Comments on: You Call That a Whale?

By: Mae

Mae — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:57:37 +0000

The problem with evolution is that it has no beginning. There is no way to prove how life started using the theory of evolution (THEORY). Even Darwin knew that, only hoping someone in the future could connect the dots.
This story would be more interesting if there were more potential reasons for why the bones were found. Deciding that this is a missing link based on such a small amount of evidence mind boggling.

By: Nicholas Dollak

Nicholas Dollak — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:49:49 +0000

Geez Louise, what’s up with all the flaming? Evolution is now even provable in the lab, and is therefore a moot point. Yeah, there are some holes to be filled, but denying its existence is like insisting that the Earth is flat just because it looks that way.

At any rate, the reason Ambulocetus is considered a whale ancestor is because of its skeletal morphology and dentition. It was, like hippos and crocodiles, a land animal that spent a great deal of time in the water. Some of its decendants probably resembled manatees & dugongs — one could, I guess, call them “intermediate” species in that they are neither land animals nor as streamlined as cetaceans. However, palaeontology does not actually designate species as “intermediate.” “Intermediate” implies that a species is working toward some goal, which is not the case.

Teeth are very useful for linking one species to another in the fossil record, simply because they don’t change as “quickly” as bones do. This is why modern humans have problems with wisdom teeth. Ambulocetus has teeth rather similar to that of Basilosaurus, which was initially mistaken for a marine reptile (hence the name) until its own teeth were seen to be similar to today’s orcas.

Eventually some of Ambulocetus’ decendants found it difficult to get onto land to give birth. Those who tended to have “breech births” were more likely to have offspring who survived being born, and thus their genes were perpetuated. A condition that usually proves a liability on land can be an advantage in the water. (An example of a human problem that can be a boon is sickle-cell anemia. It can make one weak, but it can help one survive a case of malaria.

By: Bryce Rasmussen

Bryce Rasmussen — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:55:29 +0000

I ride a singlespeed too-yeehah! Hey, singlespeed man, ya’ll are making some pretty hefty assumptions, so let me educate yas-numero uno, I’m not a theist, pagan, agnostic, polytheist, or athiest, as I don’t self identify with stupid labels of any kind. Secundo: I happen to believe in adaptation, with a little evolution thrown in-or maybe it’s a lot of evolution with a little adaptation thrown in. Anyways, my comment was not about evolution not being real, my comment was very simply, so you might understand: our understanding of evolution is somewhat limited, due to lack of DNA evidence from the past. This is not a problem, cause we do this cool thing called learning. Got it?

By: Carl

Carl — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:24:01 +0000

I applaud the astoundingly level-headed (comparatively to most evolution threads) comments so far.

By: dogrun81

dogrun81 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:28:29 +0000

Contrary to what most elitists think, you can be a logical, rational, educated, intelligent, scientific-minded person and believe in creation.

Don’t use this “first cause” crap. There’s no “first cause” for evolution either.

By: B Rational

B Rational — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:30:02 +0000

Wow. When did all the creationist wingnuts come out of the closet?

By: singlespeedman

singlespeedman — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:48 +0000

It is an educated guess rather than a vain desire to have been created by a being that had no creator. Potteroff and read some philosophy on the uncaused cause and engage the brainbefore making rash statements. Evolution is real.

By: Bryce Rasmussen

Bryce Rasmussen — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:01:24 +0000

Well now-if it walks like a land animal, and gives birth like a land animal-then it’s probably a land animal. The problem with evolution is not that it’s wrong, or full of lies, it’s that DNA evidence doesn’t really exist, so one is compelled to look at an animals morphology, and make what are at best, educated guesses. I suspect evolution to be real, and somewhat verifiable, and that the reasoning for some choices of species, genus, phyla, are a bit flawed.

By: RRRRRR

RRRRRR — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:52:51 +0000

This is a farce and a lie, they couldn’t tell what they were looking at but they can propose that is was an intermediate species with no doubt to prove their theory. This represents the evolution lie to the fullest.
Bones prove nothing except that it died. Oh they also forgot to mention all the other types of animals they found with this “discovery”. They just put together the bones in a way that they wanted.

Give me facts please.
Evolution is a weak theory at best.