All this story shows us is that dolphins are still dolphins.
This AP news release sounds like it was written by someone with a pro-evolution agenda. The story headline reads, Japanese Researchers Find Dolphin With 'Remains of Legs.'…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Bird of Paradise
Two points:
1. Christopher--Let me follow your logic. --I suggest that science is not always honest about what it does not actually know. --I then admit that I do not know something. --You then say that science DOES admit that it does not know everything. --You then conclude that this somehow shows that I have a "baffling" and "incoherent understanding of science."
If, in fact, science and I both agree that there are things we don't know, does that make science "incoherent" as well? What you write looks and appears to be logical and reasonable but, like much of what you try to assert, it is void of both.
2. Why is everyone so insistant on dragging religious belief into this comment thread? How in the world have you folks come to the conclusion that the only people not convinced by the scientific evidence for marcro-evolution are religious nut-cases? Do you have the audacity and arrogance to declare that there are no questions to be asked about these matters? Are you suggesting that anyone who raises such questions be denounced and marginalized by labeling and name-calling? Does this sort of anti-intellectual discourse belie, perhaps, an inherent bigotry towards certain sorts of people who are not supposedly "qualified" to raise such questions?
Have I presented myself as an expert on anything? Have I even presented myself as a "scientist" with advanced degrees in biology or astrophysics? Am I lecturing anyone or telling any of you that you are wrong? Or that your opinions or beliefs are false?
While I might challenge some of what you may believe I am in no position to lecture you are anyone else. I am simply someone seeking answers to my questions. If your anwers do not satisfy me why do you get so angry and attack me as some sort of evil enemy?
There are some of you who seem very happy to leap to conclusions concerning myself on which there is little or no evidence to support you. Is this typical of how you also approach science?
Geez...all I'm saying is that this news article makes references to certain claims of evolutionary theory that are not supported by the subject of the article.
Perhaps you are offended by the title of my post. Is that the problem? Then tell me and show me how this dolphin with two "vestigial" fins somehow proves any of the scientific assumptions implied in the article.
The reference to "setback" is primarily dircted to the writer of the article who claims that this dolphin's fins represents something while, in fact, it does not.
The finding of this dolphin neither advances or "sets back" the theory of evolution on any level. Period.
And stop bringing up religion.
27 - JR Spagnuolo
Oh I would also like to add that new genetic material can and does enter the gene pool, its just that we cant see the organisms that do it. One (or more) of the human salivary amylases (an enzyme in our saliva that break down starch) is actually encoded by an endogenous retrovirus.
Endogenous retroviruses are considered "fossil" viruses which became so host adapted that their genetic material remains integrated in our genome indefinately, and because having a salivary amylase is advantageous to us we kept the gene (Natural selection at work).
In this way a gene (new genetic material) entered the human gene pool. Retrovirus-like sequences account for 8-9% of the human genome - explain where they came from. I'm sure as HIV becomes more and more host adapted (and consequently less virulent) it too will become part of our genome, although I wouldn't want it in there in its present form.
Unfortunately symbiotic or non-pathogenic viruses aren't exactly a big research area since theres no money to be gained - relatively speaking.
Here's a few research papers:
Estimating the age of the polydnavirus/braconid wasp symbiosis. Whitfield, J.B. May 2002, vol 99, No 11, pg 7508.
The viruses in all of us: Characteristics and biological significance of human endogenous retroviral sequences. Löwer, R., et al. PNAS, Vol 93, May 1996, pg 5177.
The evolution, distribution and diversity of endogenous retroviruses. Gifford, R., Tristem, M. Virus Genes, 2003, 26:3 pg 291.
28 - Evolution is a Fact
Evolution is a fact. Whether or not this story even turns out to be true, there are more than enough transtional fossils between land-dwelling mammals and sea mammals to show this. The facts dont always conform to religouis dogmas...such is life =)
Here are some of those transitional fossils
29 - JR Spagnuolo
The mutant dolphin merely adds further evidence to back-up natural selection. For whatever reason, millions of years ago it was advantageous for the terrestrial ancestors of dolphins to return to the sea. Since legs are of little use (fins and flippers are better) they became dis-used and underdeveloped. It was less important for dolphins to have strong legs than to have strong flippers and fins, thus if you were a female dolphin ancestor looking for the best genes in a mate you would go for the male dolphin with the strongest flippers and fins.
Since there is no advantage of actually removing genes from the genome, the genes for legs, or rear fins became dormant/switched off.
In reality the article isn't really ground breaking at all. No-one is going to win a Nobel prize from this one.
To the creationists: explain why sexual reproduction hasn't killed genetic diversity in the human genome, and why we aren't all inbred?
To the Intelligent Design-ists: Why in the world would you design a joint like the knee? Or better yet - why is the eye designed backwards? - the image that hits the retina is UPSIDE DOWN. How intelligent is that? - not very by my reckoning.
30 - Joan Hunt
BoP, fighting evolution is all well and good, but the fact is, JR offered solid evidence supporting it. However, your right to deny science is absolutely valid.
31 - Jewels
Big Topic; but no wins. Flawed piece; flawed theory; flawed premise.
32 - Bird of Paradise
JR, your comment on retroviral infusion into the human genome is fascinating and affirms what my "unscientific" common sense and observation had already deduced and postulated . I will be keeping my eyes open for more research in this area. Thanks.
For Joan, Perhaps if you actually read what I have written you wouldn't make such ridiculous and unsupported statements asserting that I "deny science."
For Jewels, I'm not exactly sure what you said but it sounds good to me...assuming the "theory" you refer to is "macro-evolution!"
For "Evolution Is a Fact." I agree that evolution is a "fact" . . . at least in its "micro-" form. It may even be considered a "fact" insofar as it "must" be true even though we do not know how it happens in its "macro-" form yet. (In the same way that the "Big Bang" theory is also fact but we do not yet know how it actually happened yet...and may never know...) As far as "The facts dont always conform to religouis dogmas" that is also true. But it is also true that "The facts dont always conform to scientific dogmas" either! Also, don't forget that while "science" uses reason, reason itself is not limited to the "scientific method."
33 - Bird of Paradise
Lastly, JR, I am neither a "creationist" nor an "intelligent designer" (at least not from a scientific perspective!) But. . .
1. The human genetic pool is so vast that, unless you are marrying your your sister/brother in in the Ozarks in imitation of your parents, grandparents, etc. the diversity will remain ample to suppress most of the "regressive" and unwelcome combinations! The current globalization of inter-racial marriage is also an overwhelming plus for the future health and diversity of human genetics. Why would a creationist have a problem with this??
2. As far as the eye goes, I suppose it's an "Occam's razor" sort of thing like KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Only one lens is needed to provide a clear and focused projection of an image (consider the reflecting telescop where the mirror functions as a lens). While a second lens in the eye would turn the image "right-side up" it would be completely unnecessary because the brain is perfectly capable of "reversing" the image itself. (for a humorous example of this try typing "Dwight Eisenhower" into Google search backwards "rewohnesie thgiwd.") Also interesting is if a person wears an optical apparatus that turns all visual images upside down, the brain will correct this aberration within 48 hours, turning the image "right-side up" again. when the apparatus is removed, everything will be upside-down until the brain corrects it again! Cool, huh?!
In otherwords, it would appear the the human eye is only as complex as is necessary to serve its purpose. As with all good products, it is both simple and functional, as well as durable and attractively packaged! Compared to the complexity of the brain itself, the eye is a piker!
No losers here. Only winners. At least among those of us who actually exchanged ideas and were open-minded enough to learn something!
34 - RJ Elliott
"BoP: you don't understand anything because your mind is already shaped by your faith. Enquiring minds want to know, you merely grasp desperately at shards of info and seek to shape them to your arrogant views. Scientists are much more humble in their approach, maybe you should try it some time..."
Damn, man ... and you are calling her "arrogant" ???
I disagree with her on macroevolution, but she clearly is not uninformed on the subject...
35 - Christopher Rose
RJ: Why is a precisely accurate description of what BoP is doing arrogant? I fail to see your point.
On the other hand, anybody who ignores facts and continues to support a laughably deceptive and uninformed relgious dogma clearly is arrogant by definition...
"At least among those of us who actually exchanged ideas and were open-minded enough to learn something!" What has BoP learned? I see no change in their position.
Humbly,
Christopher
36 - SHARK
SHARK'S HEADLINE:
Text of This Essay is a Setback for Readers Trying to Find Setbacks Against Evolution "Supporters"
======
BoP without a hint of Irony:
"...this news article makes references to certain claims of evolutionary theory that are not supported by the subject of the article."
heh.
BoP's Money shot:
"...science would be far more compelling and useful if it also was more forthright in admitting that it does not really know as much as it pretends to!"
======
Damn, that pesky science!
======
PS: JR, great stuff; thanks for taking the time.
======
Catch ya later, readers.
I gotta run! I'm due to perform an abortion on a human zygote that resembles an amphibian.
Oh... and any ideas as to when life begins?
Thanks in advance.
37 - Out of the ORDINARY
Ok, I have a few things to add to this:
1. If Religion is to be thrown around everytime evolution is brought up then I will proceed to say that evolution is true. I mean just in the way people think. Everybody was happy with the way history was written in the bible, but then a fictional writer created a new religion and through the evolution of the human mind we have people believing it is real. (Yes, I am discussing Scientology and all of the "Tom Cruise wanna-be's out there" that follow it).
2. I majored in zoology in college and I am willing to bring up an idea that will throw a complete and total screwball to everyone arguing this article. Fossils are great and we can learn a lot from them, but what we cannot learn with 100% certainty is what the animals that housed these fossils looked like. How do paleantologists know what color to make dinosaurs when they make their shows on the discovery channel? How do you look at bones at decide EXACTLY what they were used for? It is true that bats have tarsals and metatarsals in the wings making it look like a strange hand as a skeleton, but how would you really know other than by seeing a bat, that it was a wing? How would you know that a dolphin had flippers if only from a skeleton? I mean you could argue the blowhole, but there have been dinosaur fossils found with similar "blowholes" and they are "thought" to be land dwelling creatures. Besides the fact that we have very few instances that we can even prove that a fossil was a mammal. What the distinguishing characteristics that define a mammal? They are warm blooded, covered in hair, and have mammary glands. Now other than the few examples found complete like the frozen mammoth, how can we tell all this from a skeleton. I suppose we could go into growth plates being either on the epiphysis or the diaphysis of the bones, but let's face it fossils are usually not found in that great of a condition, and even more rarely are fossils found entirely whole.
3. Now, let's just think about the possibility of the "whale and dolphin" fossils already found. Suppose these "whales and dolphins" are an entirely differently species that happened to be Mammalia. Ok now let's consider the possibility of them going extinct. So then you could also deduce that modern dolphins and whales as we know them "evolved" from something different, and perhaps the new four finned dolphin is "evolving" into a land dwelling creature, not vice versa . . . I mean think about it, besides isn't scientists who say that "anything IS possible"?
4. Lastly, I want to address the ealier postings where everyone agreed that scientists don't know everything. It is true that everyone agreed, or there would have been more conversation on the topic. So why then does anyone even take their word for anything they write or publish. I mean again, can anyone REALLY prove half the things that are written. Take the whole Scientology thing, who can prove that? Yet still people believe it (For some strange reason I feel an onslaught of comments bashing me for using that example, but it is JUST an example). All I am saying is, instead of writing persuasive arguments, why not say here is the information and since we are ALL free to think and believe what we wish, you decide what you want to with the information placed before you. I mean that is why Humans are what they are, because we have the power of reasoning.
38 - bob
Interesting discussions above.... as much as i would like to join in on the evolution discussions there is actually something more important that i would like to point out in case you all are not aware of it... The dolphin slaughter in Japan. The dolphin mentioned in this article was captured by drive fisherman. The rest of this dolphin's pod ( over 100 dolphins ) were slaughtered....
Fishermen in Japan use boats to drive schools of dolphins into shallow bays. A net is thrown across the bay to trap them. The dolphins are then herded close to the shore as fishermen tighten the net. A few dolphins are chosen for the aquarium industry by trainers in wetsuits. Mothers try to protect their dying and dead young. The remaining animals are butchered for meat, fertilizer and pet food. This hunt has been condemed by leading scientific bodies and captive industry spokesmen, yet it is still authorized by the Japanese Fisheries Agency who subsidizes the hunts and sets catch quotas.
Just thought i would share.
39 - JR Spagnuolo
Bob,
I absolutely agree. How short sighted are we? This article shouldn't really be an expose on a rare genetic mutation which in reality isn't all that special. Rather it should be an outcry against the slaughter of species for "research".
PS. I think we should clone animals we have made extinct.
40 - sr
NUKE THE UNBORN GAY MUTANT DOLPHINS AND FLIP OFF FLIPPER. EAT TUNA, THE FISH THAT EVOLVED INTO A CAN.
41 - bdworzak
BoP:
Science does have a model that explains how new genetic material is formed and where it comes from. The field of evo devo explains this. HOX genes control the layout & organization of an organism’s body during development. Different body shapes can be achieved by controlling the areas where genes are activated, when in development they are activated, and for how long. These HOX genes have been duplicated several times over the evolution of life. Invertebrates have one copy, jawless fish have two copies of the set, jawed fishes & their descendants (including all vertebrates) have four. The extra copies have mutated over time, and acquired new functions, controlling new and different gents. This has allowed basic body plans to be greatly modified.
Google Sean Carroll’s work, or try Pharygula Blog for evo devo stuff.
Out of the Ordinary:
Color on reconstructions of fossilized organisms in a guess; how bones functioned in life can be seen by articulations, the points at which adjoining bones meet, insertions of tendons and muscles, and processes, ridges on bones which show the relative size of muscles. For example, scientists know Neanderthals were very muscular since they have very pronounced processes.
Distinguishing characteristics of a mammal skeleton include the ossicles, or ear bones, and the single bone for the lower jaw. A cross section of the bone would also show channels for blood vessels to pass through.
Comparing Scientology, the work of a sci-fi writer, to science, is, well, strange. Scientific findings are not accepted if they’re random guesses, or wild ideas. They must be supported by the findings of others, or have repeatable results. Germ theory, for example; germs make you sick. Not stinky air “mal aria”, as was believed before, or evil spirits, an imbalance of the body’s humors, etc.
Bruno
42 - The Plumber!!!
Quickly scanning the responses in this blog, it becomes very apparent that nine, or thirteen, or fifty seven people have nine, or thirteen, or fifty seven different philosophies respectfully on the origin of live. I am not going to push my view (after all what does a plumber know?) but will comment that after much research and investigation, here is what I found, when boiled down to the last residue in the pot called life, there are only two views on the origins of life, that is Evolution or Creation. Correct me if I'm wrong but science says provable must be able to be repeated. Therefore we must be able to prove our THEORIES. I have noticed both sides going headlong into this FIGHT with preconceived ideas however science is supposed to be subjective without predjuduces. Every person here has faith... in there own ideas. Therefore the Creation Model is faith based and the Evolution Model is faith based. I fall into one of these 'faiths'. Perhaps we should look at our preconceived ideas, and see if they are true without blindly accepting them???
43 - M
Ok.....ive tried to read most of this but you all seem to repeat everything trying to convince everyone of everything that has in fact nothing really to do with what BoP wrote. First of all, I just want to say that I read your article and what is has to do with being a setback for evolution i dont get it at all. As far as summarizing your thoughts, you failed in this case with the article. As far as articulating your thoughts in the later comments, I think I understand your point and it makes sense. Everyone else makes sense too but everyone prolly didnt understand each other. I'm only a college student majoring in graphic design that has nothing to do with biology or genetics but I studied it enough in high school and in my own interests to agree with EVERYONE, ok? lol
Yes I am a firm believer in macroevolution and Darwin's Theory and the fact that evolution and creation are both theories is also correct. No one can prove creation but logically you can disprove it. Therefore, if you find one way of disproving something, it will NEVER be law. That's the basic fundamental of the scientific method.
Now, as far as dolphins are concerned, one animal expressing alleles that are turned off is not an example of macroevolution, as BoP is trying to say. They were apparently trying to say that it was because it "might be" what dolphins looked like before the allele was turned off", hence the ever-shrinking limbs. We can't see macroevolution because genetic shift can only be measured in geological timescales. However, drift can even be seen in the white moths who genetically adapted their colors to match the trees covered in dark soot to survive birds picking them off. Natural selection is what turns genes on and turns them off. It doesnt make them go away. New genes are added to the genome through outside influences, such as bacteria and viruses. One that I recently got is mononucleosis, which apparently binds to your DNA. Ways of life and environment influence genes that eventually change your body structure around and in a million years you can have a new species. What differentiates species is their physical appearance and lifestyles. Therefore dogs and wolves can interbreed because they are the same species, but different subspecies. They are on their way to evolving into a new species, much like cats and dogs were once on the same evolutionary tree. If you guys ever read the article about the "wholphin", dolphins and small whales can interbreed because of their similar genetics. I believe it was a pilot whale and a dolphin, and both are from the Odonteceti (sp?) branch of cetaceans, the toothed whales, which includes dolphins, porpoises, and any whale with teeth.
ANYWAYS...its already been beaten into the ground...same thing with Darwin's finches on the Galapagos, same thing with animals in Australia. Lots of things determine when a species branches into a subspecies and subsequently a new species. Dolphins are a good example of macroevolution because of their bone structure and the still evolving remnants left physically expressed in their genome.
One question to think about that I read recently is concerning mermaids. Folk or fiction? Humans were at one point in evolution where we were subaquatic. Omega 3 fatty acids commonly found in fish oils and such is attributed to increases in brain activity and scientists believe that the fact that we ate once so much fish because we relied on the sea, that it really helped evolve our brains. Such studies are conclusive in giving fish oil pills to slower children and then observing whether they got literally smarter or not. Because humans were once so semiaquatic, it is possible some stayed. Man has literally only been around only a million years, small in geological times. It is possible that a branch of us could have evolved to life in the sea. Of course mammals and fish couldnt mix genetically so we'd be more closer to a dolphin's tail than a fish's but it is logically possible. We were much smaller in those days and resembled more neanderthals so mermaids could technically be really ugly aesthetically-speaking. They may also be rare and extremely shy. Since we were on the topic of evolution and genetics, I thought I'd throw this in :)
44 - eeeeeeeeeekkkkkk
YYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN
45 - Jedweber
I wouldn't say the article has a pro-evolution agenda - I'd say it simply takes evolution for granted as so well-established a theory that there is no need to reaffirm it all over again every day. The fact that new discoveries like this fit easily into the evolutionary framework with no contradictions (though perhaps raising more questions) is in fact a reaffirmation. The reason evolution is assumed is because there is no other viable model - there really is no corresponding creationist/ID science beyond lists of supposed facts and alleged contradictions pulled out of evolution books and used to confuse religious people who need reassurance. The reason that at least 99% of biologists assume evolution is because it has been corroborated every day for over a century. Thousands of scientists are not lying or covering up the truth, or science would have stopped. There are plenty of Christians and other religious people who can accept evolution. You don't have to, but you can't blame that on science, or liberals, or Darwin. It's reality.
46 - Jedweber
Plumber! - Actually, I didn't see anyone talking about faith! And no one was talking about philosophy. Evolution is NOT a view on the "origin of life." The fact that you think it is suggests you are operating in a fog of delusion.
M - Your last paragraph is fascinating! I lack your knowledge of cryptozoology and the fine print on the back of the bottle of Omega 3 fatty acids in the health food store, but I can't argue with your ideas about a branch of small, ugly semiaquatic Neanderthal mermaids in ancient times. They may have been rare and shy, but I think they were here for a purpose. At some point, they may have contacted our ancestors, and been eaten. We may never know for sure, but we can see a mermaid on cans of Chicken of the Sea tuna to this day!
47 - David Dodson
I don't see how having an extra set of fins is a blow to evolution. It is most likely a parasitic twin. Very common in animals - 2 headed snakes. Seven legged dear and now this dolphin. Essentially a twin that ceased development. Similar to conjoined twins but the twin in this case is minimal. It could also be a genetic anomaly or it could be an adaptation. Just because cetacions began on land doesn't mean they couldn't wind up back on land.... water, nope land, nope water, well maybe land again. SO WHat?? Just makes them indicisive :-)
48 - Howie
Hi, a few thoughts and some food for thought….
Yes, a dolphin has an extra set of fins - whatever your beliefs " this if evident. Also, we know that there must have been a genetic mechanism behind the extra pair or fins. Somewhere, within the genome of potentially every dolphin is the potential to make an extra set of fins. Not sure anyone would disagree so far. And I believe there are several ways this could happen.
Some are saying this is no different to a human child having an extra finger, others are saying this is no different to a snake having two heads, some are saying this provides further evidence for the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals, have I missed anyone?
I disagree with the two-headed snake theory " Yes, it would be the same " or at least a similar ‘accident’ (mutation) that gave rise to a two-headed snake if the dolphin had two heads grown from the same stem or two pairs of front pectoral fins (like an extra finger). Such a “two-headed-snake accident” would happen if there was a mutation in the developmental genes which design and control the animal’s body plan " oops two heads instead of just the one! Four FRONT pectoral fins instead of two! Six fingers instead of five!
But due to the posterior location of the extra fins I believe the culprit is not a mutation in the developing body plan genes but, as JR says, in the genes that switch the recessive alleles off that code for hind (rudimentary leg) fins. And as for the twin theory " OK if that were so you would expect all dolphins to have these fins wouldn’t you? The conjoined twin theory in this scenario would suggest that a human child with a tail is just a conjoined twin " savvy?
These fins have popped up in the exact location rudimentary legs would expect to be. Sure, expectation is no grounds for scientific proof indeed " in that I agree with BoP " but I am a firm believer of macro-evolution and think that the fins perhaps need further investigating to convince YOU, but my money is on finding a mutation responsible for switching on or preventing the switching off of the gene that codes for rear ‘legs’.
“Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that COULD be the remains of back legs, a discovery that MAY provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.”
Nothing is conclusive yet! But surely the identification of the mechanism behind these fins MAY provide further proof that cetaceans had land-based ancestors?
I believe that new genetic material is replaced and mutated just as it is lost over a geological time scale and that there is plenty of rudimentary genetic material that is not expressed (as I believe is the case here with the extra fins " similarly seen in our own rudimentary tails, in chicken teeth etc, etc) either through active suppression or inactive expression.
Also, in answer to a previous question, yes, it is conceivable that cetaceans would come back on land in the same way that our fishy ancestors did! If tomorrow some aliens came down from outer space and slowly killed all potential food for the dolphins, they may ‘move’ and ‘adapt’ to land or die " perhaps an eventual intermediate would be seal like " perhaps a killer whale ancestor? Killer whales beach (and indeed some other cetaceans) themselves on purpose to predate on seals, perhaps a killer whale that could use hind fins to stay out of the water for longer and move around would do better than its relatives and be selected for " eventually this mutation in the active suppression or inactive expression of the hind leg gene is fixed in the population and we would find a killer whale somewhere without hind legs!! Crazy huh? Hind legs could become stronger " the animals smaller, and it would be a seal killing-machine! And do much better than its ancestors " IF the environmental conditions and the mutations arose to allow for this to happen!
BoP argues that although your St. Bernard and Chihuahua are unable to interbreed due to the mechanical sexual isolation they have from each other, they are the same species. My thoughts are that genetic drift between the two breeds may eventually make the two different enough (however subtle) that the hybrid would not be viable in a population " less fit " perhaps infertile? Something like that anyway " my point is they are still the same species NOW " but the inability for genes to mix between the two dog breeds (isolation) leads me to predict that if left to their own devices they may EVENTUALLY evolve apart. New genetic material is not necessarily necessary, just changed/mutated material " but I think you agree with JR now on the introduction of new material over time through viruses? But I believe there are other ways of getting more genetic material " I am working from memory here but I think that somewhere during DNA replication something can happen/happens to increase DNA length in sections of highly repeated sequences " perhaps at the end of the DNA strands? Is there anyone who can elaborate on that or am I off the mark completely?
Oh and also " may I add to the eye comment made earlier " I don’t think it was picked up upon but whoever introduced the eye as an example of a ‘design’ flaw said it was the wrong way round. It is not the fact that the image is upside down which was found relevant " it’s the fact that light has to pass through several layers before it actually reaches the photoreceptors at the back of the retina! It is literally inside out " perhaps a mutation in the developmental genes? As our eye relatives " the cephalopods " have eyes that are the right way around! Light gets to the photoreceptors first! Something went wrong in our ancestors " but indeed our eyes are good enough " but still " a design flaw!? If you believe in design that is!
But this is not about evolution " its about an article and I aplogise for the length of this!
49 - EmilyGray
Why the hell do u have such a horrible piccy. How czn you get someone to take a pictutrre of a dolphin not being able to breath. And i don't care if you where helping it. I want you to take it off NOW. You discustingly Emily Gray
50 - Bird of Paradise
I suspect that the dolphin's head is raised enough to breath just fine and that it was not held on its back in the water for very long. They can hold their breath for quite a while, you know. I assume that you are aware that they breathe air like all mammals do. I'm sorry that you take offense to a picture of men rescuing a dolphin.
51 - Mike Johnston
Here is another possible line of reasoning. Imagine that our DNA as humans is a structure which is built on the DNA of all of the other creatures in the world to some extent. In other words, if you cut out the portions of our DNA which make us human you should be left with the DNA of our closest predecessor. If you cut away the DNA specific to that predecessor then you would have the DNA of his/her nearest ancestor etc, etc, till you get back to the most basic ancestor of all.
In the case of the dolphin in this story imagine that a portion of the modern dolphin DNA had been deactivated and the fins are indeed remnants of the DNA of an ancestor peeking through.
If this were the case it brings up fascinating possibilities. Proteins are responsible for turning on or off various genes in a developing fetus. It is the mothers body that supplies these proteins. It seems that environmental factors could stimulate the mother to produce various proteins.
If an unfamiliar stimulus is encountered in the environment the DNA is adjusted in somewhat random ways in order to try to come up with a viable adaptation. Birth defects such as those produced by Thalidomide or the chemicals in Love Canal could be this type of random mutation in response to unfamiliar environmental stimulation.
The buildup of CO2 in our oceans today is creating an ocean more rich in CO2 and Carbolic Acid. This same situation was the norm millions of years ago. Could this dolphin with rear fins then be an adaptation based on genetic memory? It certainly seems possible. If this is the case perhaps many species will start to revert to an earlier form which was suited to another climate. It will be interesting to watch this unfold. Especially how creatures such as modern animals and humans will respond...
52 - Ben Jones
As the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time saying you accept one and not the other is absurd. There is only one kind of DNA. The end.
53 - ripof
youll are cool
54 - Arash
there is nothing as macro or micro evolution; 100 years ago people like you didn't beleive in evolution, they said show us evidence now we have evidence so now you say you just don't belevie in macro evolution. hopefully it will take just another 100 years. by the way FSM rules!