Dolphin reveals an extra set of

[r3volution]

Well, humans haven't had 3 legs at a previous point in our development, but in dolphins, the genes where there, just "switched off" (according to somebody much smarter than me)

I don't know about you guys, but I still have my 3rd leg ;)

On a more serious note. I personally am a Christian and accept certain points in the Evolution Theory.

I believe that evolution does exist and does occur BUT humans and all animals were CREATED by God. Thus, over the years, things have evolved and may not look like the way God created them. For example, God MAY have only created 1 type of fish, but over the years, they have evolved and slowly branched out to become the diverse species of fish that we enjoy eating today. :p Same idea with the dolphin; these mutations do occur slowly spread to create a new species of dolphins.

Even the Bible supports my reasoning. Noah's Flood? Unlike what most people believe, more than 2 of each animal was boarded. If I am not mistaken, seven of the animals that were deemed 'clean' were loaded into the ark. With the given measurements, it would have been impossible for all the species of animals to fit. But if these numbers referred to the genus or family, it makes a lot more sense technically speaking. And if there was no evolution, and this was the case, we should only have 1 species for each genus/family which is obviously not true. Of course with God, everything is possible but there is no evidence that has come to my attention in the Bible that discredits evolution.

Evolution/mutation does occur BUT humans and animals were CREATED by God in the beginning.

Oh, and Ripgut? That was a pretty dumb comparison. :p

[Fred Derf Veteran]

For example, God MAY have only created 1 type of fish, but over the years, they have evolved and slowly branched out to become the diverse species of fish that we enjoy eating today. :p Same idea with the dolphin; these mutations do occur slowly spread to create a new species of dolphins.

Did God create the dolphins (and whales) in the water, then move them to land for a while and before deciding to finally put them back in the ocean again?

I can see evolution doing lots of weird, wild and random stuff (it is, after all, driven by chaos) but shouldn't God have been a little less indecisive considering that he is omnipotent?

[vincent]

Oh, and Ripgut? That was a pretty dumb comparison. :p

It wasn't meant to be "smart" it serves it's purpose as an example in pointing out to those that vehemently deny evolution, the obvious.

[TheElite]

But that's wrong, we don't separate Gravity into "effects objects and animals" and "effects humans"

We are related to monkeys, we have evidence for that, trying to break the "link" to appease some people is a bad idea.

We have evidence for a lot of things, it doesn't make them true. For these things, we need "solid proof", and that's something I don't ever see happening.

Did God create the dolphins (and whales) in the water, then move them to land for a while and before deciding to finally put them back in the ocean again?

I can see evolution doing lots of weird, wild and random stuff (it is, after all, driven by chaos) but shouldn't God have been a little less indecisive considering that he is omnipotent?

What's your rationale for thinking that they ever came to land?

[vincent]

We have evidence for a lot of things, it doesn't make them true. For these things, we need "solid proof", and that's something I don't ever see happening.

LOL

What's your rationale for thinking that they ever came to land?

Fossil evidence.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

What's your rationale for thinking that they ever came to land?

If they had stayed in the water then they would breathe water like the fish.

Dolphins and whales are mammals they saw an opportunity to return to the water. If they stay in their current environment they will likely eventually "re-learn" the ability to breathe water. Obviously not any time soon.

[Vykranth]

What's your rationale for thinking that they ever came to land?

Dolphins and other cetaceans have lungs, a distinct trait of species who are or have been land-based.

Other fishes like Sharks have gills ...

[Fred Derf Veteran]

(Mostly) Off-topic Factoid of the Day:

"Killer Whales", or more properly Orcas, are actually dolphins and not whales at all (as the North American name might very well imply).

Now go off and impress someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca

[TheElite]

If they had stayed in the water then they would breathe water like the fish.

Dolphins and whales are mammals they saw an opportunity to return to the water. If they stay in their current environment they will likely eventually "re-learn" the ability to breathe water. Obviously not any time soon.

Do you think its possible to learn like that? I mean, test out the environment and adopt its ways, as extreme as they may be.

Wouldn't the likely result be that the land species that enter the sea would die, and the sea species that enter on to land would die?

As humans are mammals, do you think it would be likely for us to "breathe" in water? No matter how long we stay in there, or even try Blaine's stunts, won't we die in seconds/minutes?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Do you think its possible to learn like that? I mean, test out the environment and adopt its ways, as extreme as they may be.

Wouldn't the likely result be that the land species that enter the sea would die, and the sea species that enter on to land would die?

As humans are mammals, do you think it would be likely for us to "breathe" in water? No matter how long we stay in there, or even try Blaine's stunts, won't we die in seconds/minutes?

Obviously if you are I were to try it then we would die in minutes.

It would require millions of years of accidental mutations to give the descendants of dolphins the ability to breathe water again. Some fish, like lungfish are still stuck in that transformation period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Lungfish are cool, shame mine died though.

We have evidence for a lot of things, it doesn't make them true. For these things, we need "solid proof", and that's something I don't ever see happening.

...

:blink:

[TheElite]

:blink:

I have evidence that I am psychic because I always tell people what they are thinking, yet I cannot PROVE to them that I can do it. They dismiss it as a coincidence. Explanations aren't everything.

You need to see it in action, and that as far as I know is IMPOSSIBLE with evolution, because all evolution is, is "accidental coincidences" with mutations "just happening".

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I have evidence that I am psychic because I always tell people what they are thinking, yet I cannot PROVE to them that I can do it. They dismiss it as a coincidence. Explanations aren't everything.

You need to see it in action, and that as far as I know is IMPOSSIBLE with evolution, because all evolution is, is "accidental coincidences" with mutations "just happening".

1. you telling people you're psychic isn't "evidence", it's you telling somebody something, now if i kicked somebody, and it was caught on video, that's evidence.

2. we see evolution happening all the time (it's how we found out about it, we saw it's effects), now, it happens quite slowly in humans due to our lifespans (but it does happen), but it happens a lot quicker in bacteria (although don't expect bacteria to go from simple organism to an advanced one overnight), anti-biotic resistance is a sign of evolution in bacteria.

Also, Evolution isn't a bunch of "accidental coincidences" and mutations don't "just happening".

[Fred Derf Veteran]

You need to see it in action, and that as far as I know is IMPOSSIBLE with evolution, because all evolution is, is "accidental coincidences" with mutations "just happening".

You can see it quite easily in lifeforms that have a short life span (i.e. fruit flies) thus allowing us to watch many generations in a relatively short time frame.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/28/fruit.flies.enn/

[vincent]

I have evidence that I am psychic because I always tell people what they are thinking, yet I cannot PROVE to them that I can do it. They dismiss it as a coincidence. Explanations aren't everything.

I also have evidence that i spoke with Odin, i always tell people what he says, yet i cannot prove that i have done so. They dismiss it as a coincidence. Explanations aren't everything.

[TheElite]

1. you telling people you're psychic isn't "evidence", it's you telling somebody something, now if i kicked somebody, and it was caught on video, that's evidence.

2. we see evolution happening all the time (it's how we found out about it, we saw it's effects), now, it happens quite slowly in humans due to our lifespans (but it does happen), but it happens a lot quicker in bacteria (although don't expect bacteria to go from simple organism to an advanced one overnight), anti-biotic resistance is a sign of evolution in bacteria.

Also, Evolution isn't a bunch of "accidental coincidences" and mutations don't "just happening".

1. If I record myself telling people what they're thinking, will that be solid proof? No, because every factor here is the same, a camera won't make any difference to whether it is true or not.

2. Yes, we did see it's effects, but what you call evolution, I call "coincidental" mutations.

You can see it quite easily in lifeforms that have a short life span (i.e. fruit flies) thus allowing us to watch many generations in a relatively short time frame.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/28/fruit.flies.enn/

Thanks for the info.

I also have evidence that i spoke with Odin, i always tell people what he says, yet i cannot prove that i have done so. They dismiss it as a coincidence. Explanations aren't everything.

See, now you understand.

Just because you think something is true, don't call it fact, unless you can PROVE it to other people.

[Vykranth]

2. Yes, we did see it's effects, but what you call evolution, I call "coincidental" mutations.

"Coincidental Mutations"? How cute.

I find that funny because the litterature on fossils shows that there are entire families of fossils that can be lined back from old to less-old. Given the fact that these lines stretch in time for millions of years, the notion of coincidence is at best blurry at this scale.

[vincent]

See, now you understand.

Just because you think something is true, don't call it fact, unless you can PROVE it to other people.

Evolution has direct and indirect observable evidence, god's don't. :sleep:

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

2. Yes, we did see it's effects, but what you call evolution, I call "coincidental" mutations.

...

So you understand that it's happening, good, now all we need to get you to do is call it what it is, Evolution.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

That which we call a rose

By any other word would smell as sweet.

[n3wt]

Well being that natural selection is just mutation plus a bit of logic, I'd say belief in mutation is belief in evolution.

Subject A mutates, mates, mutation is successful and passed on.

Subject B mutates, dies before mating, mutation is unsuccessful and isn't passed on.

Repeat.

[jackwanders]

Do you think its possible to learn like that? I mean, test out the environment and adopt its ways, as extreme as they may be.

Wouldn't the likely result be that the land species that enter the sea would die, and the sea species that enter on to land would die?

As humans are mammals, do you think it would be likely for us to "breathe" in water? No matter how long we stay in there, or even try Blaine's stunts, won't we die in seconds/minutes?

sigh. it doesn't happen like that. You don't toss a bunch of dogs into the ocean and see which ones survive and turn into dolphins.

The ancestors of the dolphin were mammals that lived close to the water, on the coast. Perhaps their predators also lived nearby. Perhaps their most plentiful source of food lived in the ocean. The species had a need to be in the water, either for food, reproduction, or protection from predators. Time passes, perhaps the predators also begin taking to the shallows. perhaps the food moves farther from shore. Those of the species that can spend more time in water are more likely to survive and pass on whatever adaptations allowed them to survive. One obvious benefit would be that the higher the nose on the head, the more submerged the animal can be at any given time without having to submerge completely. Over millions of years, this develops into the blowhole that dolphins and whales have today. Legs develop into fins to allow for more efficient swimming, allowing farther travel from the coast. Hairless skin also aides in swimming efficiency.

The rest is history.

[TheElite]

Evolution has direct and indirect observable evidence, god's don't. :sleep:

Actually, they do. We just have not been able to prove them to you yet. Maybe we never will be able to.

So you understand that it's happening, good, now all we need to get you to do is call it what it is, Evolution.

It does happen, no doubt, but just mildly. Not the whole transition of species from water to land to water, and our "break-off" development from apes.

That which we call a rose

By any other word would smell as sweet.

True. No doubt about that.

Well being that natural selection is just mutation plus a bit of logic, I'd say belief in mutation is belief in evolution.

Subject A mutates, mates, mutation is successful and passed on.

Subject B mutates, dies before mating, mutation is unsuccessful and isn't passed on.

Repeat.

sigh. it doesn't happen like that. You don't toss a bunch of dogs into the ocean and see which ones survive and turn into dolphins.

The ancestors of the dolphin were mammals that lived close to the water, on the coast. Perhaps their predators also lived nearby. Perhaps their most plentiful source of food lived in the ocean. The species had a need to be in the water, either for food, reproduction, or protection from predators. Time passes, perhaps the predators also begin taking to the shallows. perhaps the food moves farther from shore. Those of the species that can spend more time in water are more likely to survive and pass on whatever adaptations allowed them to survive. One obvious benefit would be that the higher the nose on the head, the more submerged the animal can be at any given time without having to submerge completely. Over millions of years, this develops into the blowhole that dolphins and whales have today. Legs develop into fins to allow for more efficient swimming, allowing farther travel from the coast. Hairless skin also aides in swimming efficiency.

The rest is history.

I'll try to answer both the above quotes at the same time.

Exactly what are the chances that "any" mutation will occur?

And, if people are stranded in sea and learn to eat raw fish and other minerals, can they survive in the sea forever (well, until their life ends)? And when they die, will they look like fish? :laugh:

My point is, if this evolution process takes millions of years for these species, how would this work? Just because this species was first adapted to land, but now has to change to water, WHAT DICTATES that they will produce characteristics to survive in their new habitat?

I personally believe that this is not possible. If these things take millions of years, it is far too long for species to survive in time for these mutations to occur. That is why they evolve/change habitat don't they? To survive? They would never survive like this.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

True. No doubt about that.

I was suggesting that what you call "Coincidental Mutations" is Evolution by another name.

It does happen, no doubt, but just mildly. Not the whole transition of species from water to land to water, and our "break-off" development from apes.

It just seems to me that you understand the basic concept but are just unable to conceive how it would work over a massive scale of time (millions upon millions of years). The 5000 years of human recorded history is peanuts in evolutionary terms.

[TheElite]

I was suggesting that what you call "Coincidental Mutations" is Evolution by another name.

It just seems to me that you understand the basic concept but are just unable to conceive how it would work over a massive scale of time (millions upon millions of years). The 5000 years of human recorded history is peanuts in evolutionary terms.

1. LOL. Yeah, I knew that, but I was commenting on the comment itself. Maybe I should have put a smiley there.

But I thought that in "science", there are no coincidences and everything "happens for a reason"?

2. I understand the concept. Even I believe that there have been minor evolutionary changes in humans aswell, but as such to the extent that the size of the actual person or it's limbs have changed. We believe that Adam used to be over 70ft tall. We cannot reject evolution on this basis, but we can reject the concept of humans having common ancestors with apes.