Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species

[pgp_protector]

Saw this on Diggs, Reading it now, but thought I'd still share it.

Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species : Planetsave

 

[BananaSlug]

But they're still whales!!!!

Interesting article. A study like this could potentially last several decades (or longer). Anyone know where we could find a link to the actual research article?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

LOL.

A killer whale is a killer whale.

It's babies are also killer whales not some new mythological species.

 

[bibleblevr]

cool speciation in action

I would be willing to bet that the southern whales don't fail to reproduce if they don't have the mutation for bigger teeth, a bet they just migrate north for food and breed with similar whales. it is not really evelution at all because natural selecton is not happening. the whales are selectivly breeding themselfs by segragating those with teeth mutations. it is not based on the idea non-mutants die but rather mutants move to easier areas to live and breed.

 

[Chesterton]

Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species : Planetsave

Send me a PM when they grow legs, so I can keep an eye out.

 

[plindboe]

I'll believe that mutation, selection and drift can produce two new species through incremental steps when I see a killer whale give birth to a cat.

Peter

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Send me a PM when they grow legs, so I can keep an eye out.

psssst... they already have.

 

[Chesterton]

psssst... they already have.

"I know you are but what am I?"

 

[MoonLancer]

LOL.

A killer whale is a killer whale.

It's babies are also killer whales not some new mythological species.

That's a straw man. It assumes the change happens within a single generation that that the differences between each species's is a clear cut binary black and white. What will you do when you meet your maker and he askes you why you lied?

 

[UnionJack]

The killer whale is evolving into......another killer whale?????

Let me know when the whale breeds a cat or a bird.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It always amuses me when people fail to understand evolution. It's as if they're actively trying to be ignorant, the number of times it's been explained on these forums...

Cool link by the way. I do hope that scientists follow this for as long as possible.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The killer whale is evolving into......another killer whale?????

Let me know when the whale breeds a cat or a bird.

Why would it turn into a cat or a bird? That's just dumb.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

"I know you are but what am I?"

Good to see you promoting someone who was arrestested for masturbating in public in an adult theater in Florida.

 

[UnionJack]

Why would it turn into a cat or a bird? That's just dumb.

The title of this thread promotes macroevolution opposed to microevolution.

When a species breeds a new species that would certainly prove macroevolution exists, but no...the whale is still breeding a whale, not another species.

 

[BananaSlug]

The title of this thread promotes macroevolution opposed to microevolution.

When a species breeds a new species that would certainly prove macroevolution exists, but no...the whale is still breeding a whale, not another species.

Another species of whale...

 

[UnionJack]

and its still a whale?

so by your logic there would have to originally be one species of EVERYTHING? Because if they weren't all there when the Earth was created by the big bang, then there is no way for all the species that exist today to be here?

unless of course there were less species originally and they evolved into other species. if the whale keeps evolving into whales, and cats only evolve into cats, where did the other species that were non existent when the big bang occured come from?

To which you are supposed to reply: they evolved over time...which is what i put forth with macroevolution, but you guys seem to be arguing the Christian point of view for me.

 

[Washington]

Your linked article by Jerry James Stone is an example of "A little learning is a dangerous thing," or, corrupt reporting, or most likely, both.

Stone, while appreciating evolution and speciation, shows a lack of real understanding of it, plus jumping to an unwarranted conclusion---based on the information he cites. If you note his linked source Discovery News, it says:

"Killer Whales in the in the North Atlantic Ocean come in two different flavors, and could be in the process of splitting into two species, according to new research by a team of European scientists."
​

Note the "could be in the process of splitting into two species," and then take a look at what Stone says,

"Scientists have found that Killer Whales in the North Atlantic Ocean differ in both diet and genetic makeup. In fact, they’re in the process of splitting into two different species all together."
​

Note the, "they’re in the process of splitting into two different species."

"Are" and "could be," hardly synonyms, are significantly different indicators of status, and anyone who chooses to substitute one for the other is grossly misleading the reader. Stone's rewrite here is inexcusable.

But not content to leave his mis-characterization as is, Stone then takes it a step further when he dismisses what he has already said "they [are] in the process of splitting into two different species." and claims they have already made the split:

". . . but this is the first finding of two different species occupying the same region."
​

IOW, they are no longer in the process of splitting but have made this split. So either Stone has absolutely no idea of the term "species" indicates, or he simply likes to exaggerate, for whatever reason.

My advice is to cross him off your list of reliable sources, because that's exactly what he's shown himself to be here.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The title of this thread promotes macroevolution opposed to microevolution.

When a species breeds a new species that would certainly prove macroevolution exists, but no...the whale is still breeding a whale, not another species.

Oh dear... you really have no idea what evolution is do you?

I'll sum it up in a word for you:

GRADUAL

Very important you pay attention to that word. What you call 'macroevolution' (a nonsense term in itself) is just evolution (or the other stupid term 'microevolution') over a series of generations. With a tiny difference in each new generation.

And what happens when you have lots and lots of tiny differences over generations? Do you know what you get overall?

A BIG difference.

So that whale might give birth to a slightly different whale that will give birth to a different whale that will give birth to a different whale...

...and then eventually you might get a new creature that has developed rudimentary legs, that gives birth to a slightly different creature...

...and then you might get a descendant of a whales with legs and fur, that gives birth to a slightly different descendant with legs and fur, that gives birth to a slightly different...

...and after many many generations you may end up with a cat at the end, but a whale is not going to give birth to a cat.

So read this, or go one better and read even further on the subject. And more importantly:

Never ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER use the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' again. Using them amongst people who understand evolution will immediately drop your percieved IQ by 50 points. Using the terms can also cause sickness, dizziness, blindness, epilepsy, paralysis, heart failiure, cancer and being beaten to death by frustrated evolutionists. You have been warned.

There is only evolution. Not 'microevolution', not 'macroevolution', not 'slightlyinbetweenevolution'. Just evolution.

[/rant]

 

[Freysinn]

and its still a whale?

so by your logic there would have to originally be one species of EVERYTHING? Because if they weren't all there when the Earth was created by the big bang, then there is no way for all the species that exist today to be here?

unless of course there were less species originally and they evolved into other species. if the whale keeps evolving into whales, and cats only evolve into cats, where did the other species that were non existent when the big bang occured come from?

To which you are supposed to reply: they evolved over time...which is what i put forth with macroevolution, but you guys seem to be arguing the Christian point of view for me.

You don't understand. No wonder you reject evolution.

Please note my avatar, it is a parody of your avatar, how lovely.

 

[BananaSlug]

and its still a whale?

So are you saying that sperm whales and blue whales are the same species? I'd like to hear your logic on that.

so by your logic there would have to originally be one species of EVERYTHING?

No.

Because if they weren't all there when the Earth was created by the big bang, then there is no way for all the species that exist today to be here?

It is something I like to call natural selection.

unless of course there were less species originally and they evolved into other species.

Exactly!

if the whale keeps evolving into whales, and cats only evolve into cats, where did the other species that were non existent when the big bang occured come from?

What? The Big Bang happened around 13.5 million years ago. The first verifiable evidence of life on earth was around 1.5 billion years ago. The first multicellular life did not appear until around 600 million years ago. Do you know what a nested hierarchy is?

Nested hierarchies show evolutionary relationships. They are verified by morphology and genetics. Care to explain why whales are so closely related to hippos?

To which you are supposed to reply: they evolved over time...which is what i put forth with macroevolution, but you guys seem to be arguing the Christian point of view for me.

How so?