Evidence for whale evolution

Nature special on the recent discovery of fossils which demonstrate the evolution of Cetaceans (whales and dolphins).

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• whale
• evolution
• biology
• fossils
• ceations
• missing
• link

[Landotter1]

OK, I'll buy the fact that they lived around water, like hippos but whales??? I mean,,, really.... they are completely reaching in the dark. I totally disagree with the whale theory here.... It just doesn't add up.

[agentorange20]

@Landotter1 @Landotter1 if you'd really seen enough then I'd have to ask where is the objection, (e.g, what would convince you?) as other than misunderstanding or ignorance on what evolution is or what the evidence consists of I have a hard time believing you've 'seen it all' especially as new discoveries are always being made which are consistent w/ the rest of the evidence. I can respect your view, but I won't pretend it's valid, not all views are equal after all.

[uknowispeaksense]

@chilionesaus you are forgetting that scientific illiterates find it difficult appreciate slight differences between animal species. How many for example can tell the difference between seals and sealions? They need dramatic differences to appreciate them. If you can show them something with very obvious features of 2 species that are temporally separated they are more likely to accept it, eventually the gaps will be filled to a point where transitions should be subtle yet obvious.

[chilionesaus]

I have to say though, the missing link they're talking about is total crap. There is no such thing as a missing link in my opinion. Because evolution is gradual, there is no species that peekes above all others as being 'the missing link'. Every fossil we find, no matter how much information it gives us about the roots of certain species, is a transition on its own.

[chilionesaus]

i read all the important papers concerning this subject (had to do this for a presentation about the phylogeny of Cetartiodactyls, I'm a biologist). The video is quite basic, but matches the papers. Maybe because of the simplicity of most videos shown to the public makes people doubt about the origins of cetaceans. If they would really read the articles about the studies, they would be convinced I think. Good post though! Helps you with getting the bigger picture.

[Landotter1]

@agentorange20 I appreciate the consideration of my views. I DON'T pretend to know all. I'm not that stupid. Maybe a bit retardrd, but not that stupid. :-D No sir, i don't know it all and do not make such claim. With anyone else it's what you choose to belive in. Just as many think God is a fantasy, some think evolution is a pipe dream of a drug addict. I'm claiming neither here. illustration only. I'm not asking for validation but thanks for the respect! Cheers!

[Landotter1]

@agentorange20 "I guess I really shouldn't expect you to considering you've not looked at all the articles, books, on the evidence" I've seen enough that I can make up my own mind. Just because I disagree, respectfully, by the way, gives you no right to start shit. You don't know me man so get off this kick of what I know and what I don't. pretty arrogant on your part I think. You need to chill-out and learn how respect another's opinion or thoughts. Yes, I don't buy it....

[agentorange20]

@Landotter1 'fossil folks '

They're not guessing w/ respect to the morphology, that they have. to suggest a single fossil is sufficient evidence isn't reasonable either, thankfully there are dozens of specimens.

'I don't buy the whole package'

I guess I really shouldn't expect you to considering you've not looked at all the articles, books, on the evidence.

'10 million" years ago'

10 million, 10 years, so long as there is empirical data to study we can know something about the time.

[agentorange20]

@Landotter1 'hanging into a fish IS changing '

A it wouldn't be changing into a fish, but rather a mammal living in water. b, we're talking over ~ 45 million years you go from something like pakicetus to other descendants like cetacean today, so to suggest it was in single generation flat out wrong/misleading.

[Landotter1]

@agentorange20 I'm with ya to an extent but still even the fossil folks will admit that they really operate mostly from guesswork and a little fossil evidence. At that point almost anything can be made up, to support one's theory. Don't get me wrong... I'm just saying that I don't buy the whole package. No one was areond "10 million" years ago and we REALLY don't know..... It's not worth getting into a heated debate over and I won't do it either.

[Landotter1]

@agentorange20 A land going animal essentially changing into a fish IS changing into another animal. sorry man, I just don't buy it.....