Slashdot Mirror


The Dolphin With Leftover Legs

ectotherm writes "Japanese scientists have captured a dolphin with vestigial legs. Evidence, it would seem, of a land-dwelling past and observable evolution." From the article: "Fishermen captured the four-finned dolphin alive off the coast of Wakayama prefecture (state) in western Japan on Oct. 28, and alerted the nearby Taiji Whaling Museum, according to museum director Katsuki Hayashi. Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared. Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth."

441 comments

  1. I urge you to be insightful by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On this article. You can't. You can be funny or informative. Let the challenge begin NOW...

    1. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      Most importantly, what does it taste like eaten raw?

    2. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Environmental change is a bitch.

    3. Re:I urge you to be insightful by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Because the conditions in which the "in between" creatures flourished no longer exist.

    4. Re:I urge you to be insightful by rHBa · · Score: 1

      It tastes great with three eye'd soy sauce.

    5. Re:I urge you to be insightful by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Easy. Just make a comment on the nature of evolution and how strange it is to think that dolphins, whales, hippos and deer share the same ancestor and you've won.

    6. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      The driving force behind evolution is natural selection, no one explicitly decides that species A will become B nor does A evolve into B by pure chance. If for twenty thousand years you killed off every kid who had white skin you would not have any more white people (save for freak mutations not probably even light skinned probably) that is evolution in essence.

    7. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Maian · · Score: 1

      Actually, to be more accurate, the conditions in which the "in between" creatures would flourish didn't exist at the time the species split into two. It may exist after the speciation event (perhaps even today), but by that time, the two populations can't produce viable offspring with each other (and thus are two different species according to the biological definition of species).

      Examples of times when the "in between" conditions don't exist: the two populations are geographically separated; individuals possessing an "average" trait are killed off, leaving the two extremes of the trait to remain (e.g. bird migrates to island that has two types of seeds, one requiring smaller beaks, the other requiring bigger beaks); a portion of the population evolves separate mating behaviors and preferences.

    8. Re:I urge you to be insightful by MollyB · · Score: 1

      I find it strange that the example envisioning the killing of "white"-skinned kids for an arbitrary number of years is in any way illustrating the concept of natural selection. I suggest Wikipedia or anything written by Richard Dawkins would reveal that evolution (in the Darwinian sense) is not easily distilled into a bumper sticker, slogan, or single image.

      I would also be interested in having you expand on "nor does A evolve into B by pure chance." I thought that IS natural selection, long term.

      Please enlighten me, fellow /.er(s)...

    9. Re:I urge you to be insightful by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If natural selection were purely random, there would be no speciation. I've read several books by Dawkins, and Darwin's Origin of Species and randomness, though present, is not the driving factor. There is a random variation in the gene pool of any population, but the selection process, which favors or disfavors certain traits, is far from random, and drives change in the population by predisposing individuals with certain characteristics to be more likely to leave offspring than their competitors. Yes, the randomness is a component, in that if there were no variation there would be no foothold for the selection process, and thus no evolution. But randomness with no selection does not drive speciation, just as variation with no selection would also fail to drive it.

    10. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      When biologists uncover a squeleton from an unknown extinct species, the first question they ask themselves is : Is this a new species or a deformed member of a known species .Deformations can be caused by illness, by foetus development abnormality, by ponctual mutation.

      How can they be sure this is not such a case ? This dolphin only have an extra pair of fins, couldn't this be an extreme case of conjointed twins ?

      If there would be less debate about evolution in the US, I believe Fox News would have reported this as what it is : a dolphin with a malformation.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    11. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1

      I think you offer up a good point. Isn't the flipper supposed to be a merged pair of legs embyologically? If so, then why is there a flipper as well? This sounds more like a HOX gene activation that shouldn't have been, or (as you suggest) incomplete twinning.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    12. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      I suggest Wikipedia or anything written by Richard Dawkins would reveal that evolution (in the Darwinian sense) is not easily distilled into a bumper sticker, slogan, or single image.

      I don't see why that, note that I am quite familiar with genetics and so on, invalidates my example which was only given in response to the pervious posters example. All I said was that if one group has a lower survival rate then over time they will no longer be there thus the reason for no intermediates or ancestor species. It's meant to be a horribly simplified version although I don't see why it fails to convey the essence. I don't particularly feel like describing all of evolutionary genetic to someone in a Slashdot post you know.

      I would also be interested in having you expand on "nor does A evolve into B by pure chance." I thought that IS natural selection, long term.

      As the other poster said it's not which is the point, note the "selection" part. Something is selected for (or against), be it a gene or whatever, and over time its prevalence increases. Even short term (only a few generations) mutations aren't purely random as they need to be non-lethal to the cell and (possible) offspring.

    13. Re:I urge you to be insightful by MollyB · · Score: 1

      My apologies; you are correct. I was misled by the "horribly simplified version" and misunderstood the context your post. Thanks for your gloss on the subject. I hadn't considered the ramifications of randomness alone. Sorry if I made you cross, please carry on the discourse.

    14. Re:I urge you to be insightful by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      s this a new species or a deformed member of a known species .Deformations can be caused by illness, by foetus development abnormality, by ponctual mutation. How can they be sure this is not such a case ? This dolphin only have an extra pair of fins, couldn't this be an extreme case of conjointed twins

      They don't. It's just been discovered. It's only journalistic speculation. But looking at the photo, the extra fins look to be in a "natural" place, not a random growth. Thus the speculation it's an old feature that's been reactivated; like the small tails on some humans.

    15. Re:I urge you to be insightful by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Well okay here's a scenario where a particular colour of individual would be killed off more rapidly: moths.

      There is a well documented example of evolution in action where a moth with dappled black/white wings evolved over a number of years years to become a moth with much darker, gray wings. It turned out that because of industrialisation in the town where the change was observed the trunks of a particular species of tree in that town had become much darker in colour, going from dappled to sooty grey.

      This tree was home to this particular colour of moth, and when the tree color changed, the lightest coloured invividuals were picked off by birds more easily. The darker coloured moths of the species survived more often, and passed on their slightly darker colours to the next generation, where again the lightest moths were predated more easily.


      The best explanation for the mechanism of evolution that I can come up with is this:

      Each species has a certain amount of variation in it's characteristics : some member are maybe stronger, taller, shorter, faster swimmers, have stronger jaws, have webbed toes, or have longer beaks / stubbier beaks than the other members of the species. If the variation in that individual means that they have more babies that then grow up and have more babies than the others (either by being avoiding being killed, eating more food or impressing the ladies with their l33t displays) then that individual's characteristics become more dominant within the species by being passed on through their genes. They are fitter and therefore survive and have more babies than the other members of the species.

      Gazelles evolve to run faster because the slowest ones get killed. Lions evolve to run faster and become more stealthy because the purple, slow ones all starved Wading birds evolved that way because longer beaks mean being able to get at those sneaky-assed molluscs Homo sapians evolved because they were smarter than other species and used tools, agriculture, communal living and (surprisingly) dogs.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    16. Re:I urge you to be insightful by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      No. There is species A, which has babies which are species B and species C. Species A dies out, and two separate species are left.

    17. Re:I urge you to be insightful by towermac · · Score: 1

      Nice. I love girls.

    18. Re:I urge you to be insightful by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      How convenient. Okay, folks, if you RTFA you'll find these are extra fins that "may" be left over legs.

    19. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >
      > But looking at the photo, the extra fins look
      > to be in a "natural" place, not a random growth.
      >

      From the article:

      "Though odd-shaped protrusions have been found near the tails of dolphins and whales captured in the past, researchers say this was the first time one had been found with well-developed, symmetrical fins, Hayashi said."

      It might not be random in this case, but it does pretty much seem to be random.

    20. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take human race for example, you have people with skin colour A and skin colour B. Then hundreds of years later you have many individuals of mixed race with varying skin colours between A and B. To me this is evidence of evolution.

      So you're saying that some races are more highly evolved than others?

    21. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Woldry · · Score: 1

      "More highly evolved" is a meaningless concept, or at least badly out of date. Evolution has no "higher" or "lower" levels. It was a human-centric view of evolution that promulgated the idea of "higher" evolution, implying that all life strives to be more and more human. This notion is generally disregarded by the scientific community.

      "Evolved for a particular environment", yes, perhaps. To go by skin color alone: Africans and aboriginal Australians evolved in an environment with intense sunlight, and thus have more skin pigmentation to help protect against skin cancers and avoid overdosing on vitamin D. Northern Europeans are evolved for an environment where sunlight is weaker and rarer, and where the temperature often demanded that they cover up much of their skin with clothing for warmth -- and thus have significantly less skin pigmentation, which facilitates a greater capacity for manufacturing vitamin D.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    22. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, the japanse fishermen quickly cut off its fins, and dumped the dolphin back into the sea.

    23. Re:I urge you to be insightful by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No. There is species A, which has babies which are species B and species C. Species A dies out, and two separate species are left.

      Actually what happens is that the population of species A gets split into two separated populations for whatever reason, and over time the populations evolve in different ways, until they are different enough to be considered different species.

      A doesn't die out; A becomes B (and C) in the same way than a child becomes adult. The whole concept of species is somewhat misleading when talking about evolution, since populations change over time and smoothly slide from one species to another. For example, there are no more australopithecus's around, but they didn't die out; they just evolved into us (could be wrong here, human evolutionary tree isn't my speciality).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Isn't the flipper supposed to be a merged pair of legs embyologically?

      Flipper? I assume you mean the tail fluke...

      and the answer is no. We have a good fossil record on this. The spine/tail developed like that while the legs remained on the sides and shrank. Then (appareantly) at a certain date the leg HOX gene got shut down and the legs switched from being shrunken&useless to completely-gone in a single step. Some whales have identifible femur bones entirely inside their body. The femurs extending from their pelvis out towards the side of their body, not down the tail. Normal dolphin fetuses breifly get little leg buds on the sides of their body, but the leg growth gene never turns on and they disappear. The "tail flipper" is a super developed spine, not fused legs.

      In this dolphin the latent leg genes got switched back on.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Unless all offspring of all Australopithecus became Homo sapiens (and they almost certainly didn't) then they can be said to have died out. I agree with your general caution about species (that it is a convention used to characterize a more fluid reality), but the "sliding" isn't "smooth." One sub-population with more adaptive traits may displace its near-relatives without that trait.

    26. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I only studied human, cat, chicken, frog, and dogfish embryology. I appreciate the clarification.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    27. Re:I urge you to be insightful by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Changing of skin color isn't evolution. Its a much more short term and less permanent adaptation.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    28. Re:I urge you to be insightful by be-fan · · Score: 1

      There is a random component, but external influences direct that random component in a specific direction. For example, how do two bodies reach thermal equilibrium? At the lowest level, its just energy transfer as a result of random collisions between particles. However, if it was completely random, then any final state would be as likely as any other. But that's not what you see in nature --- you have a very strong (and very predictable) drive towards a certain determinable equilibrium temperature, despite the fact that the underlying mechanism is basically random.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    29. Re:I urge you to be insightful by deadsmith · · Score: 1

      Easy cheesy: This is a cool observation, but not a revolutionary find. Scientists can easily make flies with more or less than six legs, because the genetic limb patterning system has been conserved for over 300 milions years. Thus, it should not come as a shock to any student of evolution that a mutant dolphin might share vestigal characters with a land-dwelling ancestor. I recommend Sean Carrol's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" for a recent lay science review of the evolution of body patterning.

    30. Re:I urge you to be insightful by TWX · · Score: 1

      Can you permanently change your skin color through only your own biological processes? Would you be able to determine the skin color of your offspring without consideration for whom you'd breed with? I'd say that it's an evolutionary trait. I can't say specifically why pale people are pale, dark people are dark, or the like, but given the regions that people live in, there are more dark-skinned people where the sun strikes the planet more squarely and there are more pale people where the sun strikes more angularly... I can tell you that as a pale person in a fairly low latitude that based on the amount of time before I sunburn (about fifteen minutes of solid, continuous exposure) I'm not well suited to my environment if I'm outdoors uncovered...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    31. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty obvious this dolphin is a Democratic conspiracy that is meant to coincide with the midterm elections.

    32. Re:I urge you to be insightful by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Not all hereditary variations are the result of evolution. Evolution tends to be applied to the long term changes in genetic makeup based on natural selection. Skin color is the result of changes in pigmentation levels based on vitamin B and D levels both from diet and sunlight, not the result of reproductive selection.

      I suppose if you define evolution broadly, then you can define changes in skin tone, as well as characteristics such as height, etc, as evolutionary attributes. That's a broader definition of evolution than is usually seen in practice, though.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    33. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      But then you have dolfin A and human B but no in-between combinations (dolfin with stubbly legs)

      The first and most important point is that the "dolphin with stubbly legs" *did* exist. We have the transitional fossils.

      If you look back 10 or 15 million years, dolphins merge with whales. If you look back... if I recall correctly... about 50 million years, you find fossils of proto-whales with stubby legs. We have tons and tons of transitional fossils... such as whales with stubby legs... all over the entire fossil record.

      Now, why doen't this particular in-between form still exist? Well thing about it. With stubby legs, it wouldn't be able to walk on land very well. And with stubby legs, it wouldn't be able to swim as well either. Dolphins are perfectly streamlined super fast swimmers. Having legs hanging off the sides would just be a drag in the water. They wouldn't be able to swim as fast to catch prey, and they would have to work harder and get more tired faster with the extra drag.

      The "in-between" can simply die out. In some cases the "in-between" gets wiped out exactly because both "opposite ends" totally out-compete it.

      Having wings and light bones makes you a great flier. Having four legs and strong bones makes you great on the ground. The two in-betweens aren't so good. Having 4 legs and light bones makes you fragile and vulnerable - regular ground animals have you totally beat. Having wings and heavy bones makes you a lousy flier that can't go very far or very fast and you get tired real fast - regular birds have you totally beat.

      But notice that in both the dolphin example and the bird example while the in-between is "bad", it can still be better than one end if the other end does not exist. An "in-between" animal with wings and heavy bones may be a crappy flier, but it is still a better animal if if is the ONLY animal that can fly. If there are no good fliers around to out-compete you, then being a crappy flier is great. After you start flying, then you make other changes (light lighter bones) one step at a time to become more and more specialized to flight, and each improement out-competes and wipes out the previos "in-between" that was less specialized to flight. And the same goes with the initial development of dolphins. Being an "in-between" poor swimming mammal poorly adapated to living in the water is an advantage if there's lots of food available living in the water and it keeps you safe from non-swimming land predators and there's no good swimmer mammals to compete with you. And then over time the better swimmers (and ultimately the legless swimmers) out-compete and wipe out the "in-between" lousy swimmers.

      When you branch off in a new direction, the leaders in that direction will often beat out and wipe out the less specialized "in-betweens", an on going competition to run and specialize in a single direction. An on going series of modifications to better specialize for life in the water or a life of flight or whatnot.

      Of course not all kinds of "in-between" get actively eliminated like that. Sometimes you start with the "in-between" form, and then you simply have the population divided in two for some reason, and the two halves of the population simply drift apart over time. At some point they get so far apart that they simply cannot interbreed anymore, and then teher's no longer any way to create an "in-between" that has one new trait that first appeared in population and another new trait that first appeared in the other population.

      One of the simplest and most common causes of this is when a species population gets split on two different land masses or split on opposite sides of a river or split by a mountain range or split on opposite sides of a desert ot anything else. I think you'll agree that humans living in different places drifted apart. The Japanese are different than the Irish are different than Eskimos are different than South Africans are different than Native Americans. You'll notice that those differen

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    34. Re:I urge you to be insightful by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Uhuh, ya. Because the oceans are sooooo poluted, they WANT to walk on land. :P

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    35. Re:I urge you to be insightful by bluephone · · Score: 1

      Here's an insight for ya. It's just a mutant freak baby from a dolphin having buttsex with a fish-squirrel-frog!

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    36. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have tons and tons of transitional fossils... such as whales with stubby legs... all over the entire fossil record."

      Tons and tons? Hmm. Sounds fishy to me.
      Actually, sounds like the statement of someone who wants really badly to believe something to be true, despite the lack of evidence to actually support it.

      Why is evolution still happening. That "...the conditions no longer exist..." is another weak argument, which is unsubstantiated.

      Why did evolution at this proposed scale *only* ever happen conveniently millions or billions or gazillions of years ago, with no possible factual observational evidence could have been gathered?

      How does an asexual microbe (from which evolutionists are dying to prove we came from) evolve into a two-gendered species of any sort without killing itself off in the process?

      So some quack finds a dolphin with some extra fins. We see abnormalities in humans on occasion too. These aren't chalked up (successfully anyhow) to "evolutionary process at work" but rather to some genetic problem which "needs to be treated."

    37. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Homo sapians evolved because they were smarter than other species and used tools, agriculture, communal living and (surprisingly) dogs.
      ... and they evolved into Homo sapiens, who used spell-checkers.

      They seem likely to evolve again, perhaps becoming Homo sapions unless they are replaced in their ecological niche by txtrs.
    38. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all random. Even the phenomena of sexual selection is a result of random mutations that survived in their given environments. Anytihng *not* random is causal. And when you talk about cause in evolution you're really talking about God.

    39. Re:I urge you to be insightful by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Macroevolution IS STILL HAPPENING YOU STUPID SACK OF CRAP. It takes A LONG FUCKING TIME to evolve radical changes so of course you're not going to observe it right now. We haven't had written records long enough for us to be able to reasonably say "Well look at that, this species forked into a couple of different ones from x time to y time and we have all the physical and anitomical changes written down in these convient biology text-books from various points along the time it occured". Maybe if we can avoid letting fucktards like you into positions of power we'll keep up civilization long enough to have those records and our ancestors in the distant future will be able to construct an evolutionary timeline for a species with firsthand data for various points along the way.

    40. Re:I urge you to be insightful by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
      No, you're overestimating the role of randomness. Whether or not the females prefer one trait or the next may be random, but if they consistently select for a trait, it will cause accumulated changes, and possibly speciation. But other selection factors, such as which antelope or bird gets eaten, are even less random--whether it's the slowest one, the flashiest one, the noisiest one, whatever, there is a statistical difference in who gets eaten, and that drives the accumulation of changes in one direction or another. Whether or not a light-sensitive cell develops may be random, but whether or not that cell confers an advantage is not.

      So randomness is a component in that it is a factor in normal variation in the gene pool, but the difference a trait makes in the statistical likelihood of reproduction is not random. If evolution were "just randomness" there would be no evolution, because no changes would be continually selected for, allowed to accumulate, and cause divergent change and speciation. The only people who think evolution is exclusively random are creationists, and they don't understand evolution. If you read Darwin or Dawkins or any number of books by actual evolutionary theorists, you'll see that randomness is only one of the components.

    41. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I didn't realize I was so powerful? If so, I shall inflict upon you further shame and grief.

      Evolution is fraught with assumptions that honest scientists will admit to being problematic. The "Long *&^@$! Time" argument you made is exactly the trump-card most people like to play when it comes to their defending this theory. Which still doesn't explain however, that we don't see "mid-species" forms all over the place. You would have to agree that with as many species as we *do* have documented and observed today, there ought to be at least several dozen cases of one species "evolving" into another. It just doesn't happen overnight while no one is looking. Sure, we have all these "proofs" thrown at us in "fossil records" where entire habitats, social habits, diet, lifestyle and shoe sizes are determined from a minor bone fragment found in someone's backyard. Publications like Time and National Geographic are really good at filling in the blanks with this stuff for the masses to ingest, and educators are happy to pawn off these discoveries as well.

      "If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that 'innumerable transitional forms *must* have existed.' Darwin's predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms have simply never been found."

      Well look, a theory is still just a theory. If you want to have faith in the theory that you evolved from a dolphin, or a monkey, or whatever, and that gives you meaning and purpose in life, then have at it. It seems befitting a person who makes his argument through profanity and ALL CAPS.

    42. Re:I urge you to be insightful by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      Yes citizen. This is a random genetic event. Four finned dolphins are not any sign of evolution! Move along citizens! Move along! Remember, War is Peace, we have always been at war with Pacifica *blah* *blah* *blah*.

    43. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Wolfger · · Score: 1
      Having wings and light bones makes you a great flier. Having four legs and strong bones makes you great on the ground. The two in-betweens aren't so good. Having 4 legs and light bones makes you fragile and vulnerable - regular ground animals have you totally beat. Having wings and heavy bones makes you a lousy flier that can't go very far or very fast and you get tired real fast - regular birds have you totally beat.
      Thank you for explaining why the horse evolved from the pegasus!
    44. Re:I urge you to be insightful by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, you expect me to believe that horseshit?

      Everyone knows this is the child of Manbearpig!

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    45. Re:I urge you to be insightful by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That's not always true. There are always some evolutionary dead ends that end up just dying out.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    46. Re:I urge you to be insightful by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Not enough sunlight gets through your skin, your body doesn't make enough vitamin D and you get rickets. Too much, and folic acid in your bloodstream degrades and, if you're pregnant, increases chance for birth defects. Skin color is an adaptation to moderate the amound of UV penetrating your skin.

    47. Re:I urge you to be insightful by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That's not always true. There are always some evolutionary dead ends that end up just dying out.

      Of course, but the premise here was a situation where species A spawned two new species, and was thus not a dead end. Besides, ants are apparently an evolutionary dead end - they are at a local optimum - but are doing very well.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    48. Re:I urge you to be insightful by radtea · · Score: 1

      Which still doesn't explain however, that we don't see "mid-species" forms all over the place

      What part of "transitional" do you not understand?

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    49. Re:I urge you to be insightful by mcvos · · Score: 1
      If there would be less debate about evolution in the US, I believe Fox News would have reported this as what it is : a dolphin with a malformation.

      Isn't Fox News extremely conservstive? So wouldn't they be more likely to be on the creationism side of that debate? Because in that case, Fox would be more likely to call it a malformation instead of a proof of evolution, exactly because of that debate.

      But instead, I see really conservative conservative media acknowledge this as proof of evolution.

    50. Re:I urge you to be insightful by Alsee · · Score: 1

      >"We have tons and tons of transitional fossils... such as whales with stubby legs... all over the entire fossil record."

      Tons and tons? Hmm. Sounds fishy to me. Actually, sounds like the statement of someone who wants really badly to believe something to be true, despite the lack of evidence to actually support it.


      Instead of saying it sounds fishy and engaging in wild speculation to prop up your preconceived prefferences, how about you LOOK IT UP.

      Your highschool science class really should have covered this stuff. The problem here is that far too many US highschools fail to provide a minimally adaquate science eduation, especially in certain states and especially in the subject of biology. This should hardly come as any surprise... there have been plenty of news items not just here on Slashdot, but in the mainstream news, about how US students have been increasingly falling behind students in other nations in general science (and math).

      The fact that you weren't taught this stuff in highschool is no reason you can't Google: Transistional Fossils or read Wikipedia: Transitional Fossils, or look at Wikipedia :List of_transitional_fossils, or better yet open up a quality highschool level science textbook (one endorsed by national science bodies and/or national educational bodies). If you get a chance you should visit one of the major Museums of Natural History, they almost all have exhibits on fossils and on evolutionary transitional sequences.

      Why is evolution still happening.

      Is that a sentence or a question? In any case the reason is that the laws of physics and mathematics basically require it to happen. Anything undergoing repeated cycles of replication with trait inheritance and mutation and selection will exhibit evolution.

      That "...the conditions no longer exist..." is another weak argument, which is unsubstantiated.

      Huh? What conditions no longer exist? And what is it a weak argument of?

      Why did evolution at this proposed scale *only* ever happen conveniently millions or billions or gazillions of years ago, with no possible factual observational evidence could have been gathered?

      You seem to have a basic missunderstanding of evolution says or means.

      In many ways evolution is almost exactly like a tree. You start with newly sprouted tree, a single little stem with a single leaf at the top. (A leaf is like a species.) Over time the tree grows at a fairly constant speed. Occationally a tip buds and splits into two or more branches growing in different directions each with it's own leaf at the tip. As the branch grows over time the the leaves get carried farther apart.

      The "trunk" of the evolutionary tree grew at almost exactly the same "scale" and speed as today.

      To get a rough concept of that constant "scale" and speed, consider that humans domesticated and bred cats for about the last 4,000 years. Consider that first domesticated cat as the root of it's own tree. In 4,000 years that wild cat has evolved and diverged into a variety of breeds... which you can picture as leaves on the tree of cat breeds. The difference between different breeds of cats is pretty small - which is equal to the growth rate of the evolutionary tree. The difference between two breeds of cats = 4,000 years. If you continue growing 4,000 years into teh future, the difference between cat breeds with double.

      Now consider dogs. Humans started domesticating dogs about 15,000 years ago. The difference between the parent wolf and a chiuaua, or between the parent wolf and a greyhound... os obviously much bigger than the difference between cat breeds. The difference between dog breeds is around 4 times as big as the difference between cat breeds, because the tree of dog breeds has been growing abo

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    51. Re:I urge you to be insightful by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Every species IS A FUCKING "mid-form". You stupid AC Son of a bitch. A species is what it is at any given time and with each offspring born changes incrementally towards something that's different. When given geological or environmental factors to separate a species into 2 different species then at some pint in the future you'll have two species that can't interbreed. And for the fucking record scientists have found plenty of transitional skeletons with inbetween features like you're asking for. Just because you're to fucking lazy to look them up doesn't mean the don't exist.

  2. The Japanese Report was much more interesting by erroneus · · Score: 1

    In thier report, the finding was as exciting as finding a chicken with four drumsticks!

  3. Not vestigial... by kooky45 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The dolphins are growing new limbs they'll need to construct their spaceships to get off the earth.

    1. Re:Not vestigial... by Takumi2501 · · Score: 1

      And they didn't even bother to thank us for the fish.

      Geez, what's the world coming to?

      --
      Sent from my computer.
      Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
    2. Re:Not vestigial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demolishion.

      People tend to get cranky when their about to die for some reason...

    3. Re:Not vestigial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they just need to escape the polluted seas.

    4. Re:Not vestigial... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      they know the oceans are getting worse, so they're evolving to get out. If we see more of these though I might start believing in "intelligent design" leading the dolphin to safer shores.. perhaps they have been touched by his noodly apendage?

  4. mod to my fish with legs ornament by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    I need to change that Darwin fish with legs thing on my automobile to a dolphin with legs. Nobody can be offended by that now, right?

    1. Re:mod to my fish with legs ornament by gameforge · · Score: 1
      I need to change that Darwin fish with legs thing on my automobile to a dolphin with legs. Nobody can be offended by that now, right?

      No, just EVERY OTHER DOLPHIN EVERYWHERE you insensitive clod!!!
  5. Self defense really. by kooky45 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The dolphins need hind legs to roundhouse the sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads.

  6. let's here it for by Neuropol · · Score: 1

    DOLPHINSE.CX!!!!

    1. Re:let's here it for by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 1

      It doesn't exist!

    2. Re:let's here it for by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Just wait for the dns to propogate. ;)

    3. Re:let's here it for by Yaroslavna · · Score: 1

      It can't be far behind, but it might not look like what you're thinking.... Remember King of the Hill? :)
      http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/12/dvd-review-kin g-of-hill-season-3.html

    4. Re:let's here it for by Neuropol · · Score: 1

      the wayback machine did not have links to it, but it was registered years ago and forced to submit when the xmas island domain name fallout happened last year. Seek out one j0nkatz to find information. He was the proud owner of trollse.cx and I think dolphinse.cx.

      sorry to get your hopes up, but it's been up and now, permanenetly, down. thing of the past.

    5. Re:let's here it for by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Christmas Island's NIC has had something of an interesting past.. yay for phonetics!

  7. Evidence of radioactive mutation more like.. by Channard · · Score: 1

    So can we look forward to Super Dolphin fighting underwater crime? Or is it a member of the Brother of Evil Mutant Dolphins, led by the shape-shifting Fishtique?

  8. Under the sea by PhakeDC · · Score: 1

    Under the sea
    Darling it's better
    Down where it's wetter
    Take it from me!

    1. Re:Under the sea by rethin · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! That stupid song is going to be in my head all day now!

    2. Re:Under the sea by Dorceon · · Score: 1

      There'll be no accusations
      Just friendly crustaceans
      Under the sea!

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
  9. Dolphins coming ashore... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fishermen captured the four-finned dolphin alive off the coast of Wakayama prefecture (state) in western Japan on Oct. 28, and alerted the nearby Taiji Whaling Museum, according to museum director Katsuki Hayashi.

    Anyone considered that dolphins are growing hind limbs so they can go ashore to capture a few Japanese to take back to their Hominid Museum?

    1. Re:Dolphins coming ashore... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "dolphins are growing hind limbs so they can go ashore to capture a few Japanese"

      So they're working for the North Koreans?

    2. Re:Dolphins coming ashore... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Seems like a raw deal for this dolphin. Try to be a bit different and you're singled out, locked up, experimented on, and eventually killed, stuffed, and mounted in some sushi bar.

      They didn't say what happened to the poor guy. Should I assume they killed this unique dolphin or will we be seeing a new freak show at Sea World?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    3. Re:Dolphins coming ashore... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1
      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  10. Was it caught alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article exclaims that it's dead. I suppose they would have wanted it that way for their labs. Then on the other hand, if we kill all of the dolphins we shouldn't run out of fish by 2048?

  11. Far cry from legs by eclectro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read the article, and those aren't legs, they're fins.

    I will only believe that a dolphin has legs when it walks up to me and shakes my hand.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Far cry from legs by phlipped · · Score: 1
      I will only believe that a dolphin has legs when it walks up to me and shakes my hand.
      Yeah, I think the same way, although I apply that stellar logic to ALL animals.

      So far, I've established that many people I've met have legs, and so does my mate's dog.
    2. Re:Far cry from legs by benplaut · · Score: 1

      Since when do you shake hands... with your legs?

    3. Re:Far cry from legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far, I've established that many people I've met have legs, and so does my mate's dog.

      And conversely, your dog's mate is a leg.

    4. Re:Far cry from legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're right. They aren't legs. But given that no modern whale (ordinarily) has hind limbs of any kind that are external, it is pretty weird. Modern whales do have the bones of vestigial hind limbs internally, and there are plenty of fossil whales that have larger hind limbs. It's a pretty clear sign that even though (modern) whales don't have 4 legs, they used to, and that they are derived from other tetrapods.

      Abulocetus is a pretty good example of a creature that was stuck somewhere in the transition between legs and fins. Had you been around in the Eocene in what is now Pakistan, you probably could have shook hands with it, provided that you didn't get eaten by it first.

    5. Re:Far cry from legs by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Did you know anything about cetaceans, you'd be aware that cetacean "fins" are evolved (or vestigial) arms (and legs for that one).

      Now of course if you want legs that actually look like legs, you'll have to make a 38 million years jump back in time, because Basilausorus was one of the last cetaceans with actually (even if pretty useless) legs.

      I would advise against trying to shake its front flippers though.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    6. Re:Far cry from legs by SuperStretchy · · Score: 1

      yep.. fins plain and simple. I have two nostrils. THat meant that my ancestors had 3 mouths.

    7. Re:Far cry from legs by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you think hands grow, but I'll give you a hint: It's not on the end of legs.

    8. Re:Far cry from legs by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      With it's feet?

    9. Re:Far cry from legs by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      I will only believe that a dolphin has legs when it walks up to me and shakes my hand.

      Sure, you laugh now. But one day, when it actually happens, won't you feel silly!

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  12. What next? by EGSonikku · · Score: 1

    ...Dolphins with opposable thumbs? wait...erm, we're screwed!

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    1. Re:What next? by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Who needs opposable thumbs when you have prehensile genitalia?

    2. Re:What next? by K8Fan · · Score: 1

      As foretold in the Onion

      Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs

      HONOLULU-In an announcement with grave implications for the primacy of the species of man, marine biologists at the Hawaii Oceanographic Institute reported Monday that dolphins, or family Delphinidae, have evolved opposable thumbs on their pectoral fins.

      "I believe I speak for the entire human race when I say, 'Holy fuck,'" said Oceanographic Institute director Dr. James Aoki, noting that the dolphin has a cranial capacity 40 percent greater than that of humans. "That's it for us monkeys."

      Aoki strongly urged humans, especially those living near the sea, to learn to communicate using a system of clicks and whistles in a frequency range of 4 to 150 kHz. He also encouraged humans to "start practicing their echolocation as soon as possible."

      Delphinologists have reported more than 7,000 cases of spontaneous opposable-digit manifestation in the past two weeks alone, with "thumbs" observed on the bottle-nosed dolphin, the Atlantic humpback dolphin, and even the rare Ganges River dolphin.

      "It appears to be species-wide," said dolphin specialist Clifford Brees of the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory, speaking from the shark cage he welded shut around himself late Monday. "And it may be even worse: We haven't exactly been eager to check for thumbs on other marine mammals belonging to the order of cetaceans, such as the killer whale. Oh, Christ, we're really in the soup now."

      Thus far, all the opposable digits encountered appear to be fully functional, making it possible for dolphins-believed to be capable of faster and more complex cogitation than man-to manipulate objects, fashion tools, and construct rudimentary pulley and lever systems.

      "They really seem to be making up for lost time with this thumb thing," said Dr. Jim Kuczaj, a University of California-San Diego biologist who has studied the seasonal behavior of dolphins for more than 30 years. "Last Friday, a crude seaweed-and-shell abacus washed up on the beach near Hilo, Hawaii. The next day, a far more sophisticated abacus, fashioned from some unknown material and capable of calculating equations involving numbers of up to 16 digits, washed up on the same beach. The day after that, the beach was littered with thousands of what turned out to be coral-silicate and kelp-based biomicrocircuitry."

      "My God," Kuczaj added. "What are they doing down there?"

      It is unknown what precipitated the dolphins' sudden development of opposable thumbs. Some dolphin behaviorists believe that the gentle marine mammal, pushed to the brink by humanity's reckless pollution and exploitation of the sea, tapped into some previously unmined mental powers to spontaneously generate a thumb-like appendage. However, given that 95 percent of the world's dolphin experts have committed suicide since learning of the development, the full story may never be known.

      "You must believe, sleek ocean masters, that many of us homo sapiens weep with shame and disgust over the degradation to which our species has subjected our All-Mother, the Great World-Sea," read the suicide note of Dr. Richard Morse, a Brisbane, Australia, delphinologist and regular contributor to Marine Mammal Science. "If you are reading this, I estimate that it is the day we know as August 31, 2000. Please be decent and kind masters to our poor ape-race. Oh, God, I'm so sorry about the tracking collars."

      "Scientists once wondered whether dolphins, with their remarkably advanced social and language structures, are actually smarter than we are," said Aoki, ushering reporters out of the laboratory he claimed "will either be a smoking hole or a zoo exhibit in the coming Dolphin Age." "Well, we're not wondering anymore."

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
  13. Yet another piece of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another piece of evidence that dolphins are indeed smarter than us. They've already moved to the oceans living in peace and harmony while we still stumble around on land bashing each other's skulls in. I for one...

  14. Scientists? no... Fishermen! by RincewindTVD · · Score: 1
    Yay for Japan, one of the few countries left that allows commercial fishing of endangered species.
    </Sarcasm>
    1. Re:Scientists? no... Fishermen! by bockelboy · · Score: 1

      Correction - Japan only allows the commercial fishing of tasty endangered species. You can go ahead and have all the others.

    2. Re:Scientists? no... Fishermen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, dolphin is not endangered.

    3. Re:Scientists? no... Fishermen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is endangered...by the Japanese.

    4. Re:Scientists? no... Fishermen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet... give the japs a bit more time...

    5. Re:Scientists? no... Fishermen! by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Dolphins are in danger..... of getting put on a oh so tasty burger for $2.99!

    6. Re:Scientists? no... Fishermen! by Khashishi · · Score: 1
      Yay for Japan, one of the few countries left that allows commercial fishing of endangered species.

      They aren't commercial fishermen. They are scientists doing scientific research.[/sarcasm]

  15. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... what did they taste like?

    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like chicken teeth.

  16. Do Not Be Swayed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God put those legs on that dolphin 10 minutes before they found it, just to test our faith! Do not be swayed!

  17. Altering expression of an existing gene isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land ... this is an unprecedented discovery


    This article seems very weak - evidence that an ancestral dolphin had four fins does not necessarily mean that a dolphin ancestor lived on land, although I thought that enough evidence already existed. Other than that, what exactly is new here? We already know that dolphin and whale fetuses have fins that disappear before birth, so the gene must be there already.

    The fact that a mutation present in one member of the dolphin population prevents the hind fins disappearing should hardly be newsworthy.
  18. Christians where are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait for the Christians' reply to this one...

    1. Re:Christians where are you? by Diedrich+Vorberg · · Score: 1

      Creationists not Christians. Though the Creationists want to make you think so, that's still not the same!

    2. Re:Christians where are you? by ksalter · · Score: 1

      Exactly how are ALL creationists not christians?

      Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of the first 2 chapters of Genesis are, de facto, creationists.

    3. Re:Christians where are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. What is the Islamic take on creation? Anyway aren't some Jews creationists too? There are other religions.

    4. Re:Christians where are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Creationists are Christians. All Christians are not Creationists(and science-friendly Christians probably aren't enjoying the stigma all that much). Thus, the two categories are not equivalent, as pointed out by the grandparent. A => B does not prove that A <=> B.

    5. Re:Christians where are you? by Diedrich+Vorberg · · Score: 1

      Being Christians means to believe (among a host of other things) that the world has been created by God, and not (1) that it has been created in a specific way or (2) that Gen 1-3 are "literally" (whatever that means) true. Now, although one may say that this means all Christians are Creationists, I'd insist that there is a difference between serious interpretations of the Bible and the pseudy-scientiffic crap that usually goes under the name "Creationism".

    6. Re:Christians where are you? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Um...You dont know what 'literally' means?

      Thats depressing. Go buy a dictionary.

    7. Re:Christians where are you? by Diedrich+Vorberg · · Score: 1

      You may have more confidence in my subtlety, buddy ;-) I believe there is no such thing as "reading literally".

    8. Re:Christians where are you? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Well there is a difference between reading for the underlying metaphor and reading as-is.
      "Literally" in this case would be reading the bible as-is.

    9. Re:Christians where are you? by Aaarrrggghhh · · Score: 1

      Uh, 46% of Amricans believe the creation story is literally accurate and 40% believe in the watered down "God did it over millions of years" version. That leaves a majority of christians that believe in literal creationism (and a really, really, small few that aren't religious in the first place). I really don't see why people, particularly in the US, have to be politically correct about seeing litteral creationists as a Christian thing without a qualifier. It's those who aren't creationists that are the exception.

      (I took the numbers from Sam Harris' the End of Faith, pg.17, and he was using Gallup numbers.)

    10. Re:Christians where are you? by Sique · · Score: 1

      There are christians who think, evolution might be a correct model of specification, and there are creationists, who are not christian (for instance islamic creationists). Basicly we have a new system of belief which draws ideas from jewish, christian and islamic roots (and maybe from some other roots too, some wiccans or pagans also might be creationists), whose common denominator is: Against all evidence I believe that evolutionary processes can be explained away.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re:Christians where are you? by Diedrich+Vorberg · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Still reading the Bible "as-is" implies interpreting words into meaning.

    12. Re:Christians where are you? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Hindu Creation: At the end of the previous the universe was filled with water. On it floating on the leaf of a banyan tree was Infant Krishna, an Avatar of Vishnu. From his navel a lotus vine sprouted and bloomed. Vishnu created Brahma to create the universe. He climbed up the vine, sat on the flower and was totally confused by all that water. He said, "I dont know anything". Then Vishnu taught him all the four Vedas (Hindu scriptures). Then Brhama realized his role in the universe. He created 33 million divine beings, the sky, the stars, the seven higher worlds, the seven nether worlds, and all the plants and human beings. After four eons, (Eon of Truth, Second Eon, Third Eon and the present Black eon) each of them lasting several billion years it all will end with the arrival of the tenth avatar of Vishnu, Kalki, riding a white horse, who will flood the universe with water and start the cycle all over again.

      But most Hindus are not very dogmatic. Nor are they proselysing. They dont care if you dont believe in this story or if you disagree with it. Infact they dont let the story interfere with day-to-day life. There was this famous story of a Hindu astronomer working in the Kodaikanal Solar Observatory busily taking pictures of the corona of the Sun during a rare solar eclipse. As he was working at a furious pace manning all the cameras and loading and unloading film cartridges, he was reciting aloud Sanskrit prayers to the snake Raghu that has swalloed the Sun, beseeching it to release the Sun and allow the world sunlight once again!

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    13. Re:Christians where are you? by Diedrich+Vorberg · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's a question: I can see what a believe is, like "despite I know for a fact that my body is going to rot in my grave, I believe in the resurrection of the flesh". But How can you "explain away" against evidence?

    14. Re:Christians where are you? by aussie_a · · Score: 1
      Uh, 46% of Amricans believe the creation story is literally accurate and 40% believe in the watered down "God did it over millions of years" version.

      But only 26% believe in all statistics.
    15. Re:Christians where are you? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      92.3856% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    16. Re:Christians where are you? by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Not exactly "creationists", but I've known several atheists who disbelieved the fact of evolution. They had no alternative to offer, but refused to believe that humans could possibly have evolved from "lower" animals. (I seem to recall that even Ayn Rand, about as vehement an atheist as could be, had doubts about the theory of evolution, though I don't recall the reasons.)

      If I recall correctly, there's also a wing of the creationist movement that is composed chiefly of Orthodox Jews. Mormons tend to be creationists, and there's intense debate about whether they should be considered Christians, so that's a gray area. I've read the writings of various Wiccans who disavow the theory of evolution and hold that the pagan gods created the world.

      But actually, all of that is beside the point. Even if it were true to say that all creationists were Christians, that's not the same as saying that all Christians are creationists. Myself, I'm a Christian evolutionist.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    17. Re:Christians where are you? by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Correction: Reading implies interpreting words into meaning.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    18. Re:Christians where are you? by Sique · · Score: 1

      "Explaining away" meant that I try to convince myself or someone else that the things I see, I feel, I experience or I test are not the real truth, but products of someone trying to cheat me. E.g. "Dinosaurs never existed, GOD buried the bones to test the strength of our belief". Or "The earth is only 6000 years old. Towns like Jericho or Catal Huyuk were created 4000 years old, so they now seem to have more than 10,000 years of continious history."

      "Explaining away" means to postulate hidden mechanisms that allow to close the gap between the personal belief and the personal experience.
      Sometimes it is productive, and the postulated mechanism actually seems to explain more than the first gap, and it allows to close the gap between the expectations of the people using it and the futural experiences of the same people. In this case it is called a "testable hypothesis" or a "scientific theory".
      Sometimes it only works for this single gap ("It had to happen, because I broke the mirror yesterday"), then it is called "superstition", or it is so universal that it explains each and every gap, wherever it happens, and also the nonexistance of the same gap, then it is called "tautology" or "religion".

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    19. Re:Christians where are you? by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      I am a Christian and a Mormon, and I believe that evolution is compatible with both aforementioned titles for my faith. I don't see what the big deal is about (but then again, I'm not an American, and don't have all the fundamentalists messing up the education system and spouting off their 'theories'...) Cheers --Wyatt

    20. Re:Christians where are you? by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Can't wait for the Christians' reply to this one...

      Oh we'll just get the usual response:

      It's not in the bible so it can't be true... neener, neener, I can't hear you.

      Evidence are only for scientists and people with half a brain, fundies never needed that kind of shit, see "War on Terror", "Invasion of Iraq", "WMDs in Iraq" and "Saddam and Al Quaeda" for more informations on the process of not needing evidences.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    21. Re:Christians where are you? by Robowally · · Score: 0

      You conclusions are only as good as your starting assumptions. What are the starting assumptions of the author of this thread? Naturalism? Then crank the handle and what do you get? Surprise! Evolution. For an intelligent Christian conversation try www.str.org. Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6184621602 289125800

      --
      Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
    22. Re:Christians where are you? by Robowally · · Score: 0

      You conclusions are only as good as your starting assumptions. What are the starting assumptions in this argument/discussion? Naturalism? Then crank the handle and what do you get? Surprise! Evolution. For an intelligent Christian conversation try www.str.org. Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6184621602 289125800

      --
      Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
    23. Re:Christians where are you? by masklinn · · Score: 1

      For an intelligent Christian conversation try www.str.org

      May I ask what the hell's intelligent on that website?

      Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6184621602 289125800

      Since the guy who made this presentation is the same as the one who wrote all that crap in the website above, i'm going to pass thank you very much.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    24. Re:Christians where are you? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You conclusions are only as good as your starting assumptions.

      Right.

      I spent some time reading a four or five links in the evolution section at str.org. Right off the bat at least three of them all fall down for the exact same reason, they were all based on the same incorrect assumption. It appears you are taking the position of challenging evolution, and if so then your own reply falls into the exact same trap of reasoning based on the exact same incorrect assumption.

      Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online

      I'll admit I did not take the time to watch that... I spent time at the str.org site instead. But for the sake or argument lets say I did watch it and that I completely grant you the arguement that it does proove God's existance.

      Ok, so given absolutely no other assumptions, what does that proove in connection to evolution? Nothing. There is no logical connection at all... unless you first start with the assumption that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. The posts I read at str.org all start with an unstated assumption that evolution and God are mutually exclusive, and using that as an argument in your post makes no sense unless you are starting with the assumption that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. The str.org pages I read are all invalid arguments, and your own reply also falls down, exactly because that is an invalid assumption.

      The sun centered solar system, the laws of optics, evolution, they are all "naturalistic" mechanisms by which the universe operates. 500 years ago the Church went through a fiasco based on the invalid assumption of placing a sun centered solar system in conflict with God. One could well make the same error over the science of optics for providing a naturalistic mechanism for rainbows, and placing that in conflict with the Bible and God creatign rainbows as a symbol and covenant to man. And today we face the ongoing fiasco of people (falsly) insistic on assuming evolution and God are in conflict.

      The sun centered solar system, the laws of optics, evolution, they are all "naturalistic", they are all CORRECT, not a single one mentions God, not a single one denies God, and not a single one implies nonexistance of God.

      Conclusions are only as good as the assumptions they are founded upon. Anyone on either side who claims or assumes that God and evolution are mututally exclusive is wrong.

      The laws of optics explain the mechanisms by which the universe operates. The laws of optics are correct, and there is overwheliming evidence that the laws of optics are correct. The laws of optics explain the mechanism that produces rainbows. Some people have the hubris to TELL GOD how He is and is not PERMITTED to run the universe. These people are wedded to the idea that God manually inserted rainbows into the universe as a sign to us. These people are attached to the rediculous idea that if the laws of optics are true and that they really are the natural machanism producing rainbows, that that somwhow disproves the existance of God. And that leads to the invalid logic that if God exists, then the laws of optics must be wrong. These people are so dead set on telling God how He is and is not PERMITTED to run things, that they are completely blind to the notion that creating a perfect and complete universe with perfect and complete natural laws that can *itself* acheive the amazing feat of producing the rainbows that He wanted is a par more perfect and complete and awe inspiring act of creation.

      The evolution explains the mechanisms by which the universe operates. Evolution is correct, and there is overwheliming evidence that evolution is correct. Evolution explains the mechanism that produces the diversity of life. Some people have the hubris to TELL GOD how He is and is not PERMITTED to run the universe. These people are wedded to the idea that God manually inserted the diversity of living things into the universe. These people are a

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Christians where are you? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      92.3856% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

      The other 14.5622% are made up in advance.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:Christians where are you? by Robowally · · Score: 0

      My friend, thanks for the loooong reply. I am a physics PhD student so have a reasonable grasp of optics and natural laws I think.

      You have used many 'facts' in your reply, such as "The majority of Christians accept evolution is true, that evolution as God's mechanism for creating the diverstity of life just as nuclear fusion as God's mechanism for creating sunlight for the earth."

      You have provided no evidence of this. Is your statement thus scientific? In my experience, almost no Christians accept evolution as fact -- if you mean macro-evolution.

      Here is an online video by agnostic Dr. David Berlinski who talks about the real facts about evolution:

      http://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/berlinski. ram If you have the time (and guts) to watch this agnostic talk evolution, you will have my admiration.

      Regards from New Zealand.

      --
      Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
    27. Re:Christians where are you? by Alsee · · Score: 1
      I mean to reply sooner but the Slashdot reply system was screwy for a few days, and I got sidetracked. If Slashdot locks new replies to this thread and you want to reply to me, you can click my username link above and reply to one of my new posts elsewhere.

      You have used many 'facts' in your reply, such as "The majority of Christians accept evolution is true... You have provided no evidence of this. Is your statement thus scientific?

      You're right I didn't back it up. My post was already quite long as it was, as you noted. I am willing and able to back up my statements.

      I'd have to search around to find a link explicitly documenting that fact, but I have a link that implicitly establishes it. If you click in on the graph there, cross calculating the percentage population that accept evolution with the percentage of Christian population in the various nations (easily available info) you'll find that for most western countries it is mathematically impossible for less than 50% of their population to be Christian AND accept evolution. I don't know what the percantages are in New Zealand, but globally more than 50% of Christians do accept evolution.

      In my experience, almost no Christians accept evolution as fact -- if you mean macro-evolution.

      Note that the polling question they used was:

      "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." - (True) (Not Sure) (False)

      That pretty well eliminates the entire micro-vs-macro camp. I have never heard of any "microevolutionist" who accept humans as being "micro-evolved" from an earlier animal. Accepting human as being evolved from earlier animals pretty well eleiminates the entire motivation for rejecting the effectively UNANIMOUS scientific conclusion on evolution.

      Anti-evolutionists go to great efforts to present a public image that there is a scientific controversy over evolution, and a large and growing number of scientists doubting or rejectign evolution, but it's just not true. The doubt and rejection of evolution has fallen over the decades to - for all intents and purposes - zero. The development of genetic science and genetic analysis has unleashed a gargantuan flood of evidence in the last decade or two, genetic evidence that absolutely and irrefutably and conclusively supports evolution. DNA analysis establishes the evolutionary tree of common decent just as powerfully and as conclusively as DNA analysis can be used to analize and establish your personal family tree.

      According to newsweek magazine there are about 480,000 earth and life scientists in the US, and only about 700 who give any credance at all to Creation Science. That is almost 700 to 1, in other words no genuine scientific controversy at all. Even if we only look at scientists who are actively Christian... somewhere around half... that's still only 700 out of 240,000. That's 340 to 1 earth and life scientists on the evolution side. Even amongst Cristian scientists there is absolutely no controversy over evolution. Effectively 100% of Christian life and earth scientists accept God and accept evolution, accept evolution as the valid and true mechanism in and of God's creation.

      The number of biologists who reject evolution is approximately equal to the number of astronomers who reject the theory of a nuclear fusion powered sun. Perhaps you have seen the occational Electric Universe stories that (for some bizarre reason) have occationally shown up here on Slashdot? A tiny handful of crackpots who claim that the sun is powered by electricity. There is no genuine scientific controversy in astronomy that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, and no genuine controvery in biology over the fundamentals of evolution.

      The majority of Christians accept evolution. The majority of people (in the western world) who accept evolution are Christians.

      Anyone who assumes or claims that evolu

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  19. Evolution in reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there you go, you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish squirrel. Congratulations.

    1. Re:Evolution in reverse by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Ah, the treasured Southparkian evolutionary theory ... :-)

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
  20. Dolphine Overlord would invade human lands. by oddmake · · Score: 1

    Picture shown Evil Dolphine Overlord's hostility to humanity existed. Look at FILEMAN GATEWAY or pya!

  21. When interviewed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the dolphin said, "Thanks for all the fish!" and then disappeared.

  22. The headline is wrong by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

    It should read: Scientists Capture Inbred Dolphin

    So there you go smartass, insightful and funny.

  23. They'll need to learn Karate first by spineboy · · Score: 1

    I really like the idea of dolphins growing new legs and coming ashore. What if they're really funny, or maybe they're really bad drunks? Now you won't be able to go into the mosh pit, 'cause some 800 pound drunk dolphin is there and he's tearing up the place.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  24. 10 minutes after this picture was taken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they killed and ate it.

  25. And then... by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... the Japanese killed the rare ocean dwelling animal in order to sell four flipper dolphin medicine and magical flipper medallions to the rich.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:And then... by jack_csk · · Score: 1

      Oh, you should thank the Japanese for stopping an evolving animal specie, which may/may not replace the human being as the dominant specie in the future.

    2. Re:And then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this was meant to be funny, but the image I saw with the article shows divers holding the animal upside-down. As in blowhole underwater. Japan is a cultured society, but there are many there (and elsewhere) that pay fortunes for bits of creatures that will give them immortality. Or just a harder hard-on. I suspect this poor animal's fate is sealed, what with needing a post-mortem examination and all, it would be a shame to let the magical bits go to waste, yes?

    3. Re:And then... by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Oh, you should thank the Japanese for stopping an evolving animal specie, which may/may not replace the human being as the dominant specie in the future


      Unless the killing is done completely at random, the murder of certain individuals tends to promote evolution, not prevent it.


      Of course, there's also the possibility that dolphins replacing humans as the dominant species might be a good thing...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  26. Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Wills · · Score: 5, Informative

    Taiji, Japan, is the site of the annual ritual dolphin massacre in which fishermen drive pods of dolphins into shallow coves and stab them with spears. You should see it. It is quite a sight. The sea water turns red with blood, and the air is filled with the extraordinary sounds of screaming dolphins (they literally seem to scream).

    1. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "literally seem to scream" ??? It's not lobsters you're talking about here. It's dolphins. They're mammals. They're not "seeming to scream", They're screaming, for fuck's sake. The glorification of barbaric japanese "culture" by most geeks sickens me.

    2. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by ndogg · · Score: 0

      Firstly, many dolphin species aren't even threatened, much less endangered, and so therefore don't need protection.

      Secondly, Japan is an IUCN member, and therefore respects and enforces laws regarding threatened and endangered species, and monitors population numbers on species that are secure, which includes any number of dolphin species.

      Thirdly, from what I've read, these so-called "massacres" are local, and not something endorsed or encouraged outside that area.

      Finally, dolphins are a part of nature, and are therefore subject to the brutalities thereof. There's no reason to worry more about the "massacre" of dolphins than of other species except our own (unless someone wants to argue something from the specist angle, but I think that's a little extreme). Just because they're relatively intelligent compared to many other species doesn't inherently put them on some sort of pedestal. I would argue that many octopus and squid species are a lot more intelligent, but we don't give them any special value.

      Yes, dolphins hold a special place in Western culture due to the centuries of mythology that has built up around them, but no more a special place than cows in Indian culture. Hell, they're less special because they hold no particular religious significance. Should people stop eating beef because of the significance of cows in Hinduism?

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    3. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by jrumney · · Score: 1

      They're screaming, for fuck's sake. The glorification of barbaric japanese "culture" by most geeks sickens me.

      So tell me, which are you, vegan or hypocrite? Ever heard a pig or cow being slaughtered? They "scream" too, it doesn't stop most of us from eating them for dinner.

    4. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by lubricated · · Score: 1

      well, you assigned your own values there. The original poster had a neutral view. In fact it wasn't quite neutral he said it in a way that seamed to imply that he thought it was really cool.

      So are you guilt free?

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    5. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by merikari · · Score: 1

      In other news today:
      Scientists discover two wrongs indeed make a right.

      --
      My other SIG is a Sauer.
    6. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Oh wait, I was unaware that being vegan was a bad thing. Caring about life in all forms is apparently shunned by nerds?

      By the way, asshole, yes, I'm aware of pigs screaming as well as cows. The dolphin massacre is absolutely apalling, and the first time I saw video of it a few years ago i actually cried.
      Same goes for factory farming.

      I'm truly lost, what point are you trying to make here?

    7. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by AndyboyH · · Score: 2

      Not picking on your comment - more just adding additional weight to it:
      don't forget that some plants react too when attacked - releasing chemicals into the ground to warn other plants and/or increasing the toxicity of their sap.

      That's why I'm amused that you say 'vegan or hypocrite' - vegans are hypocrites too. It's just they conveniently forget that most nutritious food that they can eat is/was living at some point...

      --
      Baka Drew
    8. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The key difference is that us Westerners kill cows for food and other products and we at least try to pretend we're humane about it with our stun-bolts and such. I'd rather the food I eat be borne out of as little pain and suffering as possible. Our methods may not be perfect but at least there's some reasonable purpose behind slaughtering cows and pigs. We don't mindlessly spear them in fields as part of some outdated display of self-doubted masculinity. To compare the two for purposes of apology is asinine.

      I don't believe dolphins are magical animals. If you want to eat dolphin, fine, just try to sustain the population and do it humanely. But if you want to butcher thousands of them just to show how dominant you are or because 'granddaddy did it' then you need to get the fuck over yourselves and start acting like you're in the 21st century.

      Why is it that when a small child mindlessly tortures animals we say that it is a disturbing indicator of sociopathic behaviour, yet when a group of grown adults do it we are supposed to celebrate their culture?

      It's fucking bullshit.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    9. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can't I do both? Why can't I criticise the repugnant aspects of my own culture as well criticising the repugnant aspects of others?

      Oh I see, it isn't about giving criticism where it's due, it's about dodging it. Yeah, funny that.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    10. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you get equally offended about the death of humans or do you just cry over animals?

    11. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      These same nations that eat, or at least use to, live monkey brains served complete with the screaming monkey strapped to the table?

      While it may be generally illegal now, my father personally witnessed it in Singapore in the late 70's and you can still see tables with holes in the center for that purpose. Compared to your East Asian nations, I'd say my culture is pretty much guilt-free.

    12. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason I can criticize Bush despite having an unpaid parking ticket.

    13. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      WOuld that I had mod points and the means to award the parent +9 Insightful. Bravo, sir.

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    14. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Finally, dolphins are a part of nature, and are therefore subject to the brutalities thereof.

      So is your mother. Can you give me her address please so I can rape her repeatedly? After all, she's a part of nature, and therefore subject to the brutalities thereof.
    15. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by ettlz · · Score: 2, Informative

      How do you know the grandparent poster was white, and what the hell does it have to do with the point raised?!

    16. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      How do you know the grandparent poster was white, and what the hell does it have to do with the point raised?!

            Some people just love any opportunity to shout racism, although it simply underlines the fact that they themselves are the racists.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      some plants react too when attacked - releasing chemicals into the ground to warn other plants and/or increasing the toxicity of their sap.

            Hahaha that's silly - wtf are they going to do, run away? Next time I see a cow choke on a "toxic" blade of grass I'll believe that one.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Are you certain that Westerners try to be humane in their killing ways? Do you take industrial farming to task for the way they treat their animals (to say the least, it's not humane at all)?

      And how can you assume that the killing of those dolphins is completely purposeless? Have you talked with the people that did it?

      They kill the dolphins in that manner because its efficient. Hunter-gatherer societies often did similar things with herd animals because it was efficient. Industrial farms often treat and kill their animals in the most cost-effective and efficient manners possible, without any regard to being humane.

      And as I said, the Japanese do keep tabs on population sizes since they are IUCN members, just as the US keeps tabs on the population sizes of many species within its own border.

      I'm not apologizing for Japanese culture, but rather that people object to the killing of dolphins at all. Some ways of killing are better than others, and the way those Japanese do it is probably one of the worst, but killing dolphins in and of itself is only wrong if it endangers the survivability of the species.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    19. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by $pace6host · · Score: 1
      Why don't you wait until your own culture is guilt-free, before you go criticizing the cultural practices of an East Asian nation? This just makes me so angry when white people do this.
      Hey, what clued you in to the GP's whiteness? Do all white people post alike? And what clued you into his/her culture? Do all white people have the same culture? Maybe the poster's culture IS one that is guilt-free. If there aren't any that are guilt-free, no one can discuss these things? That's pretty silly. If we all wait until we are 100% guilt-free before discussing these things, they'll probably never end. How about instead we shine the light of truth on all of them? Like we just shined the light of truth on your racism.
    20. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by ndogg · · Score: 1

      PS Do you check to see whether all the meat you eat comes from animals that were humanely slaughtered? Or do you just assume it was? I can tell you right now that such an assumption is probably wrong. Do the eggs you eat come from battery-caged chickens or free-range chickens? You say you care about animals being slaughtered humanely, but do you make sure that they were?

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    21. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by AndyboyH · · Score: 1

      Hahaha that's silly - wtf are they going to do, run away? Next time I see a cow choke on a "toxic" blade of grass I'll believe that one.

      Grass, no, but more sophisticated plants, yes.

      Feel free to look it up

      Similarly, douglas firs produce alleochemicals to warn other trees to increase production of anti-feedant chemicals, when they are under attack.

      So unless you actually have any idea what you're talking about, STFU.

      --
      Baka Drew
    22. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Thanks for completely missing the point--that being that we should worry about the needless massacre of any species--not just dolphins because they're cute. Non-cute animals need protection too.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    23. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Woldry · · Score: 1

      What on earth does it mean to say that something "literally seems"? Either you misunderstand the meaning of the word "literally" (a VERY common mistake, and a pet peeve of mine), or you misunderstand the meaning of the word "seem".

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    24. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Are you certain that Westerners try to be humane in their killing ways?

      I can not be certain unless I personally observe every piece of meat I eat from birth to consumption. I'm not foolish enough to believe that the meat industry is a loving, caring entity. However, I would welcome any improvements to the process that reduce the suffering of the animals involved. I'm happy to pay a little extra on a half-dozen eggs knowing that the hens could at least move beyond an inch. Infact, I would freely welcome lab-grown meat provided it was both tasty and safe.

      And how can you assume that the killing of those dolphins is completely purposeless? Have you talked with the people that did it?

      From everything that I've seen and heard about this ritual, the killing of the dolphins is the purpose itself, not the harvest of meat or other products, the protection of other wildlife or population control. If you can prove me wrong, I would care a lot less about this massacre. But as it stands, it just seems like a pathetic display of superiority. That's what gets me, the patheticalness. That grown men are proud of stabbing dolphins with spears. It used to be that hunters would respect their kill, sometimes with spiritual ceremony (some African tribes still do this).

      You see, the thing that gets to me is the intent. For all the meat industry's failings, there's at least the semi-valid purpose of obtaining food and the process itself does not take delight in slaughtering animals. The meat companies don't relish the fact that they are killing living things, they just do it because that's their product. They don't whoop and cheer when a cow's throat is cut.

      They kill the dolphins in that manner because its efficient. Hunter-gatherer societies often did similar things with herd animals because it was efficient. Industrial farms often treat and kill their animals in the most cost-effective and efficient manners possible, without any regard to being humane.

      I'm not sure we disagree here. I don't have any problem with a hunter-gatherer herding animals to kill them so he can feed and clothe himself and his family. It's just that I have to question the moral compass of somebody who, like a kid who feeds a cat to a dog, kill things for kicks.

      I'm not apologizing for Japanese culture, but rather that people object to the killing of dolphins at all. Some ways of killing are better than others, and the way those Japanese do it is probably one of the worst, but killing dolphins in and of itself is only wrong if it endangers the survivability of the species.

      A kid feeding a live cat to a dog just for fun (which actually happened here in the UK recently) does not endanger the cat population and so by your definition is not wrong. I strongly disagree. And reiterating what I said before, if we are alarmed when a child does such a thing, why shouldn't we be disturbed when adults do it?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    25. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell me, which are you, vegan or hypocrite? Ever heard a pig or cow being slaughtered? They "scream" too, it doesn't stop most of us from eating them for dinner.

      A lot of Western countries use methods(such as the captive bolt pistol) which are designed to make pigs and cows unconcious and unfeeling before they are slaughtered, to make it more humane. So I assume that there is generally not much screaming going on.

    26. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe YOU should look up what "literally" means. It means "without exaggeration", which makes much sense in what the G.P. said. You freakin' jack ass.

    27. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of Western countries use methods(such as the captive bolt pistol) which are designed to make pigs and cows unconcious and unfeeling before they are slaughtered, to make it more humane. So I assume that there is generally not much screaming going on.

      They do make mistakes, it is well known that someimtes an animal isn't stunned correctly and ends up being conscious whilst they are hoisted upsidedown onto a moving rack with hooks pushed through the flesh in their legs, with the weight of their bodies breaking the bones in their legs whilst they slowly bleed to death from their cut throats.

    28. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      vegans are hypocrites too. It's just they conveniently forget that most nutritious food that they can eat is/was living at some point..


      Obviously they don't think that. Kindly count to 100 next time before posting, so that you won't throw out such obvious false accusations. There's nothing uglier than someone bleating 'hypocrisy' while being full of shit themselves.


      The distinction they make (the ones that are vegan for moral reasons, anyway) is between sentient and non-sentient creatures, not between living and dead ones. You can debate where to draw the line on sentience in the animal kingdom, but the concensus is that plants are non-sentient, and therefore okay to eat.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    29. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by bigdavesmith · · Score: 1
      Firstly, many dolphin species aren't even threatened, much less endangered, and so therefore don't need protection.
      An argument I can agree with! Things that aren't threatened don't need protection. Like human children. They're all over the place, growing like the plague! Damn things don't need protection. Put a bullet in em'. Heck, people in general. The police? What a waste of taxpayer money. People aren't endangered, and I don't think they've ever been on any kind of internationally recognized list of endangered species. So what if somebody gets raped on their way home from work. They're not endangered. Rape the hell out of em.

      Of course...I dunno...people generally like to think that we have some kind of moral values, and responsibility to other life, and the planet in general maybe...but let's not clutter up the killing with all that tree-hugging mumbo-jumbo.

    30. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by moogleii · · Score: 1

      Get over it.

      If not, you seem to misunderstand the mutability of language. I'm sure your analogous asshole counterpart in England finds the entire American English language to be a pet peeve.

    31. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Word We Love To Hate: http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/

    32. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Deagol · · Score: 1
      These same nations that eat, or at least use to, live monkey brains served complete with the screaming monkey strapped to the table?

      I saw that on "Faces of Death" (the original) many years ago. Quite the sick, twisted ritual, isn't it?

      I feel major remorse when I slaughter our chickens or rabbits. Those fools in the movie looked like they got a major thrill out of bashing that poor monkey's head in. Gruesome. It's one thing to assert your place in the food chain, but it's quite another to make 'sport' out of the killing/suffering of another creature.

      Then again, I've talked with rednecks in the Southwest who got their kicks out of trying to hit as many rabbits, foxes, and coyotes as possible on their way to work in the early morning. Sick fucks.

    33. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Wills · · Score: 1

      I was well aware of the word meanings, and so phrased what I wrote because I think the vernacular is usually a more effective way of communicating with an audience. Sorry if that has upset you. How about sharing your thoughts about the subject of the article / this thread?

    34. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by DraconPern · · Score: 1

      Argentina, is the site of the daily ritual cow massacre in which ranchers drive herds of cows into shallow pens and hit them with a hammer. You should see it. It is quite a sight. The land turns red with blood, and the air is filled with the extraordinary sounds of screaming cows (they literally seem to scream).

    35. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by AndyboyH · · Score: 1

      that's entirely a matter for debate. Plants show more sentience than animal lactate, but which do Vegans consume, and which don't they?

      If you're going to post an argument, at least make it defensible and reasoned...

      --
      Baka Drew
    36. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      that's entirely a matter for debate. Plants show more sentience than animal lactate, but which do Vegans consume, and which don't they?


      Neither milk nor plants show any signs of sentience. Zero is not greater than zero, so your premise is false. That said, the reasons vegans don't drink milk is because milk production requires the use of animals, which they find distasteful. What is so illogical about that?


      If you're going to post an argument, at least make it defensible and reasoned...


      I would ask the same of you.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    37. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by espilce · · Score: 1

      Should people stop eating beef because of the significance of cows in Hinduism?

      I would say so, not simply because hinduism holds cows as sacred but that commercial cattle farming is one of the most destructive industries in the world, specifically in the United States.

      See Power Steer by Michael Pollan for more information.

      --
      :q!
    38. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by AndyboyH · · Score: 1

      Plants at least demonstrate reactions - the original post that I made pointed out - they are aware and respond to attackers, and can warn other plants via hormones. Milk does not possess these abilities. Without the introduction of foreign organisms it is inert - plants grow, respire, reproduce, seek light, food, attack and defend. That is the incongruity. Vegetation lives. And arguably, vegetation provides us with nice breathable O2 - rather a useful benefit, wouldn't you say? So choosing not to eat meat, drink dairy products, or use leather due to the suffering of animals, but then forcing one's dietary needs on a lower part of the food chain is hypocritical. If vegans truly and honestly cared for living creatures, they'd commit suicide before they inflicted any more damage to the planet's ecology. But then, because they do not, they are inherently valuing their lives over a multitude of other living things. Which defeats their own argument that they are protecting life and preventing suffering. They're just redistributing it to something that isn't so cute and fluffy, that can't stare them back in the eyes. That is my argument.

      --
      Baka Drew
    39. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by FeatureBug · · Score: 1

      You are either trolling or horribly racist against Argentines. The Argentinian farmers I know look after their animals very well and they completely respect the Argentine national law on animal welfare. Treating the animals well makes for faster, more healthy growth. Argentinian beef certainly tastes fantastic. And it's good for business. Even now before full recovery from FMD, Argentinian beef is again a huge export (US 0,5 billion) to the US, Europe, Japan etc.

    40. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      I didn't see that, but my father said that the monkey is definitely alive and screaming while it's brain is being eaten. Apparently, sadism is quite the appetizer for some in that culture.

      What surprises me is the whitewashing of the practice. Looking into it today, I read that the monkey is killed first (not true) and the practice is unlikely to exist at all (don't believe that either). It may well be illegal but then so is cock fighting in Indonesia, yet last time I was there there was no shortage of people offering to take tourists to see it and the events were protected by local police. When you go to a resturant and see a hole in the center of the table there is no question what it's for. I've seen it myself and I've asked about it.

      When you see a rhino in the wild (like that's possible any more) it makes you sick to think that people would kill such a magnificent animal to saw off a little piece of hardened hair from its head. Same for an elephant or even a shark. There's no shortage of sick fucks in this world and if you want to see examples of willful, meaningless slaughter of animals, look no further than the east asian cultures.

    41. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      What's worse: a few hours of terror or months or years knowing you have terminal cancer, heart disease, etc., and going through potentially very painful procedures because the end is too hard to bear, all the while a handful of people in the health care profession get richer.

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    42. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by eklitzke · · Score: 1

      Not all vegans are animal rights activists or work for PETA.

      I have been vegetarian for many years. I used to be vegan. It was a personal choice that I made that had nothing to do wtih animal rights/cruelty or religion. To this day, I use a leather wallet.

      Assuming that everyone who is vegan or vegetarian does so because they want to save the animals is ignorant. While many people do it for just that reason, everyone has their own reasons. For example, my girlfriend is also vegetarian, but doesn't have any problem eating meat when she visits China (where she is from), because she sees eating traditional Chinese food as an integral part of Chinese culture.

      --
      #include ".signature"
    43. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by AndyboyH · · Score: 1

      fair point. My apologies for the generalisation - unfortunately I've only ever encountered the rabid foaming at the mouth sort of vegan who give the rest of vegan society a bad name - the equivalent of the preachers wearing the sandwich boards with bible passages painted on them - thus my devil's advocate arguments. I find they can be cured of their zealotry fairly easily when they're confronted with some of the truths I've used in my parent posts. I don't want to upset any of them to tears, and haven't ever done so, but I find removing their high horse works wonders to gain mutual respect and trust.

      Luckily /. seems fairly tolerant of debate (i.e. no troll or flamebait moderations) when there's at least some basic reasoning and effort to make a decent argument...

      --
      Baka Drew
    44. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by vistic · · Score: 1

      Well... personally, it's stopped me from eating any animals.

      It's too bad it hasn't stopped you from eating them, too.

    45. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by vistic · · Score: 1

      Vegetarians (incl. vegans) aren't such hypocrites.

      I'm a vegetarian because I'm against cruelty. I'm against cruelty to humans and to animals.

      It's cruel to break a dog's leg with your bare hands for fun because the dog feels pain, and panics, and is in terror, and hurts. I think everyone can agree that's cruel.

      I think it's more cruel to hurt a dog than to hurt a spider. I don't kill spiders, but a spider certainly is less intelligent than a dog, and doesn't process information in the same way. It's still cruel to pluck legs off a spider, but it's less cruel than doing that to a dog.

      Now on to plants. It's not cruel. They have no central nervous system, no pain sensors. They are alive, yes, but do they hurt or feel pain? If so... HOW? We pretty much know everything that's inside a plant and there's just no system there for intelligence.

      People will point out how they grow towards light. But that's not some intelligent decision the plant made. The plant can't decide NOT to grow towards light. It's a photoreactive chemical that builds up in the stems on the side that's getting sunlight exposure, and the chemical makes that side contract which causes the stem to bend in that direction (if I recall my high school biology class correctly). The same for the examples you've given: it's just a chemical reaction, not a sign of any intelligence. The plant made no decision to do those things, it has no way to make decisions or process information. It's not cruel to mow your lawn.

      It bothers me so much when people use such ridiculous statements to try and discredit the morals of vegetarians and make them seem inconsistent somehow, when they're actually not.

      Unlike a plant, you DO have a brain, so use it.

    46. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by krnpimpsta · · Score: 1
      Taiji, Japan, is the site of the annual ritual dolphin massacre in which fishermen drive pods of dolphins into shallow coves and stab them with spears. You should see it. It is quite a sight. The sea water turns red with blood, and the air is filled with the extraordinary sounds of screaming dolphins (they literally seem to scream).


      Hmmm, what if these massacres in shallow coves make it favorable for dolphins to have these "vestigial" legs? Maybe all this massacering will bring about a new species of legged amphibious dolphin.

      I approve. Keep up the good work, Japan. :)
      --

      New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE

    47. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I understand what the GP post was getting at.

      In one of the sister posts, there was raised another point - the consumption of plants vs animals. Plants nicely promote the creation of o2 from co2. Thus, reducing the number of plants is damaging to the environment - this has been proven with studies into the deforestation of the amazon rain forest area. Meat-bearing animals are damaging to the environment. They do not produce (yes, produce isn't the correct word, but it is a product of their existence) o2. They contribute other nasty items like co2 and methane. So, by shifting food supplies from animals onto plants, we're not only promoting the generation of co2 over o2 (nevermind the increase in land used for grazing of these saved animals) we're also damaging the ecosystem with the continued support for these domestic animals that are now rendered useless. Vegetarian idealogy does not promote killing them, so what do you suggest is done? All the time they're also contributing to the carbon imbalance (yes, admittedly we're more at fault with pollutants than any set of animals could hope to be) Would this situation not in turn lead to greater suffering for animals further down the line as we slowly destroy the planet, and they face the destruction along with us?

      I guess this topic's went pretty far OT from 4 finned Dolphins. Plus I've not noticed any 'I for one squeek click click squeek click click' comments yet :[

    48. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Again, I'm not apologizing for it. All I'm saying is that everyone is reading only biased media, and assuming the facts. You say that it is purposeless, but how certain can you be that anything you've read has captured both sides of the story? I've read many articles regarding this "ritual" and they were all biased to the side that is horrified by the practice.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    49. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by ndogg · · Score: 1
      I can not be certain unless I personally observe every piece of meat I eat from birth to consumption. I'm not foolish enough to believe that the meat industry is a loving, caring entity. However, I would welcome any improvements to the process that reduce the suffering of the animals involved. I'm happy to pay a little extra on a half-dozen eggs knowing that the hens could at least move beyond an inch. Infact, I would freely welcome lab-grown meat provided it was both tasty and safe.

      I'm not saying that you should observe every piece of meat from birth to consumption to be certain, but you can certainly take reasonable measures to create enough certainty that you only buy meat from farms treated in that manner. Instead of buying random meat from some random store, do you even bother to check for labels like "organic" or "free-range"? Or even just shop at stores like Whole Foods?
      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    50. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Wow, so for you, there is no difference between Japanese and Chinese. Those yellow people all look the same, eh? How is a screaming monkey any worse or better than a factory-killed pig? Look at yourself before you EVEN think of criticizing others.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    51. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because it is racist to criticize other cultures without recognizing that your own culture is even worse? Did you even go to university, redneck?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    52. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Plants at least demonstrate reactions - the original post that I made pointed out - they are aware and respond to attackers, and can warn other plants via hormones. Milk does not possess these abilities.


      Milk isn't the issue -- cows are. It's a simple question of whether the production of each item causes suffering in sentient beings. Again, the concensus opinion is that plants are not sentient. Argue otherwise if you want, but it only makes you look silly. Drinking milk, on the other hand, is thought to cause suffering to cows, who are believed to be sentient. Hence, vegans don't drink milk. If you can create milk without using animals, vegans are happy to drink it (e.g. soy milk, rice milk)


      If vegans truly and honestly cared for living creatures, they'd commit suicide before they inflicted any more damage to the planet's ecology. But then, because they do not, they
      are inherently valuing their lives over a multitude of other living things. Which defeats their own argument that they are protecting life and preventing suffering. They're just redistributing it to something that isn't so cute and fluffy, that can't stare them back in the eyes. That is my argument.


      Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting the Vegan position so that you can cut down a straw man. Vegans' goal is not to protect all living things, but rather to not cause suffering in sentient beings. Vegans (like most people who aren't trying to construct a spurious argument) believe that plants are non-sentient and therefore okay to eat.


      There is no contradiction between not wanting to cause suffering in other sentient creatures, and in valuing your own life. Indeed, committing suicide would not be consistent with the vegan position, because committing suicide would cause suffering in sentient creatures (specifically, the people who care about you).


      Your argument is unfounded. I suspect you are merely trying to demagogue vegans because you feel threatened by them. If you were to consider their arguments seriously, you would then be forced to critically examine your own life choices, and that scares you.


      -Jeremy (not a vegan, but not afraid to consider their line of reasoning)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    53. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      It looks like someone should go back to University and gain basic comprehension skills...

      You didn't answer my question. Why am I not able to criticize other cultures as well as my own? Why should the East Asians be afforded special protection from scrutiny? Is that because you are East Asian yourself? That would make sense, seeing how you went off on that 'white people' rant for no reason.

      That's cute, you call me a redneck, jump to conclusions about someone's race for no reason and blindly assert that my own culture must be worse when it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. If anyone's the racist, it's you. Seriously, the fact that you randomly brought race into the discussion is very telling.

      Please don't reply with more illogical, rambling and irrelevant shit, it just wastes all of our time.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    54. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by rthille · · Score: 1

      but killing dolphins in and of itself is only wrong if it endangers the survivability of the species

      If that's true, then I'd have to say:

      but killing people in and of itself is only wrong if it endangers the survivability of the species

      And I'd put Dogs, the Greate Apes, Elephants and probably quite a few other animals in that category. Maybe even steers, but god I sure do love a good steak. On the other hand, at least I was willing to raise and slaughter my own steer to eat (though I haven't done that in a long time).

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    55. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Don't pull that racist bullshit on me. It was YOU that used the term "East Asian nation" and that means more than Japan. I damn well know the difference.

      A screaming monkey is worse than a factory killed pig because it's the screaming in agony that's part of the sadistic pleasure participants get out of the barbaric experience. Everyone gets that except assholes like you.

      The Japanese and Chinese are both guilty of especially heinous abuse of wildlife. You won't find shark fin soup sold in the US (though you will in Japan) nor would Anericans slaughter a rhino for a few pounds of powdered horn hair. Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan are the largest markets for the illegal ivory trade. There's a big difference between your "East Asian nations" scumbags and the rest of the world.

    56. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > literally seems

      Give the guy a break, he is a native Japanese speaker.

      He meant to type "Ritter, Larry seams". As in -- the connecting stiches on Larry Ritter's pants. Unfortunately, he has misremembered his Three's Company trivia; he is not talking about John Ritter's character (Jack Tripper), but rather his hairy-chested neighbour, Larry Dallas (nee Dalliapolis).

      So, get off your high horse. It should be quite clear he was talking about putting bell-bottommed pants on dolphins. Which would only be possible if they could grow vestigial limbs!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    57. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by rthille · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you can find shark fin soup for sale in the US. We stayed at a hotel in Hawaii and the restaurant there had shark fin soup.

      I refuse to stay there again, though my wife really liked the hotel :-(

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    58. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      That's disturbing, but Hawaii does have a large amount of Japanese investment and Japanese tourist traffic. Shark fin soup isn't an American or Hawaiian dish.

    59. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by rthille · · Score: 1

      Yep, but I was still shocked and pissed off :-(

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    60. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by x_codingmonkey_x · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately what he said would not constitute racism but would earn him praise. It's kind of funny how he says that we can't critiques him but goes off criticizing us. And also, I just wanted to make a point about the University comment. I hope he realizes that the US has the best Universities in the World. Something like 50 of the top 100 are in the US alone, and this was from a study done by a Japanese University (too lazy to look for the link).

    61. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Sounds like fun, I want to try that too!!!

      Iraq, is the site of the daily ritual iraqi massacre in which marines drive crowds of people into narrow alleys and shoot them with a rifle. You should see it. It is quite a sight. The land turns red with blood, and the air is filled with the extraordinary sounds of screaming iraqis (they literally seem to scream).

      What about that? Ok, go ahead, mod me troll.

      --
      So say we all
    62. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by gsslay · · Score: 1
      Finally, dolphins are a part of nature, and are therefore subject to the brutalities thereof.

      True, and if this was happening between dolphins and, say, tigers, your point would be valid. But it's not what the dolphins are part of, its what we want to be part of. As humans in many ways we like to think ourselves as a step above the brutalities of nature, what with having conscious thought and stuff.

      If you're fine with us playing an active part of the brutalities of nature, then great. Just don't expect any sympathy or help if you or your family are ever attacked and slaughtered. You don't get to have it both ways.

    63. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Meat-bearing animals are damaging to the environment. They do not produce (yes, produce isn't the correct word, but it is a product of their existence) o2. They contribute other nasty items like co2 and methane. So, by shifting food supplies from animals onto plants, we're not only promoting the generation of co2 over o2 (nevermind the increase in land used for grazing of these saved animals) we're also damaging the ecosystem with the continued support for these domestic animals that are now rendered useless.


      This is a horrible thought process...Do you really believe there would be millions upon millions of cows grazing on the land if it weren't for humans breeding them into overpopulation?

      And how are these animals rendered more useless than half the human population of earth? They are living here just like any of us.

      I am also fairly positive studies have shown that the world is actually hurt much more by supporting the meat industry (with how many animals they breed and having the animals graze).
    64. Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't, it's simply stating an opinion.

      That's not an inherently racist thing to do.

  27. should the vestigial limbs be removed.... by jemptymethod · · Score: 5, Funny

    that would be de-feeting the porpoise

    1. Re:should the vestigial limbs be removed.... by Rideak · · Score: 1

      where o where id my moderator points go. there should have gone here.

    2. Re:should the vestigial limbs be removed.... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      I really don't think your argument has a leg to stand on.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    3. Re:should the vestigial limbs be removed.... by hubritc · · Score: 1

      Bravo. very well done

    4. Re:should the vestigial limbs be removed.... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It just wants to be acute dolphin. You know.. like dolphin, a Peale.

  28. You fools! by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

    Don't you get it? They're not vestigial legs! They're re-evolved legs! The dolphins are clearly evolving BACK INTO LAND ANIMALS to reclaim the land they once ruled.

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
    1. Re:You fools! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case...

      I for one welcome our... tasty? overlords!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  29. Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by gabriel.dain · · Score: 1

    What makes scientists so sure that this is a malformation, a "remain from the past" as he put it, instead of a genetical change in dolphins in general, which could be evolution? TFA says that "Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth", couldn't this mean that the species have been changing for years and years, and this specimen is the first to show more developed fins/legs? I just want to know how they differentiate something that's genetically deformed (meaning it affects only the specimen, and not the species) to something that's evolving.

    1. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by catbutt · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't come from the vestigial genetic code for rear fins or rear legs, it's pretty unlikely for fins to just appear out of nothing. It would probably take 100's of millions of years for that kind of change to take place. In fact it would probably just never happen. Evolution (by natural selection, as opposed to intelligent design) just doesn't work that way.

      That said, if the "vestigial" fins had a use for the dolphins, and a lot of individuals had them, they could be selected for and "evolve back", so to speak.

    2. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by gabriel.dain · · Score: 1

      so basicly, if they found another dolphin with similar characteristics and make them breed, and the same with their offspring, and again and again, you could force them to "evolve"? Gosh, we humans are pretty demented

    3. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      There is no "planning" of evolution. For a trait to continue to be selected for, it must give an advantage at every stage. I see no selective advantage for having limbs as a fetus which are not found in the adult. You seem to be saying that they may have been in some way intelligently developing this trait because it could give them an advantage in later generations.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by weteko · · Score: 1

      Which is the problem with locking this dolphin up (as they are doing). The vestigial finned dolphins might be The Better Dolphin (tm) but no one will ever know.

      --
      If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty
    5. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution? I do not think that means what you think it means.

    6. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      so basicly, if they found another dolphin with similar characteristics and make them breed,

            Eh? You must be new to this genetics thing. You breed it with a regular dolphin, and then you breed the offspring of this pair between themselves. Voila, 3 generations and you're sure to have plenty of homozygous recessives to choose from...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just want to know how they differentiate something that's genetically deformed (meaning it affects only the specimen, and not the species) to something that's evolving.

      Well that's how they determine it, because that's what evolution is.

      Evolution is (basically) random mutation plus natural selection. A dolphin is born with fins, that's a random mutation. If that helps it survive, and it gives birth to more dolphins with fins, after a while you'll find a whole bunch of dolphins with fins. That's the natural selection part. If nature does not select for dolphins with fins, then you will just get a rare random mutant dolphin with fins. To determine if the dolphin is evolving into a creature with fins, you would have to try and determine the size of the "dolphin with fins" population and whether it is increasing or decreasing.

    8. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      #! /bin/sh

      llama()
      {
          llama &
          llama &
      }

      llama


      Damn. My process tree is full of llama functions!
      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:Remains from the past? Why not evolution? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      if they found another dolphin with similar characteristics and make them breed, and the same with their offspring, and again and again, you could force them to "evolve"? Gosh, we humans are pretty demented

      Well yeah, of course. Just look at what we've done with wolves and all the bizarre breeds of dogs that we evolved them into.

      Or better yet, just look at this end product of humans deliberately evolving wolves over the last 15,000 years. Warning: NSFL!
      (not safe for lunchtime)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  30. In another part of the universe... by not_yet_witty · · Score: 1

    they've found out that the Dolphin's last words were (or will be) So long, and thanks for the fish!

  31. It's in the wiki already by Toby+The+Economist · · Score: 1

    I read about vestigial limbs on aquatic mammals in the Wiki about a month ago - where a throwback displays fingers/toes rather than properly formed flippers.

    From what's written there, this is well understood and well recognized.

    I've just had a go at finding the article again, but you know what it's like in the wiki, if you can't remember the article title, you're going to have trouble finding it again :-/

    1. Re:It's in the wiki already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, people have known that whales are decendent from land dwelling mammals for a long time. It's very obvious when you look at most whales' skeletons: endorsed with 'vestigal' hind legs. Even feckin' Herman Melville comments on this in Moby Dick (and he believed the whale to be fish).

  32. Obligatory.. by tito13kfm · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our 4 legged dolphin overlords.

    1. Re:Obligatory.. by eingram · · Score: 1

      Overlords? _>

  33. An article pertaining to evolution, on Fox News? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    And not one single mention of intelligent design?

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  34. please don't insult the Christians by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

    I'm not one, but that is neither here nor there. Believing in evolution is not mutually exclusive with believing that Christ died for your sins. Most Christians do beleive in evolution, just as they believe in an old Earth, etc. Granted, the subset of Christians who are Creationists do refer to themselves as Christian, trying to claim the label for themselves, so I know it isn't easy, but don't go insulting everyone over a few (million) oddities. That's like insulting conservatives by saying they all support the Iraqi occupation and torture.

    1. Re:please don't insult the Christians by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      "Most Christians do beleive in evolution..."

      Really? Could've sworn it was the opposite. I've had *far far far far* argue the preposterous impossibility of evolution with me, and only a small handful that would even admit to speciation. You sir, seem to be the minority.

    2. Re:please don't insult the Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're in the USA; most christians aren't.

    3. Re:please don't insult the Christians by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
      Well, the evolution naysayers think they are on a mission from God, so they're a bit more passionate. Christians who DO believe in evolution just consider it a non-issue, and aren't going to buttonhole you on the street and subject you to a tirade on the lies of Darwinism. It's like judging the pushiness of CHristians by the ones who come to your door when you're trying to eat dinner. The sample gets skewed because you only notice the pushy ones.

      I feel some compassion for the Christians who do believe in science, because they get a lot of hostility, a lot of accussations of not being a "real" Christian, from their wacked-out brethren and sistren. So though we are in a cultural battle with the fundamentalists for the broader culture, another culture battle is going on within the ranks of Christianity over their culture as well. Even if we don't share their faith, they need our help, at least to the extent of not lumping them in with the biblical literalists.

    4. Re:please don't insult the Christians by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Granted, the subset of Christians who are Creationists do refer to themselves as Christian, trying to claim the label for themselves

      If they are a subset of Christians, then they don't need to "claim the label for themselves" - they already have it. Being a Christian does not necessarily imply that you believe in either creation or evolution - but then, the term "Christian" has become so diluted in the last century or so, that doesn't really mean much. Most Christians believe God had a hand in creation, but don't really care whether that was through setting up the initial variables, guiding evolution or direct creation of the species. It's certainly not a core tenet of the faith.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:please don't insult the Christians by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      It is the duty of the moderate Christians, atleast a few of the vast majority, to counter the claims by the fundamentalists. If not the fundamentalists get to define Christianity by default. Same way it is the duty of the moderate Muslims to reign in the ists if they want the world to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. It is the duty of the enlightened moderate Hindus to regin in their fundamentalists and eradicate the injustices of the caste system.

      Moderates, of any religion, can not continue to sit on their tails, doing nothing to counter the vociferous extremists and still demand respect by default. They cant expect the outsiders to carefully discriminate between the extremists and the moderates while they do diddly squat to help them do the discriminating.

      At the end of the first Harry Potter book, Albus Dumbledore awards 10 points to Gryffindor to Neville Longbottom saying "It takes bravery and courate to fight your enemies. But it takes even more courage to stand up to your friends." No wonder Pope wants that book banned.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:please don't insult the Christians by scotch · · Score: 1
      I think most Christians believe in evolution, and also most Christians believe in young- or old- earth creation. . That's the great thing about religious people, they have no problem believing multiple things at once, even believing two contradicting ideas at once. For example, most their lives as if there is no supernatural intervention in their everyday affairs. At the same time, they believe that supernatural entities are controlling every aspect of their lives. To carry off this dichotomy, the theists has to believe in multiple contradictory world views at once. I think perhaps they don't consider the objective world view required for the former, rational behavior to be a belief, but there its is.

      HTH

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    7. Re:please don't insult the Christians by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

      Really, I meant "only for themselves." They don't consider the Catholics, Mormons, or the touchy-feely "Jesus is Love and Tolerance" Christians to be actual Christians. There are varying degrees of this, and not a lot of uniformity. The further you get into the Dominionist/Reconstructionist movement, the more pronounced it is. So when they call themselves "Christians", they don't mean what you think you're hearing--they aren't calling themselves a subset, but the totality of "real Christianity." At some point it becomes a starkly binary worldview, and everyone who isn't in their clique is essentially working for the devil, deliberately or otherwise.

    8. Re:please don't insult the Christians by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Er ... and yet the Catholic church is one of the few that has explicitly and officially declared that there is no conflict between Christian faith and the theory of evolution.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    9. Re:please don't insult the Christians by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      That is probably true, may be under JPII. But after the ascent of panzercardinale I am not so sure. He even issued a clarification of JPII's belated pardon of Gelileo to argue that it was not really a pardon because Church did not really err on that issue. So he might issue yet another clarification about evolution. Who knows?

      Anyway that comment about Pope wanting to ban Harry Potter books is mainly about the principle of standing up to one's own ideological brethern. Almost all religions preach about defending the faith against the enemies of faith and circle the wagon and face outward mentality. It takes a lot of courage for the so called "pro-life" Christians to stand up to terrorists like that Eric Rudolph than to shout "baby killer" to pregnant women on the way to their clinic who may or may not be seeking abortion.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    10. Re:please don't insult the Christians by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I'd like to confirm the twin points to you from other replies. For some bizarre reason it really is mostly just the US where this is a signifigant problem. Not long ago Slashdot had a story on the acceptance level of evolution in 32 western nations (I think it was 32). The United States came in second to last, just above Turkey. In other countries acceptance of evolution can run as high as 85%. So yes, world wide the majority of Christians do accept evolution. The second point being that anti-evolutionists are generally rather... ahhh... zealous in making a public scene over it. Christians who accept evolution obviously aren't going to be in an argument with you over it in the first place, and when they do discuss evolution they generally don't see their religion as having any bearing on the subject and so genenerally don't raise the religion issue.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:please don't insult the Christians by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I would like to emphasise upon misanthrope's reply to you.

      "claim the label for themselves" was clearly being used in the sense of "claim the label exclusively for themselves". This is perhaps *the* central and most common problem among anti-evolutionists. I can't begin to tell you how many times I have run into this exact problem, where they make blatantly irrational and nonsensical arguments. Well, they are blatantly irrational and nonsensical untill you realize that is suffering from a peculiar bit of psycological damage, that they have such a filtered woldview that they are litterally blind pschologically to the very concept and existance of Christians that accept evolution. hey do *not* merely argue that Christians who accept evolution are wrong, they are just plain blind to the very concept and blind to the existance of the majority of Christians. They make statements and arguments that only make sense in the context of the non-existance of that idea. They often not only claim the Christian label (exclusively) for themselves, but they claim the religion label (exclusively) for themselves. This fundamental concept that there is a definition for God and that theirs is the definition for God, that God-in-conflict-with-their-definition cannot exist and is a non-concept. That they get to forbid God to do things in any other way, and that anything that does not equal their definition of God instead (by definition) equals atheism. Of course they do not put things that way.... they pretty much could not put things that way without recognizing and utilizing the very concepts that they are blind to. But I have often seen arguments that clearly come from that conceptual foundation, and raising the point of Christians accepting evolution generally just bizarrely sails right into that psychological blindspot and gets filtered away. Teaching evolution means teaching that (their) God does not exist, their God is the only God, and therefore teaching evolution equals teaching that God does not exist, and therefore equals teaching atheism.

      Of course I'm not saying *all* anti-evolutionists have this problem, just that it is disturbingly common and that I think it is the origin/context/explanation of his "claim the label for themselves" comment.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  35. Yum! by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1
    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  36. Re:An article pertaining to evolution, on Fox News by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

    Well, technically ID doesn't preclude common descent or vestigial organs (or limbs). ID doesn't preclude much, because it doesn't assert much, other than pointing at something or other and saying "evolution doesn't explain that." Behe himself believes in common descent, though not many of the ID advocates, many (most?) of whom are closet Creationsists, think about that much. The article would rankle Creationists, but they're already rankled by just about everything since Copernicus, so I don't see the big deal.

  37. Kentucky Fried Dolphin by gijoel · · Score: 1

    It's Fin-Licking good!!!!

  38. Obligitory Simpsons by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    At least The Simpsons can still boast some scientific merit:

    Night of the Dolphin

  39. scientists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly do japanese whale catchers qualify as scientists?

  40. Put it back! by gogodidi · · Score: 1

    So now they are excited because they can see evolution happening? They should return it to the sea. The evolutionary chain will end if they put it into captivity!

    --
    ugh...
    1. Re:Put it back! by aussie_a · · Score: 1
      The evolutionary chain will end if they put it into captivity!

      Not really. It just goes to show that dolphins with legs aren't a viable form for the dolphin to take, and so it won't be present in future species. Same as if this freak dolphin had been eaten by a shark before it mated.
    2. Re:Put it back! by jimktrains · · Score: 1

      Who's to say it hasn't mated. Did TFA have the dolphin's age?

      --
      "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
  41. Wait... by aerthling · · Score: 1
    I have a few questions/points (and I'm not trying to start a flame war):
    1. I thought the theory of evolution revolved around land creatures evolving from sea creatures, not the other way around.
    2. If dolphins really did evolve from land creatures with four legs, why would they start devolving all of a sudden?
    3. Isn't it possible that the secondary set of fins is actually a mutation or disorder caused by all the crap we've been dumping into the ocean?

    I've skimmed the comments here and the article, but AFAIC the possibility of it being something other than evolution doesn't seem to have been considered.
    1. Re:Wait... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      1. The theory has nothing to do with how it happened. Its just that life started in the seas so for something to live on land it would need to evolve and adapt.

      2. Dolphins devolving? They are smarter than us you know. ;)
      They werent devolving. A set of evolutionary pressures just required them to evolve in to the water. Devolving would Dolphins turning in to ameoba.

      3. Its possible for the genes to be activated by our crap or natural causes.
      The instructions for making the legs are still (mostly) there however. They are just switched off.

    2. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. I thought the theory of evolution revolved around land creatures evolving from sea creatures, not the other way around.

      You thought wrong. Evolution explains how land to sea and sea to land transitions might happen reasonably, though. The theory of evolution is like the "theory" that things fall down (on earth) - it's something you can just wander round a bit and see happening. Things will fall down whether or not you believe in gravity. If you're religious, you can have "faith" that evolution is wrong, but that's just a fancy way of saying you believe stuff without evidence. Faith is the only real sin.

      2. If dolphins really did evolve from land creatures with four legs, why would they start devolving all of a sudden?

      Evolution isn't a directed scale thing, where something is "more" evolved implying that they're somehow better. You could describe something as more or less well-adapted to its environment, but even that's kind of a subjective judgement in practice, a lot of things just don't matter much or we don't know the full ramifications of them. If you insist on thinking that way various bacteria are the most "highly evolved" organisms, perfectly adapted to particular environments. Humans, if anything, are "specialised non-specialists". We're not particularly good at anything excepting adapting.

      3. Isn't it possible that the secondary set of fins is actually a mutation or disorder caused by all the crap we've been dumping into the ocean?

      Said crap could _cause_ a mutation. But it takes a _lot_ of mutations to gradually build a fin, it's most likely in this case to be a small mutation (indeed possibly pollution-induced, like polydactyl birth defects in humans exposed to nasty chemicals...) reversing a previous mutation that turned off ("suppressed") a previously active large segment of genetic "program code" for the rear fins. The particulars about how digits and limbs evolved as a long series of mutations makes such seemingly "large" changes quite likely (there's sort of a "cascade" effect), but honestly, either you're trolling or you're just too ignorant of evolution, genetics, etc. to make remotely intelligent comments or understand the issues at this point in your education. Ignorance is not necessarily your fault, nor should you be ashamed of it (you should only be ashamed if you're unwilling to correct it!). The USA's educational system is abysmal, for example, there are millions of people let down or actively mistaught. If you're willing to learn, try starting out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. Avoid anything religious like the plague.

    3. Re:Wait... by Larthallor · · Score: 1

      > 1. I thought the theory of evolution revolved around land creatures evolving from sea creatures, not the other way around.

      All land-dwelling animals developed from sea-dwelling animals. Some of these have since returned to the sea, including all marine mammals. The theory of evolution by natural selection is an explanation of the mechanisms that underly such changes.

      > 2. If dolphins really did evolve from land creatures with four legs, why would they start devolving all of a sudden?

      First, a bit about semantics. Devolve is a word used by people that think that the word evolve means to change from a "lower" animal to a "higher" animal and can therefore have an opposite direction. However, the word evolve actually means change, of any kind. An animal lineage that evolves a pair of legs can also evolve to lose those legs.

      Second, dolphins are not evolving into legged animals. This particular animal had an extra set of fins where a four-legged animal has hind legs. Some believe that this represents a set of ancestral instructions for building hind limbs being turned back on. Why would a dolphin have these instructions for building hind limbs if they didn't use to have them?

      Third, the fact that land animals evolved from aquatic species doesn't imply that aquatic species are inferior. No one believes that people living in Spain are inferior to people living in Mexico because people in Mexico are (to some degree) descended from Spaniards. One wouldn't speak of Mexicans that move to Spain as devolving just because their ancestors used to live there.

      > 3. Isn't it possible that the secondary set of fins is actually a mutation or disorder caused by all the crap we've been dumping into the ocean?

      Yes. A mutation is a change to an animal's genetic instructions and this dolphin clearly has that. This mutation may or may not have been caused by man-made "crap". However, it turns out that the source of the mutation doesn't affect the question of whether dolphins evolved from land animals or not. A mutation caused by artificial chemicals that turns off suppression of hind limb development still implies that dolphins have all of the instructions for building hind limbs.

      The truth is that it has already been so well established that dolphins evolved from land creatures that touting this animal as proof of evolution is kind of like finding a drop of blood next to a mangled corpse and declaring that the drop is evidence of a terrible tragedy; while probably true, it's a bit redundant.

    4. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1. I thought the theory of evolution revolved around land creatures evolving from sea creatures, not the other way around."

      No. Life diversifies. It spreads out. It isn't going from point A to point B. If there is one thing obvious from this history of life, it is that the same thing often happens, over and over, but in different ways and from different ancestors. Evolution drives organisms to diversify into new niches -- new ways to exploit resources. If that means a land animal enters the water to catch fish or eat plants (like a modern otter or hippo), and evolves to become more and more efficient there, so be it. It does sound *nuts* to have expended a couple hundred million years evolving from fish into land vertebrates, only to go back to the sea, especially *after* getting rid of gills (how stupid can you get? Bad planning!), but the list of creatures that have done so suggests it is a pretty beneficial strategy:
      - seals
      - manatees
      - whales
      - penguins

      They all do it differently, and only whales and manatees have completely abandoned the land, but why not? There are plenty of fish and other food in the sea to eat.

      "2. If dolphins really did evolve from land creatures with four legs, why would they start devolving all of a sudden?"

      "Devolving" is a colloquial term. It has no scientific meaning. Life changes. It's all evolution at some scale. The real question is whether this particular trait is a one-off mutation or something that will become increasingly common in the population over time. That depends mainly upon whether it offers some advantage over the dolphins that don't have the mutation, but history suggests it won't be advantageous, given that they largely lost the hind limbs.

      "3. Isn't it possible that the secondary set of fins is actually a mutation or disorder caused by all the crap we've been dumping into the ocean?"

      Sure, but mutations happen all the time naturally anyway. DNA does not copy perfectly, and there is this thing called sexual reproduction -- you might have heard about it -- that mixes up the complement of genes from the two parents of an offspring. Sometimes that yields some unique combinations. While human activities can increase mutation rates, mutations are in a population regardless. It's why we aren't all clones (and even clones would eventually accumulate mutations over generations).

      It will be interesting to figure out what mutation this is. Most likely, it is a mutation in genes that ordinarily would suppress the size of development of hind limbs (most modern whales do have residual hind limbs, but they are internal). Think of it a bit like someone accidentally removing the comments from some disabled code in a program, or changing a multiplication factor from x0.01 to x0.1 by mistake, so that the "limbs" are 10x bigger than they are supposed to be.

      There's alot of crusty old code and Rube-Goldberg-machine-like developmental processes in a typical genome.

    5. Re:Wait... by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Faith is the only real sin.

      Yes, so much worse than lying, thievery, fraud, rape, murder, or genocide. Thank God-- wait, I mean, thank faithlessness that all of those things are perfectly okay.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    6. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but you have completely misunderstood what evolution is about. There is no "evolutionary ladder", where some things are "more evolved" than others. No organism on the planet today is superior to any other - as long as it manages to survive, that's good enough, whether it's a human being that can travel to the moon or a microscopic bacterium that can kill said human being. Evolution is about how species change over time. Initially, all species were marine. Then a few adapted to the point where they could live on land. Then some of those land-dwellers went back to the sea. The reason we're quite sure this happened with dolphins and whales is because they're mammals and they must go up to the surface to breathe, whereas fish can "breathe" underwater. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ is a good place to learn what the theory of evolution actually says if you're interested.

  42. Re:An article pertaining to evolution, on Fox News by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the Designer is still at work, drafting and experimenting with critters. Question is only if it is an intelligent act or pure randomness and selection of the best draft.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  43. Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, etc by spineboy · · Score: 1

    The Catholic Church has made it official that the age of the universe (15 billion years or so(,the fossil record are all valid. Evolution is understood to be valid.
    Go check wikipedia if ya doubt me.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  44. Two legs, two heads... by oofoe · · Score: 1

    Eh, I wouldn't read too much into this without more data...

    I used to live near a large chemical plant in TN. People often found mutant frogs in the river nearby -- two heads, an extra limb, etc. I'm pretty sure that wasn't evolution in action -- unless of course the poor thing just couldn't decide which way to go to get *out* of there.

    --
    Curse you plastic mold maker!
  45. Not needed for proof. by Morky · · Score: 1

    Since we have a pretty clear fossil evidence that mammals evolved on land and that the earliest mammals had legs, we can conclude the ancestors of dolphins and whales had legs. Physical evidence has been shown in rear vestigal legs, found in various stages of development (or whatever the antonymn of development is) in the fossil record of ancient whales.

    1. Re:Not needed for proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What science books are you reading? So far there isn't any fossil record of evolution. We have fossils, yes. None of which supports evolution.

    2. Re:Not needed for proof. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      What science books are you reading? So far there isn't any fossil record of evolution. We have fossils, yes. None of which supports evolution.

      What science books are you reading? So far there isn't any astronomical evidence of a sun centered solar system. We have astronomical observations, yes. None of which supports a sun centered solar system.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Not needed for proof. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      List of transitional fossils
      Intermediate forms

      Also:

      Talk Origins FAQ
      and specifically:

      Transitional vertebrates FAQ
      More on intermediates

      If you can explain what exactly is meant by "supports evolution", I'd gladly provide you with many more links. Or better yet, learn to use Google.

      Read it and weep, creationist.

  46. Try talking to a Catholic - Evolution is supported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Catholics support evolution, old Earth, etc.
    Don't let a few crazy loud mouthed Creationalists give you the impression that this is everyones viewpoint.

  47. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by tjark · · Score: 1

    ... because the Catholic church is oh so accurate on everything else it says.

    An endorsement by the catholic church of anything I agree with encourages me to reconsider my position.

  48. Confusing your asians by Rosyna · · Score: 1

    ... the Japanese killed the rare ocean dwelling animal in order to sell four flipper dolphin medicine and magical flipper medallions to the rich.

    I do believe you're confusing the chinese with the japanese.

    The Japanese made a mechanical exoskeleton for the dolphin and equipped it with a giant gun. That'll teach Godzilla not to mess with France.

    1. Re:Confusing your asians by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Nope, I'm pretty sure it's the Japanese that like to kill aquatic animals. Especially in the southern hemisphere. And especially if they're endangered.

    2. Re:Confusing your asians by jack_csk · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, the Chinese are not as interest in dolphin huntings as Japanese

      If you have been following the news, you would know that Japanese are joining hands with other countries like Norway to lift up the whale and dolphin-killing prohibition.

      Here are a few references for you:
      Activists video bloody dolphin kill
      Japanese Whaling: the truth behind the Fisheries Agency of Japan's public relations campaign.
      Save Taiji Dolphins
      Futo Harbor Dolphin Slaughter

    3. Re:Confusing your asians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Japanese do have a distasteful (in my opinion) tendency to hunt endangered aquatic animals. They tend to do so they can eat them, though, not so they can sell them as magical charms.

      Same act, less mysticism.

  49. er... by nizcolas · · Score: 1

    The line in the summary, "Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth.", isn't present in the article.

    Also from the article:

    [...Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land. ...]

    How exactly could this be evidence of back legs? The article is pretty light on details. It seems more likely that an extra set of fins would be moving dolphin evolution forward. e.g., having a extra set of fins may allow the dolphin to swim faster, navigate better, etc. The article doesn't mention if the dolphin can use (move) the fins.

    --
    If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
    1. Re:er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking that question further, why don't birds have 4 wings instead of 2? It's not always an advantage. Another example would be dragonflies versus the more advanced fruit flies.

    2. Re:er... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It seems more likely that an extra set of fins would be moving dolphin evolution forward.

            Becoming a better fit for its role is what powers evolution and moves it "forward". Mutations don't have to be "forward" however. Most disease is the result of mutations. This is an example of a mutation, not of evolution - therefore this anomaly doesn't move anything "forward".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:er... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      why don't birds have 4 wings instead of 2? It's not always an advantage.

            That's for sure. I'm certain KFC would be breeding 4 winged, 8 drumsticked chickens by now. Where's the advatange THERE? :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:er... by a10t2 · · Score: 1

      It turns out that the way the genome works is pretty analagous to software - there are calls made to "subroutines" at the appropriate places and times during development. So, in this case, the "limb" call was activated four times rather than two, due to some mutation. The reason that's significant is that it implies that dolphins' ancestors had four limbs at some point; at the time they would have been legs, but the subroutine has been rewritten over time to build fins instead. As others have pointed out, there's already substantial fossil and genetic evidence for the relationship between marine and land mammals, but you can never have too much.

      One final nitpick: there's no such thing as evolution moving "forward" or "backward". Pejorative terms like that imply a "better" or "more-evolved" state. Evolution occurs whenever there's a selection bias in favor of a particular mutation, and any number of evolutionary changes have disappeared and reappeared over time.

    5. Re:er... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The line in the summary, "Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth.", isn't present in the article.

      You're right, it's not in the article.

      I may very well be missreading into your comment, but if you are suggesting that it is untrue, then you're wrong. Googling: dolphin fetuses hind
      confirms the dolphin fetus comment with the very first hit.

      How exactly could this be evidence of back legs?

      I haven't seen an X-ray of this dolphin, but based on the photo they clearly attached to the pelvis. We have transitional fossils showing the sequence of how the front fins are modified arms, and the rear are modified legs. The typical bone structure of the mammalian hand is still present within the skeleton of the regular (front) dolphin fin, and many normal dolphins and whales have identifiable femur bones buried inside their bodies. The front and rear fins really are arms and legs. I have no doubt that an X-ray of this dolphin will show the rear fin bone structure is distinctly different than the front fin bone structure... that the rear fin won't have the mammalian hand bone structure inside but instead will carry the specific hallmarks of leg bone structure.

      All whales and dolphins carry leg genes in their DNA, but the genes have been actively switched off. It only takes a relatively simple mutation to undo the "switch off" mechanism and thereby turn the genes back on. That is much simpler than trying to independantly replicate the front fins into a "new" second set.

      It seems more likely that an extra set of fins would be moving dolphin evolution forward. e.g., having a extra set of fins may allow the dolphin to swim faster, navigate better, etc

      Possible, but very unlikely. The very reason the rear limb genes got switched off is because the rear limbs were detrimental.

      Fins are not used for thrust, so you can scratch the speed suggestion. The powerful tail provides thrust. Additional limbs merely add drag. This dolphin would have had to work harder and would get more tired to keep up with the other dolphins.

      The front fins provide the manuverability, and I think it improbable that the rear limbs would add much here. They were formerly present and were already tried and discarded. The re-activated second set of limbs will only stick around as an evolutionary advancement if they somehow provide some different third kind of functionality (other than thrust or steering).

      Reactivating a dormant gene is a fairly simple mutation and it has doubtless happened to dolphins many times in the last million years and died out each time. So this is an intersting mutant, but almost certainly a dead end (as are almost all mutations).

      The article doesn't mention if the dolphin can use (move) the fins.

      I have no idea how much of the musculature was reactivated along with it, but I can tell you that the dolphin pelvis is a "free floating bone", it no longer attaches to the spine or to any other bone. Picture here. So even if the muscules are there, the strength and control of the fins would be distinctly limited.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  50. Let me get this straight by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

    This is *one* 4-finned dolphin? Why isn't this just one of those random genetic mutations everyone is always talking about? Why does it have to be the start/end of an evolutionary path? The interesting question is, did this dolphin pro-create, and if so, did its offspring have 4 fins?

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Let me get this straight by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point of evolution. One animal has a mutation, and if that mutation is beneficial (or, rather, not detrimental), it'll be likely to pro-create. It's not as if every single dolphin born after a certain date has the new feature - it's not downloaded in the latest DolphinUpdate(tm) release :)

    2. Re:Let me get this straight by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      "Why isn't this just one of those random genetic mutations everyone is always talking about? Why does it have to be the start/end of an evolutionary path?"

      Let enlighten you about how evolution works:

      Suppose this is just a random DNA mutation. Now, suppose this extra pair of fins caused by this random mutation gives this single dolphin a competitive advantage against his single-pair mates, sya, more speed to chase food, get away from danger or reproducing. If he has an advantage, it's likely he'll get on with passing his mutated DNA to his descendants, which likely will also bear the same advantage and so on.

      Evolution isn't really a smooth path: it's much more like a stair-step thing. Some random mutation get you an extra pair of fins, no more no less. No intermediary steps in between. This is why it's so hard to get "proof" of evolution of human beings from apes or birds from dinosaurs: there's no inbetween really.

      Unfortunately, though, for this dolphin fellow, his extra fins will prove to be an evolutionary dead-end, since the fame will likely get him in rich chinese or japanes fin soups... no advantage at all thanks to stupid shit-throwing apes.

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    3. Re:Let me get this straight by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1
      Umm, I understand how evolution works. There are myriads of random mutations. Some result in pro-creation advantages (due to providing survival advantages). That is all well established. My *point* was, many of these random mutations do not result in any advantage. Did you see the last question I asked in my post?
      The interesting question is, did this dolphin pro-create, and if so, did its offspring have 4 fins?
      Not *every* mutation is a step along an evolutionary path. Clearly if we find more of these 4-fin dolphins we have established a trait that is surviving and potentially spreading (or, conversely fading out). Either way, it would probably be valid to discuss such a trait in terms of evolution. But to ascribe that to a *single* instance of a mutation is, perhaps, being a bit over anxious, don't you think?
      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  51. Close shot of the four legged dolphin by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Close shot of the four legged dolphin can be seen here.

    1. Re:Close shot of the four legged dolphin by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      There's also a documentary about these dolphins.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  52. Oceans with no fish by 2050, dolphins back on land by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    Some scientists say there may be no fish left in the oceans by 2050, and we all know that dolphins descend from a land species. We also know that dolphins are smart. I wouldn't be surprised if dolphins decided to come back on land to avoid an ocean without food (fish)!

  53. What's with the picture? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or did Fox News sensor the leg by blurring it out?????

    That isn't the water..

    1. Re:What's with the picture? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >Is it just me or did Fox News sensor the leg by blurring it out?????
      That's nothing. Bush actually has 2 heads and 4 arms but look at how he appears on Fox News - *that's* lying on a grand scale. I say the people should know the truth!

      (before the usual zero humour people start refuting the above, I know Bush really only has one head and 2 arms....)

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  54. Playing Devil's Advocate by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    OK, first of all, they didn't find legs. They found fins. The dolphin has two extra seemingly useless fins toward it's rear, in the same approximate location it would have legs when it walked on land.

    So, freak mutation causing bringing up of ancient traits encoded in dolphin DNA? Or maybe just freak mutation in general?

    I mean, we've all seen the pictures of people born without legs and arms. Are you trying to tell me this is a bringing up of DNA from when we were "ball mammals", who rolled around the earth?!?!

    Sometimes a mutation (or defect, whatever) is just a mutation.

    And yes, I do believe 100% in evolution (to me it's not something to believe in,it's fact, you can observe it happen in our lifetime in insects). But I don't think finding one example of a mutation can prove or disprove anything about dolphin ancestory.

    1. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Found in God's source tree:

      #!/usr/bin/perl

      # Whale, v.1.0
      # An attempt to make a permanently sea-going mammal (see also: "manatee.pl")
      # by GOD, December 31st, 35,332,120 B.C.

      # TODO for v.2: do this properly with object-oriented inheritance.

      ...

      sub init_development {
              my ($body) = @_;

              # Obviously this really should be done via object inheritance!
              # Sheesh, this is nothing but a huge fricking kludge.
              # I need to get off my lazy butt and create evolution instead of more work for myself.

      $body = &init_mammal(&init_tetrapod(&init_vertebrate(&init _chordate(&init_eukaryote()))))

              # $body now contains an instance of a standard mammal.
              # modify the data structure, then grow.

              &scale($body->hair, 0.01); # hair is superfluous in a sea creature
              $body->tail = "flukes"; # this will be really weird
              $body->forelimbs = "fin"; # ditto

              # I could delete these hindlimbs completely, but there are a whole
              # bunch of dependencies in the "mammal" and "tetrapod" code, and
              # it would probably break things if I set them to null.
              # So, instead, I'll just make them really small and internal.
              # That'll keep the developmental dependencies happy without the
              # hindlimbs getting in the way. What a kludge, but nobody's ever going
              # to see this code!
              $body->hindlimbs = "fin";
              &scale($body->hindlegs, 0.01);

              # should make breathing easier. If I hadn't broken the darn "gill"
              # code when doing "tetrapod", this wouldn't be necessary.
              # Kludge, kludge, KLUDGE!
              $body->nostrils = "top";
              $body->digestion_system = "carnivore"; # plenty of fish in the sea

              # mammals have 2 genders, 1 = female, 0 = male
              # randomly set for this instance

      ...

    2. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Well, a single mutation that developed a complete set of new fins would be highly unlikely, but a single mutation that re-enabled the leg building subroutine wouldn't be too hard...

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  55. Is that a deliberately blurred spot? by jamesh · · Score: 1

    On the right between the bottom fin and the diver there is a grey spot that looks like it has been deliberately blurred. Are they hiding the fricken laser they just removed from its head? Maybe they've figured out that a dolphin + extra fins + laser is a more formidable weapon than a shark + laser?

    Or maybe it's just that i'm tired and it's a really low res picture.

  56. A dophin needs extra limbs by Freedom451 · · Score: 1

    like a fish needs a bicycle.

    This has been irrefutably proven, back to basic biology with you!

    By the way, dolphins already swim pretty good

    --
    When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
  57. Excellent by cheese-cube · · Score: 1

    Now all they need is lasers.

    1. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shark != Dolphin ergo Dolphin does not need freeking lasers beams on its head ;)

  58. Genius by BeeBeard · · Score: 1

    I enjoyed that pun, thanks :)

    1. Re:Genius by jemptymethod · · Score: 1

      I wish I could take credit, my wife heard this pun on one of those morning radio shows in Nashville just a couple of years ago. But I'm glad I could pass it along ;)

  59. answer by haxorcs · · Score: 1

    omg.. here comes the revoliution..

  60. Whale with complete legbones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case any creationist tries to pull "it is just a fin" consider a Humpback whale with vestial legs complete with leg bones. Link has photograph of the leg bones. Another link (PDF) - Mike Hopkins

  61. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is the world do fossils prove evolution? Where are the intermediate forms? What?! What do you mean there aren't any? Then stop saying the fossil record "proves" evolution because it doesn't. It proves there were dinosaurs. It doesn't prove evolution at all.

  62. You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashdot by unity100 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the first time i ever talk in an offensive manner and probably be the last, (i hope) and its because of this idiotism :

    Firstly, many dolphin species aren't even threatened, much less endangered, and so therefore don't need protection

    This sentence implies that if some species do not need protection, it is o.k. to drive them in HERDS to a shallow cove and STAB THEM TO DEATH WITH SPEARS.

    Secondly, apparently because you are stupid, or you are disfunctional to the teeth, you have chosen to disregard the iq factor of either squids, or dolphins.

    Which concludes to the fact that killing dolphins would be not much different from killing stupid people, newborn babies, and any tribe around the world that is not par with modern civilization's iq standard.

    'Massacres' being local does not change a single bit of a shit. Massacre, is massacre. I guess because of stupidity again you chose to put it in quotes. I would like to warn you that putting quotes around a word does not immediately disqualify the event that its describing to be non-equivalent of that word.

    If you are stupid as in the above analysis, that is acceptable and forgivable.

    Whereas if you are not, and you are sharing the 'nationality' quirk that is abundant in japanese and chinese cultures that causes you to do ANYTHING to be different from each other in your nations - eat anything you come accross, paint your hair in hues of pink and turqouise and all - as ALL of you seem to be similar to each other, and also have strongly and suffocatingly traditional societies that they cause you to do ANY SHIT to be different. and that is VERY bad if that is so, because this is unforgivable.

    Also your approach, if you are not stupid of course, explains the fact that with what kind of logic japanese was able to kill around 10 million chinese during 1930-1945 with biological weapons in forms of 'flus', and why the world is STILL suffering from new 'flu' types coming out of china due to the abhorrent amount of germs and viruses your genocide with those bi-weapons caused to breed there over time.

  63. Great name for an indie rock band by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Four Finned Dolphin

  64. The Land Sharks have been doing it for years by HighOrbit · · Score: 2, Funny

    [visitor] Knock Knock...
    [you] Who's there?
    [visitor] Pizza Delivery
    [you] I didn't order any pizza.
    [visitor] umm....Avon
    [you--while opening the door]. I didn't order any....AHHHAAGG

  65. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Gulthek · · Score: 0, Troll

    What about the billions of deaths you cause everyday when you wash your hands? Does it not matter because they might have harmed you? Or because they are too small to be cute and identifiable as "life"?

  66. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's take 1 and 2. You want an "intermediate form"? OK, 1.5. What's that? You want two "intermediate forms" now?

  67. Reminds me of an old Joke by ettlz · · Score: 1

    Given we have one example of a mutant dolphin:

    An experimentalist, theorist and a mathematician are riding the TGV, bound for CERN. The train passes a field with a black sheep in it. "All sheep are black", declares the experimentalist. "No," states the theorist, "all we can say is there's at least one black sheep." "You're both wrong," declares the mathematician. "There exists at least one sheep, with at least one side black."
  68. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

    It might be that bacteria don't scream and aren't particularly intelligent. Also that we don't kill bacteria for the fun of killing them with chemicals, more because they might harm us.

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
  69. Re:Altering expression of an existing gene isn't n by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    "...evidence that an ancestral dolphin had four fins does not necessarily mean that a dolphin ancestor lived on land..."
    If the evidence stopped there, agreed. But, the evidence proceeds backwards in time to animals which lived on land and in water, and further to land-based ones.

    "The fact that a mutation present in one member of the dolphin population prevents the hind fins disappearing should hardly be newsworthy."
    If you understood mutation, it would be newsworthy.

  70. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Do i REALLY need to elaborate WHY that aint so ?

  71. Dolphins use to live on land! by BlindFate · · Score: 1

    Until people pushed them back into the ocean! So this can't be a step of evolution forward, it has to be something from the past!

  72. Timing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be suspicious of the timing; this dolphin just happens to show up less than a week before the election? Those Democrats will stop at nothing to get in office. Fear your God this Tuesday and vote Republican.

    1. Re:Timing? by tao · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Democrat propaganda from Fox News? You gotta be kidding me... Fox News jumps whenever the Republicans say jump... Remember when Florida suddenly "turned Bush"?

  73. Perry Bible Fellowship? by malvidin · · Score: 1

    Well, it looks like Barry is finally getting his way.
    http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF195-The_Pacific_C ouncil.jpg#185

  74. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's ludicrously quixotic.

    To imply that someone is a hypocrite because they are against mindlessly killing intelligent beings capable of feeling pain and suffering but would also wash their hands of harmful bacteria based on the platform that 'all life is sacred' is ridiculous.

    While I agree that too much stock is put in 'cute' animals by anti-cruelty organisations, the absolutist 'kill all or nothing' stance you propose is illogical, unhelpful and only serves to distract from the real acts of barbarism, such as the one discussed here.

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  75. Is this evolution? by KNicolson · · Score: 1

    Or was Mummy dolphin swimming just a bit too close to a nuclear power plant's waste pipe?

  76. Why is this on Fox News? by rgoldste · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it ironic that *Fox* is running this story and claiming that this dolphin supports evolution?

    1. Re:Why is this on Fox News? by denttford · · Score: 1

      No, because contrary to /. groupthink, the Fox *News* reporting is not bad at all.

      The opinion pieces and shows are usually bad for your brain though.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
  77. A new version! by djHel · · Score: 1

    With a release cycle this long, it's a wonder god maintains any market-share whatsoever...

  78. random mutation or lingering trait by BRUTICUS · · Score: 1

    I guess this could be similar to the little boys from cuba who were born with hair all over their bodies. Randomly born with a freak trait of our ancient neanderthal ancestors.

  79. Re:Oceans with no fish by 2050, dolphins back on l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is close to what is happening. Dolphins being the 1st of God's creatures being humans being 2nd. God's Creatures are those that know of God. So the god fearing Dolphins are being reintelligently designed by the creature IE God into land animals because of a soon to be lack of food. This and the continuing design changes being made by God to save dolphins are proof beyond; any scientist's ability to disprove. The Dolphins will be redesigned and science will be unable to find any evidence of environmental pressure causing them to evolve. Man and Dolphin will see the 2nd coming of our lord Jesus. Repent NOW, Sinners and Disbelievers. The truth is upon you.

  80. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by mrand · · Score: 2, Informative
    How is the world do fossils prove evolution? Where are the intermediate forms? What?! What do you mean there aren't any?

    Of course there are - you just choose to put your head in the sand to ignore them. In fact, they are being discovered all the time... here's one just last week:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Sci ence&article=UPI-1-20061102-12453000-bc-us-missing link.xml

    Read on, if you dare to actually learn something:
    http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Intermed iate_Forms/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_ fossils/

    Then stop saying the fossil record "proves" evolution because it doesn't. It proves there were dinosaurs. It doesn't prove evolution at all.

    Actually, it doesn't even prove there were dinosaurs. All we know is that we find bones in the ground. The evidence indicates that there were dinosaurs. "Proof" in science is a misnomer.
    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/ biology/bio039.htm/

    It's really about evidence:
    http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_devore_the ory_050303.html/

    Note that I carefully avoided talk.origin's to keep you from claiming that that everyone refers you to the same source. The vast majority of the scientific community is in agreement about the vast majority of the conclusions drawn from the vast evidence that has been discovered thus far: evolution is a fact.
    --
    -- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
  81. Dolphins want to comment on Slashdot by thepacketmaster · · Score: 1

    The dolphins have finally had enough and want their say on Slashdot!. So they're growing legs so they can walk into the cybercafes.

    --

    --

    Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

  82. Godzilla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't believe nobody made the connection before me... It's really Godzilla's third cousin.

  83. Let me help by camperdave · · Score: 1

    In a cavern, in a canyon, Excavating for a mine, Dwelt a miner, forty-niner, And his daughter Clementine. Refrain: Oh my darling, oh my darling, Oh my darling Clementine You are lost and gone forever, Dreadful sorry, Clementine. Light she was, and like a fairy, And her shoes were number nine, Herring boxes without topses, Sandals were for Clementine. Drove she ducklings to the water Ev'ry morning just at nine, Hit her foot against a splinter, Fell into the foaming brine. Ruby lips above the water, Blowing bubbles soft and fine, But alas, I was no swimmer, Neither was my Clementine. In a churchyard near the canyon, Where the myrtle doth entwine, There grow rosies and some posies, Fertilized by Clementine. How I missed her, how I missed her, How I missed my Clementine, Til I kissed her little sister, And forgot my Clementine.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  84. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

    Couple of your links were broken:

    List of transitional fossils
    Intermediate forms

  85. Dang! by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Sorry about the formatting. Clicked Submit instead of preview.
    Let me try again...

    In a cavern, in a canyon,
    Excavating for a mine,
    Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,
    And his daughter Clementine.

    Refrain:
    Oh my darling, oh my darling,
    Oh my darling Clementine
    You are lost and gone forever,
    Dreadful sorry, Clementine.

    Light she was, and like a fairy,
    And her shoes were number nine,
    Herring boxes without topses,
    Sandals were for Clementine.

    Drove she ducklings to the water
    Ev'ry morning just at nine,
    Hit her foot against a splinter,
    Fell into the foaming brine.

    Ruby lips above the water,
    Blowing bubbles soft and fine,
    But alas, I was no swimmer,
    Neither was my Clementine.

    In a churchyard near the canyon,
    Where the myrtle doth entwine,
    There grow rosies and some posies,
    Fertilized by Clementine.

    How I missed her, how I missed her,
    How I missed my Clementine,
    Til I kissed her little sister,
    And forgot my Clementine.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  86. Re:Oceans with no fish by 2050, dolphins back on l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Long and thanks for all the fish *flies away*

  87. Exposing flaws by benhocking · · Score: 1
    But How can you "explain away" against evidence?

    By exposing supposed flaws in the evidence. Every good Creationist "knows", for example, that Mount St. Helens disproves all of thost geologic studies that calculate the age of the Earth. (Google on Creation Science St Helens for more information.)

    Granted, as perhaps you can tell, I'm not the best person to explain this, but I suspect you get the idea...

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  88. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were so smart they'd figure out how NOT to get massacred, isn't that Darwinism right there?

  89. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by mrand · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Trailing forward slash screwed those up, as well as this one:

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/ biology/bio039.htm

    Thanks.

          Marc

    --
    -- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
  90. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

    and why the world is STILL suffering from new 'flu' types coming out of china due to the abhorrent amount of germs and viruses your genocide with those bi-weapons caused to breed there over time.

          As a physician I'd just like to say one thing:

          Huh?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  91. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by ndogg · · Score: 1

    The first? Try reading at -1. Let's not even mention that your post is far more incoherent.

    As far as herding animals to their death--that's happened throughout our history. It's a common technique used by hunter-gatherer societies that would herd animals over cliffs to their death.

    And that's far more humane than the way industrial farms treat their animals today--and yet you're complaining about this?

    Also, I did specify a preference for human survival in my post. Dolphins are often valued due to their intelligence compared to other animals, but humans are never measured on such a scale. Call it specism if you want, but it's a part of what's made us successful.

    And I won't address your last two paragraphs because it's obvious you don't know much about Japanese history, and what lead Japan into its hyper-aggression during that period. I don't have any particular penchant for Japanese culture, but your words are just plain racist.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  92. Gene Suppression Gone Wrong by 123abc · · Score: 0

    This looks like a case of a developmental problem.
    What normally gets suppressed during embryonic development (hind fins), didn't happen in this case.

    Nothing new created here. Notice that it didn't have 6 fins.

  93. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan has announced that the demands of research for more limbed cetaceans will require the immediate "scientific" hunting of 5,000 delicious whales.

  94. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    Have you heard of the Jain religion? Some people sweep the street in front of them so that they don't accidentally stand on an insect.

  95. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

    Yeah I know of Jainism, and to be honest I admire their principle regarding the equality of life. If you want to live your life by the rules that you don't harm or kill a single thing, then more power to you. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the notion that can't criticise the frenzied spearing of dolphins because you wash your hands or swat flies that buzz around your face.

    But even Jain nuns' immune systems destroy bacteria and viruses on a regular basis ;)

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  96. Downside of Japanese discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, no further research will be possible because the Japanese just couldn't resist eating the dolphin.

  97. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Unknown_monkey · · Score: 1

    The First? Really? I mean, is this like the day you discovered Slashdot?
    Or you just read at like +5?

  98. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    'huh' definitely.

    Japanese have dropped down 'bombs' containing engineered 'flu' viruses (among other diseases) in china starting from 1932 or so until 1945. an estimated 10 million died if you count in the massacres done by the army.

    and today, china is the breeding ground of the most formidable flus.

    Coincidence ?

  99. Let us pray by MECC · · Score: 1

    For this non-believing devil fish, so obviously bound for hell.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  100. Dolphins also have opposable thumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  101. Vestigial limbs and body building plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you get all the weird animal shapes and how can small mutations lead to large scale body shape changes? A significant step in evolution was the development of body building genes (for excellent book see Endless Forms Most Beautiful). What happens is you arrange the genes that build a body part in a cascade and you can edit when/where and the number of times that body part appears. For example, think of an insect body, you have a segment and on each segment you have legs. Developing embryoes have concentration gradients running all along the body (and it started with the first concentration gradient inside the giant egg, this way you can specify heads and tails side of the organism etc). In the organism you have a genetic setup that says if you are a cell at position A, turn into a leg segment only if the concentration of chemical X (in a concentration gradient along the developing body) is at level Y. There will be some little DNA binding protein that senses the concentation and only if it is at a certain level it will turn on the cascade of genes that say 'make a leg segment here'. To get a millipede with all its gross extra legs you just change the concentration dial of that protein, cause it to make a leg at a lower concentration and then you will get an addition of extra leg segments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox for a description of the body building gene Hox.

    The cascade of genes to make a structure such as a leg or eye is well established. There are lots of pictures of mutant flies that have been created in the lab where they turn on an eye or leg making gene in the wrong place and get a fully developed organ (i.e. check out this eye on a fruit fly leg http://www1.brcc.edu/phi102cr/week10b3.html). To get a well formed organ you just need to turn on the right gene at the right time and it will set off a cascade to build the body part. You can also turn off the cascade and stop development of the limb or organ.

    So we have concentration gradients all over the developing embryo to provide a sort of grid system. There are master level genes that will switch the development of something like a fully formed leg. The master switch proteins read their location in the embryo integrating information from the multiple concentration gradients and if they are at the right place at the right time they will trigger the cascade to make the body part. To change animal forms you don't need to make everything from scratch, you just change the concentration sensitivity of the master switch proteins stretch parts of the body (think about the bones of the human hand versus the chicken wing) or make more duplicates of the same thing (i.e. adding insect body segments).

    So how does this tie to the dolphin? The vestigial limbs in the developing embryo is probably when the dolphin ancester really did have four limbs, then what happened is genes in the cascade were mutated to stop the development of the limb (similar to gills in human embryos). In this dolphin the normal program of development was interupted. There might have been a mutation in one of the cascade proteins which previously had turned off hind limb development. Or there was some kind of chemical molecule the dolphin was exposed to during the development which mimicked something in the chemical gradient and confused the hind limb cells to develop into a fully formed limb.

  102. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    As far as herding animals to their death--that's happened throughout our history. It's a common technique used by hunter-gatherer societies that would herd animals over cliffs to their death.

    So were the aristocracy, slavery, supression of the overpowered, conquest and plunder, as well as human sacrifices, killing of female-born infants and so on.

    Some thing having had happened during the course of history does not make it right or justifiable. It only provides we learn from our mistakes. Japanese, apparently, do not want to learn.

    And that's far more humane than the way industrial farms treat their animals today--and yet you're complaining about this?

    Im not complaining about the civil war in sri lanka either. Why ? because it is NOT the subject. if someone brought up the case of the barbaric dairy industry, i would complain comparably.

    Also, I did specify a preference for human survival in my post. Dolphins are often valued due to their intelligence compared to other animals, but humans are never measured on such a scale. Call it specism if you want, but it's a part of what's made us successful.

    What made us successful was the development of tools, and wanton killing of other species for benefit. dolphins and some other species on the other hand, do not treat humans equally.

    is this a good thing ? 'darwinist' ? if so, then we should apply 'survival of the fittest' to its fullest extent then - kill the infirm kids, the sick, the lower strata of the society, the unsuccessful, 'losers', those who can be overpowered, and so on. why not take a successful and proven practice further ? after all, its to the best of our species to get it rid of the infirm and weak.

    And I won't address your last two paragraphs because it's obvious you don't know much about Japanese history, and what lead Japan into its hyper-aggression during that period. I don't have any particular penchant for Japanese culture, but your words are just plain racist.

    On the contrary, history is my hobby. and i have spent much time on japan alone through its ages to the end of ww2. i very well know what led japan to the hyper aggression, and it was none other than your relegating the running of the country to samurai warrior class in baroque era and the exagerration and divination of the position of 'emperor'. you have quite succeeded in creating a society very similar to prussian military understanding, and this have led to what you did during 30-45. very sad that your people are still unaware of this, and more sad is that apparently the brutal thoughts still linger on deep down inside your people so that you are able to speak about a massacre as something 'natural'.

    very 'darwinist' indeed.

  103. Re:Altering expression of an existing gene isn't n by toxcspdrmn · · Score: 1

    Evolution of modern whales from land-dwelling ancestors has been pretty well documented, with fossils showing the loss of the hind limbs (I seem to recall that Sperm Whales still retain a small pelvic girdle) as well as the migration of the nostrils from the tip of the snout to the blowhole on top of the head.

    If you are near one of the partner museums you might visit the Explore Evolution exhibition (Disclosure: My Significant Other is Education Director at one of the museums).

    --
    "E pur si muove!" - attributed to Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
  104. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    maybe i should have said 'first on this scale'.

  105. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Woldry · · Score: 1

    But even Jain nuns' immune systems destroy bacteria and viruses on a regular basis ;)

    Got a study to back up that claim? Maybe they're divinely protected against infection. :-)

    But aren't viruses irrelevant to the discussion, since by most definitions they don't qualify as "life"?

    --
    How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
  106. This is evidence in support of ID by kotku · · Score: 1

    This is evidence for G.D and intelligent design. The sudden emergence of the new fin features, previously unobserved, can only be attributed to an intelligent interlocuter. As a threatened species it is obvious that the dolphins have handed an extra feature as a device to counter the current human threats against them. Alas the capture of the enhanced doplhin and it likely demise as pricey Terriaki Tokyo Flipper Burger also lends weight to the argument that the human species has finally outwitted G.d and that we are well on the way to deep sixing the michief making little bugger for good.

    --
    The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
  107. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    today, china is the breeding ground of the most formidable flus. Coincidence ?

          Nope. You have the worlds largest population, most of them living in what by western standards would be considered "squalor". THAT is the cause of your epidemics. Not some superbugs somehow created by Japanese magicians 50 years before we even understood how viruses worked. HIV is what taught us what a virus is - in depth. We're talking 1980's here, quite a few years after most of your Japanese "viral engineers" were dead. Pre 1980 we were limited to - oh yeah, there's these things called viruses, and we can vaccinate against some of them, we can grow them, and these are the diseases they cause, and this is how we think they're classified, and this is how we think they work.

          Save your conspiracy theories from Reader's Digest.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  108. Re:An article pertaining to evolution, on Fox News by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    1. It's an AP story. Fox is just carrying it.

    2a. Dolphins are intelligently designed from proto-hippos. Everybody knows this. There is no reason to repeat it in the story.

    2b. James Hirsen (Fox's go-to guy for Idiotic Design) is busy pushing his "Hollywood Nation" book.

    2c. Rupert Murdoch, having observed Sen. Hilary Clinton in her natural habitat of New York City, has concluded that evolution is an incontestable fact, because Hilary is also descended from proto-hippos.

  109. Dinner. by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    How does vestigial-legged dolphin taste?

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  110. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by icepick72 · · Score: 1
    paint your hair in hues of pink and turqouise and all

    Dude, that's the 80's. I think it's been coming back into style in North American. Explain what you mean by the poor Asian people down for coloring their hair. I thought your post was gaining momentum until I hit that point. Crash!

  111. Why must everything have legs? by icepick72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs

    Or the extra set of fins could simply mean dolphins had an extra set of fins! What idiot has to turn everything into legs? Next they'll find a rock with protrusions and there will be the proof that rocks once walked the earth.

    1. Re:Why must everything have legs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm reminded of this article published not too long ago: http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2006/august/m anatee.html

    2. Re:Why must everything have legs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What idiot has to turn everything into legs?

      An idiot who wants proof that creationists are making stuff up?
  112. Speling by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    And if I left an "l" out of Senator Clinton's name, it's because I care.

    1. Re:Speling by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      You also left an "L" out of "spelling.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    2. Re:Speling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget your coffee, or are you just autistic?

  113. Call Me "Snorky"... by mad.frog · · Score: 1

    Or maybe it's a mutant dolphin that is developing extra new sets of fins...

    so they can RETURN TO LAND...

  114. Okay... by EqualOrLesserValue · · Score: 0

    ...then what does a six fingered man imply?

    --
    The trouble with Karma is: it always gets worse.
  115. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    To imply that someone is a hypocrite because they are against mindlessly killing intelligent beings...
    Yeah, intelligent beings on rye bread with some mayonnaise.
  116. Seals vs. other marine mammls by tepples · · Score: 1
    Isn't the flipper supposed to be a merged pair of legs embyologically?

    That's true of pinnipeds (earless seals, fur seals, sea lions, and walruses). In cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and sirenians (dugongs and manatees), on the other hand, the hind flipper is a tail.

  117. Come on 'Scientists' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on 'scientists', use the scientific method... Why does this have to be called an old trait reasserting itself? Could this not be a new trait emerging? Think harder and be more creative...

  118. Video? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a video of this old classic skit? YouTube pulled it and I can't find it any more. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  119. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Jack9 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's important to note that holding something sacred does not mean you do not kill and eat it. Native Americans held the buffalo sacred AND thought they were tasty.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  120. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, I respect this notion at the end of my second paragraph here, but you still get my point if you substitute 'all life is sacred' with 'you shouldn't kill anything' in the original post.

    It goes without saying that hunting an animal for food and treating it was reverence and respect is far removed from butchering loads of dolphins just for the hell of it.

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  121. "extra set of humans" by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The caption under the picture says: "Divers hold a bottlenose dolphin which has an extra set of human"

    Damned humans latch on to swimming dolphins like some pink lamprey.

  122. call the press by binarybum · · Score: 1

    bah, I find pieces of dolphin legs in my tuna all the time.

    --
    ôó
  123. Re:An article pertaining to evolution, on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My thoughts exactly. I'm surprised they didn't say the liberal press is pushing evolution to the public, when God created that dolphin with four fins and it is just the first time humans have encountered a new species of dolphins.

  124. A better question.. by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    Why where the fishermen capturing dolphins in the first place?

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  125. How about a whale with legs? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Amid a bunch of other stuff, talkorigins has a nice photgraph of bones from the hindleg of a humpback whale, specifically a femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal. This dolphin's rear fins will be similarly composed, and not at all like fish fins in skeletal structure. It'll be pretty cool to see how it compares to other known cetacean rear legs from both modern examples and the fossil record once they X-ray the fins.

  126. Fish by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Don't bother, unless you want to look silly. Any dolphins with legs are simply the products of the overworked imagination of a scientist trying to find creative new ways to squander taxpayer money, rather than getting out into the private sector and becoming marketing executives like god intended. Evolution is impossible. God would never make a half-formed creature like that. There are no missing links. For that matter, any vestigial organs you see on Humans are simply the product of your own diseased imagination, tainted as it is by that most evil of all Human inventions -- public education.

    1. Re:Fish by NinjaGirl · · Score: 1

      Totally agree! Did anyone notice that though the headlines all proclaim with assuringly that this dolphin HAS legs, the actual picture shows FINS and the article states that this dolphin has an extra set of fins, that MAY be leftover legs. However this deception is more than over-worked imaginations of scientists, it is man's attempt to escape from accountability to a creator that gave us all life and gave this life a meaning.

    2. Re:Fish by certain+death · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, yours is pretty silly. Slashdot is a mostly science based place, and it you do not believe in Science, you should probably go elsewhere, or prepare to be incensed at every turn. Believing that God did something, or did not do something requires proof, not blind faith, and I have seen no proof that god created ANYTHING.

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
  127. an eye for an eye by justo · · Score: 1

    leaves everyone blind

  128. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also your approach, if you are not stupid of course, explains the fact that with what kind of logic japanese was able to kill around 10 million chinese during 1930-1945 with biological weapons in forms of 'flus', and why the world is STILL suffering from new 'flu' types coming out of china due to the abhorrent amount of germs and viruses your genocide with those bi-weapons caused to breed there over time.

    Yes, the Japanese did have a biological warfare program during world war II. But, everything else you said is complete bullshit. Spread your disinformation somewhere else.

  129. Evolution by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Some points:

    • Evolution is about exactly what the name implies -- change. There is no preferred order, no preferred direction, no plan. Creatures can move on and off the land, into the sea or out, into the air or out, underground, into the Earth's crust, etc.

    • When a human is born with a vestigial tail, is that devolution? Of course not. There's no such thing as devolution. Evolution is just change -- it has no direction. You can't undo it, because the reverse of evolution is just more evolution.

    • Evolution is about populations, not individuals. Random mutations are an idividual characteristic until they spread enough to constitute a defining characteristic of a new species.

    • It doesn't matter where a mutation comes from -- if it spreads out and contributes to the creation of a new species, that's evolution. Many mutations come from the effects of ambient radioactivity. The ocean has lots of radioisotopes dissolved in it. The surface is exposed to solar and cosmic radiation. Lots of radioactive material gets spewed from black smokers, and they can release a number of other extremely horrible chemicals. And of course, every single time a cell divides, random chance alone suggests you'll get an error or two -- simply because of the error-rate of DNA replication is high enough that it can occur that often (which is still pretty amazing accuracy).

    • I don't think anyone other than random kooks and nerds looking to make a joke are suggesting that dolphins are evolving back into land animals. We KNOW that the genes for leg development are still there because embryonic dolphins have hindlimbs. They've simply been inactivated by evolution. All it takes is a small mutation to reactivate them, something we also know since snakes with legs pop up from time to time as well, humans with tails, and a variety of other vestigial features. Mammalian males still haven't completely lost their nipples -- that's how pernicious some of these characteristics are. It takes a huge number of mutations to eliminate them and backsteps can happen at any point. It's all just chance. Random mutations happen, and if they happen to be positive, they're a bit more likely to persist, and if not, they're slightly more likely to die with their owner. After all, this dolphin is dead now, right? Its hindlimbs may have contributed to that, slowing down its swim-speed or making it more clumsy. Or this too could be chance. Evolution is a higher-order effect of a random process. Weather is random too, the result of random movements of air and moisture in reponse to heat, but no one doubts that the west coast gets more rain than the midwest, or that hurricanes are rare in Alaska. So too does evolution result from random mutations and the vagaries of death, survival, and successfull reproduction.

  130. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    If you are so ignorant that you dont know the japanese bio warfare program started in 1932 or so to 'weed out' the 'unwanted' in new big japan (chinese lands), you go spread your bullshit around.

    even first graders know that, as it has been even run in mainstream documentaries, and japanese prime ministers are apologizing from china for every single bomb that was dropped in 1932-45 with each passing year.

  131. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    this was said in order to draw attention to the problem of youth in japan about that matter.

    many chinese and japanese look alike. this seems to be annoying them much, so we see them employing extravagant hairdos, garments to differentiate themselves. hair portruding from right side whereas looking down from the left, absurd trousers and jackets.

    on top of that, these societies are much traditionalist, also they require their people stick to hard working, traditions, be orderly and so on. This is creating another motive to break up from the society and be different.

    All kinds of extravangza follow such needs. Eating starfish shit, wearing titanium jackets, you name it. all for being different and unique.

  132. That's human nature, not east asian culture. by vistic · · Score: 1

    Well... I'd say it's not so much a thing about one culture versus another. I'd say it's about human nature.

    There's nothing special about those people versus our people that made them more able to enjoy such a thing. It's just as possible for something like that to catch on here if it ever became a big enough fad. And animal cruelty certainly exists in America. Some teenagers think it's fun to skin stray cats alive, and laugh about it with their friends. People kill deer for "sport". Animal testing labs will slap monkeys and dogs around and cut into their skulls without anesthesia while the animal screams, or let their eyeballs rot out of their heads from cosmetics they rubbed in.

    It's human nature that can be so sick and twisted. And it's not unique to east asian cultures. Examples exist all over the globe, even in countries that generally are the kindest to animals (like India maybe).

    1. Re:That's human nature, not east asian culture. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      I think there are cultural differences and I do think asian cultures are worse. The examples you give are either juvenile behavior or not examples of sadistic cruelty. I'm not arguing that it's not human nature because it certainly is, but I do believe there's a big difference between boys sticking a firecracker up a cat's butt and grown men cracking open a monkey skull over a business dinner.

      To take a particularly offensive example, sharks are being finned to extinction in many parts of the world and many species are under serious threat. The sole purpose of the activity is for chinese shark fin soup. The sharks most in demand are the largest, slowest reproducing sharks i.e. the ones MOST threatened by such an activity. In other words, customers are willing to pay the most for the fins that do the most damage to the population (and I believe that's intentional). I can't imagine what could be more offensive.

      For other offensive examples, the extinction of rhinos in the wild is a foregone conclusion and elephants may well be next. Even though poaching of of either species in not only illegal but poachers are allowed to be shot on site, the poaching still occurs because the black market is so lucrative. Who creates the market for rhino horn and ivory? The chinese and japanese, that's who. Not enough people are being shot on site!

      Of course I don't think we really disagree. There is offensive human behavior everywhere.

  133. Statistical significance?? by matw8 · · Score: 1

    One dolphin is found with some extra fins from a population of x-million dolphins, and somehow this is evidence of evolution??

    Talk about grasping at straws!! Sheesh!

  134. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Please.

    If there wasnt any effect of what japanese did, the breeding-ground heaven for new viruses would be amazon area - lush, warm, humid, zillions of kinds of living creatures to infect and get carried about by, perfect fauna.

    But instead we have horrendous amount of new flu coming out of china. only population ?

  135. Fins = Legs by SydShamino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think you need to read the aptly-timed November 2006 National Geographic article "A Fin Is a Limb Is a Wing: How Evolution Fashioned Its Masterworks". It describes how the same genes (Hox genes, if I skimmed the article correctly) shared among many otherwise very differennt creatures produce species-specific results. For example, the same genes create fins in a fish, wings in a chicken, and limbs in a human (insert graphic, page 115), or control the length (or lack of) neck in a mouse, goose, or python (insert graphic, page 121).

    At least for a limited time, the article is even on the web for you to read:
    http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/featur e4/

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    1. Re:Fins = Legs by eclectro · · Score: 1

      If "A Fin Is a Limb Is a Wing" was true, then that would mean that fish would taste like chicken and also hold up in the fridge better. From personal observation, I find this is not the case.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  136. Wants to come back by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Those are not vestigal legs. The dolphin realized its mistake and wants to come back to land. Obviously he has to grow legs first.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Wants to come back by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Actually, I heard they were growing legs just so they could swim to DC, get out of the water, and kick George W. Bush in the balls.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  137. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by daiichi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Secondly, apparently because you are stupid, or you are disfunctional to the teeth, you have chosen to disregard the iq factor of either squids, or dolphins.

    Hmmmm. I had to think about that. If the dolphins are so smart, then how come they allow themselves to get herded into a cove and slaughtered for the last hundred years? I mean, it would be different if we were talking about human prey who are limited by the same constraints that human hunters would be; but really dolphin can travel much faster than most boats, can dive deeper than most fishermen can, and have a far greater range not constrained by the contents of a fuel tank. So if they're so smart, then how come the Japanese have been able to slaughter them for so long?

    I mean, think about it... if all they did was communicate to each other and say "hey, stay out of the Sea of Japan in Q4 of any year" that article would be about how Japanese fishermen are scratching their heads and having to import dolphins from Mexico in order to slaughter them...

  138. You are the Nth STUPID person i saw on slashdot by Hoch · · Score: 1

    You must read at +5 because I just saw a +4 insightful/stupid conspiracy theory.

    --
    2*31*37*263
  139. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by ndogg · · Score: 1

    You keep assuming I'm Japanese, and that I'm apologizing for Japanese culture--that's a bad assumption. I'm neither.

    What I object to is cultural elitism. All cultures have skeletons in the closet. Some are just buried deeper, and further back in history.

    Are you allergic to people who express ideas contrary to your worldview?

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  140. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please return to China and promptly declare yourself as the Falun Gong idiot you are for reeducation. You continued activity in this state is detrimental to the entirety of human civilisation.

  141. Re:An article pertaining to evolution, on Fox News by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 1

    Nothing to say. It was simply a mutation.

    --
    3. Profit!
    2. ???
    1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
  142. It's not legs, it's fins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dolphin found with extra fins.

    Shocking stuff, no?

    The reporting researchers seem to have run with gross speculation and no evidence, sure that their version of the story will be popular. And it is. Mostly because the bulk of their readers are unaware that it's a fairy-tale, not a genuine report.

    That may not be as entertaining as you'd hoped, but it is insightful.

  143. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought WATER creatures evolved into LAND creatures. How did dolphins come from land?

  144. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

    Maybe all the dolphins that know to stay away get caught and die, so they aren't able to fully communicate the issue.

  145. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Jack9 · · Score: 1
    It goes without saying that hunting an animal for food and treating it was reverence and respect is far removed from butchering loads of dolphins just for the hell of it.

    I agree.
    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  146. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by Alsee · · Score: 1

    How is the world do fossils prove evolution?

    A perfectly reasonable question, if you are completely unfamiliar with the subject. Any minimally adaquate highschool biology class would have answered that for you. Saldly, US highschools (especially in certain states) often fail to provide a minimally adaquate biology education.

    Where are the intermediate forms?

    A perfectly reasonable question, if you are completely unfamiliar with the subject. Any minimally adaquate highschool biology class would have answered that for you. Saldly, US highschools (especially in certain states) often fail to provide a minimally adaquate biology education.

    What?! What do you mean there aren't any?

    Who the heck told you there weren't any?

    Whoever told you that, whatever side of the issue they were on, they didn't know what they were talking about.

    Did you bother checking Google to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

    Did you bother checking Wikipedia here or better yet here?

    Did you bother opening a biology textbook? Or a dead tree encyclopedia? Did you bother asking a scientist? Or a biology teacher? Hell, you can even try asking your doctor - any doctor has obviously been required to take extensive biology classes and is obviously intelligent and educated and can almost certainly address it.

    Or how about checking any one of countless FAQ's on evolution?

    No, obviously not.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  147. Cats too by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

    Cats are developing opposable thumbs. I've seen several cats with six toes on their front paws--some even have six on their back paws too. They can grasp things like little monkeys. I, for one, welcome our new six-toed cat overloads (who are soon to replace our five-toed cat overloads).

    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    1. Re:Cats too by Zack · · Score: 1

      I have two of such cats. One of them has them, but aren't really opposable. She really just uses them as a bigger paw.

      The other, however, can really use hers. She'll pick up her toys and put them in her mouth rather than bending down to pick it up. I've even seen her pick the peices of food out of the bowl that she wants and putting them in her mouth instead of just bending down and eating.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  148. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    This sentence implies that if some species do not need protection, it is o.k. to drive them in HERDS to a shallow cove and STAB THEM TO DEATH WITH SPEARS.

    This sentence implies tha if some species are perceived as being unintelligent, it is ok to keep them in captivity, effectively TORTURING THEM EVERY SINGLE INSTANT of their life from birth to death, just to eat their meat. IMHO, rationalized cattle transport, pig & chicken farming, not to mention the methods used in producing foie gras (goose liver), are way more barbaric than whale hunting.

    Disclaimer: I am born and raised in the whaling nation of Norway, but I quickly moved abroad, and I'm not happy about the hunting of whales. However, the whole international whaling debate almost always boils down to emotional arguments like this one. I hadn't heard about this Taiji whaling thing until now, but it seems quite like what they in the Faroe Islands refer to as Grindadrap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_the_Faroe _Islands), and I've read at least one report by a veterinarian claiming that Grindadrap is one of the most humane methods of killing animals he ever encountered; the whales lost concience almost immediately after getting their throats slit. Yes, the sea turning red with blood is a very gruesome image, and it would probably be just as well to stop hunting these magnificent sea mammals once and for all, but I can't take any Western meat eater seriously who argues against whaling on the basis that whale hunting is "inhumane". So just go ahead and mod me down, ye unbiased slahsdotters.
  149. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    amazon area - lush, warm, humid, zillions of kinds of living creatures.

          Except one species of slightly important creature - HUMAN BEINGS. There are actually only very FEW viruses that cross species boundaries. And the Amazon is certainly not one of the world's most densely populated areas. The Brazilian cost yes, the jungle, no.

          Sorry, here, have a "Go directly to Epidemiology class, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" card...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  150. An organism with mutations: News at 11:00. by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    First of all, they don't know why it has the extra fins. Could be a mutation. It could simply be problems during fetal development. Dolphins have hind fins as fetuses and then they're "removed" before birth, much like human fetuses have webbed fingers before birth, but the webbing is removed. It could simply be that the the removal of the fins didn't happen much as, some children are born with webbed fingers.

    Rare? Sure. Newsworthy? I'm not so sure. There are more animals than people and birth defects aren't that uncommon among people, so do the math. I suspect there are quite a few more dolphins out there with extra sets of fins. Our exposure has been to a very small percentage of the dolphin population, however.

  151. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Go check wikipedia if ya doubt me.

    I don't doubt you... and I think Wikipedia is fantastic... but that comment was just too funny!

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  152. Pure chance by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Except when it comes to natural selection the trigger event always seems to be assumed to have come about by the same pure chance as the mutation is assumed to be.

  153. For the love of God... by pizzach · · Score: 1

    Cut those flippers off! We must make the thing normal again. (You know, like cutting off the sixth finger on some people...)

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  154. Unmentioned note: by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    And it was delicious!

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  155. Hey, 'Simpsons' creators! by solitas · · Score: 1

    Oh PLEASE let the 'Simpsons' creators turn it into a companion for Blinky the three-eyed fish!

    http://www.backstreetmerch.com/images/products/too ns/misc/simp/bsi_simp188.gif

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  156. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTA: "I believe the fins may be.."
    Slashdot: "Evidence, it would seem,.."

  157. the other way around by moondo · · Score: 1

    i was under the impression that the dolphins were evolving from the sea to go to land, and not the other way around. they figured there's not enough fish in the sea.

  158. Re:Catholics believe in evolution, fossil record, by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
    How is the world do fossils prove evolution? Where are the intermediate forms? What?! What do you mean there aren't any? Then stop saying the fossil record "proves" evolution because it doesn't. It proves there were dinosaurs. It doesn't prove evolution at all.

    Every fossil is an intermediate form. But beyond that, we have a good many fossils that demonstrate faunal succession. That's a key prediction of evolutionary theory. If you wish to bury your head in the sand and make-believe away that evidence, then so be it, but at least have the good grace to have the faintest idea what the evidence actually is.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  159. Clearly it is the first stage in the development of opposable thumbs...http://www.theonion.com/content/node/2831 5

  160. But they do! by splutty · · Score: 1

    Rocks do walk the earth. I've got inrefutable proof of that:

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0425005/

    This also explains why those little concrete poles at the side of the road always seem to want to cross the road when I'm biking home drunk...

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  161. Dr. John Lilly was right? by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

    He was - give me some more Ketamine!

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  162. Huh? Please clarify: urging insightful by lpq · · Score: 1
    suv4x4 cryptically wrote:
    On this article. You can't. You can be funny or informative. Let the challenge begin NOW...
    I don't get it. Could you elucidate?
  163. Evolution by jproffer · · Score: 1

    Ugh. Why do people assume that it's the REMNANTS of a past evolution? Evolution is an ongoing process. Why do they find a dolphin with back fins and go "oh this is the leftover of a millions-year-old evolutionary process".. instead of "oh cool, this species appears to be re-evolving back to a land mammal"? Humans.. sheesh. :P

  164. as opposed to what? by oohshiny · · Score: 1

    a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.

    As opposed to what? Falling from the sky? Being formed from clay by a divine being? Oh, I forgot, people actually believe that.

    In any case, these vestigial legs provide little evidence that wasn't already well known: the DNA sequences leave no doubt that dolphins had land-dwelling ancestors.

  165. What they *didn't* say... by mtec · · Score: 1

    was that it had tap shoes on...

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
    1. Re:What they *didn't* say... by mtec · · Score: 1

      ...and danced when he heard a tuna...

      (I'm here all week)

      --
      Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  166. slightly less biased link... by Vellmont · · Score: 1
    The wikipedia article is just a bit less emotionally charged and gives a different account of the method used:

    The killing of the animals used to be done by slitting their throats which resulted in a long and painful death for the dolphin, but the Japanese government banned this method and now dolphins may officially only be killed by driving a metal pin into the neck of the dolphin, which causes them to die within seconds.


    Make up your own mind, but don't rely on one source for your information (especially an animal rights group).
    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:slightly less biased link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're right it is a less emotionally charged article from a much less biased source. We should avoid relying upon obviously biased or unreliable sources. However, I have seen what happened during one of the drives near Yaizu after the knife method ban was supposedly in effect, and from that it seems to me the article you mentioned is certainly wrong and misleading about both the killing method and the effects. I would re-write the paragraph you quoted based on what I saw:

      The killing of the dolphins is usually done by repeatedly stabbing them with spears, but is sometimes still done by slitting their throats, both of which methods often result in what looks like quite a long and painful death for the dolphin, even though the Japanese government banned the throat slitting method and now dolphins may officially only be killed by driving a metal pin (spear) into the neck of the dolphin, which almost always does not cause them to die within seconds as officially claimed, but which in practice often seems to need the fishermen to make multiple stab wounds using one or more spears while the speared dolphins are still alive and strongly thrashing around in the water usually for at least one minute after the first spearing. Throughout this process, the dolphins can be heard making very loud, high-pitched noises very similar to screaming. Many of the dolphins are killed directly by the spearing, but a few are left half alive and if one of these is seen making any signs of movement by a fishermen, he gets alongside it and slits its throat with a knife.
      Whether this practice should be changed is for the Japanese people to decide by themselves based on the facts, but hiding those facts or presenting distorted descriptions of what happens is wrong.
  167. Haha!!! by Vr6dub · · Score: 1

    Pussy. ;-)

  168. Science by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Oh, sarcasm man, sarcasm. Didn't the mention of how scientists are evil tip you off? No one who uses a computer or an internet gets to say that without their tongue inserted well into their cheek. Hey, the bible quote about how great it is to murder babies ought to be enough on its own. I'd make it more obvious, but I have yet to come up with a good ascii-art rendition of the suckerfish logo.

    1. Re:Science by certain+death · · Score: 0

      Sorry :o) The suckerfish logo is near as good as the FSM!!!

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
  169. Creator, by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    Oh, you missed the sarcasm completely. If a creator expects us to be accountable to it, why that creator leave all the responsibility for everything in our hands?

    When I see prayer end homelessness, a disease (any disease at all will do, I'm a fair guy), bring an end to even a single war (or maybe I should expect it to end at least one war for each one that religion has inspired?), or really anything demonstratable whatsoever, I'll consider that a data point in religion's favour. Until then, religion has nothing going for it and about a zillion data points suggesting a random, unplanned universe. Any deific figures in that universe seem to be at best disinterested, and at worse actively cruel spiteful. Your god doesn't even have the goddam common decency to strike down his most evil hypocritical followers, like child-molesting priests, evangelists that steal from the faithful by taking god's name in vain, born-agains who execute children, condone torture, start wars, and poison god's creation. He doesn't strike down those who speak against him or turn their backs on his church and condemn his followers. He let 5 MILLION of his chosen people be reduced to a fine ash, along with 5 million more people who were assorted varieties of Christian. And what has that god done that is good? What has he done to give life meaning? And before you answer, visit one of America's ghettos, and try to find the meaning in the lifes of the people there. Visit a TB ward at a hospital. Check out the rising popularity of beating homeless people to death and putting videos of it on the Internet. Look at the war that American Christians have caused by voting for any man -- no matter how stupid, evil, and genocidal -- that can thump his bible the hardest. Just so that they don't have to face the prospect of a president who, despite following christian ethics more closely, isn't a vocal proponent of theocracy.

    Let me summarize, assuming you have the courage to actually read this, by saying: fuck you, your religion, and everything about it. Religion is a disease, and has caused more violence and hatred than any other factor in all of Human history. Real morality comes from within. Real meaning comes from within. Only a shallow, immoral person needs it imposed from without by the threat of punishment.

    1. Re:Creator, by NinjaGirl · · Score: 1

      Regardless of your sarcasm, my reply stands. I do have the courage, not only to read your comments, but also to honestly address and deal with them.

      First of all, you have absolutely no reason to be upset or indignant about the pain and suffering you see in the world by your own declaration. You claim that there are not moral standards given by a Creator nor is there a meaning to life. How is it then that you challenge me to visit ghettos or hospitals (which I have) and expect me to have a problem with the things that I would there see? I DO have a problem with these things, however, you do not have any reason for these things to effect you. If there is no Creator, if there is only a random, unexplained universe, then there is NO morality, there is NO meaning, to anything that happens. You mention child molesters, murders, among others. Why? If there is no meaning of life then there is no standard that you have to tell me, or them that what they do is wrong. If "real morality comes from within" and "real meaning comes from within" then the real meaning and morality for these individuals was to molest and murder AND YOU HAVE NO WAY TO TELL THEM THEY SHOULD DO OTHERWISE.

      I agree, many have falsely claimed the name of Christ as and excuse to do horrible things. I agree that there are many false Christians and many varieties of Christians. Many of us are wrong in some of the things that we do. However, there is only one God, one Creator or the universe. God's word will always stand true, despite the failings of men. You have chosen to see only the bad things in this world, yet you forget that God originally created a perfect universe, then, when man threw that perfection back in His face, to save us from the sin that causes those bad things. You can continue to see the evil, or you can look outside at the fall trees and wonder how a random universe knows to change seasons. You can wonder how there came to be so many different trees. You can look in the mirror and see a fantastically designed human being down to each complex cell that makes up the individual you. The most advanced computer is not as well designed and complicated as just one tiny cell in you body. Yet you claim this to be evidence of a random, unexplained universe.

      You have informed me that "religion is a disease", does this include your religion and your god? In case you do not understand me, your religion is whatever you think, and your god is yourself. My God is bigger than just me, and my morality is called to a higher standard that whatever I believe is right. You have no standards and you have no right to say that anything is wrong. Period.

    2. Re:Creator, by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You're a sanctimonious and narrow-minded person. Just because you can't conceive of an ethical framework without the crutch of a made-up deity doesn't mean nobody else can.

      If there were a god, people who unthinkingly follow church dogma would make him want to vomit. If there were a god, and he created us, he gave us brains. It'd be insulting to not use them. It'd be willful sacrilige to blindly follow an inherently bogus book written by men, and an unspeakable horror to kill anyone over it.

      Oh, and many people don't have a religion, don't have a god. I'm willing to re-evaluate my ethical framework when new data becomes available. I'm willing to question my beliefs and change my position. I'm a lot more compassionate towards other people than most religious people.

      Best of all, I get rewarded for the way I live right now, in reality. I don't have to make up an afterlife to make this life bearable. The beauty I find is more precious without a fairy-tale framework to put the difficult things in.

      I'm sorry if this seems harsh. I went back and tried to make it nice. I normally don't judge people, unless they judge me first.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  170. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Lets see now, if we will be able to find a similar behaviour pattern, anywhere anytime in the world.

    Hmmm.

    Mohandas Kharamcad Gandhi and his followers - people who have not resisted their opressors, and despite totally being capable of retaliating (even if with sticks) and/or running, have suffered in the hands of british opressors.

    Interesting, with your approach, we should classify these people as 'not smart' - in the most politically correct meaning as the saying can be.

    "Stay clear of q4 of any year" - and that is a fantastic proposition, in a world of abundance and merriment of course, as it does not take into account the fact that for over 60 years now human race has been eradicating oceans of their fertility with hi-tech troll boats. when species have younglings to feed, they take utmost risks. however in the case at hand, the japanese who are stabbing them to death have no immediate need for feeding their younglings - neither the japanese fishermen who troll oceans to death do.

  171. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    You keep assuming I'm Japanese

    I might have done that, in the heat of the moment and from your manner of speaking. i apologize for the mistake.

    also, 10 million people is not 'some skeleton in the closet'. it is unparaleled in world history. everything should be put in its place.

    and, no. im just very reactive against people who strongly advocate inhumane approaches to issues.

  172. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i have, in response to an earlier post, pointed out that, if the subject in question was inhumane dairy industry, i would speak against it with the same fervor. subject was dolphins, and i spoke about that. same goes for whaling, something which is in no way rationalizeable.

  173. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    amazon forest is not devoid of human population. albeit scarce, tribes live there.

    given the way how we can even cause simplest of viruses mutate, through our constant use of heavy antibiotics and similar drugs, and have more dangerous ones in our hands after a while, it is not something impossible for a totally harmless virus to pass through the local tribesmen to visitors (scientists, or tourists, or government workers), and carry itself in dormant state to western world where it will mutate. after all, aids came from monkeys in africa. or did it not ?

  174. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    I will just choose to ignore an 'opinion' by an 'Anonymous Coward', if you please.

  175. the real reason for the legs by Rito25 · · Score: 1

    its so they can sneak up onto land and take tools they need to get of the planet

  176. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Parent post of mine have become an excellent identifier for people that have mod points and use them in unfair and arbitrary means.

  177. Morality by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    That's what makes me so sad for religious folks -- that they can't believe in any morality that doesn't stem from fear of punishment. I do believe in morality -- real morality, that exists in and of itself. I don't NEED a vengeful parent telling me that murder is wrong. I can refrain from hurting others, and do as much good as possible in the world simply because it is the right thing to do. Besides, if god is your only source of morality, how do you expect to be able to tell any atheist what to do? For that matter, how do you expect to tell anyone whose interpretation of that religion is different what to do? Christians have kept slaves and thought it was okay, Christians have supported the Nazi party and thought it was okay, Christians have murdered Jews and Muslims and been absolutely sure that they were doing God's work. What makes your interpretation of God any more "correct" than theirs? Face it, relativism is inescapable -- Christianity is far, far more morally relative than Humanism. No one has EVER claimed that Humanism condones slavery or the murder of Jews, for example, both things that entire Christian societies have supported.

    Do I see only evil in the world? Of course not. I just don't see God doing anything. All the good I've ever seen was done by myself or other people, the majority of them not Christians. If morality has to spring from God, how can atheists be doing good in the world? Why aren't they all just out murdering and killing and raping and molesting? Why are God-fearing men and women advocating murder? Could it be that god is superfluous to morality? Superfluous PERIOD?

    It's funny that you mention computers, given that some of the most sophisticated and incredible algorithms were designed by genetic algorithms. They produce amazingling efficient, minimal, irreducibly complex solutions to problems -- solutions no Human could possibly understand, let alone invent. In fact, the term irreducibly complex only has a clearly defined meaning in computer science; it's possible to actually PROVE that something is or isn't irreducibly complex in computer science. And wouldn't you know it? Irreducible complexity is no barrier to natural selection, because mutation can add AND remove complexity. Flagella have been shown to only require two proteins that don't exist elsewhere in the cell, there is a clear progression of complexity from the simplest light-sensors right through to the mammalian eye, etc. Sorry, but intelligent design fails every test put to it. Evolution has been demonstrated to be a sound principle capable of generating any level of complexity, irreducible or otherwise.

    Religion is, and I quote, "A system of beliefs that involves the existence of at least one of: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one's body." Atheism satisfies none of these things, and is therefore not a religion of any kind. Worship of the self doesn't count either, unless one genuinely believes that they are a higher being of some kind. Science isn't a religion either, since it says nothing about any of those things whatsoever. Christians are just threatened because science doesn't REQUIRE God. But then, we've already seen that God isn't required for anything -- not for the money I donate to the Vancouver food bank, not for the volunteer work my atheistic friend Allison does with disabled people, or for anything else. God is simply not required.

    The funniest thing, of course, is that you assume that I'M an atheist, just because I believe in science and don't support religion. I can find the divine without a cult, thank you. And I can understand the divine based on the real world -- ie, praying does nothing, so I know that any God that exists must generally not answer prayers. Christians have approximately the same increase in life expectancy that atheists who meditate have; ergo, God doesn't extend the lives of worshippers. Ultimately, you end up having to conclude that any god that does exist is stri

    1. Re:Morality by NinjaGirl · · Score: 1

      I did not say that morality comes from a fear of punishment. Morality comes from God. You are right, you don't need someone that has been hurt to tell you that some violent act is wrong. God has put a knowledge of Himself in the heart of each of us. However, though we know that something is wrong, murderers and rapist ignore this knowledge that is the fault of their fallen nature, not God's. I as a person can't tell an atheist what to do, for the simple reason that, as much as he, am not the source of that morality. Morality is from God and is universal, it is the same morality for me as for that murderer. You cite the Christians that have done evil godless things. However, again I state that their is no reason for you to have a problem with whatever they did. Christians that are consistent do not act in this manner, additionally, atheists that are consistent are murderers. You will jump in here and state that no all atheist are murderers. I agree. Not all Christians are killers, etc either. You ask how atheist have done good because they are being inconsistent with their world view. We are all fallen human beings that suffer from the effects of sin but "by one man sin entered the world and by one Man the world will be saved" Adam sinned and pain and suffering have been apart of the lives of all on earth ever since. Jesus Christ died for this sin and Christians can confidently look forward to a new life free of this pain after we die and go to heaven. Those that are not saved will be damned to hell, which is constant pain and suffering forever.

      Your statement that "slavery or the murder of Jews, for example, both things that entire Christian societies have supported" is unfair. I, a christian, do not support these things for the exact reason that I am a christian. I believe in the sanctity of human life because I believe that humans are created in God's image and given a living soul that makes us different from the animals.

      Your definition of religion exclusive to humanism and atheism. You want to call people to a either standard than debase acts of violence and the reason you give for this is that "you know" that such things are wrong. You got this knowledge from "within" and you believe this standard of morality pre-existed you and will continue after you have died. Therefore, I say again that this is a religion.

      God's plan is perfect. Sin and corruption have not altered that. I have the confident assurance that God will never allow this sin and corruption to harm me more than I can bear. Should I get cancer and die, I will go to be forever with my Savior. Should you get cancer and die, you have nothing to look forward to except nothingness which will in actuality be eternity of hell.

      Disease is present as a result of sin. God offers a remedy for this sin, not the cause of it. Yes, God calls for the destruction of sin and sinners. Those who continually rebel against His law. Not random senseless killings and destruction.

    2. Re:Morality by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
      It's odd that you can believe in a man that no one can see, hear, or feel, but have trouble with the idea of a universal morality -- which is really nothing other than god without any anthropomorphization.

      Anyway, this has basically become quite dull. Like most hypocrites, you can't even consider the possibility that you may be wrong. Like most irrational people, you never under any circumstances question your assumptions. Like most self-righteous people, you assume that anyone who doesn't believe as you do must be evil and wrong. If you can't consider the possibility that you are mistaken, if you can't consider what an alternate viewpoint would be like, why bother having discussions at all? I walked your path for 24 years with all the diligence and faithfullness that I could, until doubt and real world evidence showed me that I was wrong. Seeing christians, ministers and reverends even, advocating murder and execution and the abandonment of homeless to their ultimate deaths ... how could I possibly think that religion had any positive effect on their behaviour whatsoever? Meanwhile, the people that were fighting for Human rights, opposing war, and encouraging love and acceptance of all people were mostly atheists. The people who tried the hardest to help me were not people of faith. If want to be taken seriously, try walking my path. Try to consider life from the eyes of the faithless -- for real I mean, not your caricature of them. Try to actually empathize with them and understand why they feel the way they do. Try questioning your assumptions and circular reasoning. See if doubting God's existence makes you suddenly feel open to commiting rape and murder. I'll wager that you'll find that you retain your disinclination towards harming others, regardless of whether you believe in invisible judges.

      Also, an important note: the bible doesn't say anything about heaven or hell. It says that when you die, you're dead. God may raise some people on judgement day, but the rest just stay dead. That's why the bible says that Christ saves you from death, not hell. That's why Jews don't drone on and on about hell and demons and Satan being out to get you. Hell is mostly something that later Christians dreamed up to scare people into converting. It isn't much better than conversion by the sword, if you think about it.

      My morality does pre-exist me and will exist when I'm gone -- it's encoded into our genetics. Altruism is a natural consequence of being a social species, and evolutionary psychology has made very strong arguments about that. So yes, morality can be pre-existing, fairly universal and consistent, and I can simply KNOW it. That's the hallmark of instinct, not magical flying men that smite babies for no reason.

      Oh, and did you read the "Know Your Bible" page? Good stuff there, good stuff. I suppose you're off to Iraq now to murder some children of Babylon? That is what is demanded of you, after all. Not that you follow a bible -- the bible commands you (a woman I presume based your ID) not to teach (1 Timothy 2:11). Yet here you are, violating the word of god and trying to teach me about the nature of faith. For shame, sinner.

    3. Re:Morality by NinjaGirl · · Score: 1
      Passage Matthew 10:28:

      28"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather (A)fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. "

      Passage Luke 16:22-24:

      22"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23"In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24"And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'"

      Yes the Bible does too speak of Hell. These are just two examples. Hell is not a threat, it is a consequence of sin. God is perfection, rebellion to this perfection is punished by eternity in hell. You yourself recognize those results of a fallen world, and you claim in one breath that God does nothing about it, then you scream that humans should all do good things because it is in them to do so. You anger against religion is misplaced. If religion makes the religious happy, then what do you care if you are an atheist. However, you KNOW that there is a God, but you don't like the way He runs the world and you take issue on this point, not on His existence. You say that no one can see or hear or feel my God. What is this universal morality that you cling to? If it is encoded in our genetics where did it come from. How can anything be wrong? Please explain this to me. You cannot just KNOW things to be right or wrong. They either are or are not. A pre-existing morality that is bigger than you, and will continue after you MUST be God. There is not way around it.

      The Bible says for me to have an answer to all those who question me, and I know that is regardless of my being a woman. God has saved me and I will answer those who question Him.

      Yes, I looked at the "Know Your Bible Page". You and will see what you wish to see. "Live peaceably with all me", "Love your enemy, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who despitefully use you.", "Honor your father and your mother." etc, etc, etc. You can pick out the war and conflict, however you ignore the fact that these are God's dealing with sinful people who you also hate. It is not my job to implement this punishment. It is for God and those under God's rule in leadership.

      How can you accuse me of not considering that I might be wrong. I assume that you believe that you are fair in addressing these issues as you have been open minded enough to change your position. I suppose you think that nothing bad has ever happened to me and I am a naive Bible believer with no idea of the real world. Well you would be wrong. I have suffered the death of grandparents and brothers, sudden death of a best friend, friend diagnosed with cancer who had a 2 month old daughter , my dad moved out for months, another friend with lupus, other friends dying, personal health problems, fiancee suddenly deciding he was not interested and threatening restraining orders. I could go on. These are certainly not the worst things that could have happened to me, nor the best. But it is not as though my faith has never been challenged. At those times, I did consider whether my faith was worth it. Particularly when my fiancee told me that he would take me, but not my family, so I had to choose between them (and my faith). I came very close to leaving it all then. But God has been faithful, and I know that He will continue to be. I am still alone and it has been over a year, however I would not change my decision for anything. God is real. He does not need you to condescend to acknowledge His existence, He is bigger than that. Yes, I have questioned that I might be wrong. I could not understand how I could love someone so much and that I was not supposed to be with him. I questioned, but I know now that there is a God and that He loves me.

  178. *Does own best Isaac Hayes impersonation* by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    How does an asexual microbe (from which evolutionists are dying to prove we came from) evolve into a two-gendered species of any sort without killing itself off in the process?

    The answer is LOVE, baby.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  179. Christian != Creationist by mcvos · · Score: 1
    All Creationists are Christians.

    Not true. Moslim fundamentalists are also generally creationists.

    I have no idea how many moslims are creationists and how many accept a more scientific explanation, but I do know that many christians abhor the American creationist/ID movement. I know I do. Unfortunately it seems American creationism is slowly growing in Europe. I keep hearing worrying stories about Poland mostly, but also from England.

  180. Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd by mcvos · · Score: 1
    What about the billions of deaths you cause everyday when you wash your hands? Does it not matter because they might have harmed you? Or because they are too small to be cute and identifiable as "life"?

    Before worrying about prokariotes like bacteria, lets worry about the poor plants first. They're more closely related to us, have more highly developed cellular structure, etc. Yet we build giant machines to massacre millions of them per day!

  181. Are Slashdot readers this stupid? by mcvos · · Score: 1

    How is it possible that the grandparent, who is quite obviously not serious, is being modded Troll, while the parent who takes him seriously is modded Insightful?

    How can people possibly take a tongue-in-cheek protest against killing bacteria seriously? How would they imagine someone like that eats? You kill more life, and more highly advanced life, by eating an apple than by washing your hands.