Japanese researchers find dolphin with 'remains of legs' (http://tinyurl.com/yn54sj)

Full article below:

quote:

Japanese researchers find dolphin with 'remains of legs'

TOKYO (AP) - Japanese researchers said Sunday a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, providing further evidence ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.

Fishermen captured the four-finned dolphin off the coast of Wakayama prefecture in western Japan on Oct. 28 and alerted the nearby Taiji Whaling Museum, said museum director Katsuki Hayashi.

Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.

Though odd-shaped protrusions have been found near the tails of dolphins and whales captured in the past, researchers thought it was the first time one had been found with well-developed, symmetrical fins, Hayashi said.

"I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land...this is an unprecedented discovery," said Seiji Osumi, an adviser at Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research, at a news conference televised Sunday.

The second set of fins - much smaller than the dolphin's front fins - are about the size of human hands and protrude from near the tail on the dolphin's underside. The dolphin measures 2.72 metres and is about five years old, the museum said.

A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself, Osumi said. The dolphin will be kept at the Taiji museum for X-ray and DNA tests, Hayashi said.

The Canadian Press, 2006



This would seem to support the idea of evolution, which as of lately has also become a religious issue, which is why it is in this forum.

Very interesting. It's been shown in evolution that the 5 fingers and toes are a primitive trait that all mammals share. Horses even have the toes under their hooves, and the big toe is actually further up in their legs. Now the only thing I could find in the article that may be controversial is that most evolutionists believe we originiated in the water and then took to land. If you think about it, maybe the dolphin was an in-between example of how animals developed limbs to climb onto land, not into water.

pic included:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20061104-2021-japan-dolphinlegs.html

Yes, evolution is a fact.

Check out this recent experiment:

Novel experiment documents evolution of genome in near-real time

http://tinyurl.com/uq46e

god gave him those fphins so he cud swim beter>

quote:Originally posted by DrGay:

god gave him those fphins so he cud swim beter>

Mmm...interesting wanna bring that to the schools and teach it as science?

quote:Originally posted by truorion:

If you think about it, maybe the dolphin was an in-between example of how animals developed limbs to climb onto land, not into water.

The general scientific consensus is that whales and dolphins share a terrestrial common ancestor, and if I remember correctly, their closest relatives are hippos, with both fossil and molecular evidence supporting this.

If it's the same as in snakes (which I would think it would be, since these genes are relatively highly conserved across the animal kingdom), then the normal lack of hind limbs is due to the lack of expression of the Hox gene Sonic Hedgehog (I'm not joking), among others. Something fucked up in the regulation of these genes during the fetal development of this dolphin in order for it to express hind limbs.

Edit: Thought of something else...

Also, dolphins are mammals. The first animals to emerge on land (besides arthropods) were amphibious, and later reptiles. The fossil record (and I'm pretty sure molecular biology as well) gives direct evidence supporting this, along with the notion that mammals are "younger" than amphibians/reptiles. That, taken with the evidence showing relatedness with animals on land before cetaceans (marine mammals) made it back to the water, gives a pretty compelling case for the ancestors of modern dolphins/whales/porpoises returning to the oceans.

Edit (again): spelling error, goddammit



[This message has been edited by Peanutbutter Soup (edited 11-07-2006).]

I learned something from this thread.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Yes, evolution is a fact.

Check out this recent experiment:

Novel experiment documents evolution of genome in near-real time

http://tinyurl.com/uq46e

Actually, evolution has not yet been proven fact. Please don't pull shit out of your ass.

quote:Originally posted by gogetalife13579:

Actually, evolution has not yet been proven fact. Please don't pull shit out of your ass.

Evolution it's self or the theory of natural selection?

quote:Originally posted by gogetalife13579:

Actually, evolution has not yet been proven fact. Please don't pull shit out of your ass.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is. I'm tired of ambiguity and sugar-coated semantics. Yes, it is a fact, even if it hurts.

quote:Originally posted by gogetalife13579:

Actually, evolution has not yet been proven fact. Please don't pull shit out of your ass.

read the article and comment on it, not pull shit out of your ass

this reminds me of the simpsons haloween special when lisa freed the dolphin at the aquarium, then he was king dolphin. and they took over the land and drove the humans into the sea.

strange how prophetic the simpsons really is: perhaps in future years Matt Groening and his apostles (writers) will be considered the gods and spiritual authorities of out time.

quote:Originally posted by truorion:

Now the only thing I could find in the article that may be controversial is that most evolutionists believe we originiated in the water and then took to land. If you think about it, maybe the dolphin was an in-between example of how animals developed limbs to climb onto land, not into water.

Which time-frame do you mean? If its the original bacteria->single-cellular->fish->semi reptilians-> amphibian/reptile/mammals, then its nothing new. If its further on in the timeline, then maybe its interesting

quote:Originally posted by truorion:

Now the only thing I could find in the article that may be controversial is that most evolutionists believe we originiated in the water and then took to land. If you think about it, maybe the dolphin was an in-between example of how animals developed limbs to climb onto land, not into water.

quote:Originally posted by deadbeat:

Which time-frame do you mean? If its the original bacteria->single-cellular->fish->semi reptilians-> amphibian/reptile/mammals, then its nothing new. If its further on in the timeline, then maybe its interesting

I think he meant the transition from sea-dwelling animals to the first land animals.

Dolphins are mammals. Mammals came much later, after land animals had been around for a while. We know that because of the fossil record.

quote:Originally posted by Peanutbutter Soup:



Edit: Thought of something else...

Also, dolphins are mammals. The first animals to emerge on land (besides arthropods) were amphibious, and later reptiles. The fossil record (and I'm pretty sure molecular biology as well) gives direct evidence supporting this, along with the notion that mammals are "younger" than amphibians/reptiles. That, taken with the evidence showing relatedness with animals on land before cetaceans (marine mammals) made it back to the water, gives a pretty compelling case for the ancestors of modern dolphins/whales/porpoises returning to the oceans.

Edit (again): spelling error, goddammit



I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you disbelieve that life started in the oceans, or are you saying that life started in water, moved to land(creating amphibious land animals and reptiles - later to become land mammals), creating a common ancestor(something close to a modern Hippo), and then that common ancestor evolved into what we now know as modern dolphins/whales/popoises as it re-inhabited the water?

If so, I agree. Is there any fossil evidence showing that mammals inhabited the water before they moved to land, or is it that mammals instead started on land and moved into the water(becomming whales and dolphins). If so, a whale and dolphin should have a closer genetic makeup to a Hippo than a Crocodile.

Edit: They most likely do, showing that the water-land-water theory has some viable proof.

[This message has been edited by truorion (edited 11-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by truorion:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you disbelieve that life started in the oceans, or are you saying that life started in water, moved to land(creating amphibious land animals and reptiles - later to become land mammals), creating a common ancestor(something close to a modern Hippo), and then that common ancestor evolved into what we now know as modern dolphins/whales/popoises as it re-inhabited the water?

If so, I agree. Is there any fossil evidence showing that mammals inhabited the water before they moved to land, or is it that mammals instead started on land and moved into the water(becomming whales and dolphins). If so, a whale and dolphin should have a closer genetic makeup to a Hippo than a Crocodile.

Edit: They most likely do, showing that the water-land-water theory has some viable proof.

Yeah, I was saying everything started out in the oceans, moved on land, then mammals evolved (on land), then some of those mammals (ancestral lineage that gave rise to modern whales/dolphins) moved back to the water. Now that I read back over my earlier post, I realize that I could have been more clear...sorry.

Alright great, that's what I thought you meant but I had to re-read the post a few times to make sure I had the right idea, and we weren't talking opposites. I knew the part of evolution where ocean-dwelling animals took to land, but I haven't learned/read about the part when some mammals(dolphins/whales) took back to the water. Makes completele sense now. By the way I'm an Anthropology major so this stuff gets me all excited http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) And I do mean that in the least non sexual way. Sorta.

quote:Originally posted by Peanutbutter Soup:

Yeah, I was saying everything started out in the oceans, moved on land, then mammals evolved (on land), then some of those mammals (ancestral lineage that gave rise to modern whales/dolphins) moved back to the water.

what does this got to do with humans?

^Quite a bit. See "The Ascent of Woman," by Elaine Noble, a great read on the aquatic theory of human evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Yes, evolution is a fact.

Check out this recent experiment:

Novel experiment documents evolution of genome in near-real time

http://tinyurl.com/uq46e

Real time evolution has been shown with fruit flies and certain small fish.

Someone actually sent me this article a few days ago, I find it very interesting.

You guys should pick up Evolution by Karl Zimmer. (Or Carl.. w/e)

Great read.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

^Quite a bit. See "The Ascent of Woman," by Elaine Noble, a great read on the aquatic theory of human evolution.



Ok, I'll try to find it when I'm in a bookstore. However, I recall reading about how there's a theory that humans and dolphins and whales share a common ancestor. Is this true?

^In a way, they both were made by God.

Remember God's creation is perfect, and he doesn't make abominations like retards and queers and mu-tants. That's Satans doing.

This legged fish is a almost certainly a sign of the coming of the anti-christ, as I said last july.

quote:Originally posted by deadbeat:



Ok, I'll try to find it when I'm in a bookstore. However, I recall reading about how there's a theory that humans and dolphins and whales share a common ancestor. Is this true?

Good luck, you might want to try getting the author and title of the book right though. It's Elaine Morgan and the book is "the DESCENT of women."

And to answer your question, yes. All mammals share a common ancestor.



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 11-10-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by deadbeat:

Ok, I'll try to find it when I'm in a bookstore. However, I recall reading about how there's a theory that humans and dolphins and whales share a common ancestor. Is this true?

If you go back far enough, everything, eukaryotes and prokaryotes alike, all share a single common ancestor. But to really get to your question, no, humans and dolphins/whales share no DIRECT common ancestor. According to Richard Dawkins's book "The Ancestor's Tale", the branch point that led to laurasiatheres (which gave rise to such things as shrews, bats, carnivores, horses, deer, camels, hippos and whales) and the line that eventually ended up as primates (humans included) occured ~85 million years ago. But within the laurasiatheres, there are 2 branch points before you get to cetartiodactyls (the line that led to modern whales), and on the other side, you have about 10 branch points before you get to the human/chimp common ancestor. So yeah, though we're all mammals, there's still quite a bit of difference (both chronologically and genetically) between us and whales/dolphins.

quote:Originally posted by Issue313:

^In a way, they both were made by God.

Remember God's creation is perfect, and he doesn't make abominations like retards and queers and mu-tants. That's Satans doing.

This legged fish is a almost certainly a sign of the coming of the anti-christ, as I said last july.

Oh, puh-leeze! According to your own unevolved theology, God created Satan in the first place.

He/she/it/them, created everything--even things you fail to accept--even hateful, fearful Bible thumpers.

quote:Originally posted by Issue313:

^In a way, they both were made by God.

Remember God's creation is perfect, and he doesn't make abominations like retards and queers and mu-tants. That's Satans doing.

This legged fish is a almost certainly a sign of the coming of the anti-christ, as I said last july.

OK, please don't start this shit in a serious thread like this. GO to SG or whatever, just not here. We all need a relief from nutters like you

quote:Originally posted by Peanutbutter Soup:

If you go back far enough, everything, eukaryotes and prokaryotes alike, all share a single common ancestor. But to really get to your question, no, humans and dolphins/whales share no DIRECT common ancestor. According to Richard Dawkins's book "The Ancestor's Tale", the branch point that led to laurasiatheres (which gave rise to such things as shrews, bats, carnivores, horses, deer, camels, hippos and whales) and the line that eventually ended up as primates (humans included) occured ~85 million years ago. But within the laurasiatheres, there are 2 branch points before you get to cetartiodactyls (the line that led to modern whales), and on the other side, you have about 10 branch points before you get to the human/chimp common ancestor. So yeah, though we're all mammals, there's still quite a bit of difference (both chronologically and genetically) between us and whales/dolphins.

Hmmm, the theory mentioned that only dolphins and human youngs have the water breathing reflex or something, as well as some other stuff I can't recall now. Heard of this before? Has it been debunked as BS yet?

Dolphins are amniota, right?

Anyway, this is just a matter of gene expression (i.e. due to some mutation or similar event the otherwised repressed genes for the extra limbs are expressed).

To back up Peanutbutter Soup on an earlier point, snakes still retain some of the bones structures that would have supported limbs, implying a legged ancester, hence they are still counted as tetrapods.

Talk Origins FAQ (http://tinyurl.com/8qg5j)

That contains alot of good info on evolution.

ya ever seen that one simpsons episode? where the dolphins ban springfield to the ocean?

quote:Originally posted by alberthofmann:

ya ever seen that one simpsons episode? where the dolphins ban springfield to the ocean?

Yes, I did see that episode.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

^Quite a bit. See "The Ascent of Woman," by Elaine Noble, a great read on the aquatic theory of human evolution.

The aquatic ape theory is awesome in my opinion, I learned about it in grade 12 Bio...

Heres some info on it...

http://tinyurl.com/yd78zp

quote:Originally posted by gogetalife13579:

Actually, evolution has not yet been proven fact. Please don't pull shit out of your ass.

it has, you fuckinbg ignoramus