28 Dec
So This Is An Ancestor Of The Whale?
I’d like to first apologize for the silence over the past few days. Everything’s fine, but I’ve run into one of the worst walls a blogger can bang into, i.e. blogger’s block.
It’s not like I’ve got nothing to blog about — there’s tons of material I’ve got in reserve, but my brain can’t seem to juice out anything good in terms of a coherent sentence or paragraph. So, rather than waste your precious time reading bad posts, I thought it better not to post at all.
I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a rather wise decision, eh?
Anyhow, what juiced me up a little (and hence this post) was this little report about how the missing link between whales and land animals might have been found.
According to the report, the giant whales we now have in the oceans could possibly have evolved and descended from that animal you see in this post — a land animal the size of, get this, a raccoon!
Huh?!
The animal, called an Indohyus, looked like a long-tailed deer without antlers or an overgrown long-legged rat. What the report also pointed out was that this animal was actually ‘formed’ out of a composite from a cache of fossils.
So how is it that this Indohyus was an ancestor of the whale?
According to the scientist who’s publishing his report on the find — Hans Thewissen, an anatomy professor at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine — whales and the Indohyus share thickened ear bones.
In addition, “the specific positioning and shape of certain molars connects Indohyus to the earliest whales”.
It does makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
I don’t mean to be mean, but that just sounds to me like someone was taking a stab in the dark with a cache of bones to first build some 48 million year-old animal, identifying some common teeth with an existing mammal, then calling the former the missing link. Genius!
I like this quip by one of the presenters on Way of the Master Radio, who blurted out “How did it get so big? Over-eating?!” when told of the report.
This just proves that nobody’s really as good at making fools out of evolutionists as much as they are fully capable of doing it to themselves, I guess.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Shabbat Shalom.
Source: “Missing Link Between Whales, Land Animals Possibly Found.” FOXNews. 20 Dec. 2007 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317527,00.html>.
Picture taken from the same news story.
Posted by Shalene on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Amen, Isaiah, I have thought the same thing myself, many times: “This just proves that nobody’s really as good at making fools out of evolutionists as much as they are fully capable of doing it to themselves, I guess.” Blessings and Shalom!
Posted by Sicarii on 28.12.07 at 16:40
I had such a good laugh at the expense of this research I couldn’t resist not putting down my thoughts on it!
Sorry my spam catcher caught your comment as spam again. Looks like the last spanking didn’t do any good. I hope it listens now!
Shabbat Shalom, Shalene!
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
So your entire argument is, summed up, “Haha, I can’t imagine this, it must not be real!”
Truth is often stranger than fiction.
In any case, the real test will come in the form of DNA testing and seeing how things match up. Retroviruses are an amazing indicator of being relatives evolutionary wise. Also, do you suppose whales, being mammal, just sprouted from the water magically? They had to come somewhere and mammals have their start and ancestry on land.
Given that many millions of years, you’ll be surprised at what can happen.
Posted by Shalene on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Sorry Martin, the earth is only about 6000 years old. We’re creationists here. We don’t believe in evolution. Call us old fashioned if you like, or you can look up the science yourself: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp This link shows all about how the “dating” that scientists use to date the earth is all wrong. It even gives links to non-religious sources, so it’s not just something that we know to be true from the bible, though that’s all I personally need. Blessings to you!
Posted by Sicarii on 28.12.07 at 16:40
I am in full agreement with Shalene on this, Martin. I believe in the creation of the earth and everything in it in 6 days, and that the earth is only about 6,000 years old.
We might be surprised at what can happen over millions of years, but we might also be surprised at what might not happen by random chance over millions of years. :-)
Shalom Aleichem.
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Martin, if evolution occurs given millions of years, then explain why, that ever since Darwin published the theory of evolution, we had not observed that occuring in the while, nor are there transitional fossils of half fish-half vertebrates found… yet?
Above which, I had once written a post on the complexity of the eye. My question is, how does an organ like this evolve over the million of years when it will not function as long as one of these components are missing, and when there is no ‘evolutionary advantage’ for either one or more of these features to exist independently before they come together?
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
xior:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (though, I think that is a misnomer). It is very well researched, documented, and cited. Please take the time to look.
Concerning “It will not function if not complete” I give this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html
1.) “Transitional Fossils are missing” is a trap. If it was found you would ask for another TWO missing fossils to fill in the new gaps. It is an endless cycle.
As far as “macroevolution” please see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
What is a “fully formed” eye? Hawks have better acuity, bees can see into the ultraviolet spectrum, owls have great night vision. Are our eyes not fully functional with these missing features?
On the other hand, function do mole eyes have? Or deep cave animals? They have pretty much full eyes but they don’t work. A weevil has wings underneath it’s shell that are not functional, yet still there.
All of this points away from direct creation.
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Others:
Moon recession: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html
Radiometric Dating: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
Decay of Mangetic Field: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
Blood in Dinosaur Bone: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html
Helium Decay: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html
And right at the end: “Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. ”
In short, there is no reason to believe the universe is 6,000 years old. There is no evidence to support this. Attempting to poke holes in various fields showing the universe to be billions of years old does not in turn automatically give you evidence that the universe is 6,000 years old.
That is just plain bad logic.
Enjoy the links!
Posted by Martin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Transitional Fossils - But is there even ONE? Trap or not, the argument that I will not be satisfied with ONE does not answer my question that none was found.
Macroevolution: Why don’t you give me a summary the 29+ so-called evidences first before you ask me to examine the document? After all, I may already have heard about them and read about the counter arguments and I do not intend to go through a document, and find that I have read about them before.
Eye: Take for example cameras. My Nokia 7290 comes with a camera that sucks when taking photos at low light compared to my full featured Panasonic Lumix FZ-8. Does disparity in capabilities make the 7290 camera half a camera? As to the eyes of moles, let me put it in the same analogy: Does a broken camera make it half a camera? Would it simply not prove that a camera once exists and now it no longer functions? After all I am under the impression that if I subject you to perpetual darkness, sooner or later your eyes wouldn’t work as well.
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Oops. I put my name as Martin in the previous comment. Sicarii, will you be able to it?
To add on, structures do not form if the necessary genes are not already present. It is my understanding that mutation do not add genes so the genes must come from somewhere. In other words, scales from reptiles do not turn into feathers of birds unless the necessary gene is in place.
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
xizor:
Transitional fossils exist. The problem is with every transitional fossil found the creationist then demands 2 more fossils on either side to show the transition there.
The fossil record, while immense, is still incredibly small. Most animals do not fossilize. That’s just the fact of it.
The arguments in the 29+ Evidences of macroevolution also offer counter arguments and arguments against those counter arguments.
I am pretty sure you being in the dark for a prolonged period of time won’t make you genetically disposition to lose your eyesight. That would just be ludicrous.
My argument was not that our eyes are “half an eye”, but that the concept of a “well formed eye” is fallacious to begin with. It is an entirely subjective measure.
That said, mole eyes are not “broken.” They are simply remnants of functional eyes. They may serve an alternative purpose now.
Another example of such is ostrich wings. They aren’t used for flights. As flight mechanisms they are entirely useless. However, they are still used for balance and sexual display. They are a vestigial remnant of flight wings.
As humans we contain the genetic code for scales, gills, tails, and all sorts of other things. We have taken genetic code from humans and inserted them into other animals and the structures have been produced that we don’t produce!
As far as your “mutation does not add to genes”, you may be correct in one aspect. However, genes are incredibly complex. There is no “eye gene” or “nose gene.” It is collections of genes working together to get the desired results. Another example of said complexity is the fact most albino people have severe eye problems.
Given enough time, with the accumulations of SNPS (little bits of DNA that don’t “match up” and thus are useless) can cause more genes to be produced (two SNPS match and form a bond).
To summarize, your summation of “scales from reptiles do not turn into feathers of birds unless the necessary gene is in place” is fallacious reasoning to begin with, and a lack of understand as to how genetics work. It is a bit more complicated than simply “having that gene.”
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
You insist that transitional fossils exist yet provided no example. How do I believe this? In fact, it has been 150 years or more since the ‘Origin of Species’ was published. We have fossil of almost every known creature, so I can hardly agree with you that the immense fossil record is incredibly small. In fact, we even have fossils of ancient insects and frogs in amber to cover some of the not so easily fossilised animals.
Next, I’ll grant you the argument that you weren’t trying to argue that our eye was ‘half an eye’ with your example. But to say the concept of a “well formed eye” is fallacious to begin with is fallacious in itself. How is your eye not well formed? Because you can’t see into the infra red ranges? Is my camera on my Sony W550i or Nokia 7290 any less of a camera than that of my Panasonic FZ8 because of the lack of features? If you define the well-formed eye as a perfect eye, then yes, it is a fallacy. But I disagree with that definition.
As to genes, yes, it is proven that genes taken from humans can be used in another creature and it would also work. Similar, if I take parts of the Windows Registry from Windows2000 and put it into Windows XP and at times it will also work. Well. what does that really prove anyway? In fact, I read about a gene that’s common in several creatures and yet they come out as very very different structures in different creatures. What is that going to prove?
I also take exception to your example of ostrich wings as vestigial. How do we prove if it’s vestigial or just evolving into something else? A ostrich may not fly, but neither does a chicken so what’s the point here?
And you mentioned that the accumulations of SNPS (little bits of DNA that don’t “match up” and thus are useless) can cause more genes to be produced (two SNPS match and form a bond). Fine. But how are you going to pass that one to the next generation unless you can find another with the same for reproduction? Evolution will have me first believe that it is ok for such things to hang around until the right combination comes out with something useful, and then have me believe that two of the same will occur at the same time. Frankly, I’ll rather try my luck with roulette in Vegas.
If you are to say that my summation of “scales from reptiles do not turn into feathers of birds unless the necessary gene is in place” is fallacious reasoning to begin with, and a lack of understand as to how genetics work and It is a bit more complicated than that, then perhaps after you tell me I am ignorant, would you not mind - in your own words - tell me what I am ignorant about?
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
I almost forgot, you said that being in the dark for a prolonged period of time won’t make you genetically disposition to lose your eyesight and that would just be ludicrous, but that appears to me that’s what evolutionists suggest happened to cave animals. Or was I mistaken?
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
xizor:
The point on eyes is that there is no objective way to measure what an “well formed eye” would be. That’s an arbitrary benchmark you personally place.
The fact that genes can be traded in with other animals and still function the same points to common source (read: common ancestry) of that data.
Wings are for flight. Ostrich wings no longer provide flight. This is why it is vestigial. There is no “evolving into something else.” They are wings. They contain the structure to wings. Your argument against such things would be “What use is half a wing.” or “what good is half an eye.” The fact remains, even when not given the “full use” of the “end result” (all subjective terms, might I add), it is STILL evolutionarily viable and thus still there. If it were useless, it would not be there.
As for the eyes, you alone being in the dark would not genetically make you produce offspring that are blind. What happens is in a dark setting creatures with poor sight are not any worse off than creatures with good eye sight. So genetic code for poor eyesight get propagated through the population and it doesn’t matter even if they are born blind. The end result is a population that can’t see at all. There is no benefit to seeing, so why would, after many many generations, there be eyesight? This is called Natural Selection.
Gene mutations and changes are random. Environmental selection of these changes are natural selection, and are not random.
The old adage about a million monkeys in a room typing would produce Shakespeare is a ludicrous analogy. However, if you selected words that happened to be randomly typed and “kept” them, you’d produce order out of the chaos, and eventually, produce the works.
The “Selector” is nature.
And finally, as for transitional fossiles: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html is a good link.
Posted by Laure on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Hi Isaiah, Just came across your site. Will return to read more later. In the meantime, one question . . . do you live in the Tri-lakes area in Colorado? We do.
Posted by Sicarii on 28.12.07 at 16:40
hi there Laure! Thank you for visiting my site.
I am thousands of miles from Colorado in Singapore.
Shalom Aleichem.
Posted by Sidharth on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Sorry the earth isn’t 6000 years old. The earth is millions of years old. The Bible focuses on humanity and their life. I have studied the Hebrew word meanings in this case and it’s interesting how Scripture sheds light to many things that I knew nothing of. Make no mistake, the earth isn’t 6000 years old.
I will write on this later.
Sidharth
Posted by Sidharth on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Well Martin, let’s say…”Have you seen evolution?”. Have you seen the big bang happening? Do you know these are just theories and not proved?
Science once believed earth was flat, they felt they were walking on flat ground, but considering the bigger picture, we came to realize lately that earth is a globe. Did you know that the bible teaches that the earth is round and suspended on nothing- even in the oldest book in the bible [written long before 1500 BC]?
He… hangeth the earth upon nothing. [Job 26: 7]
Look at this description in the book of Isaiah : “circle of the earth” [Isaiah 40:22]
The Bible is the most reliable book ever.
Sidharth
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Sidharth:
Have you seen God speak the universe into existence? Have you seen God?
Evolution has been seen. HIV, mosquitoes, pepper moths, bacteria, etc. We’ve seen it quite a bit.
As far as “unproven theories,” this goes to show you don’t know what a scientific theory is. In the simplest terms a scientific theory is a model supported by facts. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the model given with support of the facts.
As far as the Earth being round, stand outside. Look around. All around you, as far as they eye can see, what shape is this?
A circle. The Earth is a sphere, not a circle.
Also, the Bible says the Earth is fixed and unmovable:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
Sorry. I don’t trust the Bible. It also has talking snakes and donkeys. Not a very reliable book.
Posted by Sicarii on 28.12.07 at 16:40
I’m looking forward to reading your piece on that, Sidharth. Never came across that before so it’ll be interesting and eye-opening.
Shalom Aleichem!
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
How is evolution a fact when it was never observed to happen? If evolution is a fact we will definitely see it happening somewhere. In fact it should be so rampant that it happens all the time.
Yes, we have observed variations to lifeforms. But every lifeform is capable of adapting to a certain degree of changes. I will agree that creatures can adapt as the environment changes, but it is insane to extrapolate that this can result in a limitless change in the lifeform itself. In fact, when the environmental changes becomes too rapid, it usually results in a quick demise of the lifeform - i.e. extinction. Just look at the indigenous marsupials in Australia when they are confronted with foxes. They simply don’t stand a chance.
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Rapid changes in environment results in extinction not evolution. (e.g. when confronted with new predators - e.g. marsupials in Australia vs. the fox; fishes in the US great lakes when confronted by the snakehead; the dodo and the mammoths vs humans.)
And gradual changes will may allow lifeforms to adapt but that does not mean they can change without limit. And in the latter case, once a creature has find a niche where it can comfortable survive and reproduce, what pressure is there for it to evolve when the present form would have been the best for that environment? (e.g. the crocodile has not evolved for what evolutionists believed for millions of years.)
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Xizor:
“Yes, we have observed variations to lifeforms. But every lifeform is capable of adapting to a certain degree of changes. I will agree that creatures can adapt as the environment changes, but it is insane to extrapolate that this can result in a limitless change in the lifeform itself.”
In one breath you say evolution has never been seen and in the same one you give pretty much what evolution is. Adaptation has been observed. This is evolution. Also, just because you can’t imagine life being diversified through evolution doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Your belief doesn’t trump reality, I’m sorry to say.
Given enough times and enough environmental changes in isolated groups of the same species, they will diverge. Given enough time, they will become separate. Given even more time, they will eventually be completely different.
Introduction of species and the failure of a species to adapt is not a failure of evolution. That is a failure of the species to evolve to meet the new changes. I don’t see how this *disproves* evolution at all.
What limit to change? If you can accept that they will change, why do you place arbitrary limits on those changes? Who sets those changes? Why are those limits in place?
Your “answer” gives more problems than solutions.
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
My answer gave more problems to the untrue ‘fact’ you touted, you mean?
I do not equate adaptation with evolution. Each creature simple has the ability to adapt to variations in the environment or else it would die out even faster. How can there be no limits, when for e.g. A polar bear with thinner fur will survive a warmer winter but if the changes becomes too rapid, the ice melts, it becomes too hot, and then it dies. They won’t turn into Grizzlies. And wehn the changes are mild then they tend to revert to the norm when the weather reverts.
The limits are not placed by me but by the genetic code of the creature itself. Changes to a creature will occur only when there’s pressure from the change of environment, but those changes can only be gradual and not rapid. I have said before, when the changes are too rapid and when they outstrip the ability of the creature to adapt, it goes into extinction. In simpler words, Pepper moths don’t end up turning into Mothra if you increase the dose of radiation it is exposed to. Neither will the Kodomo Dragon turn into Godzilla. They will simply die.
If you don’t buy that, you can try breed many generations of pepper moths for 10 years and keep exposing them to increased amount of radiation, then come back to me when you get a Mothra.
Posted by Martin Grondin on 28.12.07 at 16:40
Once again, arbitrary placements of restriction. “Evolution can’t be rapid.” Says who? You?
Human evolution is increasing at quite the brisk pace even as we speak. There already differences in populations.
I’ve made no untrue statements. Your only defense is you don’t “think” it is possible. This isn’t an argument. Your faith has blinded you to one of the biggest foundations of biology. There is no reason to reject evolution.
Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. Germs are facts. How these operate, and under what conditions, are explains via theories.
I supposed since we don’t know how gravity works (field? particle? What?) we should fill in the gaps with God, no? Intelligent Falling? Yet I don’t hear you railing against this other “just a theory”.
In fact, could you even argue against me postulating that God is in fact what makes things fall? God literally, with his omnipotence, causes objects to fall towards the Earth. This is a fact. Can you disprove it?
This is what your argument against evolution equates to. Straw men. Delusions. Generally, a lack of knowledge. Your pastor, I’m afraid to say, is not an evolutionary biologist, so please don’t get your information from him.
Posted by xizor2000 on 28.12.07 at 16:40
You can continue to insist evolution is a fact but much is assumed, none is proven and much extrapolated.
I can prove gravity is a fact on my own when I see the coins from my pants fall to the ground. I can prove germs are a fact because I can see them under the telescope. The law of gravity and germs not theories, they are a observable facts. Science is based on observations, not words like lawyers argue their case.
The same cannot be said about evolution with all these difficulties in the theory. You insist it is fact much like a dogmatic priests. I asked you to provide an example of transitional fossils and you claim there is no need to provide them ‘because people will ask for two more’. That is a _FACT_ of evolution?
Let me tell you what the FACTS are.
FACT: The Peking Man’s fossils are LOST and never found again. FACT: Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man are proven to be fakes. FACT: Dead peppered moths on trees are actually pinned there to be photoed and these moths don’t rest on tree trunks.
FACT: Genetically, turtles are as distantly related as birds to a frog.
FACT: Rock Stratas was originally devised to explain rock systems, not as a geological timeline.
FACT: Insects - such as fruitflies - have short lifespans and thus are best examples for testing the evolution theory. Scientitsts have deliberately modified their genetic structures and all they get is more insects and no new species many many generations later.
FACT: Mutants or crossbreeds are genetically sterile. Even _IF_ I grant you the possibility that the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg, it had to _FIND_ another of its kind to mate to reproduce.
And no, I didn’t get these facts that are obvious difficulties from my pastor. I read this on my own and from reputable scientists that supporters of evolution have gone to great lengths to ridicule. If you want to know the sources, you go and google them like a good scientists and read them on your own.
And, leave my faith and beliefs out of your lame arguments, Martin. I did not even start to quote the Bible so I politely suggest we keep that out of the conversation and if you have any venom against Christianity, you can take it up with the pastor of the nearest congregation in your town.