Genetic evidence of Whale evolution

John Paul has claimed only genetic evidence will do for demonstrating whale evolution from hippos. He should do some more reading because the work was published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science in August of 1999:
Masato Nikaido, Alejandro P. Rooney, and Norihiro Okada
Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whalesabstract:Insertion analysis of short and long interspersed elements is a powerful method for phylogenetic inference. In a previous study of short interspersed element data, it was found that cetaceans, hippopotamuses, and ruminants form a monophyletic group. To further resolve the relationships among these taxa, we now have isolated and characterized 10 additional loci. A phylogenetic analysis of these data was able to resolve relationships among the major cetartiodactyl groups, thereby shedding light on the origin of whales. The results indicated (i) that cetaceans are deeply nested within Artiodactyla, (ii) that cetaceans and hippopotamuses form a monophyletic group, (iii) that pigs and peccaries form a monophyletic group to the exclusion of hippopotamuses, (iv) that chevrotains diverged first among ruminants, and (v) that camels diverged first among cetartiodactyls. These findings lead us to conclude that cetaceans evolved from an immediate artiodactyl, not mesonychian, ancestor.Comments? Please be specific if you are going to criticize the analysis.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
John Paul has claimed only genetic evidence will do for demonstrating whale evolution from hippos. He should do some more reading because the work was published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science in August of 1999:
Masato Nikaido, Alejandro P. Rooney, and Norihiro Okada
Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales

​

abstract:Insertion analysis of short and long interspersed elements is a powerful method for phylogenetic inference. In a previous study of short interspersed element data, it was found that cetaceans, hippopotamuses, and ruminants form a monophyletic group. To further resolve the relationships among these taxa, we now have isolated and characterized 10 additional loci. A phylogenetic analysis of these data was able to resolve relationships among the major cetartiodactyl groups, thereby shedding light on the origin of whales. The results indicated (i) that cetaceans are deeply nested within Artiodactyla, (ii) that cetaceans and hippopotamuses form a monophyletic group, (iii) that pigs and peccaries form a monophyletic group to the exclusion of hippopotamuses, (iv) that chevrotains diverged first among ruminants, and (v) that camels diverged first among cetartiodactyls. These findings lead us to conclude that cetaceans evolved from an immediate artiodactyl, not mesonychian, ancestor.

​

Comments? Please be specific if you are going to criticize the analysis.

​

Cheers,
Larry

---

John Paul:
To be frank, I have read this and similar diatribe. Very unimpressive because it offers nothing for the betterment of mankind."Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales"But related how, exactly? Common Creator, common Intelligent Designer, common descent (ie shared a common ancestor)?- please be specific in your rhetoric Can you take this paper to the lab to verify the the so-called 'tests' are valid?How does this phylogenic analysis of the alleged evolution of cetaceans aid us in the research for a cure for cancer or any disease for that matter?IOW, what good does 'theorizing' what organisms share an alleged closer common ancestor than do others?When I first learned of the switch in positions of the alleged lineage of alleged cetacean evolution, I sent emails to, vistited several aquariums and cetacean institutes. I asked how this recent discovery (that caused the switch) would affect their research (pertaining to cetaceans). The overall answer was clear- "Not one bit."Go figure.------------------
John Paul

In other words this research doesn`t give results that fit into JP`s personal opinion of how the world is so they are obviously worthless and completely spurious...Sorry JP but your going to have to do better than vague aspersions and questioning the worth of the knowledge....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
To be frank, I have read this and similar diatribe. Very unimpressive because it offers nothing for the betterment of mankind.

​

---

WTF has cetacean phylogenies to do with the betterment of mankind? Does 6 day genesis better mankind?Having nothing for the betterment of mankind is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the validity of the conclusion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

"Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales"

​

But related how, exactly? Common Creator, common Intelligent Designer, common descent (ie shared a common ancestor)?- please be specific in your rhetoric

​

Can you take this paper to the lab to verify the the so-called 'tests' are valid?

​

How does this phylogenic analysis of the alleged evolution of cetaceans aid us in the research for a cure for cancer or any disease for that matter?

​

---

Common Creator, ID, or abiogenesis is irrelevant to common descent. What is the purpose of this question?Yes, the genomal positions of interspersed elements (transposons) can be repeatedly tested.Phylogenetic analysis doesn’t help find a cure for cancer? Well, there's a nobel prize winging it's way towards you now, mate.Since when was medical value a criteria to make research "valid" in other fields? Does 6 day genesis help us cure cancer?Good grief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

IOW, what good does 'theorizing' what organisms share an alleged closer common ancestor than do others?

---

What good does theorising 6 day genesis do?It attempts to draw up a universal phylogeny of all organisms. With which we can better understand the place of human & other organisms place on earth. Most people find that of interest. Even fundamentalist christians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

When I first learned of the switch in positions of the alleged lineage of alleged cetacean evolution, I sent emails to, vistited several aquariums and cetacean institutes. I asked how this recent discovery (that caused the switch) would affect their research (pertaining to cetaceans). The overall answer was clear- "Not one bit."

​

Go figure.

---

Go figure what? Your entire post is dedicated to the assumption that there should be some overriding clear benefit for mankind, or the conclusion has no validity. What’s wrong with knowledge for knowledges sake? How has the bible helped in the struggle against cancer, not one bit, by your argument, you may as well use it for toilet paper, for the medical use it’s been.This post was another sour graped evasion, you haven’t addressed any points Larry raised. I can only conclude you have no rebuttal with substance, or you would have made it by now.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[B] John Paul:
To be frank, I have read this and similar diatribe. Very unimpressive because it offers nothing for the betterment of mankind. [/QUOTE]TO be frank, you are lazy. This is the problem. Either you read the article and comment intelligently on the full paper or your whining is nonsense. All of your questions are answered in the paper. Why don't you get a copy?

quote:

---

Can you take this paper to the lab to verify the the so-called 'tests' are valid?

---

Where do you think they did the genetic analysis?

quote:

---

How does this phylogenic analysis of the alleged evolution of cetaceans aid us in the research for a cure for cancer or any disease for that matter?

---

How is this relevant? Not enough other bluster to whine with?

quote:

---

Go figure.

---

Yeah, go figure, you are too lazy to do even minimal work when presented with a scientific paper. Do you have no shame?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
In other words this research doesn`t give results that fit into JP`s personal opinion of how the world is so they are obviously worthless and completely spurious...

​

Sorry JP but your going to have to do better than vague aspersions and questioning the worth of the knowledge....

---

John Paul:
Sorry, joz. It ain't just me. If it were, you might have a point. I am hard pressed to find any cetacean expert who thinks theoretical musings of the past have any practical bearings on today's marine life.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Sorry, joz. It ain't just me. If it were, you might have a point. I am hard pressed to find any cetacean expert who thinks theoretical musings of the past have any practical bearings on today's marine life.

​

---

Again, why is it relevant that a cetacean expert know the phylogeny of cetaceans in order to do his work? Why would he need to know? It has NO BEARING ON HIS WORK WHATSOEVER. Why would you even ask the question of them? So, what does the work of a cetacean expert have to do with the validity of derived genetic phylogenies for cetaceans?Nothing. Why bring it up?I'll tell you who those phylogenies are relevant to, though, you, & all other YECs. So why not keep your eye on the ball & answer the questions, & stop muddying the water with the irrelevances.You were asked to criticise the analysis. Please do so.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Larry,I currently have my nose stuck in a book on molecular evolution, with emphasis on phylogenies, & am very interested in the paper (& the primate one). Can you point me in the right direction, so I can obtain a copy ,please.Many Thanks,Mark

It's not a pretty sight to see John Paul on the run. It might be worth reminding him of why he is in this difficult position. From "Falsifying Creation " thread, message #9,"As for whales- the transitionals only appear as such in the minds of evolutionists. Without genetic analysis to substantiate those claims any interpretation of the fossil record is directly related to one's worldview."Unfortunately for JP, lbhandli has provided details of a paper which gives JP what he asked for, genetic analysis substantiating the claim for the evolution of whales and hippopotamus from a common ancestor - genetic and fossil evidence agree.Now JP resorts to diversions: "practical bearings on today's marine life", "offers nothing for the betterment of mankind", "How does this phylogenic analysis of the alleged evolution of cetaceans aid us in the research for a cure for cancer or any disease for that matter?" All of the science has now gone out the window.Not a pretty sight at all, when the curtains are drawn on one's worldview.

So what? Even if true it has no bearing on the evidence.You asked for evidence. You have a cite. Go to the library and do the work and stop whining.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
To be frank, I have read this and similar diatribe. Very unimpressive because it offers nothing for the betterment of mankind.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
WTF has cetacean phylogenies to do with the betterment of mankind? Does 6 day genesis better mankind?John Paul:
WTF does cetacean phylogenies have to do with anything? The only 'relevance' it may have is to determine relationships, and even with that we wouldn't be able to verify in what way the relationship works- related via Common Creator, common Intelligent Designer or common ancestor.Mark:
Having nothing for the betterment of mankind is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the validity of the conclusion.John Paul:
IMHO the conclusion is irrelevant if it can't be verified and brings absolutely nothing to the operational/ application table.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:"Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales"
But related how, exactly? Common Creator, common Intelligent Designer, common descent (ie shared a common ancestor)?- please be specific in your rhetoric

​

Can you take this paper to the lab to verify the the so-called 'tests' are valid?

​

How does this phylogenic analysis of the alleged evolution of cetaceans aid us in the research for a cure for cancer or any disease for that matter?

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
Common Creator, ID, or abiogenesis is irrelevant to common descent. [b]John Paul:
Why is that? Because you say so?Mark:
What is the purpose of this question?John Paul:
Larry posted that hippos were related to whales. I wanted to know specically how he thought they were related.Mark:
Yes, the genomal positions of interspersed elements (transposons) can be repeatedly tested.John Paul:
Go buy a vowel. The conclusions can't be tested and verified.Mark:
Phylogenetic analysis doesn’t help find a cure for cancer? Well, there's a nobel prize winging it's way towards you now, mate.Since when was medical value a criteria to make research "valid" in other fields? [b]John Paul:
OK what good is this research? It's one thing (meaning it's OK) if this research is privately funded, but if my tax dollars are being spent on theoretical musings that is another story (meaning it sucks).Mark:
Does 6 day genesis help us cure cancer?John Paul:
Did you read the thread on biological origins and why it doesn't matter? The only reason a literal Genesis is being touted at all is because materialistic naturalism is trying to dominate world-view. Can't let that go unchecked...Mark:
Good grief.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:IOW, what good does 'theorizing' what organisms share an alleged closer common ancestor than do others?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
What good does theorising 6 day genesis do?John Paul:
Actually we don't theoize a 6 day Genesis. We read about it.Mark:
It attempts to draw up a universal phylogeny of all organisms. With which we can better understand the place of human & other organisms place on earth.John Paul:
But that hypothesis can't be verified- whichever it is- related via common ancestor, Common Creator or common ID. We can't take whatever conclusion we may reach with such research, to the lab and verify that conclusion is indicative of reality. Sure it may strengthen one's PoV- but so what?Mark:
Most people find that of interest. Even fundamentalist christians.John Paul:
I think it's interesting too, not being a fundamenatist or a Christian and all. I'm just glad that most people have enough sense not to fret about such tripe. Where would we be if everyone just worked on theoretical musings that have no practical value?

​

That was one of the main reasons I choose engineering- APPLIED/ OPERATIONAL science.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:When I first learned of the switch in positions of the alleged lineage of alleged cetacean evolution, I sent emails to, vistited several aquariums and cetacean institutes. I asked how this recent discovery (that caused the switch) would affect their research (pertaining to cetaceans). The overall answer was clear- "Not one bit."
Go figure.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
Go figure what? Your entire post is dedicated to the assumption that there should be some overriding clear benefit for mankind, or the conclusion has no validity. [b]John Paul:
The fact that the conclusion can't be verified demonstrates its lack of validity.Mark:
What’s wrong with knowledge for knowledges sake?John Paul:
Is it 'knowledge' if it can't be verified?Mark:
How has the bible helped in the struggle against cancer, not one bit, by your argument, you may as well use it for toilet paper, for the medical use it’s been.John Paul:
Um, the Bible is a collection of historical and philoshical books.Mark:
This post was another sour graped evasion, you haven’t addressed any points Larry raised. I can only conclude you have no rebuttal with substance, or you would have made it by now.John Paul:
Truthfully I haven't seen anything of substance to rebut. You haven't told me how hippos and whales are related, how can you tell the difference between that conclusion and the Creationists' conclusion (Common Creator), from the same evidence.

​

So let me get this straight- To evolutionists hippos and whales are related, ie they shared a common ancestor in the distant past. We don't know (and probably never will) what that ancestor was but we find 'comfort' in the 'knowledge' that a hippo and whale shared it.

​

Great. Thank you. I will be able to rest better now. ------------------
John Paul

You have not addressed the paper yet. When do you intend to?You asked for genetic evidence. You got it. And now you are not addressing why you believe it is incorrect. Address the evidence in a specific manner.

​

[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-05-2002]

This thread was edited with 4 messages that involved only personal taunting and were substance free. I, umm, meant to keep them around to share individually, but, umm, I'm a bit of an electronic clod at times.Please continue the thread on topic. Moderation is light, but it was a cascade of irrelevancy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Mark:
Common Creator, ID, or abiogenesis is irrelevant to common descent.
John Paul:
Why is that? Because you say so?

---

Nope, common descent requires reproduction, a function of life. Ergo, for common descent to occur, life must be extant, & therefore has nothing to do with creation/abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

But related how, exactly? Common Creator, common Intelligent Designer, common descent (ie shared a common ancestor)?

​

Mark:
What is the purpose of this question?

​

John Paul:
Larry posted that hippos were related to whales. I wanted to know specically how he thought they were related.

---

Again, whether life was created by God, naturally by abiogenesis, has nothing to do with the conclusion that Whales & Hippos are related by COMMON DESCENT. This is precisely the point of the paper, did you read it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
Truthfully I haven't seen anything of substance to rebut. You haven't told me how hippos and whales are related, how can you tell the difference between that conclusion and the Creationists' conclusion (Common Creator), from the same evidence.

---

The paper does tell you how cetaceans & hippos are related, see fig. 7.The paper provides evidence of common descent, & makes no attempt at telling the difference between abiogenesis & special creation, which are irrelevant to common descent.Waving this subject off as having no interest or relevance will do you no good, you have seen fit to post on the subject of evolution many times. I can only conclude you have no rebuttal of substance, since the conclusions have substance (despite what you say), based on data derived from repeatable experiments.Feel free to interpret the results differently, it’s what this thread is about, after all. But please give reasons.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

While we're waiting for JP to marshall his forces and make a devastating counterattack, can someone explain why the sequence of fossils which leads from Sinonyx, through Ambulocetus to modern whales is explicable by intelligent design? Does this infer that intelligent design means trial and error over almost 60 million years? Where is the "intelligence" and "design" evident in such a process?And what is the difference between common creator and intelligent design? Is there a host of intelligent designers out there or a single creator which doesn't display intelligence in its design of its creations?