Whale hands

The Designer thought about how to make a flipper, and naturally chose a leg bones, wrist bones, and metacarpals.

Who wouldn't?

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: The Designer thought about how to make a flipper, and naturally chose a leg bones, wrist bones, and metacarpals. Who wouldn't? Glen Davidson

Out of the mouths of babes ...

On another thread, some loony was arguing that the obvious common sense answer was all that was needed in science. Well here it is Robert. Or are you going to come up with some convoluted reason why your "logic" doesn't apply here?

Nevertheless it is a hand.

I have a loose end I was hoping would be resolved somewhere. All evidence says cetaceans are artiodactyls, which are the even-toed ungulates. Not sure why the above specimen shows 4 digits, but whale and dolphin flippers are generally shown to have 5 digits. So, what is up with that?

I think the knob pointing upwards is the 5th... I think

I did notice that. I think I'd agree with ogremk5's assessment.

So, I just undertook a covert mission to sneak into the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and check out which whale it was I photographed (okay, I just walked downstairs and entered the front door as if I knew where I was going, and no one asked).

It is labeled as from of Sei whale. Google search resulted in this blog post about reconstructing an old sei whale flipper: http://thewhaleboneblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/fixing-flippers.html

So, many whales do have five "fingers", but it seems like the particular one on display here may have lost one. Although, the skeleton in the blog above appears to have much longer fingers than the one in our museum.

Melissa,

how old is it?

Looks like that whale was giving somebody the finger!

diogeneslamp0 said: how old is it?

Did your daughter recognize the whale hips? They're a lot harder to spot, but pelvic bones are indeed present in the fin whale skeleton hanging in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Not sure about the Sei whale . . .

We only have a flipper and a skull here.

Question for a whale anatomist: Is there any independent movement in those whale fingers? Can they flex them at all, or move them independent of each other? Or are they basically a rigid structure making the internal support of a basically rigid flipper, whose only movement is in the "shoulder" or whatever, where it joins the body? Are the finger joints now inflexible and basically vestigial?

"she interrupted me to point at this part and tell me that it was the “hand”."

Yet another comment that we will never hear at AIG's Creation "Museum"

Just Bob said: Question for a whale anatomist: Is there any independent movement in those whale fingers?

So maybe that little thingy on the whale hand above is a very small digit. I do not know the orientation of the picture, but if anterior is to the top, then that possible digit is digit #1. In other whales it is larger and is clearly a digit. Now whales are genetically more closely related to hippos than hippos are to other artiodactyls. Do hippos have 4 or 5 digits? I am going to look for it, stand by...
Ok, they have 4 well developed toes, which are labeled #2-4. Their skeletal anatomy looks like they also have a vestigial medial toe (which is anterior in limb anatomy), so that could be a vestigial #1 digit! OK, cool. I wish I could enter the url I found, but I do not know how to do that properly.
Now one can propose that the hippo-whale group of artiodactyls had reduced but not lost their #1 digit. This could be extended to other artiodactyls, but I have not looked. Then whales (or SOME whales) have secondarily enlarged this digit! It all makes sense! Hooray!
Ok, I feel better now.

Certainly whales are artiodactyls or the sister taxon thereof, as they found the ankle bones of Rhodhocetus.

Mark Sturtevant said: I wish I could enter the url I found, but I do not know how to do that properly.

Thanks! And so here we go:
Hippo foot

Scroll down on the page provided by this link.

I'm no biologist, but the junction between the really big "arm" bones and the relatively dainty "wrist" bones seems rather abrupt, like the two sets of bones don't belong together. Wouldn't one expect the ends of the "arm" bones to taper down to "blend in" more with the "wrist" bones? Or is that "common sense" notion leading me astray? Or, perhaps, if the whole assemblage is held (relatively) rigidly in place (as in a flipper) and the bones don't have to move (much) wrt each other, maybe the relative sizes of the bones are immaterial, as contrasted with a more mobile, more weight-bearing joint of a land animal?

First time visitor here.

"If evolution was true ALL creatures would be crawling with bits and pieces of former anatomical bodies they had."

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, it's a little hard to read what you've written. What do you mean by 'anatomical bodies'?

However, as I understand it, all creatures are, indeed, crawling with 'bits and pieces' of their ancestral forms. This is a trivial observation that Mendel could have made in his garden those many years ago. Perhaps you don't understand the point being made here?

Mark Sturtevant said: I have a loose end I was hoping would be resolved somewhere. All evidence says cetaceans are artiodactyls, which are the even-toed ungulates. Not sure why the above specimen shows 4 digits, but whale and dolphin flippers are generally shown to have 5 digits. So, what is up with that?

Speaking of whales, the American Museum of Natural History has a new whale exhibition from Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, along with rare fossils from its own collection. Fascinating! It's amazing to see the ridiculously small vestigial hind limbs on some of the ancient whales.

Scott F said: the junction between the really big "arm" bones and the relatively dainty "wrist" bones seems rather abrupt, like the two sets of bones don't belong together.

Scott F said: I'm no biologist, but the junction between the really big "arm" bones and the relatively dainty "wrist" bones seems rather abrupt, like the two sets of bones don't belong together.

One of the minor differences between rorquals (and their sister-group the gray whales) and all other cetaceans is that rorquals have completely lost digit 1, and have only four digits

Mark Sturtevant said:

One of the minor differences between rorquals (and their sister-group the gray whales) and all other cetaceans is that rorquals have completely lost digit 1, and have only four digits

Thank you! This had been bugging me.

Whale hands I loved beside the Shalimar

Could we please refrain from the crude language exhibited by some of the writers? It really isn't necessary to make one's point clear.

Scott F said: It does bite that such charlatans get paid more, and get more attention, than those honest folk who know what they're doing. The life of an accomplished liar often seems to be a pretty easy, cushy one. Me? I'll stick with integrity.

So with the help of the kind people here, I have now developed a clearer understanding of the # of digits in the whale flipper. A fairly simple scenario suggests itself:
1) Artiodactyls had reduced digit #1 to a vestige, so as a group they have 4 functioning digits. This is why they are called the 'even toed ungulates'. We can see what looks like a vestigial digit in some cetaceans and also in hippos.
2) Some cetaceans have secondarily re-enlarged this vestigial digit, and that is why they are seen to have 5 digits. This could be due to selection pressure to widen the bony support of their flipper.

DavidK said: Could we please refrain from the crude language exhibited by some of the writers? It really isn't necessary to make one's point clear.

balloonguy said:

DavidK said: Could we please refrain from the crude language exhibited by some of the writers? It really isn't necessary to make one's point clear.

Fuck, no. This isn't Disneyland.

diogeneslamp0 said:

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

And you should be proud of your daughter too! It seems so obvious, I just don't understand why creationists would prefer to deny just how amazing the history of life is! I also think if there was a God, evolution would be a much more interesting, cooler way to do things than poofing things into existence.

It seems so obvious, I just don’t understand why creationists would prefer to deny just how amazing the history of life is! I also think if there was a God, evolution would be a much more interesting, cooler way to do things than poofing things into existence.

It seems so obvious, I just don’t understand why creationists would prefer to deny just how amazing the history of life is! I also think if there was a God, evolution would be a much more interesting, cooler way to do things than poofing things into existence.

DavidK said: Could we please refrain from the crude language exhibited by some of the writers? It really isn't necessary to make one's point clear.

Yeah, why do they insist that belief in God requires believing that God micro-manages all the details? What if the goal doesn't depend on those kinds of details?

The group excludes whales (Cetacea) even though DNA sequence data indicate that they share a common ancestor, making the group paraphyletic. The phylogenetically accurate group is Cetartiodactyla (from Cetacea + Artiodactyla) [2].

AltairIV said: Not knowing much about the topic myself, I trotted over to the wikipedia article on Artiodactyla, which has this to say:

The group excludes whales (Cetacea) even though DNA sequence data indicate that they share a common ancestor, making the group paraphyletic. The phylogenetically accurate group is Cetartiodactyla (from Cetacea + Artiodactyla) [2].

Following from there to Cetartiodactyla leads to a more detailed discussion on how whales relate to Artiodactyla, and how the cladistical definitions are having to be redrawn in response to the genetic findings.

Now that is an interesting development. The article in Wikipedia shows the same branching relationships that I know -- that the hippos are a sister taxon to the cetaceans and so on, but the terms are now revised a little. I am puzzled about what to me looks like a discrepancy between the text and the picture. Both articles clearly state that the group known as artiodactyla now 'excludes' the cetacea, I get that, but the cladogram seems to show that the 'artiodactylomorpha' encompasses all of the groups in a traditional way -- whales, hippos, pigs, and camels. Maybe 'artiodactylomorpha' is not the same thing as 'artiodactyla'?

I'd expect ‘artiodactylomorpha’ would be more generalized than 'artiodactyla' and include extinct species, from the name.

'k.

It's also possible that the cladogram wasn't updated when the article was, or vice versa.

balloonguy said:

DavidK said: Could we please refrain from the crude language exhibited by some of the writers? It really isn't necessary to make one's point clear.

Fuck, no. This isn't Disneyland.

bigdakine said:

balloonguy said:

DavidK said: Could we please refrain from the crude language exhibited by some of the writers? It really isn't necessary to make one's point clear.

Fuck, no. This isn't Disneyland.

Its not a locker room either.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: The Designer thought about how to make a flipper, and naturally chose a leg bones, wrist bones, and metacarpals. Who wouldn't? Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: The Designer thought about how to make a flipper, and naturally chose a leg bones, wrist bones, and metacarpals. Who wouldn't? Glen Davidson

And how would you design a flipper for a large aquatic mammal to steer itself with? Just as the panda's "thumb" works perfectly well, so does the cetacean flipper. Let us also not forget the dorsal fin and fluke that whales use to power themselves along. From what terrestial animal feature did they evolve from? Gotcha!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: And how would you design a flipper for a large aquatic mammal to steer itself with?

diogeneslamp0 said: If HANDS are good for steering aquatic animals, why didn't God give them to sea snakes, fish, sea horses, squids, octopuses, ammonites, clams, oysters, nudibranchs, tunicates, amphioxus, limpets, jellyfish etc. etc.?

Uhh, so what?

Why even make them mammals?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

diogeneslamp0 said: If HANDS are good for steering aquatic animals, why didn't God give them to sea snakes, fish, sea horses, squids, octopuses, ammonites, clams, oysters, nudibranchs, tunicates, amphioxus, limpets, jellyfish etc. etc.?

Whales are aquatic mammals, unlike fish who use paired fins for steering because that suits their own peculiar physiology and form of locomotion

Whales are aquatic mammals, unlike fish who use paired fins for steering because that suits their own peculiar physiology and form of locomotion

One of the most evolutionarily telling aspects of the modification of the mammalian forelimb into the whale's flipper is how ancestral articulations begin to form during development, but, in order to act better as a flipper, the joints fuse.

For instance, the radius and the ulna fuse to the humerus at the "elbow," which then does not act like a joint. Well, why is there a "fused elbow" at all? What design purpose does it serve? None, it's just what evolution has to deal with, and the problem of beginning with articulated bones is something that evolution has to solve at some expense, with potential weaknesses and developmental problems from this complicated development of unarticulated bones out of what had been articulated bones.

Notably, life would be highly complex with or without evolution, but much complication is due to evolution. Obviously, any intelligent designer would make things more simply, especially it would make development more simple. Instead of that, bones often form as if they are going to become articulated, then fuse, a whole set of complications that have nothing to do with purpose or design. Our coccyx does the same thing, notably.

So while there is no design reason to choose mammalian forelimb "design" for making a whale flipper, even if some kludgy designer just did so out of laziness or to meet a deadline, clearly there's no reason to start putting in ancestral articulations during development, only to later fuses them to make a more rigid structure. And it's not just "poor design" like IDiots try to pretend that it is, it is "poor design" solely because it is developing more rigid limbs out of limbs that ancestrally were articulated for land movements.

Glen Davidson

Glen,

Do you have any references for the embryonic bone fusion in whales and the human tailbone?

I really wanted to write of carpels, metacarpels, and phalanges being fused, as I suspect that most, if not all, actually are in whale flippers. But I couldn't verify those specifically quickly on the web, so I used the "elbow joint" as an example simply because it showed up soon in a search, here.

At this moment I have no reference for coccyx fusion, but as I recall those are several of the bones that fuse between early development and adulthood. Such fusions are rampant in animals, in fact, with bird wings still becoming rigid, solid structures from bones that were ancestrally separated and still begin as separate bones, then fuse. No, I don't have any source right now either, but I know this one especially well from past research, such as one book (possibly on Google now?).

Glen Davidson

First paragraph here for the coccyx.

I know these aren't fantastic references, but they appear to be reasonably knowledgeable sources, and, importantly, available to anyone accessing this forum.

Glen Davidson

Doesn't a human fetus, at a particular stage, have a proto-coccyx that actually curls forward (towards the front), like a (gasp) TAIL? And I believe it has more proto-tail bones than actually get fused into the coccyx. The rest are simply reabsorbed.

That's DESIGN?

There is a drawing of the (reduced number of) early cartilaginous phalanges separated in the embryo (b), and the adult fused wing bones (a), here, about three-quarters of the way down. There are photos of the separate "bone" in embryos out there, of course, but I don't find a really great source on the web discussing the fusion of ancestrally-separate bones during bird-wing development.

Glen Davidson

Also consider birds, which in their embryonic stages have free metacarpals and metatarsals, as did Archaeopteryx, and as do reptiles, including dinosaurs (making the free bones a "preserved ancestral feature" in Archae. Before the bird hatches, the tarsals fuse to the metatarsals ( i.e the feet fuse to the ankle), and the carpals fuse to the metacarpals (i.e. the "hands" fuse to the wrists).

Often I think evolution arguments are too contemporary and abstract, while a lot of the older arguments can be seen, make no sense as design, and make a great deal of sense evolutionarily.

diogeneslamp0 said: No, you haven't answered the question, that's begging the question. Why does your invocation of "mammal" constrain anatomy? By invoking the whole concept of "mammal" you're implicitly invoking the unique nested hierarchy in taxonomy, a tree of life, and that's begging the question, because "mammal" as a concept constrains anatomy ONLY IF the unique nested hierarchy or "tree of life" constrains relationships between animals. So the question becomes: why does your invocation of "mammal" constrain anatomy?

If mammals had ray-fins like ray-finned fish, it would violate the unique nested hierarchy. So would hands on sea snakes, fish, sea horses, squids, octopuses, ammonites, clams, oysters, nudibranchs, tunicates, amphioxus, limpets, jellyfish etc. etc.

If these were all designed by an all-powerful God, why can't such a god mix-n-match properties in a fashion which VIOLATES the unique nested hierarchy, aka the tree of life?

Just focus on sea snakes for a moment. Wouldn't sea snakes steer better with hands? And for that matter, if they had gills, they wouldn't need to return to the surface periodically to breathe. And if they had a better system for absorbing fresh water from salt water, they wouldn't have to wait at the surface for it to rain so they could catch fresh water on their tongues (true, they have to do that.

You know when they create a face from a skull to get an idea of what a person looks like, well if we found the whale and didn't know that this was a whale skeleton and started a reconstruction from just the whale hand skeleton, what would the person who sculptures make from the bones of the whale, a hand with fingers or the end of fins and what would decide his judgment. The end product could give the impression of something a lot different than a whale. I think something more like a crocodile or a lizard.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: 2. Cetacean dorsal fin: just like those of fish.

Oh, also, cetacean dorsal fins are made of connective tissue only, unlike fish dorsal fins, which have bones. Then there's the fact that no cetacean known has multiple dorsal fins, whereas many fish do. Cetacean dorsal fins are in fact new structures unique to them, entirely unrelated to the dorsal fins of fish.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8s9jYl1GxJmKcR8BeM2psBJchUKVHxLs said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: 2. Cetacean dorsal fin: just like those of fish.

Except, you know, not. Fish have pterygiophores. Cetaceans don't. Wonder why that is...

So that would be a no. He has no explanation whatsoever why the historical constraint so characteristic of evolution is displayed so prominently by the cetaceans. And no explanation whatsoever why they share so many characteristics with terrestrial mammals. And no explanation why they completely lack so many fish characteristics that would be so helpful in the r=environment they live in.

I also suspect he has no explanation for the fossil evidence or the genetic evidence or the developmental evidence that cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals either.

Nevertheless they did evolve.

So you see, the anatomy of a whale is NOT a mish-mash of mammal and fish. The dorsal fin and horizontal tail are unique contrivances for a swimming mammal, like the fins with fin rays were unique contrivances for ray finned fishes. But whale flippers are based on walking legs, and they breathe air, and nurse their young, which is what a marine mammal probably would do if it returned to the sea. The tail is horizontal, but again that fits b/c mammals flex their spine vertically when they run on land. So naturalists concluded whales are mammals centuries ago. No fish really has the derived traits of a tetrapod, let alone a mammal. None have nipples, or hair. Find me one instance of such a thing, and I will have some explaining to do.
Whale lungs btw are most similar to ruminant lungs, with extra lobes, and their stomachs have extra chambers. When these facts came to light over 100 years ago it was proposed that whales, oddly, might be some sort of hooved mammal. Then scientists found a beautiful series of fossils that traces whales to a particular group of hooved mammals. Finally we also have a trove of genetic markers – huge numbers of genetic markers-- that place the whales firmly amidst that same group of hooved mammals.
These facts are not just cherry picked because scientists have some prior belief and so they find and report only the results that confirm their beliefs. What scientists believe – what they infer-- are formed from the facts.

OK, but why did evolution make the whale's fingers look like chess pieces?

diogeneslamp0 said: Thank you HxLs, you beat me to it. The flukes are made of cartilage. Whales have no genuinely novel structures made of bone.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Thank you HxLs, you beat me to it. The flukes are made of cartilage. Whales have no genuinely novel structures made of bone.

So what if the dorsal fin and flukes are made of cartilage and not bone? Why does that matter? The fact is that both features are not seen in other mammals, and the former is, at the very least, analogous to the structure used by fish. Overall, cetacean physiology is unlike anything found among mammals since it is designed for life solely in the water. Whales are not just "modified" artiodactyls.

DS said:That's the point. It is NOT the same as the fin of a fish. Therefore, the whale is NOT a "mish-mash" of parts shared with different phyla. Therefore, whale anatomy is entirely consistent with the process of evolution and inconsistent with any sort of intelligent design or planning. Whales were obviously NOT designed for life in the water. Your hypothesis is falsified.

But then again, this is only one line of evidence. All of the other independent lines of evidence also lead inevitably to the conclusion that whales evolved form terrestrial mammals. Whales are just modified artiodactyls. Why not just admit it?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said:That's the point. It is NOT the same as the fin of a fish. Therefore, the whale is NOT a "mish-mash" of parts shared with different phyla. Therefore, whale anatomy is entirely consistent with the process of evolution and inconsistent with any sort of intelligent design or planning. Whales were obviously NOT designed for life in the water. Your hypothesis is falsified.

The dorsal fin in whales is *analogous* to those found in fish, and is not found in any other species of mammal. So both fish and whales use more or less the same physiological structure to stabilize their movement through the water. Their means of locomotion is also similar, except that the flukes go up and down whereas the caudal fin swishes from side to side. But that is unlike how any mammal swims.

But then again, this is only one line of evidence. All of the other independent lines of evidence also lead inevitably to the conclusion that whales evolved form terrestrial mammals. Whales are just modified artiodactyls. Why not just admit it?

They are not "modified artiodactyls" since they don't have cloven hooves for one thing.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said:That's the point. It is NOT the same as the fin of a fish. Therefore, the whale is NOT a "mish-mash" of parts shared with different phyla. Therefore, whale anatomy is entirely consistent with the process of evolution and inconsistent with any sort of intelligent design or planning. Whales were obviously NOT designed for life in the water. Your hypothesis is falsified.

The dorsal fin in whales is *analogous* to those found in fish, and is not found in any other species of mammal. So both fish and whales use more or less the same physiological structure to stabilize their movement through the water. Their means of locomotion is also similar, except that the flukes go up and down whereas the caudal fin swishes from side to side. But that is unlike how any mammal swims.

But then again, this is only one line of evidence. All of the other independent lines of evidence also lead inevitably to the conclusion that whales evolved form terrestrial mammals. Whales are just modified artiodactyls. Why not just admit it?

They are not "modified artiodactyls" since they don't have cloven hooves for one thing.

DS said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said:That's the point. It is NOT the same as the fin of a fish. Therefore, the whale is NOT a "mish-mash" of parts shared with different phyla. Therefore, whale anatomy is entirely consistent with the process of evolution and inconsistent with any sort of intelligent design or planning. Whales were obviously NOT designed for life in the water. Your hypothesis is falsified.

The dorsal fin in whales is *analogous* to those found in fish, and is not found in any other species of mammal. So both fish and whales use more or less the same physiological structure to stabilize their movement through the water. Their means of locomotion is also similar, except that the flukes go up and down whereas the caudal fin swishes from side to side. But that is unlike how any mammal swims.

But then again, this is only one line of evidence. All of the other independent lines of evidence also lead inevitably to the conclusion that whales evolved form terrestrial mammals. Whales are just modified artiodactyls. Why not just admit it?

They are not "modified artiodactyls" since they don't have cloven hooves for one thing.

Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

And how would you design a flipper for a large aquatic mammal to steer itself with?

DS said: Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said: Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe. You can talk about "adaptations" all you like, but the fact is that the whale is *designed*, not jury-rigged, for aquatic life. No amount of natural variations could have tranformed a terrestrial artiodactyl into a whale. That is just science fiction/fantasy, not science.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said: Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe. You can talk about "adaptations" all you like, but the fact is that the whale is *designed*, not jury-rigged, for aquatic life. No amount of natural variations could have tranformed a terrestrial artiodactyl into a whale. That is just science fiction/fantasy, not science.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said: Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe. You can talk about "adaptations" all you like, but the fact is that the whale is *designed*, not jury-rigged, for aquatic life. No amount of natural variations could have tranformed a terrestrial artiodactyl into a whale. That is just science fiction/fantasy, not science.

apokryltaros said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said: Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe. You can talk about "adaptations" all you like, but the fact is that the whale is *designed*, not jury-rigged, for aquatic life. No amount of natural variations could have tranformed a terrestrial artiodactyl into a whale. That is just science fiction/fantasy, not science.

That, and why is the idea of a terrestrial artiodactyl, of which we have fossils of, evolving into an aquatic whale over the course of 50 million years a science fiction fantasy, even though we have fossils and molecular comparisons corroborating this? And what reasons do you have to demonstrate the idea that a magical, undetectable Intelligent Designer, incessantly hinted to be God as described in the Bible, magically poofed whales out of thin air is a logical idea, even though there is literally no physical evidence to suggest this?

apokryltaros said: Then why does a whale have lungs and no gills?

That, and why is the idea of a terrestrial artiodactyl, of which we have fossils of, evolving into an aquatic whale over the course of 50 million years a science fiction fantasy, even though we have fossils and molecular comparisons corroborating this?

So that would be a no. You cannot name the two phyla. Thanks for playing. You lose.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: There is no mechanism which can account for this.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

apokryltaros said: Then why does a whale have lungs and no gills?

Whales don't need gills. They have blowholes for their oxygen intake. Just like a diesel-powered submarine, they have to surface now and again to draw air. They also discharge mucus and other stuff while they are there. Where's the bad design?

That, and why is the idea of a terrestrial artiodactyl, of which we have fossils of, evolving into an aquatic whale over the course of 50 million years a science fiction fantasy, even though we have fossils and molecular comparisons corroborating this?

They are largely irrelevant because nobody has shown how a terrestrial artiodactyl could have transformed itself into a whale just with a few mutations in its DNA.

There is no mechanism which can account for this. Btw, no whale genome has been fully sequenced.

Just Bob said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: There is no mechanism which can account for this.

OK, what's YOUR mechanism? "God did it" is NOT a mechanism. HOW he did it would be the mechanism. Care to give us some details? Occasional changes in DNA, caused mechanistically, which, if they affect the survival and reproduction of the organism, are selected for or against by the environment sounds pretty much like a mechanism to me. Which part of that do you deem impossible?

The whole matter of endothermy is why it's not clear that whales, seals, dolphins, etc., would be better off with gills. Oxygen levels are low in water, and water has a high heat capacity, so blood must cool off as it passes through the gills, which would chill the animal. Countercurrent heat exchanges could reduce those losses, but the large amount of blood that would be needed to absorb oxygen from the water would almost certainly cause enormous heat losses from a warm animal nevertheless.

Tuna fish manage to benefit from a sort of partial endothermy, or at least thermoregulation that keeps some crucial organs warmer than ambient water temperatures, while breathing with gills, complete with countercurrent exchange. And apparently some of this exists in sharks, too, so it's not clear that air-breathing is the best answer. Yet I don't think that tuna live in especially cold water, such as where many whale species feed a great deal, and although some shark species do, I don't know if coldwater species benefit much from thermoregulation.

Yet neither sharks nor tuna receive the all of the benefits of full endothermy, so we're back to asking whether gill oxygenation would be better for whales or not. Sperm whales do seem to be top predators of the oceans, and plankton feeders have certainly done well prior to extensive human hunting, so clearly air-breathing hasn't held them back overmuch. In fact, air-breathing in whales has led to feeding strategies that use bubbles to concentrate small prey, so there are secondary benefits to air-breathers.

It's possible that whales naturally took on niches where air-breathing is beneficial, while sharks and tuna manage some warm-bloodedness in niches where gill-respiration is better. Overall, I would say, it's just not all that clear whether air-breathing is better or water-breathing is better as a larger predator, with advantages and disadvantages from both.

What is clear is that water-breathing was not an evolutionary option to marine mammals, and air-breathing is quite unlikely to evolve among sharks and tuna. So there's certainly no surprise that air-breathing advantages and disadvantages inhere in the marine mammals, and the water-breathing advantages and disadvantages inhere in fish that have never left the water at all. Evolutionary constraints do prevail, no magic or "design" does what an intelligent process could have done, take the best from (non-tetrapod, for the pedants) fish and from mammals to provide the best of all worlds. Or even better, to start with no historic constraints to make, say, a nuclear-powered whale. No, hereditary contraints rule all of life (including our meager changes), the relative lack of evolutionary constraint possible with highly intelligent design (such as would be required to invent life in the first place--which nearly all creationists claim) is not visible in life at all.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said: Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea#Vision.2C_hearing_and_echolocation In modern cetaceans, the auditory bulla is separated from the skull and composed of two compact and dense bones (the periotic and tympanic) referred to as the tympano-periotic complex. This complex is located in a cavity in the middle ear which, in Mysticeti, is divided by a bony projection and compressed between the exoccipital and squamosal but, in Odontoceti, is large and completely surrounds the bulla (hence called "peribullar") which is therefore not connected to the skull except in physeterids.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales#Skull_morphology_5 Although they look very much like modern whales, basilosaurids and dorudontids lacked the 'melon organ' that allows their descendants to use echolocation as effectively as modern whales. They had small brains; this suggests they were solitary and did not have the complex social structure of some modern cetaceans. The mandibular foramen of basilosaurids and dorudontids now cover the entire depth of the lower jaw as in modern cetaceans.[11] Their orbits face laterally, and the nasal opening had moved even higher up the snout, closer to the position of blowhole in modern cetaceans.[11] Furthermore, their ear structures are functionally modern, with the major innovation being the insertion of air-filled sinuses between ear and skull.[13] Unlike modern cetaceans, basilosaurids retain a large external auditory meatus.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales#Skull_morphology Pakicetids were classified as cetaceans mainly based on the structure of the auditory bulla, which is formed from the ectotympanic bone only. The shape of the ear region in pakicetids is highly unusual and the skull is cetacean-like, although a blowhole is still absent at this stage. The jawbone of pakicetids also lacks the enlarged space (mandibular foramen) that is filled with fat or oil, which is used in receiving underwater sound in modern whales.[13] They have dorsal orbits (eye sockets facing up), which are similar to crocodiles. This eye placement helps submerged predators observe potential prey above the water.[11] According to Thewissen et al., the teeth of pakicetids also resemble the teeth of fossil whales, being less like a dog's incisors, with a serrated triangular shape, similar to a shark's tooth, which is another link to more modern whales.[14] It was initially thought that the ears of pakicetids were adapted for underwater hearing, but, as would be expected from the anatomy of the rest of this creature, the ears of pakicetids are specialized for hearing on land.[15] However, pakicetids were able to listen underwater, by using enhanced bone conduction, rather than depending on tympanic membrane like general land mammals. This method of hearing does not give directional hearing underwater.[13]

You can talk about "adaptations" all you like, but the fact is that the whale is *designed*, not jury-rigged, for aquatic life. No amount of natural variations could have tranformed a terrestrial artiodactyl into a whale. That is just science fiction/fantasy, not science.

Genetics as they have shown to be are fully capable of transforming species according to needs, depending on climate and other parameters with well known both short and long term fluctuations (ice ages, snowball earth), competition, food sources. Over periods lasting millions of years, climate and conditions will be subject to quite dramatic changes. The planet lives its own life with no regard for "God's creation." So ehy would a designer design life without adaptability?

I see only one reason: that wouldn't rhyme with Genesis.

I even believe there are good fossil evidence for whale evolution.

ksplawn said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales#Skull_morphology_5 Although they look very much like modern whales, basilosaurids and dorudontids lacked the 'melon organ' that allows their descendants to use echolocation as effectively as modern whales. They had small brains; this suggests they were solitary and did not have the complex social structure of some modern cetaceans. The mandibular foramen of basilosaurids and dorudontids now cover the entire depth of the lower jaw as in modern cetaceans.[11] Their orbits face laterally, and the nasal opening had moved even higher up the snout, closer to the position of blowhole in modern cetaceans.[11] Furthermore, their ear structures are functionally modern, with the major innovation being the insertion of air-filled sinuses between ear and skull.[13] Unlike modern cetaceans, basilosaurids retain a large external auditory meatus.[13]

Another feature unique to whales besides the detachment of the bulla is that the bulla is made up only of ectotympanic bone, that is, the bones that in humans would support the eardrum. This is a feature unique to whales, and you can find it in modern living whales and extinct durodonts or basilosaurs. But you can also find it in an animal called Pakicetus, an amphibious artiodactyl carnivore. It has not been found in the close relations of Pakicetus, but it is found in all subsequent whale fossils (including those that lived partly on land).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: So what if the dorsal fin and flukes are made of cartilage and not bone? Why does that matter?

Overall, cetacean physiology is unlike anything found among mammals since it is designed for life solely in the water.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe.

And if whales were magically created wholecloth by a magical and undetectable “Intelligent Designer” incessantly implied to be God as described in the Bible, where is the logic in making them breath air instead of water?

didymos1120 said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe.

Really? Then why does it breathe air? Nurse it's young? Have a placenta? Have a skeletal structure far more like a giraffe than any fish? And on and on and on and....

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: Where's the bad design?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

apokryltaros said: Then why does a whale have lungs and no gills?

Whales don't need gills. They have blowholes for their oxygen intake. Just like a diesel-powered submarine, they have to surface now and again to draw air. They also discharge mucus and other stuff while they are there. Where's the bad design?

That, and why is the idea of a terrestrial artiodactyl, of which we have fossils of, evolving into an aquatic whale over the course of 50 million years a science fiction fantasy, even though we have fossils and molecular comparisons corroborating this?

T They are largely irrelevant because nobody has shown how a terrestrial artiodactyl could have transformed itself into a whale just with a few mutations in its DNA. There is no mechanism which can account for this. Btw, no whale genome has been fully sequenced.

Wait, I know that one. The improbability drive might make a whale poof into existence a mile up in the atmosphere. It wouldn't last too long and it wouldn't end well, but at least that would be an explanation using poof.

bigdakine said: (snip) But anyway https://sites.google.com/site/marinemammalgenomics/project-definition shouldn't be too long now.

Oh, that'd be populations of orcas. :-)

fnxtr said: Oh, that'd be populations of orcas. :-)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said:

DS said: Wrong. Try again. Mammal means on that branch tree of the tree of life. Analogous does not mean poofed or wished into existence, it's an adaptation to the marine environment, that is not the issue. You claimed it was the same as a fish fin, you were wrong. Likewise the loss of hooves. We have the fossils of the intermediate forms, we know the genetic mutations responsible and we have the developmental evidence that is consistent with whales losing the hind limbs as an adaptation to the marine environment. Whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. Deal with it.

No, I am not wrong. The whale is more like a fish, with its dorsal fin, than it is a hoofed animal like a giraffe. You can talk about "adaptations" all you like, but the fact is that the whale is *designed*, not jury-rigged, for aquatic life. No amount of natural variations could have tranformed a terrestrial artiodactyl into a whale. That is just science fiction/fantasy, not science.