What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, one.opinion said:

The archaeopteryx fossils are a good indication that this indeed happened.

No they are not.  Not until you can show an unbroken line of transitions from start to what it evolved into, today.   Otherwise, all you have is an ancient extinct animal that didn't make into modern times.

Quote

As I mentioned earlier, science is self-correcting. As new discoveries are made, scientists have to re-write what is known. Evolutionary thinking has changed a lot since Darwin. Genetic thinking has changed a lot since Mendel. It is part of science.

And still no meaningful evidence.  The fact that it has to change so much in order to explain why what is supposed to be there can be found, doesn't bode well for Evolution.  Given the claims that Evolutionists make, the evidence should be beyond overwhelming.  But the best they can do is a fossil here, and a fossil there, and a lame interpretation that is supposed to make us believe that a stand alone fossil is supposed to make up for a dearth of real fossil evidence.

And Punctuated Equilibrium isn't about science correcting itself;  it is just as unscientific and lacking evidentiary credibility  as Darwinian evolution.

Quote

What I am admitting is that indirect observation like the fossil record and biogeography need to be used to build the bigger picture. And there is no evidence to suggest that micro and macro evolution are anything other than different points on the same trend line.

That is ridiculous.   Variations of existing information does not lead to brand new, previously non-existent genetic information.  It has never been observed, by your own admission, but we are supposed to just accept that it is possible, minus evidence.   This again, demonstrates why Evolution isn't scientific and is really more wishful thinking than anything else.  

 

Quote

I showed you evidence yesterday that you did not accept. The evidence remains, whether or not you believe it.

You did what most evolutionists do.   You hold up examples of alleged transitions without any demonstration of a line of transitional fossils.  You put up articles about variations of existing species, but not actually evidence of the kind of evolutionary evidence I requested.  It's the same smokescreen that evolutionists always employ.  They try to prove macro-evolution with variations in finches, bugs and bacteria and that is supposed to make us believe that man's origin is really found in some primordial soup that eventually evolved over billions of years.   

You simply cannot provide the evidence for macro-evolution which is what everyone in your camp says that God used to create animals and humanity.   

[one.opinion]

Just now, enoob57 said:

We have already and you ignore and restate your faith in evolution... God says it is not possible this should be enough!

Shiloh is at least trying to put some effort into a scientific rebuttal (some data presentation would be nice, though). You haven't even attempted it. You made massive claims about different things that "prove evolution wrong" but you will not dare to even ATTEMPT to support those claims.

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Variations of existing information does not lead to brand new, previously non-existent genetic information.

Re-phrase, I showed this exact thing to you yesterday.

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That is ridiculous.   Variations of existing information does not lead to brand new, previously non-existent genetic information.  It has never been observed, by your own admission, but we are supposed to just accept that it is possible, minus evidence.   This again, demonstrates why Evolution isn't scientific and is really more wishful thinking than anything else.  

You are fighting against evidence with a definite lack of evidence. Which is ridiculous?

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You did what most evolutionists do.   You hold up examples of alleged transitions without any demonstration of a line of transitional fossils.  You put up articles about variations of existing species, but not actually evidence of the kind of evolutionary evidence I requested.  It's the same smokescreen that evolutionists always employ.  They try to prove macro-evolution with variations in finches, bugs and bacteria and that is supposed to make us believe that man's origin is really found in some primordial soup that eventually evolved over billions of years.   

You simply cannot provide the evidence for macro-evolution which is what everyone in your camp says that God used to create animals and humanity.   

I provide evidence, but you ignore it and claim it isn't evidence. You acknowledge that accumulated genetic changes can lead to speciation. Think a little bit. What would happen if 2 new species were given enough time to become 4, and those 8, and then 16, and 32, etc. Eventually, there would be very different species at different ends of the spectrum. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that would work, just genuine engagement with the facts.

Edited August 24, 2018 by one.opinion

[enoob57]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

Shiloh is at least trying to put some effort into a scientific rebuttal (some data presentation would be nice, though). You haven't even attempted it. You made massive claims about different things that "prove evolution wrong" but you will not dare to even ATTEMPT to support those claims.

I've read and have made up my mind about the facts... you say you have done the same _however_ we are on opposite poles... this is how it will go: the right will be an everlasting thing where wrong will cease from the presence of right. I have the facts I have listed and The Written Word as my proof and it is enough for me to wait upon the outcome of right! You have absolutely no facts and oppose The Written Word of God yet here you are... we love you but there is nothing more that can be said! 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Re-phrase, I showed this exact thing to you yesterday.

No, you didn't.

Quote

You are fighting against evidence with a definite lack of evidence. Which is ridiculous?

No, I am simply pointing the lack of any meaningful evidence, the kind of evidence that should be obvious and observable to everyone.   It doesn't exist. All I am doing is pointing that out.

 

Quote

I provide evidence, but you ignore it and claim it isn't evidence.

I said it is not evidence of macro-evolution; I didn't say it wasn't evidence.

Quote

You acknowledge that accumulated genetic changes can lead to speciation.

Changes yes.  I did not say that it leads to new, previously non-existent information.  Simply rearranging existing evidence doesn't lead to brand new, previously non-existent information, any more than rearranging the clothes in your closet leads to a new wardrobe.   

 

Quote

Think a little bit. What would happen if 2 new species were given enough time to become 4, and those 8, and then 16, and 32, etc. Eventually, there would be very different species at different ends of the spectrum. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that would work, just genuine engagement with the facts.

But that doesn't lead to a new organism, a new previously non-existing animal.   It has never been observed as such and there is no evidence to say it would.  All you do is provide evidence for speciation and claim it will evolve into newly existing animal without any observation.  We are just supposed to accept that claim on its face. Two species of horse could lead to 100 species of horses; but they are still horses.   That doesn't make an argument for macro-evolution.

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

I have the facts I have listed

You did not list facts. You listed erroneous opinions presented as fact. This is a problem. When well-meaning Christians tell others facts-that-are-not-facts and the listener knows enough to recognize them, that paints followers of Jesus in a poor light. This was my exact point in my earlier thread. Do not use "facts" unless you understand them and know enough science to defend them.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

It has never been observed

because it cannot happen in 150 years

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Two species of horse could lead to 100 species of horses; but they are still horses.

This is true, but still an example of evolution. What evidence (i.e. data) do you have that disputes the series of fossils in whale evolution? I think we can agree that terrestrial mammals are pretty different from whales. Why do whales have remnants of tetrapod-type pelvises?

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

because it cannot happen in 150 years

Yes, but again I am asking for the evidence from the fossil record that is supposed to span millions of years.  I never said that I expected anything to be observed in 150 years.  

Quote

This is true, but still an example of evolution. What evidence (i.e. data) do you have that disputes the series of fossils in whale evolution? I think we can agree that terrestrial mammals are pretty different from whales. Why do whales have remnants of tetrapod-type pelvises?

Ah yes, Pakicetus.  It all started with a head of a animal that was imagined  to have evolved into a whale.   This has been discussed on the boards before.  Most of the stuff about whale evolution is a fraud.  The body of Pakicetus was found in the early 2000s and it turns it had nothing to do with whales.   I have seen the artistic depictions   where Pakicetus eventually evolves in a whale.  It's all made up, as far as the "evolution" claims are concerned.  There a couple of others that were put forth as part of the evolution of whales, but they bore no characteristics that come even close to being like whales at all.  It's all just nonsense.   

 

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Ah yes, Pakicetus.  It all started with a head of a animal that was imagined  to have evolved into a whale.   This has been discussed on the boards before.  Most of the stuff about whale evolution is a fraud.  The body of Pakicetus was found in the early 2000s and it turns it had nothing to do with whales.   I have seen the artistic depictions   where Pakicetus eventually evolves in a whale.  It's all made up, as far as the "evolution" claims are concerned.  There a couple of others that were put forth as part of the evolution of whales, but they bore no characteristics that come even close to being like whales at all.  It's all just nonsense.   

Share your data, please, not narratives. Once you have provided evidence of the "made up" story, you can move on to data that addresses the rest of the transitional series -- Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon that have been discovered to this point. If you are going to make claims that science doesn't support something, you are going to have to use science (data) to do it.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Share your data, please, not narratives. Once you have provided evidence of the "made up" story, you can move on to data that addresses the rest of the transitional series -- Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon that have been discovered to this point. If you are going to make claims that science doesn't support something, you are going to have to use science (data) to do it.

 

Here is an article that sums it up much better than I can:

Whale evolution?

First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 5

Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are actually mammals, not fish. But they live their whole lives in water, unlike most mammals that live on land. But evolutionists believe that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. One alleged transitional series is prominently drawn in Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This chapter analyzes this and other arguments for cetacean evolution, and shows some of the unique features of whales and dolphins.

Wonderful whales

Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

• Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
• A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
• Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
• Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
• Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
• Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
• Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
• Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
• Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it’s the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin’s ‘click’ pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.¹

One amazing feature of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.²

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.

Missing links

Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail’ sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’³

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.⁴ The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

• Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
• Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
• Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
• Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.⁵ This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)

(A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming.’⁷ The stippled bones were all that were found, and the shaded ones were found 5 m above the rest.
(B) With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn’t much left of Ambulocetus!

Ambulocetus

The second in this ‘transitional series’ is the 7-foot (2 m) long Ambulocetus natans (‘walking whale that swims’). Like the secular media and more ‘popular’ science journals, Teaching about Evolution often presents nice neat stories to readers, not the ins and outs of the research methodology, including its limitations. The nice pictures of Ambulocetus natans in these publications are based on artists’ imaginations, and should be compared with the actual bones found! The difference is illustrated well in the article A Whale of a Tale?⁶ This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil:

Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.⁷

Finally, it is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than undisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales.

 

Alleged sequence of land mammal to whale transition
[From Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science]

Basilosaurus

Basilosaurus isis (a.k.a. Zeuglodon) is the fourth and last postulated transitional form on page 18 of Teaching about Evolution. Basilosaurus is Greek for ‘king lizard,’ but it was actually a serpent-like sea mammal about 70 feet (21 m) long, with a 5-foot (1.5 m) long skull. It was 10 times as long as Ambulocetus, although the Teaching about Evolution book draws them at the same size (above)—it helps give the desired (false) impression that there is a genuine transitional series.

However, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a 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.

Both modern branches of whales, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti), appear abruptly in the fossil record. Stahl points out the following regarding the skull structure in both types:

… shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof.⁸

Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and Teaching Evolution says ‘they were thought to be non-functional.’ But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists. For example, the evolutionary whale expert Philip Gingerich said, ‘It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.’⁹

Pakicetus

Pakicetus inachus is yet another candidate as an intermediate between whales and land mammals in the eyes of some evolutionists. According to evolutionary ‘dating’ methods it is 52 million years old. Since some educational publications have also claimed Pakicetus is transitional (see diagram), it is worth discussing although it is absent from Teaching about Evolution. This indicates that its authors don’t believe Pakicetus is a good example of an intermediate. This could be because Pakicetus is known only from some cheek teeth and fragments of the skull and lower jaw, so we have no way of knowing whether its locomotion was transitional. The diagram shows the imaginative reconstruction taught to schoolteachers and on the cover of Science, compared to the reality as reported in the same issue. Note that only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, while the rest is ‘reconstructed.’ But we do know that its hearing mechanism was that of a land mammal and that it was found in fluvial sediments with other land animals.¹⁰ So the evidence shows that it was probably a land mammal, not a transitional form.¹¹

Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction^10,12
Bottom left: what he had actually found^10,12
Top right: more complete skeleton¹³
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction¹⁵

After I first wrote Refuting Evolution, new research has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It’s also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized.

A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.¹³ The commentary on this paper in the same issue¹⁴ says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See illustration, above right.) This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.

Also, ‘solid anatomical data’ contradict previous theories of whale ancestry. The news article Fossil Finds Show Whales Related to Early Pigs says:

‘Until now paleontologists thought whales had evolved from mesonychians, an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores, while molecular scientists studying DNA were convinced they descended from artiodactyls [even-toed ungulates].

‘“The paleontologists, and I am one of them, were wrong,” Gingerich said.’

Such candor is commendable, and it shows the fallacy of trusting alleged ‘proofs’ of evolution. Pity that Gingerich is still committed to materialistic evolutionism.

G.A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, has expressed serious doubts as to whether creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, and others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as a completely isolated group.¹⁶

Vestigial legs?

Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.¹⁷ As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function.

One myth promulgated by some evolutionists says that some whales have been found with hind legs, complete with thigh and knee muscles. However, this story probably grew by legendary accretion from a true account of a real sperm whale with a 5.5 inch (14 cm) bump with a 5-inch (12 cm) piece of bone inside. Sperm whales are typically about 62 feet (19 m) long, so this abnormal piece of bone is minute in comparison with the whale—this hardly qualifies as a ‘leg!’¹⁸

Related Articles

• Whale evolution fraud
• Baleen whales have unique sensory organ

References and notes

1. R. Howlett, Flipper’ Secret, New Scientist 154(2088):34–39, 28 June 1997. Return to text.
2. U. Varanasi, H.R. Feldman, and D.C. Malins, Molecular Basis for Formation of Lipid Sound Lens in Echolocating Cetaceans, Nature 255(5506):340–343, 22 May 1975. Return to text.
3. E.J. Slijper, Dolphins and Whales (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1962), p. 17. Return to text.
4. C. Zimmer, Back to the Sea, Discover, p. 83, January 1995. Return to text.
5. This is explained fully in W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science, 1993), chapter 8 (see review). Return to text.
6. D. Batten, A Whale of a Tale? Journal of Creation 8(1):2–3, 1994. Return to text.

https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution