Why evolution is true

[Spud]

There's nothing controversial about that. Whales evolved from land bound mammals. The evidence is incontrovertible.

OK. Let's see your evidence. I have done a bit of homework and found this:

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Currently, the earliest fossil of a baleen whale is dated at I think about 36 million years old. Its supposed ancestors, the pakicetids, are thought to have lived between 52-48 million years ago. That's a difference of 12-16 million years, which is a long time - conceivably long enough for what you think happened, even though a vast number of anatomical and physiological changes had to occur. But how do you know that Pakicetids didn't simply go extinct without leaving any living relatives, rather than turn into whales? Have you considered this possibility and if so, on what basis would you dismiss it?

[Enki]

Spud, try reading this. It gives a lot more detail, and describes the timeline of discoveries made which finally clinched the idea that whales descended from land mammals.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/

[jeremyp]

OK. Let's see your evidence.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-evolution-of-whales/

http://stories.anmm.gov.au/whale-evolution/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

I have done a bit of homework and found
this:https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Currently, the earliest fossil of a baleen whale is dated at I think about 36 million years old. Its supposed ancestors, the pakicetids, are thought to have lived between 52-48 million years ago. That's a difference of 12-16 million years, which is a long time - conceivably long enough for what you think happened, even though a vast number of anatomical and physiological changes had to occur. But how do you know that Pakicetids didn't simply go extinct without leaving any living relatives, rather than turn into whales? Have you considered this possibility and if so, on what basis would you dismiss it?

And you think no fossils have been found to cover the gap?

[Spud]

A fully aquatic whale jawbone found in Antarctica in 2011 made descent from Pakicetus much less likely, as it was dated to 49 mya.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/ancient-whale-jawbone-found-antarctica/#.W1Nqb9QrJkg

[Maeght]

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-evolution-of-whales/

http://stories.anmm.gov.au/whale-evolution/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

And you think no fossils have been found to cover the gap?

It says this could suggest that whales evolved more quickly than previousl thought, not that thay evolution is less likelym

[Spud]

Maeght,
If it is 49my old then it is older than most of the supposed links between it and land mammals, making its evolution from them not unlikely but impossible.

[Stranger]

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Currently, the earliest fossil of a baleen whale is dated at I think about 36 million years old. Its supposed ancestors, the pakicetids, are thought to have lived between 52-48 million years ago. That's a difference of 12-16 million years, which is a long time - conceivably long enough for what you think happened, even though a vast number of anatomical and physiological changes had to occur. But how do you know that Pakicetids didn't simply go extinct without leaving any living relatives, rather than turn into whales? Have you considered this possibility and if so, on what basis would you dismiss it?

A fully aquatic whale jawbone found in Antarctica in 2011 made descent from Pakicetus much less likely, as it was dated to 49 mya.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/ancient-whale-jawbone-found-antarctica/#.W1Nqb9QrJkg

Maeght,
If it is 49my old then it is older than most of the supposed links between it and land mammals, making its evolution from them not unlikely but impossible.

Whales didn't evolve from Pakicetus, as the page you originally quoted from makes quite clear:

In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

[Maeght]

Maeght,
If it is 49my old then it is older than most of the supposed links between it and land mammals, making its evolution from them not unlikely but impossible.

Which shows you have misunderstood the article.

[Spud]

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Whales didn't evolve from Pakicetus, as the page you originally quoted from makes quite clear:

No doubt there are fossils of their common ancestor, then.

[Spud]

So, Stranger and Maeght, we have this statement:

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

That implies that all the animals in the 'evogram' are related, ie they have common ancestry. Therefore there also ought to be fossils of their DIRECT ancestors. So until such a fossil is found, the only thing that can be inferred is that those animals share certain similarities (eg they could all swim, or they all breathed air using lungs).

Assuming no older fossils of the land mammals like Pakicetus will be found, there is a serious problem because the sequence displayed in the article has been changed: we now have a fossil of an aquatic whale that is almost as old as the animal at the beginning of the sequence.

The article is therefore out of date and needs to be revised.

[Maeght]

So, Stranger and Maeght, we have this statement:

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

That implies that all the animals in the 'evogram' are related, ie they have common ancestry. Therefore there also ought to be fossils of their DIRECT ancestors. So until such a fossil is found, the only thing that can be inferred is that those animals share certain similarities (eg they could all swim/they all breathed using lungs).

Assuming no older fossils of the land mammals like Pakicetus will be found, there is a serious problem because the sequence displayed in the article has been changed: we now have a fossil of an aquatic whale that is almost as old as the animal at the beginning of the sequence.

The article is therefore out of date and needs to be revised.

Science is always open to knew evidence. Our understanding of such evolutionary trees is constantly being improved and refined. I have never claimed it is complete or certain, but such new discoveries do not cause those who work in the field and who fully understand the topic (I have never claimed to be an expert) to reach the same conclusion as you did. There is, I understand, a huge amount of evidence to support evolution by natural selection and a discovery such as this does not falsify the theory but means our understanding of the story and our knowledge has increased.

[Stranger]

That implies that all the animals in the 'evogram' are related, ie they have common ancestry. Therefore there also ought to be fossils of their DIRECT ancestors.

There's no 'ought' about it - fossilisation is a rare event, there is no surprise that we don't have a complete record.

Assuming no older fossils of the land mammals like Pakicetus will be found, there is a serious problem because the sequence displayed in the article has been changed: we now have a fossil of an aquatic whale that is almost as old as the animal at the beginning of the sequence.

The article is therefore out of date and needs to be revised.

As Maeght has said, these sequences get revised all the time as new evidence emerges. None of this is as much as a pinprick in to the extensive evidence for evolution by natural selection and common descent. We can tell the hippopotamus and whale are related and approximately how long ago they had a common ancestor, just from genetics. In fact, the entire case for evolution could be made from genetic alone, without a single fossil.

[Spud]

There's no 'ought' about it - fossilisation is a rare event, there is no surprise that we don't have a complete record.

I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word (although I might open one eye and murmur that genetic mutations are often harmful). Regarding the fossil record, though, I would agree if you said that a fossil resembling a currently extant species could be an ancestor of that species, but when the fossil is extinct, there is no direct evidence and it is pure speculation to suggest they are related.

Consider all the changes that have to occur to get from land mammals to living whales. Take blubber, for example. IIRC we have fossils of so-called whales that kept warm using their fur, and we have fossils of actual whales that had blubber. There is only one or the other. We can't say the common ancestor with fur gradually morphed into an animal with blubber, because there is no fossil evidence for this. Instead, what we observe is sudden appearance of blubber.

[Harrowby Hall]

I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word

So you have a closed mind. Why should anyone bother to discuss this with you?

[jeremyp]

I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word.

You can’t just dismiss some of the most important evidence just because you refuse to understand it.

[Maeght]

I'm not in a position to comment about genetics, as I automatically switch off as soon as anyone mentions the word (although I might open one eye and murmur that genetic mutations are often harmful). Regarding the fossil record, though, I would agree if you said that a fossil resembling a currently extant species could be an ancestor of that species, but when the fossil is extinct, there is no direct evidence and it is pure speculation to suggest they are related.

Consider all the changes that have to occur to get from land mammals to living whales. Take blubber, for example. IIRC we have fossils of so-called whales that kept warm using their fur, and we have fossils of actual whales that had blubber. There is only one or the other. We can't say the common ancestor with fur gradually morphed into an animal with blubber, because there is no fossil evidence for this. Instead, what we observe is sudden appearance of blubber.

As others have said, you can't ignore genetics if looking to discuss the evidence for evolution.

[Spud]

So you have a closed mind. Why should anyone bother to discuss this with you?

I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics. The little about genetics I did at one stage learn was in the context of disease, and I never thought the idea that beneficial mutations could lead to macroevolution was worth bothering with. It seems unlikely. The idea that environmental pressures would cause all those anatomical and physiological changes to occur seems like pseudo-science. But having checked out the extinct animals thought to be related to whales that have been discovered, I realize I don't know much about them.

[Shaker]

I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics.

Does this not at the very least suggest it's not a subject you should be bloviating about?

[Maeght]

I don't think I have intelligence for evolutionary genetics. The little about genetics I did at one stage learn was in the context of disease, and I never thought the idea that beneficial mutations could lead to macroevolution was worth bothering with. It seems unlikely. The idea that environmental pressures would cause all those anatomical and physiological changes to occur seems like pseudo-science. But having checked out the extinct animals thought to be related to whales that have been discovered, I realize I don't know much about them.

So are you going to stop trying to argue against the science of evolution?

[Spud]

So are you going to stop trying to argue against the science of evolution?

I will read about the extinct animals thought to be related to whales.

[Maeght]

I will read about the extinct animals thought to be related to whales.

That's good. Do some reading about the genetic evidence too.

[Spud]

Does this not at the very least suggest it's not a subject you should be bloviating about?

The only examples of beneficial mutations I can think of are sickle cell anaemia and the bacteria that can digest plastic. However, the sickle cell carrier is no less human than a non-carrier, and likewise for the bacteria. No evolution, just adaption.

[Stranger]

The only examples of beneficial mutations I can think of...

I've no idea why you think your personal knowledge has any bearing on the matter.

However, the sickle cell carrier is no less human than a non-carrier, and likewise for the bacteria. No evolution, just adaption.

FFS, what do you think evolution is? How do you think large evolutionary change comes about except by lots of little 'adaptations'?

[Spud]

FFS, what do you think evolution is? How do you think large evolutionary change comes about except by lots of little 'adaptations'?

At the moment, I don't think large evolutionary change comes about. Lots of little adaptations have not been observed happening; its a bit like being paid for every 15 minutes you are logged in, but doing the job in 10 minutes then logging out. Your bank balance will always stay the same.

[Stranger]

At the moment, I don't think large evolutionary change comes about.

Then you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence.

Lots of little adaptations have not been observed happening

You just said that adaptation did happen (#171) - make up your mind.

...its a bit like being paid for every 15 minutes you are logged in, but doing the job in 10 minutes then logging out. Your bank balance will always stay the same.

I have no idea what you mean by that.