Whale evolutionists have some splaining to do, extinct whale found

"The strange creature's arched, frownlike snout makes it look oddly different from other living whales. DNA analysis suggested pygmy right whales diverged from modern baleen whales such as the blue whale and the humpback whalebetween 17 million and 25 million years ago. However, the pygmy whales' snouts suggested they were more closely related to the family of whales that includes the bowhead whale. Yet there were no studies of fossils showing how the pygmy whale had evolved, Marx said. [In Photos: Tracking Humpback Whales]

To understand how the pygmy whale fit into the lineage of whales, Marx and his colleagues carefully analyzed the skull bones and other fossil fragments from pygmy right whales and several other ancient cetaceans."


Read more: www.businessinsider.com...://www.businessinsider.com/whale-thought-ex tinct-for-2-million-years-is-found-2012-12

I'll take a wild guess and suggest Cetologists will add a few million years to the evolutionary chart for whales

reply to post by GeneralMishka


Why do they have any explaining to do?

They found a whale that was supposed to be extinct, which is simply amazing.

You posted a really great article, and I thank you for this, but I don't see the anti-evolution connection here.

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by GeneralMishka

 

Why do they have any explaining to do?

They found a whale that was supposed to be extinct, which is simply amazing.

You posted a really great article, and I thank you for this, but I don't see the anti-evolution connection here.

Maybe the OP is getting at, that the whale shouldn't be alive based on the evolution theory because it should have evolved 2 million years ago.

But, other than that...I have no idea what the OP is getting at.

My question is, if this race of whales went extinct almost 2 million years ago...how did this one wash up on shore like that? The age would be very old and that part doesn't make sense. Either, scientists are freakin dumb or this whale isn't that old.

The Pygmy Right Whale is not THE whale species from 2 Million years ago, but, a very close relation to it such that the Pygmy Right Whale may answer some questions about the evolutionary divergence in whale species.

It's a RELATIVE to an extinct line of whales from 2 Million years ago, just like Human Beings are relatives to the extinct Australopithecines 2 million years ago, just not as apparently closely related as these Pygmy Right Whales to their predecessors.

Criationists have this thought that animals and plants evolve like pokemon (and dismiss evolution in the process), and that they evolve all at the same time. Evolution is a very gradual process and, for instance, if little elements of a determined species become "trapped" or exclusive to a very "confined" place we will have genetic bottleneck, which means almost no evolution when there are very little elements from a species left to breed on a determined place. This has happened to humans. That's why we call previously thought to be extinct animals "Living fossils".

reply to post by JameSimon


Evolution takes place by degrees of Phyletic Gradualism , and Punctuated Equilibrium.

It can happen slow, or fast, depending on environmental pressures and a species ability to physically or behaviorally adapt an advantage in response to changes.

Peppered Moth adaptive response over a very short time is an example of evolution in progress over a very short time where coloration was an adaptive advantage.

These advantages can be morphological, or behavioral all depending on the species and environmental pressures they respond to.

It doesn't really matter because there is no such thing as evolution anyway. It's all pretended science that can never actually be proven. The whale was a whale any way you look at it, nothing more.

This is how science works. Unlike the bible in which all knowledge was finalized in the ironage. Science "evolves" based on new information gathered through experimentation and observation.

To be giddy with excitement because a new fact has emerged to to challenge an belief is what makes science worth while.

To be giddy with excitement because a new fact has arrived that challenges existing theory, because you think it strengthens you ironage beliefs about creation is childish (I could have gone with moronic or idiotic but that would be harsh)

reply to post by Druscilla


Peppered Moth? Are you serious? When did you go to school? Where did you go to school? as you should get your money back, as I thought everyone knew it was hoax

www.trueauthority.com...
"When people soon found out that Peppered Moths do not actually rest on tree trunks in the day time, but rather hide under leaves in treetops, the hoax began to unravel. It turned out that the photographs of light and dark moths resting on a tree trunk were faked by pinning and gluing dead moths onto logs and trunks, and that the moths were either dead or came from the laboratory to be used in the supposed "filmed experiments."

This is fact. This is truth. If ever anyone brings Peppered Moths to the forefront in a discussion, know then and there that they haven't done their homework. Interestingly, Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago said that finding out the moth story was wrong was like when he found that it was actually his father who was bringing in the Christmas presents when he was 6 years old. For many, the Peppered Moths were once a trusted evolutionary weapon."


"

Originally posted by Fromabove
It doesn't really matter because there is no such thing as evolution anyway. It's all pretended science that can never actually be proven. The whale was a whale any way you look at it, nothing more.

We've actually a fairly clear picture of the progression of evolution of Cetaceans:

Cetacean Evolution - wiki






Then again, invisible people in the sky calling down magical fairy dust hoodoo to just make things happen works for some people, however that works.

reply to post by Druscilla


It's sad to see many people that have not actually read the article.... They would then know that this isn't the actual extinct whale species afterall, instead they star the first post that sounds witty.....

reply to post by Druscilla


Druscilla, the problem with evolution is simple. Let us say for the sake of hypothesis, that a bolt of lightning did come down and zapp the murky mud, and Wha-laa..! a first cell formed. And lets say that it took about a billion years or so for that to happen. At least this is what science claims in the age of the planet Earth. Next something strange happens. The first cell dies. So then we wait again for a second chance and BAM ! another lightning strike, and it hits the same mud pool and again another cell is born like magic. Then let's progress and say that somehow this one and only cell achieves intelligence and suddenly it knows it must divide and consume nourishment, and it does. And it divides and divides and so on, but then, OH NO ! the mud pool dries and the cells die. So then we wait for another couple of billion years and finally, a stable cell group., Now, let's say it suddenly achieves superior intelligence to know and to do, and decides to grow legs, and arms, and fins and so on. And everything is cool. But then, OH NO ! now comes the late bombardment period and the earth is turned int molten lava and what life there was disappears. Then we start the whole thing over again, and again, and again. In the end, the universe grows old, and entropy sets in and it dies a cold lifeless dark empty void as it stretches apart to infinity. This is why evolution is totally ridiculous. I could win the jackpot lottery every day for a thousand years straight and never lose or miss one day before the chances that the total perfect world of evolution would ever come to pass.

reply to post by Fromabove


You have a few things very wrong.

1) Bolt of lightning? There is a difference between a bolt of lightning causing life and lightning creating rare forms of phosphorous, etc that was important to early life.
2) Cells would begin dividing immediately probably through binary fission, those that survived a mud puddle or whatever drying up would continue to divide and those who died were naturally selected to expire, thus evolution began.
3) Cells are not intelligent.
4) Cells cannot decide to grow limbs, in fact no known life can consciously "decide" to evolve.
5) Even in extinction level events, life has never been entirely erased from this planet. There was never a need to start over even if there were setbacks.

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by Fromabove

 

You have a few things very wrong.

1) Bolt of lightning? There is a difference between a bolt of lightning causing life and lightning creating rare forms of phosphorous, etc that was important to early life.
2) Cells would begin dividing immediately probably through binary fission, those that survived a mud puddle or whatever drying up would continue to divide and those who died were naturally selected to expire, thus evolution began.
3) Cells are not intelligent.
4) Cells cannot decide to grow limbs, in fact no known life can consciously "decide" to evolve.
5) Even in extinction level events, life has never been entirely erased from this planet. There was never a need to start over even if there were setbacks.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Osiris1953 because: (no reason given)

My point is, is that by whatever means you attribute the process of evolution to occur, it would be impossible to achieve, the mathematical odds are against it. Some scientists "think" it was the bolt of lightning in the mud pool while still others think it was a chemical reaction. There is much debate on the ifs and when's. And, I just watched a show on the BBC on the evolution of life and man, and they claim that during the late bombardment period all life was erased from the planet under temperatures reaching several thousand degrees and the earth was a big molten ball of rock. In the end, random events whether chemical or by magic lightning cannot make any substance know to live and to continue. There are just too many holes and blank spaces in the evolution idea to make it scientifically reliable.

reply to post by Fromabove


I agree with you in the sense that the very original genesis of uni-cellular life has not been sufficiently explained.

However the sheer amount evidence of evolution occurring since is in my opinion undeniable. The theory is not yet perfect, but to me it is more than sufficient, and the great thing about science is that it too evolves as new evidence is presented.

reply to post by GeneralMishka


It too bad you get all your information from preachers.

The peppered moths evidence of natural selection via predation is confirmed and once you start going to a church that doesnt lie to increase donations youll say "well thats just evidence of micro evoluion because like most creationists i dont understand there is no differance between the two"

Originally posted by johngrissom

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by GeneralMishka

 

Why do they have any explaining to do?

They found a whale that was supposed to be extinct, which is simply amazing.

You posted a really great article, and I thank you for this, but I don't see the anti-evolution connection here.

Maybe the OP is getting at, that the whale shouldn't be alive based on the evolution theory because it should have evolved 2 million years ago.

But, other than that...I have no idea what the OP is getting at.

My question is, if this race of whales went extinct almost 2 million years ago...how did this one wash up on shore like that? The age would be very old and that part doesn't make sense. Either, scientists are freakin dumb or this whale isn't that old.

I think scientists have steered us wrong many times before.

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I agree with you in the sense that the very original genesis of uni-cellular life has not been sufficiently explained.

However the sheer amount evidence of evolution occurring since is in my opinion undeniable. The theory is not yet perfect, but to me it is more than sufficient, and the great thing about science is that it too evolves as new evidence is presented.

What you call evolution present in post origin life I would call adaptation, and that part I can agree with you on. Things in the physical nature in life change as it relates to environmental conditions, the the species remains intact. Even if it has variables due to climatic events.

^Not true. Speciation has been witnessed. Did you really mean group or order by species?

Allow me to "splain" it for you. Whales evolved 40 million years ago. Why is it surprising that a relative of a whale species thought to be extinct is found alive today? They don't have to rewrite anything. The species is rare, so we hadn't seen it up until now. That's it, move on. BTW evolutionist is a derogatory term invented by religious zealots, try using evolutionary biologist. The find has nothing to do with evolution. Hilarious how quickly creationists jump to conclusions without even comprehending something.

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Druscilla, the problem with evolution is simple. Let us say for the sake of hypothesis, that a bolt of lightning did come down and zapp the murky mud, and Wha-laa..! a first cell formed. And lets say that it took about a billion years or so for that to happen. At least this is what science claims in the age of the planet Earth. Next something strange happens. The first cell dies. So then we wait again for a second chance and BAM ! another lightning strike, and it hits the same mud pool and again another cell is born like magic. Then let's progress and say that somehow this one and only cell achieves intelligence and suddenly it knows it must divide and consume nourishment, and it does. And it divides and divides and so on, but then, OH NO ! the mud pool dries and the cells die. So then we wait for another couple of billion years and finally, a stable cell group., Now, let's say it suddenly achieves superior intelligence to know and to do, and decides to grow legs, and arms, and fins and so on. And everything is cool. But then, OH NO ! now comes the late bombardment period and the earth is turned int molten lava and what life there was disappears. Then we start the whole thing over again, and again, and again. In the end, the universe grows old, and entropy sets in and it dies a cold lifeless dark empty void as it stretches apart to infinity. This is why evolution is totally ridiculous. I could win the jackpot lottery every day for a thousand years straight and never lose or miss one day before the chances that the total perfect world of evolution would ever come to pass.

Your "understanding" of how life began on this planet is considerably off from current models, and a number of hypotheses, some even including panspermia.
I suggest you take some time in reading and educating yourself on the number of different possibilities, including familiarizing with the differences between biological and pre-biological biological building blocks, if, that is, your bias hasn't already predisposed you toward automatic rejection and oversimplification of a complicated question with complicated answers covering several ranges of differing possibilities.

Of course, it's always much easier for those who lack the education and/or facility for understanding complex events and answers to require a simple big-button rounded-edges non-choking-hazard play-school handicap-accessible answer to how the universe works, in which case, invisible people in the sky making things happen it is.
You're more than welcome to take the play-school handicap-accessible answer and run with it.
Nothing worth having, however, is easy.