Molecular Genetics of Whale Evolution

@scd

By the way, a 300% error bar means “3 times”… not “300 times”.

@cwhenderson

This is evidently true, but then wouldn’t it also be an argument against Francis Collins assertion that “after the first cell, no special supernatural intervention was required”?

The case for secular versions of evolution (see Patrick!) is that random changes can be shown to be all that is needed for evolution to do what it has done (that “random” being left undefined and probably incoherent, but including mainly unknown but law-based changes).

The atheist accepts the same, demonstrable laws of nature as the theistic evolutionist, so if (as per Deb Haarsma and others) evolution is believed to be driven entirely, or nearly entirely, by divinely designed laws, that too is theoretically demonstrable, and evolution would then prove to be guided by the laws, the only difference between the atheist and the Christian being whether the laws are a brute undesigned fact or a divine provision - randomness would not enter the question at all.

If (as most biologists following Monod seem to believe) evolution is not entirely lawlike, but contingent, then there would arise a true competetion between the powers attributed to chance and the powers of real-time divine choices. In that case, given the rarity of beneficial mutations, there would seem to be some demonstrable loading of the mutational device in delivering so much help in so short a time to Mr Whale.

Of course, if evolution only works as it does because it is guided, then guidance is entering the empirical realm against Epicurean chance.

2 Likes

Thanks for stating this so eloquently, and even elegantly, @jongarvey . This is, in fact, the point I thought would be obvious when I raised this question in the first place. Cheers! Evolution, while demonstrably present, is simply not enough.

incorrect. since their split happened a long time ago evolution doesnt predict anything about that. if we were find no such pseudogene evolution will be just fine. and its also true for the rest “predictions”.

@scd,

Please don’t ask me to reply to your posts. You do not understand general principles of science well enough to even discuss these points with you.

why gbrooks? what is wrong with what i said? i just said that evolution doesnt predict that we will find such a pseudogene. for instance: human loss about 50 genes in about 5-6 my. most of them have left no exons. so if we are talking about 20-30 my old pseudogene it will be unlikely to find such a pseudogene even according to evolution.

There are dozens of perfectly clear articles out there … pointing out that because several different lineages of baleen whales exist … with their unique “tooth constellation” of genes apparently intact.

Knowing how Natural Selection works in nested hierarchies, the prediction was made that we would eventually find the gene that “broke” - - higher up in the causal chain, so that regardless of the “tooth constellation”, the “tooth constellation” would never be triggered.

And this prediction turned out to be correct.

You either understand this or you don’t. Based on your post, you certainly didn’t understand the point being made - - which is a fundamental PILLAR of natural selection’s interaction with a given population’s gene pool.

I don’t mind offering remedial information and insights… but not if the party is intentionally and willfully mis-communicating the very nature of how science is conducted.

but if we were not find this gene we c an always say that this loss happen several times at several lineages.

Great news! At @swamidass’ encouragement, I share a new BioLogos factoid over here at Peaceful Science:

@T.j_Runyon, over on the BioLogos side of the Universe, just corrected an error that the “Walking Whales” article promulgated…

He writes:
“…First this [dating comes from…] the press release. The later paper dated it at 40-46mya which is consistent with other Basilosaurids worldwide. But let’s say it is 49mya, all this would mean is there are likely older Pakecetids. This is a real possibility. There aren’t any Paleocene Indian mammal localities.
Note: I’ve worked on Basilosaurids and love discussing them.”
[ ^^ And we at Peaceful Science love that you love discussing them! ]

I wrote:
“Now THAT is frustrating … the press release had the aging incorrect?! Arghhh.”

@T.j_Runyon11m replied:
“Well that was the researcher’s first date. But their later publication showed them to be incorrect.”

Many thanks, T.J. !

2 Likes

The link to the finished article… provided by @T.j_Runyon:

T.j_Runyon15m
The actual paper for those interested:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.5710/AMGH.02.02.2016.2922

In summary, considering that 87Sr/86Sr ratios provided for TELM 4 might be biased (because of potential reworking and oscillation of the marine Sr isotope curve during the Eocene), we interpret the age of the horizon that produced MLP 11-II-21-3 (i.e., TELM 4) as early middle Eocene (~46–40 Ma; middle Lutetian to early Bartonian based on ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart 2015; Cohen et al., 2013) and follow the most recent chronostratigraphic interpretation for the La Meseta Formation.

A fairly good video summarizing the evidence that encourages even some YECs to conclude that whales evolved from land mammals.

1 Like

i agree :marine mammals" were first land lovers and had representation on the ark. after the flood empty seas were found and they diversified into the waters.
Yet its not from evolution/mutation by selection etc.
The traits don’t make them mammals but do show the type pf traits, on a common blueprint, one would have on the land. Its impossible God would give sea lovers these traits.
Many other evidences for why YEC should not say they were created on creation week.
The fossils are only poor chances of selection. there is no fossil sequence but only diversity and evidence for locations they came from.