does the whale fossil record show evolution?“ bernie …files.meetup.com/1279214/does the whale...

Bernie Dehler (Evolutionist, Atheist, Secular Humanist)

Brandon Church (Young Earth Creationist, Christian)

Mon. 9-12-11

Westside Science and Religion Discussion Group http://tinyurl.com/38ww2b3

"Does the whale fossil record show evolution?“

1. I don’t speak for all atheists, just as Brandon doesn’t speak for all theists, or even all Christians. So if you are a fellow atheist/agnostic and/or a Secular Humanist, but you disagree with me, you are in good company. Every atheist speaker has atheist critics. Every single one

2. You may have preferred to have scientists presenting today. They aren’t available, or aren’t

willing. So you get us. Be thankful you’re getting something. We both spent a lot of time preparing for this, and none of us are getting paid for it.

3. This isn’t only about science. If Brandon wants to mention theological implications, I’m fine

to also go there, and would encourage the discussion.

4. Previous comments from audience requested we pre-disclose primary points so we can better rebut each other. Brandon wasn’t interested in a pre-meeting… so complain to him if

disappointed.

5. This is not a life and death situation, so sit back and relax and enjoy it mentally. Don’t feel like you have to defend your beliefs or the world will come to an end.

6. Thank you all for attending: opponent, moderator, and audience. If there was no interest

from all, it wouldn’t happen.


DISCLAIMER & PRELIMINARY NOTES:

Summary of presentation:

Part 1: Your choice between two hypotheses (creationism vs. evolution). If you reject evolution and modern science, be

aware of the alternative you are selecting.

Part 2: The positive case for whale evolution

Part 3: Creationist complaints. Prediction of my opponents tactics: “argument from ignorance,’ citing outdated works and deceased scientists, giving half the story (fossil progression in doubt; but don’t mention positive results of MtDNA evidence)

SUMMARY


Part 1: Your choice between two hypotheses (creationism vs. evolution)

1. You need to decide for yourself. Did whales

evolve from land animals, or were they made by a special miracle (“poof” or fiat)? There is no

other choice. Evolution vs. Creationism.

2. Will you look into the vast amount of evidence before making your decision? Or do you just

want to trust some authority (pro or con)?


Part 1: God did it… which God?

The Greeks said Prometheus was the God who made humans; Christians say it was Jesus who made everything. So when we talk about creation by miracles, are we talking about the Jesus God (the Christian Bible God) or

the “philosopher’s God?” Did Jesus make the whales?

Colossians 1:15-19 (NIV) (See also John Ch. 1)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on

earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God

was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,… “


The big picture: Creation by evolution, or creation by “poof” (1 of 2)

Creation by ‘poof’ (miracle, or ‘fiat’):

• Species created instantaneously by miracle.

• Young earth creationists say everything was created by miracle

about 6,000 years ago.

• Old earthers agree with modern science on cosmology but not

biology, species created individually over the eons.

Creation by evolution: • Species created over eons, one

species evolves into another, radiates directionless in order to

best fill ecological niches. • All species emerge from some

other species. • Theistic evolutionists think God is

somehow involved (either directing evolution or just inventing

evolution as a design method). Atheists say no God is needed; superfluous. Both evolutionists

agree that animals weren’t created by “poof.” Both accept common

descent (macroevolution).


The big picture: Creation by evolution, or creation by “poof” (2 of 2)

Creation by ‘poof’ (miracle, or

‘fiat’)

Hypothesis about whales:

God “poofed” (creation by fiat) these into existence: whales, dolphins, and

porpoises. They did not descend from other species.

Creation by evolution Animal life first evolved in the ocean.

Land animals emerged from these, then they went back into the ocean

and became the whales of today.

Dictionary.com: ce·ta·cean (s-tshn)n. Any of various aquatic, chiefly marine mammals of

the order Cetacea, including the whales, dolphins, and porpoises, characterized by a nearly hairless body, anterior limbs modified into broad flippers, vestigial posterior

limbs, and a flat notched tail.


Science/Religion Slider Choose your level of science to determine your biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). (I lived through all of these.)

-- Level 0: Reject all modern science (invent “Creation science” in its place). Young Earth creationism (YEC). Reject modern science of cosmology and biology (accepts microevolution but rejects macroevolution).

-- Level 1: Accept modern science for cosmology only. Old Earth creationism (OEC). Reject modern science on biology (accepts microevolution but rejects macroevolution).

-- Level 2: Accept all modern science (cosmological evolution and biological evolution). Theistic Evolution and “Evolutionary Creationism” (TE/EC). Accepts all of modern science. -- Level 3: Same as above, but reject everything supernatural (supernatural is superfluous). Atheistic evolution. Accepts all of modern science (methodological naturalism), and says that by extension that the natural world is all there is (metaphysical naturalism). There’s no evidence for the supernatural.

The more that modern science is accepted, the less literal the biblical hermeneutic. This is why evolution is fought so hard by YEC and OEC, because accepting evolution would radically result in a shift

in their theology and gospel message (i.e., Adam and Eve and a fall from a paradisiacal state).

Brandon’s choice .


How much of “modern science” do you want to accept?

YEC OEC TE/EC AE

0 1 2 3

Science/Religion Continuum by Dr. Lamoureux (From YEC, I evolved through each stage)


Science/Religion Hypotheses by Dr. Lamoureux


CETACEA FUN FACTS (Whales, Dolphins, Purpoises)

-- All are mammals (like land mammals)

-- Cetaceans, but scientist usually use ‘whale’ as synonym. Two orders of Cetacia: Odontocetes (toothed) and Mysticetes (baleen).

-- Cetaceans arose in the Eocene period about 50 MYA, fully aquatic in a few million years.

-- Evolved rapidly, with rapid meaning 8 million years

-- Fully aquatic (can’t live outside water), breathe air with lungs, birth live young and nurse, hair in early stages of development.

-- Include blue whale (the largest animal to ever live, 90 ft. and 150 metric tons), dolphins, tusked narwhals, blind river dolphins, and singing humpback whales. Over 80 species (would God make so many unique versions if not evolved)?

-- Most are marine, exception is river dolphin species

-- Many of the toothed whales use echolocation . Humpback (baleen) whale has the complex songs, but not used for echolocation.

-- All move their tail up/down. Little known factoid: The only sideways swimming cretacean is the ‘blind river dolphin’ (ref. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/138/)

Source: “Whale Origins Research” (Northeast Ohio Medical University, Dr. Thewissen): http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html


http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/138/

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/138/

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html

Part 2: Admission: “Problems with fossils” “Whales and Seals” by Pierre-Henry Fontaine

(2007), Pg. 246.

Not many early fossils (not as many as one would want) Cetacean evolution is viewed as relatively rapid (8 million years) and didn’t start

happening in a large geographical zone Cetaceans live and die in sea. Before sinking, they float, bloated. Can lose

skeleton parts. bottom feeding animals can destroy

tide and waves can disrupt Necessary conditions have to be just right to preserve them, and are rare

The world was different for the ancients, for example India not yet attached to the continent (ancient local seas). India collided with Asia and created the

Himalaya mountains, bringing marine fossils up with them. Governmental politics can be difficult- Pakistan is a hot spot for whale fossils 65 MYA with extinction of dinosaurs gave rise to mammals (52 MYA whale

evolution started and many/most available by 10 MYA)


Part 2: The positive case for whale evolution (Courtesy of Dr. Thewissen)


Part 2: The positive case for whale evolution

Nine lines of independent evidence from talkorigins.org (2001 article). Consider

the different lines of evidence. Ask yourself which is more likely; creation

by “poof,” or common descent (evolution).


Part 2: The positive case for whale evolution. Nine independent lines of evidence.*(1 of 5)

1. Paleontological evidence Studying the fossil sequence from terrestrial mammals through more and more

whale-like forms until the appearance of modern whales. Evidence Is considered from a general mammalian standpoint, not from specifics of the

two whale suborders: Odontocetes (toothed) and Mysticetes (baleen). Fossil sequence: Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus,

Dorudon. (Note: this is an old and possibly outdated order, but it deals with ancient fossils. See previous slide from Dr. Thewissen for latest.)

2. Morphological evidence

Analysis of the feet and the ‘anvil’ of the middle ear.

3. Molecular biological evidence 2003 paper (TalkOrigins really outdated, mentioning 1997 as the latest study).

See later slide for detail.

*http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/



4. Vestigial evidence Useless left-overs. Either bad design of God, or evolutionary left-overs. Dr.

Thewissen quote: Source http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

“'Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to

suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot

help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. [He goes on which much more detail explaining it.]”

Vestigial olfactory nerves. A closed ear canal. Muscles devoted to non-existent

ears (land animals use for directional hearing). Beluga whales possess rudimentary ear pinnae (not needed since they don’t use ears to hear, and

creates drag).




5. Embryological evidence Unnecessary embryotic structures built then later not used: develop body hair

(remains in some whales by blow-holes and snout), external hind limb buds (appear and disappear in the womb), rudimentary ear pinnae (disappear in

womb except those with atavisms). For some whales, olfactory lobes of brain only in the fetus. Embryo starts with nostril in usual place for mammals, but migrates to top of the head to form the blowhole. Embryology also shows

tooth to baleen development: some baleen whale embryos develop teeth in the womb then discard them before birth. Why grow them if not needed, if

God designed them from scratch?




6. Geochemical evidence

Earliest whales in fresh-water, then moved to salt water. Teeth can be analyzed for isotopic rations of oxygen to determine environment of fresh/salt water.

Results confirm evolutionary hypothesis with age of fossils (older fossils showing fresh water habitat).

7. Paleoenvironmental evidence

One would expect the environment of other fossils to fit the whale fossil, such as finding leaf and marine mollusks, indicating a shallow sea, as thought for the

environment for Ambulocetus.




8. Paleobiogeographic evidence

Earlier whales should be found in local areas, and later whales over a larger area, and we see it (local area for Sinonyx, and global fossils for Basilosaurus).

9. Chronological evidence

Considering why mammals returned to sea. After dinosaur extinction, mass extinction of marine reptiles. A niche opened for mammals to fill. Predicts mammals couldn’t have returned to sea until other marine reptiles vacated.



Part 2: Paleontological Summary Consistent changes that indicate a series of adaptations from more terrestrial to more aquatic environments as we move from the most ancestral to the most recent species. - the shape of the skull - the shape of the teeth - the position of the nostrils - the size and structure of both the forelimbs and the hindlimbs - the size and shape of the tail - the structure of the middle ear as it relates to directional hearing underwater and diving The paleontological evidence records a history of increasing adaptation to life in the water - not just to any way of life in the water, but to life as lived by contemporary whales.


Part 2: 2003 DNA STUDY DETAILS Paper: “Mitogenomic analyses provide new insights into cetacean origin and evolution”, by Ulfur Arnason*, Anette Gullberg, Axel Janke, cont.


3.5. Conclusions The complete mt genomes of 13 cetacean species, representing all extant families, were sequenced. The analyses identified three basal cetartiodactyl lineages: Suina (pig), Tylopoda (alpaca) and Cetruminantia. Cetruminantia splits into Ruminantia (cow, sheep and muntjac) and Cetancodonta (hippopotamus and cetaceans). The sister group relationship between Hippopotamidae and Cetacea was strongly supported. The divergence between these two lineages was estimated to have taken place 53 –54 MYBP, an estimate that is consistent with the oldest archaeocete fossils found so far. Within Cetacea, a basal split between Odontoceti and Mysticeti was identified. Odontoceti split into four basal lineages. Relationships among these lineages were poorly resolved, suggesting that these splits had taken place within a narrow temporal window c 30 MYBP. The molecular results are inconsistent with two recent morphological hypotheses on cetacean origin that have postulated a close relationship between Cetacea and the extinct group Mesonychia.

Part 2: The positive case for whale evolution. Additional evidence to investigate, for my own

curiosity.

Hypothesis is that whales evolved from land animals, and aren’t like fish. Possible tests (compare Killer whale to great white shark…

similar in size but in different classification orders):

1. Recurrent Laryngeal nerve. Fish have short route. Land mammals have very long one. Therefore, Killer whale should have long one (like hippo and dolphin) and

great white shark should have short one.

2. Brains, heart, and eyes. Brains, hearts, and eyes of killer whale should be much closer in construction to hippo and dolphin than a great white.

3. Note: You can do your own BLAST genomic comparisons. Step-by-step

instructions for a kid’s science fair project for blue whale genomic comparisons: http://tinyurl.com/3duymgm


http://tinyurl.com/3duymgm

Part 3: Creationist complaints

Refuting Evolution 2 (2003) (actually refers to “Refuting Evolution (1)” (1999) for more whale info.

RE2 complaints: pg 135. quotes Gingerich “a real puzzle how whales evolved.” Maybe true

(back in 2003). But a puzzle also doesn’t mean totally unsolved. There’s a big picture that is known. It is like doing a jigsaw puzzle with many missing parts.

Even with a lot of missing parts, with enough context, you can make out a picture.

pg. 135. He says Gingrich found partial fossil and claimed inner ear like a whale, but it is inconclusive. Why? Reason not given. Studying the ear is a main staple of evolutionary study in ancient whale fossils, Dr. Thewissen’s

specialty. Same paragraph runs into, conflates, this objection with locomotion, which should be different topic. Locomotion may be a guess, as to guess of rest of the body make-up. But guess is based on evidence, not pure imagination.



Refuting Evolution 2 (2003) (actually refers to “Refuting Evolution (1)” (1999) for more whale info.

RE2 complaints: pg 137 Pakicetus re-interpreted by Dr. Thewissen, 2001. Maybe he should

look again at Dr. Thewissen’s latest paper and finds, 2007: “NEOUCOM Scientist Discovers Missing Link: Dr. Hans Thewissen Identifies

Whales' Four-Footed Ancestor” http://www.neomed.edu/about/externalaffairs/prmarketing/forreporters/pres

sreleases/neoucom-scientist-discovers-missing-link-dr.-hans-thewissen-identifies-whales-four-footed-ancestor

pg 138 change of story of evolution from carnivores to even-toed ungulates.

True. What isn’t mentioned is new, refined, evolutionary sorting due to MtDNA analysis. Sorting exact lineages for relatives (so many cousins!) is not

easy!


http://www.neomed.edu/about/externalaffairs/prmarketing/forreporters/pressreleases/neoucom-scientist-discovers-missing-link-dr.-hans-thewissen-identifies-whales-four-footed-ancestor



























Refuting Evolution, book 1: Pg 69, chapter “whale evolution?”, starts with admitting “Cetaceans

(whales, dolphins) are actually mammals, not fish. Think about it… really think. Whole mammalian systems and capabilities; like giving live birth, nursing with

milk, blowholes and lungs vs. gills, etc.

Marine mammal fossils are recent; compared to shark, and land mammals. It doesn’t make sense that God would design sea creatures like that unless he

purposely wanted to deceive. But a lying God is contrary to Christian theology.



Refuting Evolution, book 1: pg 71 “Refuting Evolution” (book 1) quotes EJ Slijper “We do not posses a

single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals and the whales.” Positive: at lease admitted the guy is dead (so it is

hard to see if he changed his mind ;-) Looking at the footnote reveals his statement is from a book in 1962. Over 49 years ago! Isn’t that a dirty

dishonest trick, quoting a dead person who didn’t know recent evidence (recent as in discovered fossils by Dr. Thewissen in 2007).

I think also lots of positive evidence not mentioned or purposely overlooked,

because they didn’t know how to dismiss it… such as analysis of teeth composition to determine the kind of water the animal lived in (fresh vs. sea

water, etc.). Not looking at the big picture, only nitpicking for problems. Intellectual dishonesty?


Part 3: Critics need to read-up on new scientific discoveries

2007 “Science Daily” article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm (Mentions Thewissen breakthrough) Backup by leading expert Dr. Thewissen: ”Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India” (2007) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/abs/nature06343.html Although the first ten million years of whale evolution are documented by a remarkable series of fossil skeletons, the link to the ancestor of cetaceans has been missing. It was known that whales are related to even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls), but until now no artiodactyls were morphologically close to early whales. Here we show that the Eocene south Asian raoellid artiodactyls are the sister group to whales. The raoellid Indohyus is similar to whales, and unlike other artiodactyls, in the structure of its ears and premolars, in the density of its limb bones and in the stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth. We also show that a major dietary change occurred during the transition from artiodactyls to whales and that raoellids were aquatic waders. This indicates that aquatic life in this lineage occurred before the origin of the order Cetacea. March 2009 update, rebuttal “Brief Communication Arising”: Hippopotamus and whale phylogeny http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/nature07776.html Thewissen et al.1 describe new fossils from India that apparently support a phylogeny that places Cetacea (that is, whales, dolphins, porpoises) as the sister group to the extinct family Raoellidae, and Hippopotamidae as more closely related to pigs and peccaries (that is, Suina) than to cetaceans. However, our reanalysis of a modified version of the data set they used2 differs in retaining molecular characters and demonstrates that Hippopotamidae is the closest extant family to Cetacea and that raoellids are the closest extinct group, consistent with previous phylogenetic studies2, 3. This topology supports the view that the aquatic adaptations in hippopotamids and cetaceans are inherited from their common ancestor4.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/abs/nature06343.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/nature07776.html







SUMMARY

You have two hypotheses to choose from, and only two: creation by poof or evolution (theistic or atheistic)

99% of all species that ever existed is now extinct. Is that more

compatible with creation by poof (young or old earth creationism) or evolution over eons of time? Is it just a claim from evolutionists?

Consider multiple lines of evidence which seem to converge to validate

evolution (common descent)

“That it happened” can be a fact (because of the DNA/fossil evidence) without knowing exactly “how it happened.”


SUMMARY

Not knowing an answer is not proof for anything, except not-knowing (otherwise, it is an argument from ignorance). Don’t think “because we don’t know, God did it.” Focus more heavily on what you DO know to extrapolate into the unknown realm (metaphysics equals beliefs about the unknown).

Secular Humanism is a naturalistic belief system that promotes critical thinking. I’ve found that belief in the supernatural has no evidence, other

than “god of the gaps” (arguments from ignorance)

Summary: Fossil descent is speculative. The nature of the puzzle is difficult, with few fossils, and many possible ways of relationships. Anyone

can be a critic (Samuel Clemens quote)… much harder to do the hard work of hypotheses and testing/investigating. YEC’s aren’t contributing to science,

other than possible advertising internal rifts in agreement between practicing scientists. Lots of YEC criticism is very old and outdated- not touching on

modern 2007 fossil evidence. Ask them for dates on any critiques, and see if they quote any living experts.


does the whale fossil record show evolution?“ bernie …files.meetup.com/1279214/does the whale...

Documents