|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Remember that you are talking about 50 to 60 million years for closing the Tethys Ocean, maybe longer Actually that's not accurate. The Indian Plate broke away from Madagascar between 90mya and 85mya. The most widely accepted date for contact with the Asia Continent is 55mya, but recent work done here has moved the date back to 65mya. The ocean floor was sliding beneath the Asian Plate during this time, but it was when the land masses came into contact that the Tethys was closing. Perhaps your 50 - 60my was from the break-up of Gondwanaland? Also realize that the Indian Plate was setting a land-speed record (knee slap) moving at 15 - 25 cm per year, covering about 6,000km during that time span. Of course, the collision slowed the advancement of the plate considerably (to about 10cm / year, I believe - it is currently at 5cm / year). At that rate, it would have travelled 1,000km in 10my! So the closing of the Tethys (ie. it no longer existed) would have only taken about 10my and would also have been very violent. So, if you look at the dates for Indohyus, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus they occur concurrently with this closing of the Tethys. If the date of initial contact is in fact 65mya, this compounds the issue. I am not saying this discredits the series, but it is something I think deserves to be to explored. Actually, it could help explain the divergence and diversity we do see. HBD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I am even willing to drop down to 10 million years, but consider even that.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dan4reason Junior Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 25 Joined: |
quote: This is what you said: "Could evolution have caused such rapid changes among contemporary species?" So you were asking whether evolution COULD happen in such a short period of time (if whale evolution did take a short period of time), and I answered it. By now claiming that my answer is insufficient because it does not show that evolution DID happen, is artificially moving the goal posts. A well-placed series is a strong confirmation of the predictions of evolution. Looking at the family tree produced by comparing the genes of different organism, we know that whales most likely evolved from land mammals. The fact that we find transitionals at all is evidence for evolution, the fact that we find them in a general series, before we see whales makes it even stronger. It confirms the predictions evolution makes, and totally makes sense if evolution is true. However, a well-placed series is not the only evidence for whale evolution. Vestigial body parts, the cattle rumen in the stomach, atavistic body parts, and embryonic body parts also support evolution.
quote: Right, they are only approximations, which is one reason why, if evolution is true, we see only a general trend from less whale-like to more whale-like, especially when we leave out species we don't have a lot of data on. However, it is still the best approximation we have, and see still see a trend.
quote: That statement in itself is not reliable. Wikipedia is mostly reliable, and most of its mistakes are minor. So can you present the sources that YOU used?
quote: Continental drift takes long periods of time, so whales still had a large area to evolve in. Plus you are assuming that whales did not diversify to areas different than where the Indian subcontinent was meeting Asia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dan4reason, herebedragons, etc.
So you were asking whether evolution COULD happen in such a short period of time (if whale evolution did take a short period of time), and I answered it. Another thing to point out is that evolution predicts an increase in evolution of diversity where survival pressure is low, such as when a species moves into a new ecosystem with little opposing forces, or after a massive die-off. This is because there is less selection overall and this allows a greater diversity in phenotypes. It also leads to rapid speciation when pockets of parent populations breed more within a subpopulation than the whole population due to dispersal into the ecology -- distance is a barrier to breeding from one side of the population to the other. Is there any evidence of this actually happening? Yes. The foraminifera experienced an "explosion" in new species following the Y-T extinction event. Then there is the issue of diversity within a species, and whether or not two fossils could overlap in phenotype variation given the dates and locations and the differences in the fossils. See Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? for a discussion of what I mean here. In essence the variation known in dogs today, while still being one species, shows a large degree of variation in phenotypes that can then be used to compare the degree of differences between fossils (horses are used in the thread cited) to see if that is the same degree of difference or not. You can also look at the variation at each level and how much they overlap the variations of each previous generation in pelycodus (previously discussed):
We see that the average change from generation to generation is less than the variation in the population, but by the time you get from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus jarrovii the whole population has shifted. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
So you were asking whether evolution COULD happen in such a short period of time (if whale evolution did take a short period of time), and I answered it. By now claiming that my answer is insufficient because it does not show that evolution DID happen, is artificially moving the goal posts. You can't isolate a quote and answer just that, you need to consider the context. Let's look at what I actually said:
quote: The context was that these animals were contemporaries living in the same area. Answering that with "humans evolved in 8my" did not respond to concerns. If you want to put the goalposts back where to you think they were and declare victory, I don't care. The real victor is the one who learns!
Wikipedia is mostly reliable, and most of its mistakes are minor We both know that Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source. It is OK to use for general information and a starting place to find facts. One of the reasons I have come to this forum is so I can have intelligent, educated discussions about these topics. I want to go deeper than "Wikipedia" discussions. Don't you?
So can you present the sources that YOU used? I did that:
http://www.paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.plhttp://sims.ess.ucla.edu/PDF/Ding_et_al_Tectonics_2005.pdf anything else that I needed to cite?
The fact that we find transitionals at all is evidence for evolution, the fact that we find them in a general series, before we see whales makes it even stronger. It confirms the predictions evolution makes, and totally makes sense if evolution is true. Read some of my other posts (even just those on this thread). I am clearly not anti-evolution. If you came here to beat-up on creationists, I am not that guy. But neither am I an atheist. As I stand somewhere in the middle, I am not adamant about any specific issue. If a piece of evolutionary theory falls, so what. If a piece of evolutionary theory stands, that's fine too. As long as either way, it is the truth. Evolutionary relationships are questioned all the time. New evidence and new fossil finds can completely rearrange thinking about the evolutionary process (not the general processes, but the specifics). Such an upheaval has happened recently in the origin of mammals. Finds in Australia have challenged the long held view that mammals originated in northern Lurasia and later made their way south.
Continental drift takes long periods of time, so whales still had a large area to evolve in. I presented evidence in this thread Message 61 that India closed the Tethys 10my earlier than previously thought. I think this poses a challenge to the currently held view of Cetatian evolution. This is NOT my position. Call it an observation, an hypothesis if you will. A discussion topic.
Plus you are assuming that whales did not diversify to areas different than where the Indian subcontinent was meeting Asia. And you are assuming that they did? How is that any different? The evidence that they diversified is not the end result. If we don't know how they went from point A to point B then we simply don't know. So what is the evidence that they diversified? The commonly held theory is that whales evolved in the Tethys, but how did they evolve in the Tethys when the Tethys was closed? These are the types of things I am looking to discuss - not whether "evolution is true". I hope this clears up the misunderstanding of my intentions and reasons for bringing this issue up. HBD Edited by AdminModulous, : Changed url from http://%20http//paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl to its present form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
I really like the website you got your image from. I looked around a bit and he has certainly done a lot of work.
We certainly don't have the resolution in the Cetacean record that we do in Pelycodus. How does the amount of change from P. ralstoni to N.nunienus / N. venticolis compare to that of the Cetacean series? It covers about the same time span.
Another thing to point out is that evolution predicts an increase in evolution of diversity where survival pressure is low, such as when a species moves into a new ecosystem with little opposing forces, or after a massive die-off. This is because there is less selection overall and this allows a greater diversity in phenotypes. Could you expand on this a bit? Are you saying that a reduction in selection pressure allows increased diversity within a population? Which then allows increased opportunities for speciation? How could we apply this to the whale series? HBD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again herebedragons,
We certainly don't have the resolution in the Cetacean record that we do in Pelycodus. How does the amount of change from P. ralstoni to N.nunienus / N. venticolis compare to that of the Cetacean series? ... I agree that we don't have the resolution in the Cetacean record that we do in Pelycodus, the Cetacean record is more like stepping stones along a path, while Pelycodus is more like a paved stone walkway. The question is whether new fossils (paving stones) fill in the walkway or branch off the path.
... It covers about the same time span. One thing to remember about evolution is that the time metric is measured in generations, rather than years, and that average offspring per generation can condense one lineage compared to another by introducing more variation per generation. This would likely mean that pelycodus has more opportunity for diversity than the cetaceans on both counts. The other thing to remember is that selection is in response to ecological opportunities and challenges. In the mature ecosystem of pelycodus there is less opportunity and more challenge for added diversity, so this slows down the process. It is only as the whole population moves gradually towards larger individuals that an opportunity is made for a smaller species to survive. Looking closely at the pelycodus chart there are a couple of short branches towards smaller species, but they die out: not sufficient opportunity to survive. The opportunity for a smaller species only occurs once the main population is pretty much all larger than the ancestral (P. ralstoni) species was. In an open ecosystem there would more opportunity and less challenge.
Could you expand on this a bit? Are you saying that a reduction in selection pressure allows increased diversity within a population? Which then allows increased opportunities for speciation? Yes, reduced selection pressure means that more of the population survives to breed, including more of the ones with diverse variations compared to the parent population, thus resulting in greater diversity in the whole population. As population size increases it also becomes more difficult for all genes to spread equally through the population, so you develop varieties in different areas, especially when subpopulations live in slightly different ecologies (shallow vs deep ocean). The fossil evidence of foraminifera (another case where we have a paved walkway vs stepping stones) shows us that this in fact happened after the K-T extinction event:
quote: There is no reason to think that this is an isolated incident applicable only to foraminifera.
How could we apply this to the whale series? They were moving into a new ecosystem that was also impacted by, and still recovering from, the K-T extinction, and they had few competitors amidst an ecosystem of opportunity. Whale evolution would logically have diversified rapidly into a variety of forms that then gradually honed in on specific adaptations to different aspects of the ecosystem, baleen vs toothed, etc. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3031 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
TheArtist writes:
Actually, there is no claim that any of the animal species depicted in the cladogram evolved into any other species depicted. In fact, the cladogram indicates that this is probably not the case. The "transitional diagrams" used in cladistics (called cladograms) indicate relationships between lineages, not ancestry. The implication is that the lineages share an ancestor.
There are so many different species of animals, you could make infinitely many different transitional diagrams to ‘prove’ that one species evolved into another when in fact evolution would totally disagree that the particular animal evolved in such a way. Mesonychids and Pakicetus for example could be two different and unrelated animals, putting them next to each other in such a diagram does not prove that the one evolved into the other.
But no such claim is made. They are placed next to each other based on very good anatomical evidence, geographic evidence. The thought was that the Mesonychids (a sub-order) shared an ancestor with Pakicetus. More recent research indicates that cetaceans are more likely to share an ancestor with another non-mesonychid artiodactyl. By the way, there is one characteristic that is common to all of these organisms that exists only in whales, i.e., cetaceans. That is a sure-fire sign that they are related somehow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheArtist Junior Member (Idle past 2681 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: I've just been reading through the full text of the paper that you cited, and the "quotation" that you "quote" from it appears nowhere in the text. It does, however, appear on creationist websites. This would go some way to explaining why it's nonsense. Since this was the cause to some heated discussion I had taken the time to investigate this particular case. Unfortunately I could not find the true origin of this quote/reference but as I stated before this was most likely that the reference provided did not match the quote. In any case, here is some reading material that seems to make the same statement: Investigating species boundaries in the Giliopsis group of Ipomopsis (Polemoniaceae): Strong discordance among molecular and morphological markers: http://www.amjbot.org/content/96/4/853.full Discordances between morphological systematics and molecular taxonomy in the stem line of equids: A review of the case of taxonomy of genus Equus: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/...311003362/abstract
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello. Is your argument now distilled down to a google inquiry on the term discordance in regard to science publications?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Since this was the cause to some heated discussion I had taken the time to investigate this particular case. Unfortunately I could not find the true origin of this quote/reference but as I stated before this was most likely that the reference provided did not match the quote. In any case, here is some reading material that seems to make the same statement: They really don't make the same mistake, something that I attribute to them being actually written by real scientists. The papers sort out minor discrepancies. However, equids remain a clade, as does Gilopsis. They're sorting out the fine details. Such papers can give cold comfort to anyone who wants to claim that things that anatomically are whales wouldn't be so genetically. If these two weren't particularly genetically similar, then something fairly strange would be going on ...
... especially as we can find greater morphological divergence within modern forms which are by every molecular test whales. In the absence of DNA from Dorudon, which way would you bet? But in any case, in the absence of DNA we do what we can without it. The theory of evolution tells us that we should be able to find intermediate forms if we look long and thoroughly enough. We looked long and thoroughly enough, and we found intermediate forms. The theory does not tell us that we should be able to apply the techniques of molecular phylogeny to fossils millions of years old, and sure enough, we can't. We see what biologists say we should be able to see. The fact that you can fantasize that the evidence we don't have and can't have might contradict the evidence we do have is neither here nor there. One would not recommend such a tactic to a defense attorney: "OK, the blood-stains, the fingerprints, the gunpowder residue all point towards my client's guilt ... but if the concrete floor of the crime scene had been soft mud instead so that footprints could have been left in it, those footprints that aren't there in the concrete that couldn't receive their impressions might have told quite a different story." Well, this is neither here nor there. Going by the evidence we have, we have less-derived whales in the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2880 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
I found this and looks like it belongs in this thread.
quote: Why Creationists Win Evolution Debates
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just so you know, the beginning of an answer to one aspect of your proposed A holistic understanding on the evolution belief system has been posted at Explaining the pro-Evolution position , and that it addresses the issue of what evolution science IS -- a science, not a belief system.
Curiously I read your proposed topic and was struck by how little it pertained to evolution science, and rather was attacking a creationist straw man that characterizes all science and humanistic or materialistic beliefs under the banner of "evolutionism" as if calling it an 'ism' makes it a belief system that unites these different elements. It doesn't. For instance morals and what is "good" and what is "bad" -- science studies what happens in the physical testable world, and does not make judgements like that, rather that falls under philosophy (like humanism or materialism), and if you want to discuss this further I can open another new thread to that effect. Or you can proceed as admin suggests. No reply here please, you can message me. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
So, from the responses it seems as if you, TheArtist, didn't tell the truth about what was found in the pre-whale fossils.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
TheArtist writes: So, basically, you didn't tell the truth?
Since this was the cause to some heated discussion I had taken the time to investigate this particular case. Unfortunately I could not find the true origin of this quote/reference but as I stated before this was most likely that the reference provided did not match the quote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024