Scientists find missing link between whale and its closest relative, the hippo

UC Berkeley News ^ | 24 January 2005 | Robert Sanders, Media Relations

[DannyTN]

"So can lions and tigers -- are you going to claim that they're the same species? "

Not same species, but same kind. But lions and tiger's offspring are sterile, so it's not clear that they are the same kind. Whereas, Wolfdogs are not sterile.

Wolves appear to be nothing more than genetic sorting of a canine ancestor.

[Mamzelle]

Treebeard! You need to lay off the anabolics!

[Dimensio]

Not me, but the people who actually believe that a mammal went to the land, then went back to the water and develped some sort of mechanism to breath underwater or breach the water and breath air, they are the people who lost credibility.

You implied that whales have gills. They do not. You demonstrated your abysmal ignorance of basic biology with that statement. If you don't even know the fundamental princimples involved, then there's no reason to trust you when you claim to "know" that the whole thing is false.

[RaceBannon]

No, the problem is there is ZERO evidence, only opinions.

Whereas, we have th Bible, and when you look at the actual land, fossils and the fossil records, and then look at the Bible, there is ZERO need to add phrases like

...OVER TIME IT DEVELOPED...

...MIGHT HAVE LOOKED LIKE THIS...

...ATE PLANTS AND LEAVES FOR CENTURIES...

...BEGAN ON THE LAND, THEN WENT TO THE SEA, THEN WENT BACK TO THE LAND AND BECAME SOMETHING ELSE...

The number of times an evolutionist has to say LOOKED LIKE THIS MAYBE OR BECAME THIS ALMOST

LOOKED SIMILAR

when there is ZERO evidence to back up their claim, only an opinion...

And you people call that science!!

That is not science, it is a fairy tale.

[RaceBannon]

I mistyped, Sorry, I didn't mean to imply whales have gills, I know they breath air, I just mistyped due to my excitement on defeating the evolutionary fairy tale...

Plus I was lazy, I didnt want to delete it...

[RaceBannon]

And by the way, I am not ignorant of that, I was just lazy.

[Ichneumon]

No, you KEEP MISSING IT!!

Not at all.

they SAID FOR YEARS THAT A HIPPO LIKE CREATURE WENT BACK INTO THEW WATER

Right, or at least in the ballpark.

Then that hippo like creature developed gills, balleen, ability to swim not sink

GILLS??

I regret to inform you that you are hallucinating. No one has ever claimed that any lineage of mammals "developed gills", nor do whales have "gills" of any sort. Which creationist website did you get this horsecrap from? Hint: Trying to "learn" about biology from creationist sources is like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore -- and for the same reasons.

And as for developing "ability to swim not sink", is it truly your contention that non-aquatic mammals are unable to swim?

THEN, that same animal, after a billion years, came out of the water and became elephants or bears or whatever

You are, again, hallucinating. That has never, ever been a claim of evolutionary biology.

NOW, this article says that whatever went into the water from land CREATED hippos,

Yeah, so? And you're being confused if by "went into the water" you mean "had already been fully aquatic"... That's not the case.

the exact opposite of what they said 2 DAYS AGO!

WHY ARE YOU LYING?

The present article is in no way in contradiction with "what they said 2 days ago", son. Check out the first 20-25 links in my post #37 in order to learn what they *actually* were "saying 2 days ago" -- indeed, for the past many years. It is *consistent* with the current article, you wild-eyed dolt.

Just where do you "learn" the falsehoods which your head is filled with?

Evolution is such a fun theory, you can make up anything from microbes on meteors to aliens to whales becoming hippos and you are called a scientist...

No, unlike YOURSELF (see above), and the various lies told by numerous creationists, evolutionary biologists don't feel free to "make up anything" they want -- they craft scenarios to be as consistent with the evidence as possible, which is what science is all about.

You guys get funnier the more you speak!

Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."

[Dimensio]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply whales have gills, I know they breath air, I just mistyped due to my excitement on defeating the evolutionary fairy tale...

Ah, I see. In the thrill of knocking down your strawman, you for some reason decided that gills were a relevant subject when speaking of whales.

Perhaps you could come up with a slightly more convincing cover story.

Plus I was lazy, I didnt want to delete it...

Even though it made you look like a fool. Well, an even bigger fool than usual.

[WildTurkey]

mistyped, Sorry, I didn't mean to imply whales have gills, I know they breath air, I just mistyped due to my excitement on defeating the evolutionary fairy tale...

Seems that is a common problem with the creationists - twisting facts to fill their argument.

Like the guy yesterday that said the Bible was referring to the "four corners" of the compass.

[WildTurkey]

And by the way, I am not ignorant of that, I was just lazy.

Also too lazy to pick up some decent science books?

[Liberal Classic]

I was hoping for something more exciting like the Venus Fly-Trap.

[Jaysun]

In the absense of a clearer explanation in the Bible, why is it so hard to believe that God created some creatures over a long period of time.

If God knows the number of hairs on a given man's head, then why does it not make sense that God also guides and forms the biological process in which DNA and genetics change and evolve.

I'm not arguing (or agreeing with) the idea that God created some creatures over a long period. As you said, the Bible isn't clear so we don't know for sure. I'm saying that man was created man - not something else that evolved into man. Scripture specifically says that God created man in his image in the beginning. Not only does the Bible make this clear in Genesis 1:26-30, it was confirmed by Christ in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6.

I would also point to the obvious chasm between man and beast. Aside from the advances that we've made, man is the only creature that has a God conscience or religious nature.

[Modernman]

Not same species, but same kind. But lions and tiger's offspring are sterile, so it's not clear that they are the same kind.

It's not that simple:

"No fertile male ligers have yet been found and it is assumed all are sterile. This is not the case with females and a 15-year-old ligeress at Munich Zoo produced a li-liger after mating with a lion."
Tiger Territory

[WildTurkey]

Scripture specifically says that God created man in his image in the beginning.

God created man on Day One?

[Ichneumon]

An awful shame--all those fascinating creatures, now extinct.

But their descendants live on. The same goes for my Grandma, for that matter.

Now are you going to answer the questions and the points which were raised, or is that your lame attempt to sidestep them and hope nobody notices?

[PatrickHenry]

Testing the code for using a pic for a link:

[RaceBannon]

nO, jUST UNABLE TO ESCAPE THE EMBARRASSMENT OF A QUICK TYPO!!

(...oops!..)

Not one I am going to live down for some time here...(sigh)...

[WildTurkey]

Pregnant Mule

[DannyTN]

Well both tigers ans lions are considered cats. They might be one kind that has simply gotten to the point that it's difficult to mate. It's difficult to mate a dachshund with a St. Bernard too. If the dachshund is female the size will kill her.

Did you read the last line of the link you posted?

"Patrick (a li-liger) is one of the fortunate few and was saved through the generosity of The Roar Foundation. He now lives a life of ease and gets great enjoyment from spraying unwary "visitors. "

[Ichneumon]

Continue this trend for hundreds of thousands or millions of years and the descendants of chihuahuas and Great Danes will most certainly be considered separate species of animal.

I don't think anyone can dispute that if we had first run across the Chihuahua and the Great Dane out in the wild, with no other varieties of dog extant (if they had died out, for example), we would not have hesitated in the least to consider them separate species.

They're certainly more different morphologically, and more reproductively isolated, than many other creatures which people comfortably label as different species (such as distinct varieties of birds, etc.)