The Dolphin With Leftover Legs 441
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."
Altering expression of an existing gene isn't news (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
How about a whale with legs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fins = Legs (Score:3, Interesting)
At least for a limited time, the article is even on the web for you to read:
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/featu
Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
Re:Another thing about Taiji, Japan (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:You are the FIRST STUPID person i saw on slashd (Score:1, Interesting)
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_Faro