Dolphin With Four Fins

[Joshua-777]

Using coding as an example would put you at a disadvantage as the example provides a purpose - a designer has to use a code for a time to build others up and then rid itself of the code.

Regardless, it still begs the question as to why it has survived and occurred. What also caused it to come back?

Why it has survived? Why not? What about its existance is disadvantageous to the organism?

Again, no geneticist here, but it may have been an error in replication or recombination of genes or the like. I really have no clue how these types of throwbacks happen.

Again, this is a baseless presupposition that begs the question - there is no fossil evidence that dolphins evolved from land animals. There is massive amounts of evidence to show that dolphins evolved into a smaller species and also became less of a predator (I believe, I have not done too much study on sea animals in evolution), but there is no evidence at all that they evolved from land animals. One of the older theories is that they were the branch from when the first sea creatures came on land - that they were a split off and therefore were never on land. Thus, you can't assume that this is what occurred when there is no evolutionary evidence for this.

Second, the evolutionary reason to get rid of it is that it can hamper a dolphin in the water. When swimming it would cause friction in the water, causing it to be slower and less likely to survive in the wild. This should be obvious.

http://library.advanced.org/17963/evolution.html

Evolutionarily speaking, it would be practically impossible for mammals to evolve in parallel both on land and in the sea from different sources. The dolphin and other species of cetaceans are, in fact, proper mammals, in every sense of the word, and show a myriad of similarities with their land-dwelling cousins.

You seem to put forth an idea that dolphins evolved from early amphibeans. This would be very, very, very unlikely, for the reasons stated above. It's far too big of a leap to think that mammals could have evolved in the ocean to be exactly the same biologically as the mammals on land and not think that they shared a common mammalian ancestor.

Ok, let me get this straight, NOw if land dwelling animals evolved into ocean dwelling animals, than how is that possible? and if the branches separated how is that possible? and the big one, Observable evidence? Any? I kind of believe they where created, in the ocean, just my opinion.

[Joshua-777]

Ok, let me get this straight, NOw if land dwelling animals evolved into ocean dwelling animals, than how is that possible? and if the branches separated how is that possible? and the big one, Observable evidence? Any? I kind of believe they where created, in the ocean, just my opinion.

Go to Wikipedia or some similar resource and look up Cetaceans and the evolution of them. I assure you, there is observable evidence that supports the conclusion that sea mammals evolved from land mammals.

Wikipedia didn't really help much, lol cause honestly, the fossil records do not show proof of vertical evolution first, and also I don't see proof it is if the same species. But if it is of the same species, DNA matches up, so wouldn't that be micro evolution which I do believe in? that a species can evolve horizontaly but not verticaly? and no I don't think the first ones where a whale, it looked like a mini ratdino,

[tdrehfal]

If anyone's interested:

http://media.smh.com.au/?sy=smh&catego...375&flash=1

These kinds of mutations happen, but I don't know where the 'evolutionary throwback' thinking comes from. We have all this evidence for

'throwbacks' constantly, so is de-evolution the REAL science? why can't we ever ever get an obserable 'evolutionary 'throw-forward'

that gives an animal some amazing new ability? It's only fair if these are really 'throwbacks' we should see some of the opposite, so where

is it?