the blowhole (or blowholes).

Nasal Drift in Early Whales Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a snout above water. The nostrils migrated upward toward the top of their head, as ancient whales spent more time immersed in the water. Blowholes help to distinguish modern forms of whales. While toothed whales generally have one hole, baleens are split into two. Fig 1. Pakicetus Fig 2. Rodhocetus nostrils were higher on the skull, intermediate between its ancestors and modern whales. Fig 3. A modern gray whale can emerge from the water, inhale and resubmerge without stopping or tilting its snout to breathe.

"The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide."

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

Mats wrote:

“If I had been in God’s place, I would have done it much better”

That is exactly the point. If whales were designed by an omnicient intelligent designer, she certainly should have know better. Give them gills already, not breasts. Of course if whales are descended from terrestiral ancestors, then there should be a lot of suboptimal features due to historical contingency. Now no one can force you to conclude which alternative is more reasonable, but the evidence is certainly compelling that one interpretation is much more reasonable than the other. Unless of course the designer is an ignorant fool who lacks imaginiation or a deciever who lies for no reason. If you are not willing to subject your designer to reasonable scrutiny then you can make no testable hypotheses. So yes, even given my limited knowledge, I would hopefully not have made such fundamental errors in design, nor would I expect anyone to worship or even respect me if I did.

"The nostrils of the whale are placed on its back. How did it evolve all the way there, from the place it is in many land mammals? Let me guess: “Slow and gradual steps!”, right?"

Right again you hairless ape. As others have pointed out, all of the palentological, embryological and genetic evidence is consistent with exactly this conclusion. Not only is this conclusion justified, but it exactly explains all of the available evidence. The intermediate forms are found in the fossil record, they existed and were successful. The embryological evidence shows the vestiges of the ancient system and the path that evolved through modifications. The genetic evidence shows exactly what one would predict if the hypothesis is true as well. So yes Mats, gradual changes did occur, each of which was probably more fit than the last, each of which was subject to continued cumulative selection. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Why do you deny the clear evidence? Why do you think that slow gradual change cannot occur? Why do you think that there are any practical limits to what such processes can accomplish? And by the way, this is clearly macroevolution. If a change of this magnitude is possible in a few million years, why not much more given billions of years?

Stanton: Mats said:

6. The nostrils of the whale are placed on its back. How did it evolve all the way there, from the place it is in many land mammals? Let me guess: “Slow and gradual steps!”, right?

If you have actually looked at an accurate picture of a whale, you would realize that the nostrils are actually on the top of its head, not its back.

…. some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. Carl Wieland- 1998 Seems like the useless leftover legs actually have purpose in the whale!

Mats,

here's a short video on whale evolution for you. It's from the PBS series on evolution. I think you will find it interesting.

In response to Mats, Raging Bee asked, "...are we sure that whales always sucled (sic) their young underwater during the period in which this feature evolved?"

According to Dawkins in 'The Ancestor's Tale,' hippos are the closest living relatives of whales. In fact, they are closer to whales than to other land animals. And, according to the previous Panda's Thumb post on this topic, hippos nurse their young underwater. That would indicate that underwater nursing was very likely a trait of whales' and hippos' common, land-based ancestor. So, a gradual development of underwater nursing would be very possible indeed.

Mats, if you're actually interested in how whales evolved, National Geographic has done articles on the topic that ought to be within your comprehension level, and will answer most of your questions. Why don't you look them up?

OK, Mats: Let's, for a moment, assume you are interested in actually finding solid answers to your list of questions on how whales came to be.

One of the best places to find them in is "At the Water's Edge", by Carl Zimmer. Mr. Zimmer not only recounts the facts as they stand, but also how we got to know them, and he does so in a style which is at the same time accessible, entertaining and scrupulously accurate.

Go ahead, take the plunge; enjoy a good read and learn something about whales and a lot about Science.

... hippos nurse their young underwater.

Lots of questions arise when we consider a land dwelling mammal slowly turning into an exclusively sea dwelling animal: 1. Why would he want to “get back into water”?

Land animals go back to the water all the time, RM/NS. Most would be called amphibious right now, but who knows, in 10 million years, they could be called “transitional” forms. Beavers, otters, seals, walruses, sea lines, penguins, sea otters, sea snakes, etc..

Lots of questions arise when we consider a sea dwelling animal being poofed into existence by a supernatural being with all the physiological indications that it evolved from a land mammal over millions of years.

It’s too bad that when certain people find science’s findings to be in conflict with their religious beliefs, they choose to attack science instead of dealing with the problems apparently inherent in their own personal theologies.

Because of the superstitious beliefs he chooses to hold,

Mats hates this fact, and must dishonestly attack this single branch of evolutionary science

and impugn the motives of its practitioners,

even while implicitly accepting the many many other theories science has generated and confirmed

using the exact same means–resulting in technologies which benefit him every day and make his very existence possible. Pathetic, really.

1. Why would he want to “get back into water”?

As the late Sam Kinnison once shrieked: “Move to where the food is!”

Another thing about that watertight cap: yes, it CAN evolve via transitional forms: start with no cap, then go to something that covers the baby’s mouth a little more, then a little more, until you have a perfect seal.

Mats shows how science deals with lots of cool questions

Is Mats familiar with the evidence that supports the proposed transition leading to the modern whale? I doubt it.

”The nostrils of the whale are placed on its back. How did it evolve all the way there, from the place it is in many land mammals? Let me guess: “Slow and gradual steps!”, right?”

Right again you hairless ape. As others have pointed out, all of the palentological, embryological and genetic evidence is consistent with exactly this conclusion

The embryological evidence shows the vestiges of the ancient system and the path that evolved through modifications.

here’s a short video on whale evolution for you. It’s from the PBS series on evolution. I think you will find it interesting.

… hippos nurse their young underwater. Hmmm. Find a way to nurse your defensless young somewhere most of the predators aren’t. Don’t suppose that might drive some self-reinforcing survival advantage, now do ya Mats?

Every time the DI opens their mouths on Intelligent Design they seem to come up with more indisputable proof that the Designer is actually a moron. If I was the Designer, I’d be getting mighty irritated by now.

— Mike

Those are transitional forms?

— Mats

Are they becoming marine or are they leaving the water world?

Such as….….? What kind of “physiological indication” you have that the whale is the result of a mindless process, and shares a common descendency with whatever-land-mammal Darwinists tag it with?

— Mats

What “science finding” did I attack? The belief that the living world is the result of a mindless process? Is that science? Since when?

The only superstitious people I see in this debate are Darwinists. They believe in the magical creative powers of dead chemicals.

“Evolutionary science” is an oxymoron IF it’s evolutionary, then it’s not science. If it’s science, then it’s not evolutionary.

But it’s the Darwinists who are clear about their motives? Remember Majerus “brilliant” conclusion? Since moths rest on tree turnks, THEREFORE God doesn’t exist. Now, what kind of nonsense is that?

In other words, if I don’t accept the magical natural selection did all the creation, I can’t use my mobile phone?

There was plenty of food on land, was it not?

And a little more, and maybe a cap big enough could cover the baby while it is suckling. Woulnd’t it be great?!! This way the mother whale wouldn’t even hav to worry about predators, because they could not see him! Isn’t natural selection awsome?

I agree. Science deals with many interesting and important questions. scientists should try to give the answer that best reflects reality, not just-so myths.

Well, not throughly, I admit. However whatever story Darwinists made up to explain the origins of such a wonder of creation, the questions Darwin-skeptics made (some of which I posted above) have to be met.

You can’t just make up a story, and hope everyone to swallow it uncritically.

Nonsense. You can’t even imagine how nostrils navigate from where they are on land mammals, alll the way to where they are on whales. Think of the intermediate stages. How would she breath?!

Think in all the mutations that had to be happening at the same time in order to confer the organism a functional advantage.

You can’t mess up an organisms’ breathing aparatus like that, since mal functioning results in death within minuts.

You can imagine transitional steps on the locomotion aparatus,

but when you come to the breathing system, hold your horses, buck. This is not place for you to be messing around with your random mutations.

Should I mention mention how the mesonychids have skull anatomies similar to, if not identical to the skull anatomies of primitive whales and that there were a family of semi-aquatic, otter-like mesonychids called the "Hapalodectids," or is Mats not mature enough to handle such information?

I recall Gish giving his speel in Salt Lake City in the early 1980's after the creation science fiasco in Arkansas, but before the final ruling of the supreme court for the Louisiana case. He had a slide where he made fun of some scientists inference that artiodactyls were the closest living relatives to whales. He had a chimera that was part cow and part whale, and he was making fun of the science that had been done in the 1960's to make that inference. Well we have a lot more evidence for that inference today. What made me lose all respect for Gish was that he came back to Utah in the early 1990's. The recently discovered intermediate fossils between whales and hooved animals was making big news at the time in academic circles and we had a lot of molecular evidence to back up the inference. In his presentation to the university audience the cow/whale slide was missing, but later that week at the Back to Genesis Baptist revival he troted out the bogus slide to con the high school students with it.

By comparison the creation scientists were head and shoulders above the ID creationist scam artists in the honesty department (it would be hard to be less honest), but that should just make their supporters cringe at the comparison. Heck, the ID perps even ran a dishonest bait and switch scam on their own supporters. For years they sold them the ID scam, but what did their supporters end up with? A replacement scam that doesn't even mention that ID/creationistm ever existed in its public form, but probably does with winks and nods behind closed doors. How pathetic is that? How do you maintain a support base when you get caught lying to the rubes? How could Gish go out and present that slide to high school students when he knew that he only got away with it because they were too ignorant to know better?

Mats, if you really want to convince people of your science prowess, follow the link to the talkorigins whale article, and refute the evidence there in detail. Give us one good post where you actually go through the evidence piece by piece and show us how ID explains it -- and you can't just say "This is best explained as design" -- it's been pointed out several times that this isn't an explanation, just a cop-out.

We want details about how and why -- after all, that's what science does.

Just one thing. In fact, if you don't want to deal with whales, just pick something and show us that you comprehend the evidence and can explain each piece with your "theory".

Thanks, Karen. Isn’t it wonderful how computer models always confirm evolution?

— Mats

Speaking as a former nursing mom, I'd bet the danger facing little hippo-whale ancestors that nursed on land wasn't predators, it was heat. Nursing babies often work up a sweat getting their meals. Nursing in water, the ancient-artio babies probably were more comfortable, and consequently nursed longer, grew faster, and so on. That would allow for a very gradual evolution of underwater nursing, since the original method worked well enough until something better came along.

The idea that whales nursing their young underwater is a problem for evolution is a complete strawman. First, underwater nursing almost certainly evolved in whales' land-based ancestors. Second, there is no reason to believe it had to evolve quickly. Case closed.

Mats, you admit you're not thoroughly familiar with the evidence for a gradual transition from land animals to whales. Why don't you familiarize yourself with the evidence before you argue?

Mats wrote:

"The embryological evidence shows the vestiges of the ancient system and the path that evolved through modifications."

Lying again I see. Mats, it has already been pointed out to you that during development the nostrils begin to develop in the usual position and then migrate during development into the more dorsal placement. Now why in the world would they do this if they were not the vestiges of an ancient developmental system? Why not just develop directly in the proper place? This is true of lots of other whale features as well such as the hind limbs.

And by the way, the other examples of transitions from the terrestrial to the marine environment were not transitional to whales and you know it. They simply prove that the transition is neither impossible or even rare. Unless of course you think that pequins were originally marine as well.

You have not adressed any of the palentological, developmental or genetic evidence in any meaningful way. You are simply arguing from ignorance. Why in the world would you think that this will convince anyone who already is familiar with the evidence? When you can explain all of the transitional forms in the whale lineage then maybe there will be someting to discuss. Go away and read the articles and then come back and disciuss the evidence, or else just go away.

Mats calls MET 'magic' and a 'religion'!?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

What's your 'science', Mats? GODDIDIT?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oops. The above was actually the my comment that Mats was responding to. My subsequent comment refers to his response which was:

"The embryological evidence shows what is happening today, it does not say what was supposedly happening millions of years ago."

Yes, basically embryology does show what is happening today, the question is why it is happening this way? The answer is always the same, minor modifications in prexisting genetic developental pathways allow for a certain amount of change, but vestiges of ancestral pathways always remain because some things pathways in developmment are harder to change than others. See PZ's excellent blog on evolutionary development for many examples. So yes, Mats what is happening today tells us a great deal about what happened in the past. Mats has not even tried to address any of these issues. I wonder why?

It would be interesting to find out just what the developmental changes are that generate the nostril/blowhole migration.

It's probably a safe bet that there's some real researchers looking at that right now.

Freaky world we live in.

Mats wrote:

"Nonsense. You can’t even imagine how nostrils navigate from where they are on land mammals, alll the way to where they are on whales. Think of the intermediate stages. How would she breath?! Think in all the mutations that had to be happening at the same time in order to confer the organism a functional advantage."

You know Mats, no one else just makes stuff up without having any evidence at all. You are the only one here doing that. Gee, how could there possibly be any intermediate forms? Well, how do you explain these? They all have nostrils intermediate in position between land mammals and modern cetaceans:

Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Procetus
Rodhocetus
Kutchicetus
Basilosaurus
Dorudon
Aetiocetus

National Geographic 200(5):64-76

Why in the world would you assume that all of these mutations had to happen at the same time? The evidence is quite clear that they occured over a period of millions of years. The evidence is also quite clear that each one conferred an adaptive advantage, that is how they stuck around long enough to leave descendant species. Now how could you have possibly have been expected to know about these intermediate forms that were right there in the Talk Origins archive that has been recomended to you thirty times already?

Just go on ignoriong all of the evidence Mats. I'm sure everyone will be convinced by your non arguments. And by the way, you have no idea what I can imagine, so I wouldn't be making those claims either.

Nonsense. You can’t even imagine how nostrils navigate from where they are on land mammals, alll the way to where they are on whales. Think of the intermediate stages. How would she breath[e]?!

— Mats

Thanks Karen.

Now Mats has even less of an excuse than ever to ignore the evidence. Why in the world do you suppose that he ever thought that whales could not breathe through their nostrils regardless of where the nostrils were located? Why did he think that this was such an unbelieveable thing? Why did he think that anyone would care if he thought it was unbelieveable?

On the same page they show the evolution of horse limbs as well. So Mats, changes in legs are easier for you to believe somehow? OK, is three intermediate between four and one? Could horses walk on five toes, four, three, two, one? Or do you think they will fall over if they try to run on one toe? What possible adaptive significance could these changes have I wonder? Do you accept this evidence or not? Please enlighten us. Why is this any different form the whale evolution you deny so scornfully? Can your ignorance be so broad as to encompass even this? And if it does, why should anyone care?

"Are they becoming marine or are they leaving the water world?" Whichever ends up being the better survival strategy. Obviously.

"What kind of “physiological indication” you have that the whale is the result of a mindless process, and shares a common descendency with whatever-land-mammal Darwinists tag it with?" Honestly, it’s not hard to find. All you have to do is GOYA and look. This essay gives a very brief overview of the evidence for whale evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

"There was plenty of food on land, was it not?" For which there was obviously more competition. Duh.

"Well, not throughly, I admit. However whatever story Darwinists made up to explain the origins of such a wonder of creation, the questions Darwin-skeptics made (some of which I posted above) have to be met. And yet, strangely, these questions were first asked by scientists, and have been answered in the scientific literature, or are in the process of being investigated.

"You can’t mess up an organisms’ breathing aparatus like that, since mal functioning results in death within minuts. What you describe is natural selection at work, Mats. Unfavourable mutations would be removed from the population by the death of the indivdual(s) carrying those mutations. Mutations that actually do permit the creature to breathe efficiently, and confer some advantage, will be preserved.

"You can imagine transitional steps on the locomotion aparatus," So, do you now concede that the locomotive physiology did evolve by NS?

Nonsense. You can’t even imagine how nostrils navigate from where they are on land mammals, all the way to where they are on whales. Think of the intermediate stages. How would she breathe?!

In other words, those who survived, survived. Those who died, died. That is not an answer, Nigel.

Re "Mostly because it’s significantly easier to pass on your genes while you’re alive than it is after you’re dead."

Except for something like a tumbleweed... :p

Henry

Baleen whales have toothed ancestors Toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early fetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in fetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus (left), from Oregon, which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth. Again, these observations make most sense in an evolutionary framework where snakes have legged ancestors and whales have toothed ancestors. evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IICdevelopmental2.shtml

So Mats, you completely ignored all of my questions once again. Do you think that that will convince anyone that you are right? How do you explain the intermediate forms that you claimed did not exist? How do you explain the developmental evidence you attempted to ignorantly dismiss? How do you explain the genetic data that is consistent with all of the other data? Why do you continue to argue when you have already been proven to be completely wrong?

And by the way, the answers to your recent questions are found in the National Geographics article that I recommended and in the Talk Origins archive I recommended. Have you still not read them? Why did you only read one article about what Darwin thought? Why not look at all of the other modern data sets? Are you too lazy to try or too stupid to understand?

The tooth example provided by Glen is just another of the same type as nostril development and the hindlimb development. What is your explanation for all of this evidence? How do you explain it? Do you really think that no one can understand anything that happened in the past? Are you incapable of understanding anything that happens in the present? Why should anyone pay any attention to anything you write in the future?

Note how Mats is showing how scientific knowledge leads to rejection of previous hypotheses. So far I have yet to see ID reject its rebutted hypotheses?

Then again ID is not really about science, now is it Mats?

Do you believe that whales came from bears?

I'm astonished that no one picked up on another fairly obvious error in the article. The claim that whales are unique in possessing muscles to pump milk out of the mammary glands is obviously incorrect to anyone who has seen a lactating woman take a warm shower.

(Don't ask)

Henry J said.. Re “Mostly because it’s significantly easier to pass on your genes while you’re alive than it is after you’re dead.”

As far as I know, the only organisms capable of passing on their genes after they're deceased are some bacteria, in that it has been proven that heat-killed virulent bacteria strains are capable of transforming non-virulent bacteria strains into virulent strains, as well, in that the non-virulent bacteria took up portions of the dead bacteria's genome.

Do you believe that whales came from bears? Like Darwin originaly did, or do you envion another life form? Interesting page, with pretty much the same retoric other Darwinian “clarifications” have. What was missing from it, as far as I could tell, is the name of the natural force able to turn land dwelling mammals into marine mammals, and how do we know such force even exists.

Not to get too far off topic here, but I can think of a few more examples of organisms that may pass on their genes even after their death. Some insects such as the preying mantis which displays sexual cannibalism might qualify, or maybe some that have spermatophores or other sperm storage devices. Also, many different types of broadcast fertilizers might be deceased before their gametes fertilize other gametes, lots of plants of course and things such as tube worms, sea urchins, sponges, etc. And then there are sperm banks, but that is another story. Still, it seems unlikely that a dead whale could reproduce in the wild, therefore the argument put forward by Mats does not hold water.

If fatal mutations did occur, there would probably never be any evidence in the fossil record. That does not mean that they do not occur, only that the intermediate forms that Mats denies could obviously survive and reproduce. It never ceases to amaze me that anyone could dismiss the possibility that some small proportion of random mutations could be advantageous in some environments.

someone on the Thumb will call me on it.

Actually, the tumbleweed doesn't seem to be such a good example. They seem to be just regular flowering shrubs that have developed a unique seed dispersal system. The actual fertilization appears to happen well before the head of the plant dries up, snaps off, and gets blown across the plains, dropping seeds as it goes.

Wikipedia also mentions that the taproot can survive to regrow in the next season, so in any case it's not really accurate to say that the reproduction happens after death.

Mats wrote:

"Interesting page, with pretty much the same retoric other Darwinian “clarifications” have. What was missing from it, as far as I could tell, is the name of the natural force able to turn land dwelling mammals into marine mammals, and how do we know such force even exists."

You know full well what the processes involved are. You have been told enough times. If you can't be bothered to learn anything, here is a partial list that you can reference the next time you forget (others can feel free to add to the list:

Mutation
Base substitutions (tautomeric shifts, etc.)
Insertion/deletions (slipped strand mispairing, unequal crossing over etc.)
Gene duplications (see above and below for mechanisms)
Transpositions (reverse transcription, translocations, etc.)
Karyotype changes (fusions, inversions, etc.)
Regulatory changes (promotors, transcription factors, etc.)

Recombination
Sexual reproduction (crossing over, independent assortment, etc.)
Lateral gene transfer (transformation, transposition, etc.)

Selection
Natural selection (balancing, frequency dependent, etc.)
Sexual selection (male competition, female choice, etc.)
Artificial selection (directional, etc.)

And don't forget genetic drift, historical contingency, developmental constraints, etc.

You see Mats there are lots of names for lots of processes. We have very good evidence for each for these processes and many more. We understand the mechanisms in exquisite molecular detail. We even know many of the types of mutations and selective forces that have been responsible for the evolution of modern cetaceans. You can cry all you want about how evolution cannot accomplish this or that. You can cry all you want that you don't believe this or that is possible given mindless, unguided processes. But if you are really ignorant of these things as you claim, why should anyone listen to you? And if you were just lying, why would anyone trust you or anything you say?

By the way, each of these processes is mindless, unguided and possesses no foresight at all. That is why cetaceans are burdened with all of the inappropriate anatomical, developmental and reproductive baggage from their terrestrial ancestors. There was no force or power that decided that they had to return to the ocean, they did so in response to the environment. There was no plan, no goal, no final objective, that is why cetaceans continue to evolve.

In fact, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. The evidence is quite clear that cetaceans evolved from terrestrial ancestors. Even if we had no clue as to how it happened, it would still be true. The difference is that ID goes no farther than to say that it couldn't happen. Science didn't stop at claiming that it did. Science can explain how it happened as well.

Now Mats, we are all waiting breathlessly to hear your explanation for the SINE insertions shared by hippos and cetaceans. You did read the references I provided didn't you? You do know what I am talking about don't you? You are familiar with the evidence aren't you? You do have an explanation don't you? You are going to answer my questions this time aren't you?

Mats said: What was missing from it, as far as I could tell, is the name of the natural force able to turn land dwelling mammals into marine mammals

Mats said: Same logic all the time: God wouldn’t have done it this way, therefore it must have evolved”.

from Talkorigins: "It seems unreasonable for a perfect designer or creator to send the embryo along such a tortuous pathway, but evolution requires that new features are built on the foundation of previous features that it would modify or discard later." [emphasis mine]

Mats said: I concede that using your imagination, you can imagine many things, but there are thigns that not even with your imagination you can visualize. One of those is the evolution of the respiratory system by random mutations filtered by natural selection.

Mats said: Same logic all the time: God wouldn’t have done it this way, therefore it must have evolved”.

Same logic all the time: God wouldn’t have done it this way, therefore it must have evolved”.

So, Mats, what does Intelligent Design say about Mesonychia, beyond that they were "designed"?

OK Mats, so you apparently know how God would do things and others do not. Care to enlighten us?

What would God make the development of whales look like and why? Did she design it to look as if it had the vestiges of ancient terrestrial developmental systems? Why? Did she put the same SINE insertions in hippos and whales in order to fool us or to punish whales for their many transgressions? Did God just lie when she created the intermediate forms you still have not admitted exist?

The point is not that we know what God would or would not do. The point is that we know what we expect to see as the result of random mutations and natural selection and we know that any rational designer would have no reason to do certain things. We also know which hypothesis is supported by all of the evidence and which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Did she design it to look as if it had the vestiges of ancient terrestrial developmental systems?

The embryological evidence shows what is happening today, it does not say what was supposedly happening millions of years ago.

— Mats

Thanks, Karen. Isn’t it wonderful how computer models always confirm evolution?

— Mats

There are predators underwater as well. That is why many whales swim under their babies, not above them.

— Mats

But you know this, I am sure. But for the sake of arguement, let’s assume that such a practice (suckling underwater) is a survival advantage.

The point was not that it isn’t, but point is how did such a suckling system came into existence as the result of a mindless process?

God is not Alanis Morissette.

Not to get too far off topic here, but:

What if God was one of us

Just a slob like one of us

Just a stranger on the bus trying to make his way home

Boy, that sure would explain a lot about ID.

The comment about whales and their nipples being evidence of Intelligent Design was published in a letter to the Scottish newspaper The Herald, and seems to derive from a 1938 book by the Creationist Douglas Deraw, entitled "More Difficulties of the Evolution Theory". The claim received a pretty terminal rebuttal on 20 October, with the publication of the following letter:

----------------------------------
Joe Pieri claims (Letters, October 17) that a watertight cap around the nipples of whales that fits tightly around the baby's snout to prevent sea water entering is a perfect illustration of intelligent design (ID) as any gradual transitional form would result in the baby whale's death. If this is the best example a supporter of ID can muster, it only helps to illustrate how flawed this non-scientific idea is and why it has absolutely no place in the science classroom. First, as a whale biologist, I can say with some certainty that no such structure exists.

Baby whales use "fringes" around the edge of their tongue to help channel milk from the nipple to their thoats. This does not to prevent the entrance of sea water into the baby whale's mouth, nor is it intended to, but only serves to reduce the mixing of sea water and milk. This leaves plenty of possibilities for functional transitional forms where the tongue is only slightly more fringed and, therefore, only slightly better at keeping the milk and sea water separate, making the milk less dilute and, therefore, beneficial to the calf as it gets more concentrated milk faster.

Secondly, there is no need for baby whales to prevent sea water entering their mouths as it will not kill them. Presumably, Mr Pieri thinks that the reason the baby whale would die if sea water entered the mouth is because it might get into the airway causing the animal to drown.

advertisementHowever, unlike humans, the windpipe of a whale sticks right through its oesophagous, completely separating the airway and the digestive tract (a requirement for all whales, whether adult or baby, as they need to be able to open their mouths underwater to feed) so there is no risk of drowning while nursing in baby whales. A similar, but not as complete, separation of the digestive tract and the airway is found in all young terrestrial mammals, including humans, to allow them to breath while nursing, and while adaptation is lost in older humans through a descent of the larynx, this basic mammalian separation has been enhanced by natural selection in whales because it is beneficial to their life in the sea. Incidentally, this positioning of the larynx through the digestive tract limits the size of fish whales can swallow because if the fish is too big it may displace the larynx and allow water into the airway, resulting in death.

In fact, whales are not uncommonly found washed up on the shore having died due to suffocation with large fish wedged in their throat, demonstrating that while this design works most of the time, it is far from perfect and certainly not evidence of any ID. Therefore, Mr Pieri's "perfect" example for ID is a figment of his imagination based a poor understanding of biology and no facts.

Dr Colin D MacLeod, Beaked Whale Research Project, 1 Froghall View, Aberdeen
-----------------------------------

Nonsense. You can’t even imagine how nostrils navigate from where they are on land mammals, alll the way to where they are on whales. Think of the intermediate stages. How would she breath?!

— mats

If disembodied, how did it influence anything?

The comment about whales and their nipples being evidence of Intelligent Design

So basically, you can’t tell if they are becoming marine, or if they are leaving the water world,

— Mats

but you are sure that he is doing one or the other.

What gives you confidence?

It can’t be the evidence, since neither hippos nor any other animals seem to provide them.

I did take a look at that (not througly, I admit) and I found a gem: ”Darwin (1859) suggested that whales arose from bears, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to evolve into whales; embarrassed by criticism, he removed his hypothetical swimming bears from later editions of the Origin (Gould 1995).“

— Mats

Do you believe that whales came from bears?

Like Darwin originaly did, or do you envion another life form?

Interesting page, with pretty much the same retoric other Darwinian “clarifications” have.

What was missing from it, as far as I could tell, is the name of the natural force able to turn land dwelling mammals into marine mammals, and how do we know such force even exists.

Oh, and the dychotomy “design or evolution” is present there, thus refuting someone in here who says that it is a false framework: ”How can creationism explain such seemingly nonsensical process, building structures only to abandon them or to destroy them later? Darwin (1859) asked the same question. Would it not make more sense to have embryos attain their adult forms quickly and directly? It seems unreasonable for a perfect designer or creator to send the embryo along such a tortuous pathway, but evolution requires that new features are built on the foundation of previous features that it would modify or discard later.“

Same logic all the time: God wouldn’t have done it this way, therefore it must have evolved”.

Finaly, the article doesn’t seem to say how did the animal was surviving while in the process of becoming marine.

They don’t say how did the animal moved around during his half-aquatic half-terrestrial situation.

The article also is silent on the evolution of the respiratory system, and how did the whale survived during the process.

There is no shortage of competition in the marine world.

— Mats

Let us know when they have a scientific answer.

Even then, you misinterpret the quote. Darwin was suggesting that whales and bears shared a common ancestor, not that whales could arise from modern bears.

Besides, whales are after all smarter than the average bear.

Richard, I could have got it a bit wrong. My memory of that part is hazy at best. The point still stands, though, that Mats was trying to set up a strawman that Darwin thought that whales evolved from bears, and then make fun of it.

However, I think you may find that whales and bears do share a common ancestor. Somewhere in the Triassic, maybe, since they are both mammals.