1. Comment #130903 by jmrunning3 on February 21, 2008 at 1:25 pm

But...but...but...that guy that debated PZ on that radio show!! He said there was no evidence of whale evolution. How can this be??

*sarcasm*

I find it absolutely fascinating that transitional forms are starting to turn up everywhere! "Your Inner Fish" is a great book and details how they pinpoint where to look for them and what they predict they will find.

Other Comments by jmrunning3

2. Comment #130929 by room101 on February 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Absolutely fascinating...

I especially enjoyed the segment featuring Frank Fish (appropriate name, eh?) and his comparison of swimming patterns between 4-legged land animals and their cousins (seals, whales). It never occured to me to consider their similar swimming styles (up and down, using their pelvic muscles for thrust) as compared to fish (side to side movements with their fins).

This was only 7 minutes long, but I caught myself saying "wow" when it was over. Really neat stuff.

Other Comments by room101

3. Comment #130930 by KesheR on February 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Very interesting.

Other Comments by KesheR

4. Comment #130933 by ADePSP on February 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm

ooo, i'm confused... I thought the latest information on Whale evolution suggested they'd evolved from Hippo like mammals not wolf like mammals (the old idea)... Dawkins "Ancestor's Tale" says as much...

This clip clearly suggests a cyanine ancestor... Could someone clear this up as this is confusing and ammunition to the parties of God...

Other Comments by ADePSP

5. Comment #130935 by bluebird on February 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

We enjoyed this PBS video, thanks!


Next Tuesday on PBS (online 27th):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/index.html

Other Comments by bluebird

6. Comment #130936 by Double Bass Atheist on February 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Actually, the evolution of whales has been very well understood for quite some time. As PZ said in that radio show debate, "It's one of biology's biggest success stories!"

However, I think that this video will be a good one to use the next time a fundie says, "There's never been any transitional fossils found."
Then again, they probably won't watch it anyhow, or if it is viewed, the fundie will just say that it doesn't prove anything.
The real irony here is that if these people applied the same level of criticism to their own 'beliefs', we wouldn't even be having that debate!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

7. Comment #130953 by DamnDirtyApe on February 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Jaw dropping stuff...

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

8. Comment #130955 by MelM on February 21, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Don't forget to watch the video of a creationist on PZ's post mentioned above. It turns out that Satan is behind evolution. I had no idea...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php

PZ: This is what we have to deal with: morons who think their caricatures are evidence, and this bozo is probably voting for school board members based on how closely they approximate his level of idiocy.

Other Comments by MelM

9. Comment #130956 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Double Bass Atheist.
Since we are in the throes of the Rugby Six nations Tournament, I'm not really in the mood for articles and comments on "the evolution of Wales".
Sorry about that.
I'll get over it.
'Twll tin pob sais'

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

10. Comment #130963 by Teratornis on February 21, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Wow, the Devil sure put a lot of transitional fossils in the ground to test our faith.

Jesus had better come back to rapture us away before those evil-lutionists ''really'' start to make sense.

BTW, while we're on the topic of whales, I recommend searching YouTube for "exploding whale".

I look forward to the day when technology advances far enough so when we debate with creationists, we can answer them with snippets from documentaries. Imagine if Dr. Meyers had been able to present that clip to all the tools who had just bought the blatantly false claim that "there are no whale transitional fossils." That wouldn't work on radio, of course, but radio is going away because people will drive cars a lot less as the petrocollapse unfolds. (Peak oil may have occurred in 2006. Get ready to ride Hubbert's curve back down.)

Other Comments by Teratornis

11. Comment #130984 by sornord on February 21, 2008 at 4:15 pm

That clip is from a 7-part PBS series entitled, naturally, "Evolution". Good series I have watched multiple times, though I bought it on VHS before DVDs were, uh, intelligently designed.

Other Comments by sornord

12. Comment #130987 by Goodwithwood on February 21, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Hey KesheR.

Hippo's and whales share a common ancestor like this one. One didn't evolve from the other as you're thinking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010920072245.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205103109.htm

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

13. Comment #130995 by paulwwww on February 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

I agree with many here, this was an awesome video, sounds dumb, but seems like evolution backwards.

Other Comments by paulwwww

14. Comment #131004 by Double Bass Atheist on February 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Since we are in the throes of the Rugby Six nations Tournament, I'm not really in the mood for articles and comments on "the evolution of Wales".

Richard Morgan - That's pretty funny! Even knowing your sharp wit, I had to read your post twice before I even noticed the pun!
And I must admit I also had to look up your Welsh saying at the end.

Ah, the things Americans like me can learn on these boards. :-b
Reason and Culture, all delivered with a biting sense of humor!

sounds dumb, but seems like evolution backwards

paulwwww- by this, do you mean that, as mammals, whales began as land creatures and then moved to the oceans? I know most people seem to think evolution means ALL life began in the ocean then moved onto land, but obviously this is simply not the case.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

15. Comment #131006 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 5:10 pm

OK first a question: Did this thing chase Indohyus into the water? Second, wouldn't you know a guy named Frank E. Fish would choose to study marine mammals? Finally, an interesting page to read on the subject (although I couldn't tell you how accurate it is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Other Comments by Radesq

16. Comment #131034 by Gunnar on February 21, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Evolution is not directed towards a goal. Therefore, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM!

Apart from that, this was of course very interesting.

Other Comments by Gunnar

17. Comment #131038 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Evolution may not be directed toward a goal but the study of it can be. Looking in retrospect you can call something a transitional form. Just like flying ice cream is often a transitional form between my ice cream cone and the puddling ground ice cream.

Other Comments by Radesq

18. Comment #131041 by Mitchell Gilks on February 21, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I checked out the comments on youtube, and as I suspected, they were discouraging to say the least. It is amazing how someone can watch that evidence, and then say "evolution isn't true, because it says that animal lost it's fur and legs, yet evolution doesn't take away, it only adds. Thus evolution is wrong." and other unintelligible nonsense. Without even the slightest attempt at actually addressing the evidence.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

19. Comment #131042 by Nuspirit on February 21, 2008 at 7:20 pm

The video is great but I have to say it's somewhat overshadowed by the creationist version's fantastic degree of lunacy.

The guy presents something that would be flattered red by calling it a straw man argument, then proceeds to "disprove" evolution by pointing that it is not compatible with Genesis and lastly decides that if not because of anything else, science must be wrong because complex theories are harder to grasp than the concept of things being simply magicked into existence.

The mind reels.

Other Comments by Nuspirit

20. Comment #131044 by Mitchell Gilks on February 21, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Tranitional forms between genuses can be noted, and discovered, but between species it makes no sense. Not enough seperates species, and in essence, all organisms are transitions between species. What species our ancestors where, and which will will become in the future.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

21. Comment #131045 by Mitchell Gilks on February 21, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Nuspirit, I would argue that evolution is far easier to grasp then "goddidit". He just thinks that is an answer, scientists don't say "evolutiondidit" they know the mechanism, they know the process, they know the time scale, they know how it works. It can be explained and understood.

Now of that is true of "goddidit", that statement cannot be explained, or comprehended. The religious are simply satified not knowing, and thinking they are right regardless.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

22. Comment #131046 by paulwwww on February 21, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Doublebass

paulwwww- by this, do you mean that, as mammals, whales began as land creatures and then moved to the oceans? I know most people seem to think evolution means ALL life began in the ocean then moved onto land, but obviously this is simply not the case.

Yes guess I didn't see that one coming, I think I fit the mold, "evolution = water to land", and not the reverse. This video was enlightning.

Other Comments by paulwwww

23. Comment #131051 by sarah95 on February 21, 2008 at 8:09 pm

wohoo! liam neeson and evolutionary biology?
who could ask for more?!

Other Comments by sarah95

24. Comment #131060 by 82abhilash on February 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm

4. Comment #130933 by ADePSP on February 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm
ooo, i'm confused... I thought the latest information on Whale evolution suggested they'd evolved from Hippo like mammals not wolf like mammals (the old idea)... Dawkins "Ancestor's Tale" says as much...

This clip clearly suggests a cyanine ancestor... Could someone clear this up as this is confusing and ammunition to the parties of God...

ADePSP this is the same misunderstanding that creationists fall into when they say man evolved from monkeys. Man did not evolve from monkeys, man and monkeys had a common ape like ancestor.

Likewise whales did not evolve from Hippos. What RD claimed as that whales and hippos are closely related. Which means whales and hippos had a common ancestor in the distant past, maybe that ancestor was canine like as suggested here.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

25. Comment #131083 by mAtheist on February 21, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Sadly, there's never enough fossils for the creationists.

Other Comments by mAtheist

26. Comment #131107 by Verylee on February 22, 2008 at 1:15 am

Having just watched the Creationist's ramble. All I can think to say is, "There but for the grace of Darwin go I".

Other Comments by Verylee

27. Comment #131109 by Quetzalcoatl on February 22, 2008 at 1:18 am

Double Bass-

the theory is that whales started off on land, then returned to the oceans. The same applies to dolphins too, as they're also mammals.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

28. Comment #131137 by salgiambruno on February 22, 2008 at 2:16 am

This so-called "discovery" only adds more gaps to the transitional fossil record . . . darn it, the paleontologists need to stop digging these things up!

"Evolution is not directed towards a goal. Therefore, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM!"

I think the term "transitional" form is not meant to imply or describe an incompletely evolved or otherwise inadequate form, but rather, a transitional form is a phenotype (form) that falls between two further-separated, distinct forms. Transitional as I understand it means "related to" on the same evolutionary timeline.

Evolution does not have an "arrow" of time, borrowing from a concept used in discussions of physics. There is no necessary path or direction that evolution must follow, and no specific destination. Evolution is guided only by selective pressures. At any given time, any form is more or less perfectly adapted to its environment. Every living thing existing today is equally adapted to its environment. Whales are no more nor less "evolved" than say, rattlesnakes in Arizona.

Other Comments by salgiambruno

29. Comment #131140 by LorienRyan on February 22, 2008 at 2:19 am

Nice vid. Could whales, or whatever they were at that time, have originated from the oceans then returned after a stint on the land?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

30. Comment #131141 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 2:23 am

gunnar

Evolution is not directed towards a goal. Therefore, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM!

I beg to differ... in a way, EVERY living thing is a "transitional form".

Other Comments by PJG

31. Comment #131142 by Quetzalcoatl on February 22, 2008 at 2:24 am

Lorien-

that's quite possible, over large time-scales. They could have been river-dwellers at some point too, and just kept heading further out to sea.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

32. Comment #131144 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 2:28 am

that's quite possible, over large time-scales. They could have been river-dwellers at some point too, and just kept heading further out to sea.

Until at some point they got too far from shore, and decided it was time to stop being transitional and go for the full "whale"?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #131145 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 2:30 am

One thing that is rather interesting:

Every time a "transitional form" is found and the creationists say "so now there are two gaps", they evidently do not go running to their congregations and excitedly inform them that another gap has been made. The number of creationist (I mean at the REALLY uninformed end) who have no idea that there are ANY transitional forms is mindboggling.

My husband was talking to an Islamic creationist the other day (a medical student *shudder*) who was unaware that any transitional forms had been found... at all.

Other Comments by PJG

34. Comment #131147 by Quetzalcoatl on February 22, 2008 at 2:33 am

Steve-

Until at some point they got too far from shore, and decided it was time to stop being transitional and go for the full "whale"?

That's probably exactly how it was.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

35. Comment #131149 by LorienRyan on February 22, 2008 at 2:34 am

Until at some point they got too far from shore, and decided it was time to stop being transitional and go for the full "whale"?

That was unfair. We all know that categorizations are relative to a certain point in time.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

36. Comment #131150 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 2:38 am

That's probably exactly how it was.

Or it may have been more along the lines of the ideas of Stephen Gould...

A group of species was selected that all had a whale body plan, and such a range of variability that some were whales and some weren't. Suddenly the climate changed, or a small meteor hit or something, and all but the whaley ones were killed off. Nothing to do with gene selection.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #131151 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 2:40 am

That was unfair. We all know that categorizations are relative to a certain point in time.

I was joking, and parodying how a very bad science journalist might put it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #131152 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 2:42 am

I find it absolutely fascinating that transitional forms are starting to turn up everywhere!

They might all be fakes!!

Other Comments by krisking

39. Comment #131155 by LorienRyan on February 22, 2008 at 2:48 am

A group of species was selected that all had a whale body plan, and such a range of variability that some were whales and some weren't. Suddenly the climate changed, or a small meteor hit or something, and all but the whaley ones were killed off. Nothing to do with gene selection.

That is the first time I've seen a stupid comment from you. And it stems from the straw man you set up with the word 'decided' in the other comment.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

40. Comment #131157 by LorienRyan on February 22, 2008 at 2:49 am

Steve,

Oh, joking, well then ignore my last comment please :)

Other Comments by LorienRyan

41. Comment #131158 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 2:49 am

That is the first time I've seen a stupid comment from you. And it stems from the straw man you set up with the word 'decided' in the other comment.

Are you familiar with Gould's arguments?

I apologise. I am attempting humour; perhaps not wise.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #131159 by Quetzalcoatl on February 22, 2008 at 2:49 am

LorienRyan-

Steve is KIDDING. See comment 38.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

43. Comment #131160 by LorienRyan on February 22, 2008 at 2:53 am

They might all be fakes!!

It really is a conspiracy, the antichrist gets the fake fossils from the devil's fake fossil making elves.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

44. Comment #131164 by LorienRyan on February 22, 2008 at 3:05 am

Quetza,

Subtlety was lost on me, that damn adrenal gland, although if Steve was serious... :)

Other Comments by LorienRyan

45. Comment #131214 by Ian Bamlett on February 22, 2008 at 4:09 am

Is the evolution of whales the most 'extreme', (sorry, can't think of a better word), example of adaptation to an environment we have,(which we we can demonstrate)?

By that I mean, we had land animal, and now we have an animal perfectly adapted to a water environment - very different from where it started.

I just can't think of a better example that we know as much about.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

46. Comment #131218 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 4:17 am

Ian: I think the most extreme I can think of is the tardigrade. It is a small animal, probably related to the arthropods. It has been reported in hot springs, in ice and in ocean sediments. It can reversibly suspend its metabolism completely, and in that state it can survive without water or oxygen or even any air altogether, for close to a decade. It can even survive a few minutes of boiling at over 150C.

Now THAT is adaptation!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #131242 by BNCbright on February 22, 2008 at 5:24 am

The account of the swimming in mammals as opposed to fish is the most interesting part, imo - it's obvious to see once its pointed out, and an incredibly elegant theory - it just takes that bit of insight to 'get it'.

Great video.

Other Comments by BNCbright

48. Comment #131258 by 4horsefins on February 22, 2008 at 6:20 am

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM!

PJG states correctly "everything living is a transitionl form" Every living thing is also a product of evolution. This means not only are we evolving, we are transitioning into our next form...NOW!!! and always.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

49. Comment #131276 by Double Bass Atheist on February 22, 2008 at 7:01 am

the theory is that whales started off on land, then returned to the oceans. The same applies to dolphins too, as they're also mammals

.
Quetzalcoatl- I am well aware of these facts. I was just pointing it out to paulwwww, who it appears, is not.

It's always surprised me that, even among supporters of evolution, most people seem to think the evolution of all types of life was this steady progression from the ocean to land. This misunderstanding also includes the thinking the life that is still in the sea has simply always been there; life that never went to land, so to speak.

it's obvious to see once its pointed out, and an incredibly elegant theory - it just takes that bit of insight to 'get it'.

Unfortunately, BNCbright, it's an elegance that most creationists will never be able to see (or should I say 'sea').

This means not only are we evolving, we are transitioning into our next form...NOW!!! and always.

4horsefins - Spot on!!!
I remember watching the debate on Nightline (last summer, I think) between members of the Rational Response Squad vs the IDiots Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. When the IDiots stated the usual creationist mantra, "There have never been any transitional forms of life found" the RRS came back with "This whole room is filled with 'transitional forms'"... only to greeted with blank stares. The IDiots had absolutely no idea what was meant by that. Sadly, neither did most of the audience.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

50. Comment #131280 by Szymanowski on February 22, 2008 at 7:11 am

Right. Next, please explain how bananas are actually fish :)

Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather:

Ponder Stibbons: "Botanically, [the banana is] a type of fish, sir. According to my theory it is cladisticaly associated with the Krullian pipefish, sir, which of course is also yellow and goes around in bunches or shoals."

Other Comments by Szymanowski