Hi Bertvan!
I'm impressed! this is a much greater attempt to post some evidence of
claims instead of just cutting and pasting the same tired assertations you
have made a bajillion times in the past.
>. . . Darwinism, the idea that nature is the result of chance events
>molded by natural selection, included some good stories. Such as the one
>about how a wolf-like creature turned into a whale in a mere 10 million years.
>
>Some of the changes would have included:
>(1) Complete loss of body hair
etc.
>http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000320.html
>(See post by DNAunion 9-19-2000)
I plan to check it out.
>All of these changes *might* be explained by some implausible "chance events
>plus natural selection" scenario. However, any story of how it might have
>happened is pure science fiction.
The history of the whales is pretty well documented, which is why
creationists are so anxious to say it doesn't exist. The following is
pretty long, you may want to read only the introductory paragraph. I
included the rest just for general intersest. This and a lot of nice stuff
as at: http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/trans_faq.html#ceta
8. CETACEANS (WHALES, DOLPHINS)
Just several years ago, there was still a large gap in the fossil record
of the cetaceans. It was thought that they arose from land-dwelling
mesonychids that gradually lost their hind legs and became aquatic.
Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage
where they had were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there
were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from
India & Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much
filled this gap. There are still no known species-species transitions,
and the "chain of genera" is not complete, but we now have a partial
lineage, and sure enough, the new whale fossils have legs, exactly as
predicted. (for discussions see Berta, 1994; Gingerich et al. 1990;
Thewissen et al. 1994; Discover magazine, Jan. 1995; Gould 1994)
Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene)
Unspecialized condylarths quite similar to the early oxyclaenid
condylarths, but with strong canine teeth (showing first meat-eating
tendencies), blunt crushing cheek teeth, and flattened claws instead
of nails.
Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene)
A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the
mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways to look
like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
Dissacus (mid-Paleocene)
A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene meat-eating animal) with
molars more like premolars & several other tooth changes. Still had
5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma)
A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively
shaped zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the
molars. Probably a running animal that could swim by paddling its
feet. Hapalodectes itself may be just too late to be the whale
ancestor, but probably was a close relative of the whale ancestor.
Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear unmistakable
resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the early
Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with
distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth.
Although the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the
mesonychids, especially Hapalodectes...."
Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma)
The oldest fossil whale known. Same skull features as
Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic membrane,
no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound
localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still
have very mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of
later whales. Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale-
like skull crests and elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5
m long. This skull was found with terrestrial fossils and may have
been amphibious, like a hippo.
Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma)
A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and
vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in
the water. This whale had four legs! Front legs were stubby. Back
legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that
stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a
long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with
no blowhole. Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with
a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling
with the hind feet. So, just as predicted, these early whales were
much like modern sea lions -- they could swim, but they could also
still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma)
Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery. Had hind legs a
third smaller than those of A. natans. Could probably still
"waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail (indicated
by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for
long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of
the snout.
Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-
legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma)
After Rodhocetus came several whales that still had hind legs, but
couldn't walk on them any more. For example, B. isis (42 Ma) had
hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe
is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless
for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a
locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this
long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to
modern whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is
Protocetes, a slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene.
It was about 3m long (dolphin sized), and still had primitive
dentition, nostrils at end of snout, and a large pelvis attached to
the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is known from only
fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late Eocene
legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of
the whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only
the teeth were found. ( See Gingerich et al. (1990) for more info on
B. isis.)
Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma)
Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had *almost* lost
the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6-
inch hind legs on its 15-foot body.
Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene
These more advanced whales have lost their hind legs entirely, but
retain a"primitive whale" skull and teeth, with unfused nostrils.
They grew to larger body size (up to 25m by the end of the Eocene),
an had an elongate, streamlined body, flippers, and a cartilaginous
tail fluke. The ear was modified for hearing underwater. Note that
this stage of aquatic adaptation was attained about 15 million years
after the first terrestrial mesonychids.
Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale probably ancestral to
modern whales.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
1) Toothed whales:
Agorophius (late Oligocene)
Skull partly telescoped, but cheek teeth still rooted. Intermediate
in many ways between archaeocetes and later toothed whales.
Prosqualodon (late Oligocene)
Skull fully telescoped with nostrils on top (blowhole). Cheek teeth
increased in number but still have old cusps. Probably ancestral to
most later toothed whales (possibly excepting the sperm whales?)
Kentriodon (mid-Miocene)
Skull telescoped, still symmetrical. Radiated in the late Miocene
into the modern dolphins and small toothed whales with asymmetrical
skulls.
2) Baleen (toothless) whales:
Aetiocetus (late Oligocene)
The most primitive known mysticete whale and probably the stem group
of all later baleen whales. Had developed mysticete-style loose jaw
hinge and air sinus, *but* still had all its teeth. Later,
Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth.
Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 15:13:53 EDT