Login

Join for Free!
118316 members


whales

Animals!

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Re:

Postby JackBean » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:40 am

[quote="WhatsItsFace]Whales today still have remnants of their hind legs which, don't quote me on this, I have heared are now only used during mating.[/quote]
They do? I thought, it's just a small bones inside of the body
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby Asyncritus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:32 pm

Erm...

Me Asyncritus.

Me not Gamila.
Asyncritus
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:03 am

Re: whales

Postby canalon » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:02 pm

Asyncritus wrote:A bit of factual, rational refutation would be welcome.

How about it?


Double standard anyone? I am providing you a refutation that is at the same level of your argument:
You declare that you do not see how evolution could have worked out your example, and that would be in itself a proof of its failure. I am arguing that the fact that you manage to be an unimaginative moron is not a proof of anything except maybe of the fact that you are a self-assessed unimaginative moron. This has nothing to do with evolution and this is the main weakness of the Behe's gambit...

I will provide factual arguments when you will present some on your side. :twisted:
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Re: Re:

Postby WhatsItsFace » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:08 pm

JackBean wrote:They do? I thought, it's just a small bones inside of the body


Your probably right in regards to this discussion (as in whales today), as I said I'm no whale expert, but in the earliest whales (as in the first to live completely in the sea) they did have remnants on the outside of their bodies, such as Basilosaurus.

Here's a pic;
Basilosaurus_BW.jpg


Just thought I'd throw that one in :)
Don't mind me, just your average Biology student =)
User avatar
WhatsItsFace
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: Pardon?

Re: whales

Postby Asyncritus » Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:20 pm

canalon wrote:
Asyncritus wrote:A bit of factual, rational refutation would be welcome.

How about it?


Double standard anyone? I am providing you a refutation that is at the same level of your argument:
You declare that you do not see how evolution could have worked out your example, and that would be in itself a proof of its failure. I am arguing that the fact that you manage to be an unimaginative moron is not a proof of anything except maybe of the fact that you are a self-assessed unimaginative moron. This has nothing to do with evolution and this is the main weakness of the Behe's gambit...

I will provide factual arguments when you will present some on your side. :twisted:


There is an adequate number of facts in my post.

Try

1 Reading it, and

2 Answering some of them.

'I don't know' is an acceptable answer. Somewhat weakening, but acceptable. :D
Asyncritus
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:03 am

Re:

Postby JackBean » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:43 am

Asyncritus wrote:Erm...

Me Asyncritus.

Me not Gamila.

How did you know, this is to you? :-P
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: whales

Postby canalon » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:46 am

Asyncritus wrote:There is an adequate number of facts in my post.

Try

1 Reading it, and

2 Answering some of them.

'I don't know' is an acceptable answer. Somewhat weakening, but acceptable. :D


Indeed you list facts and then you say that you do not know how evolution has managed to make them happen. And then decides on this grounds that this is proof against evolution.
I am saying that this in itself is not a proof that they cannot have evolved, just a proof that you cannot see how it has evolved. 'I don't know' is indeed an acceptable answer to many questions. In fact this is my exact answer on how mammals have evolved to be as they are now. But 'I don't know' cannot be a proof against a theory. This is my point of contention. Your ignorance is not enough to disprove a theory that is well grounded in a lot more evidences (from molecular biology, comparative anatomy, experimental biology) than the number of facts that 'you don't know'
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: whales

Postby Chroma » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:10 am

Asyncritus wrote:Whales aren't just a different species. They are a different PHYLUM - which is an altogether different kettle of fish (ha ha!).

Actually whales are not only in the same Phylum (Chordata), but also the same Subphylum (Vertebrata)...

If the whales descend from a land animal (as Babinski says) like Pakicetus, you can begin to see the difficulties... Imagine a cow, which is warm blooded, having a calf, and then suckling it underwater! The moment the new-born calf opens it's mouth, it swallows a huge mouthful of seawater. How long do you think it will survive? Zero.

So what happens? Well, get this: the mother whale has a SPECIALLY DESIGNED nipple, which allows the calf to suckle underwater!!!! That didn't evolve - the species would have died out, while it was 'evolving'!

In response to the 'argument of ignorance' I'll mention a factor you overlooked:

Whales evolving from something like a Pakicetus, (if that is indeed the true ancestor) would have a development period in which they would be divided between aquatic and terrestrial (after all Hippo's, their closest extant relative, still are). During this period the nipple would have plenty of time to develop into something fit for aquatic feeding. No sudden saltation or designers necessary...

Some more arguments of ignorance are made, which I won't bother to respond to (both can be answered with a rationalization similar to what I just mentioned) but in regards to what you said at least I can agree that whales/dolphins are really amazing animals!
Chroma
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: whales

Postby Asyncritus » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:47 pm

Hey Canlon

Why so hostile, my friend?

You don't know how anything evolved - not really anyway.

But evolution purports to account for 'The Origin of Species'. As a supporter of that theory, you ought to be able to say SOMETHING about the evolution of whales - even if it's as crazy as Darwin's idea that whales evolved from bears!

'Argument from ignorance' is pretty poor reasoning by any standard. I claim that you use the Argument from Credulity and Gullibility in accepting what is clear scientific nonsense.

What do I mean? Well let's go back to Pakicetus for a moment.

It is a land dwelling mammal. If so, it has hairs or fur on its body. It will be incapable of living in water for long enough - because prolonged soaking will destroy its skin, which will soften, peel, and eventually disintegrate.

So how could it remain in the water long enough to 'evolve' the specialised nipple all whales have? Science says it couldn't. Credulity and Gullibility says it could.

We next face the problem of prolonged submergence, and deeper diving. The lung capacity of any land mammal is limited - yet whales and dolphins easily stay submerged for up to 1 or 2 hours. Do you think that practice could give Pakicetus or whatever that ability? I doubt it somehow.

Then there's the question of bends - the dissolution and reformation of nitrogen in the blood stream. If Pakicetus stayed under for too long, it couldn't resurface safely, especially since it can't read the decompression tables.

But in any case why would it want to do so? And further, some whales eat meat, and others eat plants. Now how does a land dwelling mammal become a deep sea diving creature which has a protein digesting alimentary canal, OR a cellulose digesting one? The two things are widely different, as you would know if you ever saw a cow's entrails.

So there are some of the problems your Credulity and Gullibility have to hurdle.

Then there's the sonar one. Where do you suppose that came from?

Shall I go on, or is that enough for you to handle at one go?
Asyncritus
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:03 am

Re: whales

Postby Chroma » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:30 am

Asyncritus wrote:But evolution purports to account for 'The Origin of Species'. As a supporter of that theory, you ought to be able to say SOMETHING about the evolution of whales - even if it's as crazy as Darwin's idea that whales evolved from bears!

Utterly wrong... Darwin suggested that a bear he'd seen swimming in a lake with his mouth open catching bugs, if successful at feeding in such a way could, if given a long enough time and assuming the feeding method continued to be effective, have descendants evolve into a new aquatic species.

'Argument from ignorance' is pretty poor reasoning by any standard. I claim that you use the Argument from Credulity and Gullibility in accepting what is clear scientific nonsense.

Well you claimed something was wrong simply because you lacked the ability to explain it yourself. Obviously scientists did not choose Pakicetus because it was an easy fit. It's based off of features like bone similarities. Also recently many early whale fossils (5 last I heard) had been recovered in India which sheds more light on whale ancestry. I don't think you can simply label trusting peer reviewed science a "credulity and gullibility" fallacy like you can an argument that is by definition based off of self ignorance.

What do I mean? Well let's go back to Pakicetus for a moment.

It is a land dwelling mammal. If so, it has hairs or fur on its body. It will be incapable of living in water for long enough - because prolonged soaking will destroy its skin, which will soften, peel, and eventually disintegrate.

So how could it remain in the water long enough to 'evolve' the specialised nipple all whales have? Science says it couldn't. Credulity and Gullibility says it could.

Firstly many terrestrial mammals can spend extended periods in the water (Hippos, bears, beavers, minx, etc... not to forget seals, sealions and walrus) and don't suffer from flesh rot.

also you completely ignored my last post about the nipple so if maintaining ignorance is your objective then don't bother going back to read it (not to say what I said is correct, but it is a reasonable method explaining how it could develop)

But in any case why would it want to do so? And further, some whales eat meat, and others eat plants. Now how does a land dwelling mammal become a deep sea diving creature which has a protein digesting alimentary canal, OR a cellulose digesting one? The two things are widely different, as you would know if you ever saw a cow's entrails.

You may have heard about these novel creatures called omnivores, they have a digestive tract longer then a carnivore, yet shorter then a herbivore. Interestingly they can eat both meat and plant matter and often descend from one, and can leave descendants that eventually become the other.

Chimps, our closest relatives (as confirmed by genetic analysis, viral tagging, anatomical comparison, etc...), eat very little meat, yet we are much more adept at digesting it.

I could respond to your other points but it's honestly not worth it as discussion is not your intent. You obviously share the same or similar beliefs as creationists as your contempt for the scientific method as well as unwillingness to even attempt to view things from an evolutionary perspective pervades your entire response... I'm not going to bother responding again as it's already dragged this thread far off its intended purpose. I just hope anyone reading this is able to see creationist rhetoric for what it is.
Chroma
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: whales

Postby skeptic » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:00 am

The reason a whale tail goes up and down instead of side to side is an accident of evolution.

When fishes evolved into land animals, the land creatures that arose, moved their bodies side to side like a fish. You can still see this if you watch a lizard running. Side to side movement of the body.

However, as evolution continued, and land animals got bigger, legs moved under the body, instead of sticking out to the side, in order to lift more weight. The legs evolved into large muscle bearing structures which did the moving instead of a flexing body, like a cow. A side to side flexing would actually interfere with the movement of these larger legs, since they have to be placed to be under the body, and sideways flexing pushes them out away from the body. Such body flexing that occurred evolved to be up and down, since this supported the forwards and backwards movements of the legs better than a side to side flexing.

In certain fast moving mammals, the bodies evolved to be leaner, and had more vigorous up and down flexing to support faster running. You cna see this in a weasel's run. It probably was an animal like this that first entered the sea. You can see something like this in an otter, which runs a bit like w weasel, and swims with an up and down flexing.

A bigger tail would make such swimming by up and down flexing more efficient, and it evolved. Eventually it evolved into a tail with a flat fin, like a whale, dolphin, or sea cow.

Of course, swimming by up and down flexing, or swimming by sideways flexing are both efficient. However, mammals had previously evolved the up and down flexing while on land. This was purely an accident of evolution and could have gone the other way. For example, Ichthyosaurs are reptiles that evolved back into a fish-like shape. However, they swam by sideways flexing. Their evolution followed a different accident.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby JerysCo » Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:37 pm

I think dolphins are the best animals in all the world, they are so cute and I love to smim with them
JerysCo
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:32 pm

Previous

Return to Zoology Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest