Why do dolphins have olfactory receptor (OR) genes?

[pitabread]

according to evolution both dolphins and whales evolved from a common land mammal. so if its true for whales its true for dolphin too. this evidence support the claim that dolphins lost their smell system. very similar to humans (about half of the OR genes of human are pseudogenes).

I'm still not sure the point you are making. You said, "dolphins and whales belong to the cetacea group. so it's doesnt make any difference." What doesn't make any difference?

Keep in mind we're talking about species with roughly 40-50 million years of evolution between them.

 

[xianghua]

I'm still not sure the point you are making. You said, "dolphins and whales belong to the cetacea group. so it's doesnt make any difference." What doesn't make any difference?

Keep in mind we're talking about species with roughly 40-50 million years of evolution between them.

you said that the fact dolphins lost their sense of smell is evidence that their ancestor was a land mammal. so we have evidence that this sense just lost in the dolphin lineage.

 

[Ophiolite]

you said that the fact dolphins lost their sense of smell is evidence that their ancestor was a land mammal. so we have evidence that this sense just lost in the dolphin lineage.

Yes, that rather is the point.

Land Animal (sense of smell) >> evolution >> dolphin (no sense of smell)

Land Animal (sense of smell) >> evolution >> whale (sense of smell)

It's not rocket science. It's biology.

 

[Jimmy D]

My dolphin's got no olfactory system...

 

[Jimmy D]

How does it smell?

 

[Jimmy D]

Bloody awful!

 

[xianghua]

Yes, that rather is the point.

Land Animal (sense of smell) >> evolution >> dolphin (no sense of smell)

Land Animal (sense of smell) >> evolution >> whale (sense of smell)

how a degeneration is evidence for evolution? its like claiming that a car that lost its miror is evidence that the car evolved naturally.

 

[USincognito]

how a degeneration is evidence for evolution? its like claiming that a car that lost its miror is evidence that the car evolved naturally.

AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

 

[Ophiolite]

how a degeneration is evidence for evolution? its like claiming that a car that lost is miror is evidence for evolution.

Evolution is about change. It is irrelevant as to whether that change involves an increase, or a decrease in complexity. I am amazed that you are unaware of this basic fact and yet, armed with such ignorance you choose to contest the reality of evolution. I am curious as to where you picked up this erroneous idea. Would you enlighten me?

 

[xianghua]

Evolution is about change. It is irrelevant as to whether that change involves an increase, or a decrease in complexity. I am amazed that you are unaware of this basic fact and yet, armed with such ignorance you choose to contest the reality of evolution. I am curious as to where you picked up this erroneous idea. Would you enlighten me?

if any change is evolution for you, then even if human will stay as human for a trilion years- its still evolution according to your criteira. more then that: according to this even if all the species in the world created by an intelligent designer and not evolved from a commondescent- evolution is still a fact according to this logic. so maybe the ignorance isnt from my direction.

 

[Ophiolite]

if any change is evolution for you, then even if human will stay as human for a trilion years- its still evolution according to your criteira. more then that: according to this even if all the species in the world created by an intelligent designer and not evolved from a commondescent- evolution is still a fact according to this logic. so maybe the ignorance isnt from my direction.

Change is not "evolution for me", but "evolution is a change in the alleles in a population" is a generally accepted definition of evolution. If you believe that this definition is not one commonly used in science, please provide evidence - not opinions - to the contrary.

If a human remains a human for a trillion years, I ask, has there been change? Do some of our remote descendants still experience sickle cell anemia, or lactose intolerance? Are there still a proportion of humans whose physiology has evolved to allow them to better live at high altitude? Ask a thousand similar questions, if the answer is that not only are all these genes still expressed, but in more or less the same proportions and that no new genes have entered the population, then evolution has not occurred.

However, for that to occur biology would have to behave in a totally novel manner. In essence you have set up a strawman, offering a hypothetical situation that would not occur.

Your penultimate sentence does not parse. And no, the ignorance is very much on your part. Now that is has been pointed out to you I do hope it does not transition into willful ignorance.

 

[xianghua]

Change is not "evolution for me", but "evolution is a change in the alleles in a population" is a generally accepted definition of evolution. If you believe that this definition is not one commonly used in science, please provide evidence - not opinions - to the contrary.

again- if you want do use this definition its fine. but in all textbooks\ profassional sites i have seen its also include a commondescent. and they consider those evidence for a commondescent as evidence for evolution. here is for instance from berkeley site:

An introduction to evolution

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)"-

so they include a commondescent in their definition.

If a human remains a human for a trillion years, I ask, has there been change?

yes. but they still humans. and can interbreed with other humans. so again: according to your definition even if human is still a human is evidence for evolution. or: even if human was created by a designer and doesnt share a commondescent with apes- evolution is still true in this case.

 

[Ophiolite]

again- if you want do use this definition its fine. but in all textbooks\ profassional sites i have seen its also include a commondescent. and they consider those evidence for a commondescent as evidence for evolution.

Look. There a variety of definitions of evolution that essentially say the same thing, but with different emphases depending upon context. To properly define evolution I should probably prefer to take at least two or three paragraphs.

I gave you a focused definition to correct an error on your part. You equated evolution, implicitly, with either an increase in complexity, or an "improvement". You denied that it could relate to a loss of function. I explained to you that this was nonsense. The Common Descent aspect of evolution is irrelevant to your error, or my correction of it. In the same way the relative importance of natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc. (all important constituents of a full definition of evolution) have no place in addressing your error.

I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just confused rather than trying a rhetorical trick to deflect attention. (Perhaps the confusion arises form some lack of clarity in my own post.)

yes. but they still humans. and can interbreed with other humans. so again: according to your definition even if human is still a human is evidence for evolution. or: even if human was created by a designer and doesnt share a commondescent with apes- evolution is still true in this case.

I'm sorry, that still does not parse well: too many juxtaposed clauses that do not seem to relate. Please try again.

 

[xianghua]

Look. There a variety of definitions of evolution that essentially say the same thing, but with different emphases depending upon context. To properly define evolution I should probably prefer to take at least two or three paragraphs.

I gave you a focused definition to correct an error on your part. You equated evolution, implicitly, with either an increase in complexity, or an "improvement". You denied that it could relate to a loss of function. I explained to you that this was nonsense. The Common Descent aspect of evolution is irrelevant to your error, or my correction of it. In the same way the relative importance of natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc. (all important constituents of a full definition of evolution) have no place in addressing your error.

I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just confused rather than trying a rhetorical trick to deflect attention. (Perhaps the confusion arises form some lack of clarity in my own post.)


I'm sorry, that still does not parse well: too many juxtaposed clauses that do not seem to relate. Please try again.

i gave you berkeley definition and they indeed include that common descent trait. why do you reject this definition of berkeley?

if according to your definition evolution isnt about a common descent then even if all creatures on earth was created and not evolved from a common descent evolution will still be true (because all creatures still get some small changes over time like changing color).

 

[Speedwell]

i gave you berkeley definition and they indeed include that common descent trait. why do you reject this definition of berkeley?

Because we are trying to do you a favor. Obviously, universal common descent is disturbing to your biblical creationist beliefs. By taking it off the table we can discuss evolution calmly--and, God willing, perhaps you will even learn how it works.

 

[USincognito]

Bloody awful!

 

[Ophiolite]

i gave you berkeley definition and they indeed include that common descent trait. why do you reject this definition of berkeley?

if according to your definition evolution isnt about a common descent then even if all creatures on earth was created and not evolved from a common descent evolution will still be true (because all creatures still get some small changes over time like changing color).

Please re-read my last post. I am not rejecting your definition. I fully agree that evolutionary theory very much involves the concept of common descent.

However, that was not the aspect of evolution I was addressing. I was addressing your foolish notion that the loss of complexity or function could not be called evolution. Therefore I used a simplified definition of evolution that addressed that aspect.

Constantly changing the subject will not make that error of yours go away. Please just acknowledge your error now and we can move on.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't know if that's sarcastic but I'll take it!

 

[PsychoSarah]

if any change is evolution for you, then even if human will stay as human for a trilion years- its still evolution according to your criteira.

Uh, no, since evolution is a continuous process, and the conditions required to make said process stop do not exist, our species remaining unchanged would defy evolutionary theory entirely. No matter how well adapted a species is to its environment, no matter how unchanging the environment may be, mutation still happens. Basically, the only way a species could stay entirely unchanging for that long is in an artificial setting in which all mutations are removed and replaced with DNA segments that existed previously.

However, since the mechanism of change helps prevent extinction, there's no logical reason for a species to do that.

more then that: according to this even if all the species in the world created by an intelligent designer and not evolved from a commondescent- evolution is still a fact according to this logic. so maybe the ignorance isnt from my direction.

-_- well, since evolution starts at the point life exists, there is no reason that it wouldn't apply to life created by a designer, just by the virtue that this life was created. As long as the design allows for the evolutionary mechanisms of change, evolution applies. The timeline would change.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know if that's sarcastic but I'll take it!

Good to great jokes get the rimshot. Bad joke get the sad trombone. Truly bad jokes get this: