Comments on: Dolphin With “Remains of Back Legs”

By: Sordes

Sordes — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:12:52 +0000

kittenz, it is highly unprobable that pythons are closer related to mammals than other snakes. Only because they show some high developed features like the ability to increase their body temperature or care for their young, they don’t have to do anything with mammals. Many non-mammals evolved the ability to increase their body temperature independently, among them many fish like marlins, swordfish, several sharks and tunas. There are also many other vertebrates which take care on their young, although most of their closer relatives don’t do this. This can be seen for example in frogs.

But to keep on the main topic. When I read the other comments, I saw that there is a lot of misunderstanding of biology and related terms. For example that tails in humans are no atavisms but mutations. In fact they are mutations which leads to an atavism. A single mutation in the DNA can not cause that a complete tail grows (what would be in a creationistic world, where humans had never ancestors with tails), because such a thing would need thousands of other mutations at the same time. But a single mutation can cause that something that was existent in the anatomy of the ancestors can come on the surface. This is not the same thing as polydactily, what is really a mutation which causes a different number of fingers which are already there, but a completely other organ.

By the way, the tail of whales is made only from more or less normal tail-bones and muscles which form the fluke.

By: traveler

traveler — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:24:39 +0000

I must agree. The flu virus has changed and mutated and micro-evolved…but in the end what is it? A flu virus. Now if it turned into a chicken, I would be impressed.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:18:54 +0000

I understand it, and don’t buy it. I do believe in mutations within “kinds’ and variations within “kinds” but I don’t think cattle turned into whales. I also don’t believe time kissing a frog can turn him into a prince much less a Princess doing the same.

By: jayman

jayman — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:53:42 +0000

Very well put, Mnynames. One of the problems the public has with evolution is that an average person can grasp what it’s about at a rudimentary level, unlike theories of gravity or electromagnetism. The public doesn’t think anything of, say, quantum mechanics – they can’t understand it.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:21:07 +0000

DNA research has done nothing but provide thousands of examples of solid, unquestionable support for evolution, a theory I might add that has far more positive evidence than any working theories of gravity or electromagnetism. Yet strangely, I don’t hear anybody denying those, even though evolution is just as obvious. And I’m sure plenty of these deniers are willing to stand in line to get their flu shots, blissfully ignorant of the fact that such a shot would be completely unnecessary if the flu virus didn’t evolve through thousands of generations from year to year. Evolution is real. We’ve seen it, in bacteria, viruses, fruit flies, heck even selective breeding of livestock is just humans taking control of an existing evolutionary process. It has left its mark in every animal’s DNA, as well as their morphology, anatomy, even behaviour. Coupled with equally well-known and undisputed geological processes, it is proof that the Earth is very old, and life has existed on it, living, adapting, evolving, for a very long time.

By: jayman

jayman — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:05:51 +0000

There is really no mystery here, cetaceans with external hind limbs are well documented in the literature, and were known to whalers. Most cetaceans have a vestigal pelvis and femurs, which are not connected to the spine. Usually they are buried in the soft tissue but once in a while can project externally.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:06:26 +0000

mystery_man and kittenz- talking refreshing sense as usual.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 05:00:17 +0000

The problem here is that we do not have all the data. How is insisting that it is not an evolutionary throwback any better than insisting it is? There are examples of vestigal organs and body parts in some animals, so their theory is not totally ungrounded. On the other hand, some of the other ideas posted here are valid as well. I feel that we should be careful not to adhere to one theory or the other until more data is made available. We cannot accuse these scientists of taking a strict evolutionary slant, and then go and take a strict “freak mutation” slant or “congenital twin” stance. Dismissing other theories outright without further data is not in the best interest of finding out what is really going on here.

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:37:44 +0000

God point Mememe, I was thinking the same thing when I read your post. I think there was P.T. Barnum guy who had three-legs and played soccer. This dolphin is different but nothing more than a benign mutation. It seems like since DNA research didn’t pan out the way evolutionists expected they’ve been grasping at everything they can to bolster their theory. Can’t blame them I guess. If the source of my academic reputation and life-work was in jeopardy of being proved groundless I suppose I’d try to salvage it, too. I just hope I would say, “Well, lets try thinking this through again.” I’m just saying let’s start making the theories fit the data and not the other way around.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:39:46 +0000

The more we learn about genetics, about how the ‘junk’ DNA is viable unused code that can be turned on or off by the process of hormone-induced methylation, and the instructions for doing so, the more appeals to “throwbacks” makes less sense and appears more and more 19th century (along with Freud, phrenology and phlogiston).

I don’t know what the story is with this dolphin. We don’t know all of the species of dolphins there are, not by a long shot, it would seem. It could be the remnants of a twin, it could be an improper activation of a gene – though how they would then be so suitably placed would be mysterious, in both of those cases. They aren’t legs, they appear to be nicely formed and proportional flippers that would be a survival advantage, rather than hindrance, so throwback seems very likely out as an explanation. There is so very much we don’t know.