You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.
Posted on 08/16/2006 6:35:40 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
The discovery of a bizarre species of fossil whale from Australia with huge eyes and flesh-ripping jaws provides valuable new insights into the evolution of whales, researchers say.
The previously unknown species lived about 25 million years ago and was an early ancestor of modern baleen whales, which feed by filtering plankton from seawater. This group includes the blue whale, the largest animal ever to inhabit the planet.
But the newfound predatory whale likely hunted sharks and other fish despite its relatively small size and suggests that baleen whales weren't always the toothless gentle giants we see in our oceans today.
The new species, Janjucetus hunderi, had a maximum body length of about 11.5 feet (3.5 meters) and sharp, serrated teeth measuring up to 1.4 inches (3.5 centimeters) long.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
He says the fossil also forces a major rethinking of how modern baleen whales evolved their unique feeding system.These whales use long, hair-fringed, flexible plates called baleen to filter huge quantities of seawater, capturing thousands of planktonic animals such as krill in a single mouthful.
How does the discovery of a 25 million year old transitional fossil in any way advance the cause of Young Earth Creationism?
I think he is just pointing out that scientists don't know anything
We don't? How many 25 million year old transitional whale fossils have you found?
Fixed it for you.
Fantastic news. Thanks for the heads-up.
what #7 says
There's no conceivable way to evolve from large predator teeth and killing and eating large animals to baleen and seining for plankton.
There's no conceivable way that giant, flesh ripping dinosaur reptiles could ever evolve into the common, tiny, bug eating skink.
YEC INTREP
"You dam sceintists don't know nuthin'" Placemarker.
Scientists can do a "major rethinking" of how whales evolved, but Kansas schoolchildren must accept the "fact". If schoolchildren were to question the traditional theories, the New York Times says that makes them "scientifically illiterate". I think they'd be behaving more like scientists.
If we stop questioning traditional theories, the advancement of science comes to a halt.
There's a difference though between the specific mechanisms that govern the process of evolution and that evolution happens itself. The first is debatable; in fact, it continually is debated in scientific circles. To deny the latter is to deny the evidence.
But Janjucetus could have been something of a freak among early baleen whales, he says, possibly having evolved in isolation and with little connection to today's species.
"Perhaps Janjucetus isn't so much typical of the start of baleen whales but represents a later side branch that acquired its strange features through evolutionary 'reversion,'" Fordyce said
"Rapid climate change at that time led to a modernization of ocean circulation and probably to major changes in food resources," he said, triggering the evolution of new dolphins and whales such as Janjucetus.
This is a prime example of an evolutionist's "just so stories".
..coulda...possibly...perhaps...probably
You realize that scientists habitually use tentative language. It's related to the epistemological position science has taken on "proof."
If you disagree with the scientists interpretation of the fossil then how do you interpret it?
Nice post!
What brings you to the conclusion that this (or any) fossil is 'transitional?' The description of the creature certainly does not lead to that conclusion; it seems to simply be another extinct animal, since it differs so much from any surviving creature.
The fossil itself is a fact. But how it came to be and what it leads to is a mystery. Guessing games not withstanding.
If you assume all life evolved according to Darwin's theory you'll choose a naturalistic explanation. On the other hand if you are a creationist you'll choose a supernaturalistic explanation.
Personally, I don't believe in Darwins TOE. I think Intelligent Design and Punctuated Equalibrium are better explanations of the fossil record.
Give me a strict, testable definition of "transitional" so that I can know it when I see it, seeing as how you apparently have some expertise in the matter.
Punctuated Equilbria are part of evolutionary theory. What are you talking about?
Thanks Dave. Apparently another animal that died out, from the millions that God created.
Science is self-correcting but what it means when something is corrected is that the previous stuff is wrong. Right now, scientists don't seem to feel that there is going to be anything found to discredit the ToE, and yet there always remains the possibility of that happening. So why the condemnation of people who question the ToE? Maybe they don't have anything to offer that's better at the moment BUT should they later prove (no pun intended) to be right, all the ridicule and derision is for what? For being right in the first place?
Hmmm. A twelve foot toothed whale with large eyes. Kinda sounds like a dolphin, no?
Science is careful not to overreach its data and theory. There are a lot of criticisms, including on these threads, when someone thinks a theory has been expressed too much like a fact. But a well-supported theory is not "so tentative" that it is a wild guess. There is a lot of scientific evidence and testing behind it. It is the highest level of "proof" in science.
Science is self-correcting but what it means when something is corrected is that the previous stuff is wrong. Right now, scientists don't seem to feel that there is going to be anything found to discredit the ToE, and yet there always remains the possibility of that happening. So why the condemnation of people who question the ToE? Maybe they don't have anything to offer that's better at the moment BUT should they later prove (no pun intended) to be right, all the ridicule and derision is for what? For being right in the first place?
The reason for "the condemnation of people who question the ToE" is that the condemnation is not coming from from science. It is not in the journals, which for evolution take up entire floors, multiple floors, in libraries. Rather, it is coming from people who disbelieve the theory of evolution for religious reasons. There is no science behind the condemnation! Just look at the level of ignorance of science in many of the most vociferous of the posters on these threads. The more knowledgeable posters cut-and-paste from creationist websites, which are notorious for pseudo- and false-science.
Is it any wonder that some posters are disgusted with the lack of scientific "condemnation" of a scientific theory?
There are no transitional fossils. Stephen Gould had no difficulty admitting it.
Now, now - if you let things stew for billions and billions of years, it could happen.
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.- Stephen Jay Gould
Not that this will prevent you from making the same claim next week, or next month, or whenever, but there you go.
A reasonable question: Is this a direct or collateral ancester of the modern whale or simply a related creature with similar characteristics?
> Give me a strict, testable definition of "transitional" so that I can know it when I see it...
When one species ("A") evolves into another ("B"), and then into another ("C), the middle species is "transitional." And as it turns out, with the exception of the Very Last In It's Line species, such as dodos, *every* species is a transitional species.
When you talk of 'transitions' in a continuum, no meaningful definition exists as every point on that continuum would be 'transitional'. You seemed to believe 'transitional' had semantic value in this discussion, when a cursory rational observation would suggest it does not.
Not to start a pissing war here, but Punctuated Equilibria is a part of evolution theory that is firmly based of Darwins theory. If you reject Darwin, you must, by definition, reject Punctuated Equilibria.
You said: "If you assume all life evolved according to Darwin's theory you'll choose a naturalistic explanation."
Then you said: "I don't believe in Darwins TOE."
This is logically inconsistent. Punctuated Equilibria is part of evolution theory. You cannot simultaneously claim that "I don't believe in Darwins TOE." and claim "I think ... Punctuated Equalibrium are (is a) better explanations of the fossil record." If you accept the idea of Punctuated Equilibria you must accept the broad theory of evolution (Darwin) upon which it is predicated.
The concept of Intelligent Design is not a testable idea and is, therefore, not a part of science. It may be true that there is an intelligent, original 'prime mover' or 'designer', but since it can't be tested, it is not part of science. You cannot use it to argue against science (such as evolution) because no one can see (test) if its true.
True, in your tiny mind.
I agree. But I was referring to Darwin's theory per his book "Origin of Species". Not TOE per se.
Of course you are correct. But if you believe that TOE is "fact" as many apparently do, then every new fossil discovery must be shoe horned into the "fact" of TOE.
It's called the "priority of the paradigm" in Thomas Kuhn's book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
The problem occurs when we confuse science with ultimate truth. Science is a method we use to assist us in understanding the natural world. The method works well in a practical sense. But it doesn't guarantee ultimate "truth", only a glimpse of an "operational truth" at any particular time in history.
I agree. ID is not "science". But it is "truth" IMO.
You realize that Darwin actually supported the concept, even before the term existed, right?
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html
I disagree with the above conclusion from your link.
PE is based on evidence of new species "suddenly" appearing in the fossil record followed by long periods of "stasis". This is contrary to Darwin's theory of evolutionary gradualism. Darwin argued that the reason for the lack of evidence of evolutionary gradualism is the imperfection of the fossil record which was essentially an argument based on the absence of evidence.
I believe Gould and Eldredge's rejection of Darwin's gradualism are correct.
Did you read the quotes that Theobald provided?
Could it just be that I have a healthful interest in science and fossil finds?
And I admit just a tinge of delight when they have to totally revamp their theory with the next finding. If you look admidst the maybes and perhaps of articles about new finds, there's almost always a "more X than previously thought" or "revolutionizes currently-held beliefs" or "overthrows previously held theories" and so forth.
Does seem like it would be the wrong way, doesn't it?
Healthful?
And I admit just a tinge of delight when they have to totally revamp their theory with the next finding.
I know. Isn't amazing how the discovery of a new transitional fossil can give us such a better understanding of 25 myo evolutionary paths?
If you look admidst
Amidst? Somebody needs to show you how to use a thesaurus properly.
there's almost always a "more X than previously thought" or "revolutionizes currently-held beliefs" or "overthrows previously held theories" and so forth.
Maybe because finding the expected doesn't make for particularly compelling news copy.
Define "sudden" as perceived by a geologist.
Likewise whale sonar cannot plausible evolve. The idea of a dog-sized or even a hippo-sized animal going out into deep water without some sort of full-blown navigation system is ludicrous. Think about it; hippos live in water but you do not see them out in deep water, ever. Think there might be a reason for that??
SYDNEY (AFP) - Scientists in Australia have discovered a fossilised ancient relative of the blue whale with a fearsome razor-toothed appearance that has seen it dubbed "the T-rex of the oceans". The fossil is the latest in a list of ancient creatures including sabre-toothed kangaroos, horned "devil wallabies" and the unlikely-sounding "demon duck of doom" that are reshaping views of Australia's prehistoric past. The 25-million-year-old whale fossil has forced scientists to rethink the evolution of baleen whales, the placid giants which feed by using fine hair-like fibres in their mouths to filter plankton from the sea. "The fossil proves the baleen whale, including toothless filter-feeders like the blue whale, often thought of as gentle giants of the sea, were not always so giant or gentle," Monash University graduate researcher Erich Fitzgerald told AFP. While baleens are large -- with the blue whale reaching up to 30 metres (98 foot) -- the prehistoric predator was a swift hunter-killer only 3.5 metres (11.5 foot) long that fed on fish and small sharks, Fitzgerald said. He said it also had large eyes, like a modern great white, to compensate for its lack of sonar. "(It was) Australia's very own T-rex of the oceans," he said. The whale fossil was discovered in a limestone rock in the late 1990s by a teenage surfer at Jan Juc Beach in Victoria state.
Formally known as "janjucetus hunderi", the fossil lay unstudied for years until Fitzgerald spotted it on the desk of a PhD student. "As soon as I saw it I realised it was something new," Fitzgerald said. Fitzgerald's findings will be published this month in the Royal Society journal and the fossil went on display Wednesday at the Melbourne Museum in Victoria. Museum Victoria's head of science John Long will also this week present findings from expeditions into a cave in Australia's remote Nullarbor Plain that yielded a fossil treasure trove, including the only complete marsupial lion skeleton ever found. "It was a once-in-a-lifetime fossil," Long told AFP. "For the first time we could see the complete limbs and feet, revealing an opposable thumb with a huge retractable claw which was used to disembowel prey. "It was like the velociraptor of the mammal world." The marsupial lion became extinct about 50,000 years ago, along with the rest of Australia's so-called "mega-fauna" -- the giant versions of harmless modern Australian animals such as wombats, kangaroos and koala bears. The Nullarbor caves contained some 60 mega-fauna skeletons, including 10 marsupial lions and a new special of marsupial nicknamed the "devil wallaby" because of the horn-like protrusions on its head.
"They probably protected its head when it was eating spiny plants," Long said. The University of New South Wales last month said it had found fossilised remains of a flesh-eating, sabre-toothed kangaroo that lived in Queensland state more than 10 million years ago. It also unearthed evidence at the same site of a large carnivorous bird weighing up to 400 kilograms (882 pounds) dubbed the "demon duck of doom". Scientists had long wondered whether the appearance of humans in Australia 45,000 years ago led to the extinction of the continent's mega-fauna. However, this month a team from the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University released a study arguing that climate change killed the giant beasts up to 10,000 years before man arrived.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.