Science, Creation & EvolutionHow do creationists explain atavisms?*Slaps head* The 'legs' are a trait that refers to a past in which the whale's ancestors were still terrestrial mammals. 'Modern' whales did not have legs that gradually disappeared. We've seen prehistoric whales with 'hind legs' that evolved into flipper-like constructions. It is theorised that these small, hind flippers were used to either support the penis (which is HUGE in whales!) or to grab hold of the females flippers while mating. We see that reproduction WITHOUT these flippers is quite possible (look at modern whales!). There wasn't enough use for flippers to survive natural selection. My point is that the 'legs' as we see today (complete with digits and clearly meant for life on land) were never part of aquatic animals. Whale legs evolved to ADD to the chances of surviving as an aquatic mammal, and served a purpose, and the suggestion that whales with 'half-legs' swam around are most likely based on misunderstanding current theories on whale-evolution. "If the legs had a purpose, then why did whales lose them?" The method of swimming with your whole body, and especially the tail, was probably a more effective way of swimming than kicking the water with the hind legs. Legs started to grow smaller and served as a method to help reproduction, but was not helpful enough to 'withstand evolution'. We even see mutations in SNAKES that are born with hind legs, even though they don't have a pelvis (anymore). Why would a snake - a limbless animals - have genetic information on growing legs?! Because it EVOLVED from a creature WITH legs! (Even Answers in Genesis is willing to accept the fact that snakes are found with legs: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4250news3-20-2000.asp ) Ambulocetus lived about 50 million (atomic ) years ago, and was already in a transitional phase between land animal and aquatic animal. You estimated that if the whale-ancestors were extremely 'lucky' animals, they could evolve into whales in 1,4 million years (according to your calculation). I hope I don't need to remind you that evolution is NOT a goal-oriented process. Let's say that I flip a coin 10 times, and I get 2x heads, 3x tails, 1x head, 2x head, 1x tails and 1x heads. A calculation of this will show that the chances of THIS happening are very small (you could tro to reproduce this series and waste a complete day before succeeding). I doubt it is fair to say 'It is IMPOSSIBLE for this series to be produced; look at the odds!" In the same way it is not fair to calculate the odds of whale-evolution and then say 'well, the chances of this happening are [insert large number here] to 1. The correct sentence would be 'The chances of it happening A SECOND TIME are [insert previous odds]'. In that case I will agree: The chances of a terrestrial mammal, turning into a whale-like creature are slim. On the other hand, scientists of the future might look back on seals and walrusses and say: Those seals and walrusses are excellent examples of transitional fossils. Their ancestors lived on land and their descendants now swim in the oceans as whale-like creatures. (I should really write a science-fiction book ) --------- I got a lot more, but I think I'll leave you to think this over first. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame