Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
Dawkins claims that as land creatures began in the sea, some later
land creatures returned, including whales and dugonds ([p.170,171).
Though, for decades Darwinsts had zero fossil evidence, but they had
faith. E.J. Slijper in 1962: "We do not possess a single fossil of the
transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals[ i.e.
carnivores and ungulates] and the whales." Slijper, Dolphins and Whales,
University of Michigan Presss, 1962. p. 17.
It would have been faith had there been no evidence apart from the as-yet-undiscovered fossils. However, there is plenty of non-fossil evidence that whales and land creatures are related (
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/). Here are two different types of evidence (the link contains several more):
Molecular - studies of the protein sequences of, for example, myoglobin, lens alpha-crystallin A, and cytochrome c, show whales are closely related to ungulates, and therefore likely have a common ancestor with them.
Vestigial - whales have vestiges of pelvic bones, femora, and tibiae, as well as vestigial olfactory nerves. These suggest a partially terrestrial evolutionary history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
The first thing to ask, is *which* land creatures? Dawkins says:
"Molecular genetic evidence... shows that the closest living cousins
of whales are hippos... Hippos stayed a least partially on land, and so
resemble their more distant land-dwelling cousins, the ruminants, while
their closer cousins, the whales took off into the sea and changed so
drastically that their affinities with hippos escaped all biologists
except molecular geneticists." (p. 170).
This is the current favored evolutionary explanation. But Dawkins fails
to mention that very recently the "evolutionary theory" of the day was
that whales descended from mesonychids, an order of extinct
carnivorous mammals quite unlike hippos. Yet now, the supposedly
*overwhleming* evidence of mesonychid ancestry PRESENTED
DOGMATICALLY AS FACT has to be explained away. That is, the supposedly
homologous features of mesonychids and whales, mainly teeth and skull
anatomy, once attributed to common ancestry have to now be
explained away as homoplastic/convergent, i.e. having NOTHING to do with
common ancestry.
If you look at the diagram on slide 5 here (
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g231/Whales.pdf), the branch containing whale-like creatures and the branch of mesonychids both extend from a common ancestor. So with the old evidence we had, it would have been reasonable to say that whales descended from mesonychids, but with the new evidence (including that presented in Dawkins' book), we can refine our knowledge and say that both species had a common ancestor. Neither of these statements are inconsistent with evolution. Rather, they show that evolution is able to incorporate new facts. I'm not sure what's being explained away here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
Dawkins reproduces a diagram of supposed whale ancestry on p.171-2.
The diagram looks nice and pretty when all the creatures are drawn about the same size, with no mention (of course) that for example Basilosaurus was
10 times longer than AMbulocetus. Some of the other claims are not
what Dawkins presents them as either.
Basilosaurus is 5 nodes further than Ambulocetus in the diagram, which presumably represents millions of years. I'm not surprised that it's possible for it to be bigger. Think about the enormous size range produced in dogs in just the past few thousand years. I believe Dawkins uses this example in the second chapter of his book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
For example Pakicetus was drawn as an aquatic creature based on a few
skull ones and teeth (typical). It's discoverer Philip Gingerich
exclaimed: "In time and morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate,
a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged
whales" Gingerish, P.D, J Gelol. Educ. 31:140-144, 1983
Since Gingerish, like Dawkins is a committed materialist, macro-evolution
is the only game in town, so they MUST INTERPRET FOSSILS WITH THEIR
BIASED FRAMEWORK. Therefore, it is not surprising that a few scraps of
bone are wishfully thought to be a "missing link."
However, of course, when the rest of the skeleton was found, it was
realized to be a fast-running land creature.
Basilosaurus (listed in Dakwins BS diagram) was fully aquatic, so hardly
transitional between land mammals and whales.
Barabara Stahl, vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist points out:
"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek
teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [ like Basilosaurus] COULD
NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THE ANCESTOR OF MODERN WHALES"
Stahl B.J., Vertebrate History, p. 489, Dover. 1985
Basiloaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking) and
some claim that they were vestigal. But they were probably used for
clasping during copulation, according to other evolutionists. For example
Philip Gingerich said "It seems to me that they could have been some kind
of reproductive clasper" The Press Enterprise, July 1 1990, p. A-15
In Dawkins' diagram, Basilosaurus is not presented as the ancestor of modern whales. Rather, it is presented as sharing a common ancestor with the ancestor of modern whales. Of course it's not transitional fossil between land mammals and whales; there's five or six previous nodes representing fossils which indicate that transition! Do they
all fail to show the transition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
The bottom line, is that I have clearly shown that evolutionists
are extremely biased (and at times disingenuous) they see things through
their biased materialistic world-view, and are constantly distorting the
data to fit into their paradigm. They accuse creationists of doing what
they are clearly guilty of doing, over and over. And, the lemmings
swallow this crap hook, line and sinker. Dawkins shows some whale to
hippo evolutionary picture in his book, and the donkeys swallow it like
it's a fact.
Wouldn't evolutionists be bad scientists if they didn't have a materialistic perspective? You can't do good science if you reach for a supernatural explanation every time you can't explain something.
![[Phill]'s Avatar](https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/customavatars/avatar10430_44.gif){kind=avatar}
