Evolution of whale hearing unfolds in fossil record


Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 567, byte 567 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/mach/5.18/XML/Parser.pm line 187.


The research is based on cetacean fossils representing four groups of early whales. The earliest cetaceans, pakicetids (those that swam in ancient seas 50 million years ago), used the same sound transmission system as did land mammals, and so had poor underwater hearing. More recent cetaceans, remingtonocetids and protocetids (those that lived 43-46 million years ago), retained the land-mammal system, but also developed a new sound transmission system.

Wow. Just like ID predicted! Another stunning confirmation of ID Theory. Like all great theories, it implies unique, specific predictions, which are subsequently verified over time. Soon, only a tiny fringe of dogmatic scientists will refuse to believe it, and they will be left in the dust. That process is clearly underway. Science marches on.

Steve Wrote:

unique, specific predictions, which are subsequently verified over time

That is really dumb Steve. Scientists wasted their time by noticing that whales are mammals, have hip bones, etc. Then they hypothesis that whales evolved from land animals and are now wasting their time looking for fossil and DNA evidence. What they should be doing is debating - debates are the way to find the truth! [/sarcasm]

[serious] John, thanks for the article. Does anyone have more pictures/explanations of the changes in the ear for those of us without journal access. I’m especially interested in ‘hearing’ ;-) how the the cetacean ear got its start - was it from the earlier ear or a separate system that started out with something like sound transmission through jawbones?

[off topic] It would be also be interesting if anyone has a writeup of the implications for this research: Sequencing of organims that were selected because each organism represents an important position on the evolutionary tree and therefore will contribute a sequence that will be particularly important in helping to interpret the human genome That is the sort of project that would even attract a fair amount of popular press attention. It might be good to brief some members of the press on what sort of results would invalidate evolution as well as what sort of benefits we expect from the knowledge. Then, when the sequencing is done, brief the press again on the results and how they validate or invalidate evolution.

(eyeroll) Once again, G, you’re way off. Scientists should follow the Scientific Method, New and Improved by ID Theorists.

1 Claim they have a theory, which will mostly be published sometime later 2 ‘invent’ some new math which already exists 3 claim it will be shown to destroy the regnant theory 4 forgo publishing in the literature 5 declare success, and start lobbying school boards

There has to be a pun somewhere in there about “Alls whales that ends whales.”


Got to your room and think about what you’ve done!

Yeah, Reed, there was absolutely no porpoise in that pun.

Yeah Reed. There was absolutely on porpoise in that pun!

Oh, whale - I swear the first post didn’t show up until I waited and tried again. Really

The ear structure is just the latest info on the whale story. Much more impressive to me, becases it show more directly from whence came whales, is the structure of the hind foot of the primitive whales. The double-trochleated astragalus, confined among all other mammals, living and extinct, to the Artiodactyla (two toed ungulates:deer, sheep, bovids, graffes and HIPPOs) is an amazing demonstration of the relationship of early whales to artiodactyla. And dna folk had been saying that whales were related to hippos for quite some time prior to those foot bones being discovered.

Ain’t science wonderful?


Winthrop Kellogg had noted the Artiodactyl connection in the 1950s.

Bob Maurus Wrote:

Oh, whale - I swear the first post didn’t show up until I waited and tried again. Really

Sorry, I can’t resist, but, where there’s a whale there’s a way.

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on August 13, 2004 01:25 PM

Winthrop Kellogg had noted the Artiodactyl connection in the 1950s.

You mean Remington Kellogg, I presume?


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by John M. Lynch published on August 11, 2004 8:52 PM.

Creationism’s Trojan Horse: Barry Lynn’s interview with Barbara Forrest was the previous entry in this blog.

Dembski’s consistent inconsistencies is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter