Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Did Whales Evolve From Pigs? 35

Posted by timothy from the real-whales-don't-say-oink dept.
FortKnox writes : "According to this acticle, scientists have found proof that whales evolved from a pig/sheep like creature. Whale evolution has been sketchy for years, but a palentologist has plugged the gaps with some fossils found in Pakistan. It appears Hippos may be the closest relatives to whales."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did Whales Evolve From Pigs? More

Did Whales Evolve From Pigs?

Comments Filter:
  • Just curious... :)
  • Yup, Stuff that matters.
    • Yup, Stuff that matters.

      Please get real. There are plenty of science geeks (or nerds) in existence. If you don't like it there is the checkbox in your configuration.
  • If whales are related to hippos, then it could explain why they took to the water. With such large body masses, the density of water relative to the density of air would help to lighten the load of such a creature. If you could survive better in water cuase it was easier to move, you'd live there too....
  • ``The newly discovered fossils show the first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners,'' he said in a commentary in Nature.

    So we have this huge creature that can run real fast, and it needed to retreat to the sea?

    you've gotta wonder what prompts evolution...

  • Ah...... (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    The whale evolution of the month. :)


    It wasn't too long ago that people thought cetatians evolved from dogs, and/or small furry creatures (no, not from Alpha Centauri :).


    Seriously, this theory sounds, well, interesting to say the least. Pigs and sheep just don't seem to make sense. The skeletal structure is so different, it would be hard to contemplate a common ancestor, except for one so far back as to make the relationship irrelevent.


    Hippos are more "logical", but don't quite cut the mustard, either. Remember, river dolphins (the most ancient species of whale still alive) are in places like the Amazon basin and China. Neither of which is known for its hippopotomous populations.


    One thing to note is that the amount of information on the Internet on river dolphins is extremely limited. Publicly-available information seems to be limited to non-existant.


    (Just try finding a recording of a river dolphin, or a graph of one, some video footage, behavioural studies, EEG photos, or almost ANY in-depth data. I've found a few murky photos, some eloquent descriptions, but absolutely no data worth a damn.)


    This is relevent, since they -are- so ancient. If nobody has done much research on ancient whale species, then how valid can any research be, which claims to talk of where they came from?


    You just CAN'T take a modern species of whale, and directly compare it with fossil remains. You are just asking for trouble, if you do, as similar needs will lead to similar solutions. That means you have to look for the closest possible match of the most ancient form you can find.


    • > It wasn't too long ago that people thought cetatians evolved from dogs, and/or small furry creatures (no, not from Alpha Centauri :).

      They've discussed this over at talk.origins (the newsgroup), and I gather that the paleontologists thought one thing and the DNAologists thought another, and the recent find convinced the P's that the D's were right.

      Apparently the deciding issue was some ankle bone that had not been in any of the earlier finds, so the P's had been working from skull similarities, that being the best evidence their branch of the field had to work with.

      ps - sorry to shorten the "..." in your subject line, but the lame-o lameness filter accused me of trying ASCII art, and wouldn't take my reply without the snip.

  • Here are two related articles:

    - article at CBC Newsworld [www.cbc.ca]
    - article at the Globe and Mail [globeandmail.com]
  • Of course, they could have only evolved that way if evolution is true in the first place. Along with the many pieces of evidence for it, theres also a lot of evidence against it :) try http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://www.trueorigins.org for some interesting evidence against evolution :)

    • > try http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://www.trueorigins.org for some interesting evidence against evolution

      Or, if you prefer to see the views of scientists rather than religious leaders, visit www.talkorigins.org [talkorigins.org] (yeah, I already said that).

      Though I doubt that their "whales" documents have been updated yet.
    • On the other hand, here's some evidence for evolution [ximian.com].

      Sorry, I just haven't met the creationist that I can take seriously (of course, the universe is only 30 seconds old, so maybe there's time...).

    • theres also a lot of evidence against it :)

      Actually, there's a lot of creationists who don't know anything about science saying there's a lot of evidence against it, which is different.

      • Yes, there are a lot of creationists who don't know anything about science saying there's a lot of evidence against it. There are also a lot of creationists who do know something about science saying there's a lot of evidence against it. Likewise, there are a lot of evolutionsts who don't know anything about science saying there's a lot of evidence for it.

        You can't just say creationists are stupid and get away with it.

        The type of extrapolations that evolutionists make and then present as "facts" and "proof" are really amazing. They get credit for being "creative" at least. :)
        • You can't just say creationists are stupid and get away with it.


          how about give them the benefit of the doubt, and call them "ignorant?" That's the word I favor. You can't call someone stupid for not being aware of the alternatives. Now, if you have been presented with a choice of systems of belief, and you have chosen the system that is based on a bunch of stories about imaginary supernatural beings, rather than the system based on empirical scientific data, that's stupid.

          and if you persist in your belief, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, well that's not just stupid, that's insanity.
        • Likewise, there are a lot of evolutionsts who don't know anything about science saying there's a lot of evidence for it.

          there are a lot of crazy people who don't know anything about anything saying all kinds of stuff-- for a really good example, click on the link listed as my homepage [timecube.com] (which unfortunately isn't really mine). That doesn't mean that you or anyone else should give them a serious audience.

          that doesn't change the fact that for the last 300 years [berkeley.edu], people have been poking around the issue, and that the idea of evolution [berkeley.edu] that is taught in credible universities today is the product of much real-world experimentation. [nih.gov] You just can't say the same for creationism, becuase the idea of faith simply rules out the possibility of rational discussion.

        • Yes we can. The evidence tells us that creationists are nothing more than willfully ignorant liars. Sorry if this offends you, but it's the truth. Creationists are no better than holocaust deniers.
    • Once again, science is shot down in the light of overwhelming religious evidence.
  • I thought the one where he changed Ashcroft's quotes was funnier, but this is still pretty good.
  • So a scientist finds an ankle bone and a skull from two different animals, puts them together, creates the rest of the animal from thin air, and declares that whales descended from hippos.

    Yep. Convinced me.

    For sale: Ocean front property, Phoenix, Ax. Great deal, going quick.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Close