Hippos with time machines.
ELurio
Times, all "molecular evolutionists" agree that they are the ancestors of
whales. This despite the fact that whales predated hippos by thirty million
years at least.
Is disreguarding the fossil record completely now the norm for evolutionary
biology?
eric l.
Silk Dick
(ELurio) writes:
>
>Apparently, in ancient times hippos had time machines, as according to the NY
>Times, all "molecular evolutionists" agree that they are the ancestors of
>whales. This despite the fact that whales predated hippos by thirty million
>years at least.
>
>Is [disregarding] the fossil record completely now the norm for evolutionary
biology?
check your definitions of "ancestor". I am my father's ancestor. His origin
is merely further back in the timeline than mine.
cbr...@fmppr.fmnh.org
information through the filter of the popular media.
None of the molecular biologists are saying that hippoes are the direct
ancestors of whales. Rather, they are saying that hippoes and whales
share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either group
does with any other extant mammalian lineage. As such, the fact that
first hippoes long postdate first whales is not as problematic as it
might seem on first glance.
I hasten to point out that the molecular data sets supporting the
"whippo" clade are frought with problems, many of which are currently
being addressed by several high-caliber systematists, and so we may not
have heard the last word on this issue.
chris
In article <19990831142222...@ng-cp1.aol.com>,
elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
> Apparently, in ancient times hippos had time machines, as according to the NY
> Times, all "molecular evolutionists" agree that they are the ancestors of
> whales. This despite the fact that whales predated hippos by thirty million
> years at least.
>
> Is disreguarding the fossil record completely now the norm for evolutionary
> biology?
>
> eric l.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Matt Fain
media attempt at portraying evolutionary concepts.
Here's the thing: Hippos and whales may have shared a last common
ancestor to the exclusion of other cetartiodactyls (and there's getting
to be a fair bit of data to support this). In no way can this be
interpreted as hippos being direct ancestors of whales.
This year's March issue of Systematic Biology would be a better place to
get a handle on what systematists actually think on this topic.
Disregarding the fossil record has not become, and never will be, the
"norm" for systematists, whether they include molecular data or not.
regards,
Matt
ELurio wrote in message
<19990831142222...@ng-cp1.aol.com>...
Jonathan W Hendry
> Some clarifications are in order, since you may have gotten the
> information through the filter of the popular media.
> None of the molecular biologists are saying that hippoes are the direct
> ancestors of whales. Rather, they are saying that hippoes and whales
> share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either group
> does with any other extant mammalian lineage. As such, the fact that
> first hippoes long postdate first whales is not as problematic as it
> might seem on first glance.
For what it's worth, the articles I read claimed that Hippos
are the *closest living relative* of the whales. I think I
saw this at CNN's site, or maybe the BBC.
Silk Dick
<jhe...@shrike.depaul.edu> writes:
>
>For what it's worth, the articles I read claimed that Hippos
>are the *closest living relative* of the whales. I think I
>saw this at CNN's site, or maybe the BBC.
>
>
with hippos breathing orally, or nasally, and whales breathing thru a blow hole
like a dolphin or porpoise, I don't see how this claim of "closest relative"
can possibly hold water.
ELurio
>is merely further back in the timeline than mine.
No you are not. You are your father's decendant. Ancestors are antecendant, or
upwards into the past, decendants are downwards into the future.
eric l.
ELurio
>ancestors of whales. Rather, they are saying that hippoes and whales
>share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either group
>does with any other extant mammalian lineage.
Considering that the earliest whales predate any known artiodacyl tends to
belie that.
That hippos are semi-aquatic may give us a model for the earliest whales [hell,
they swam all the way to Madigascar, for crying out loud!], BUT this doesn't
mean that convergence doesn't effect the genome in similer ways.
Whales have the full complement of "toes" and must predate the loss of the
fifth[or first, whatever] toe which is the common trait for all artiodactyls.
[that they don't have hindlegs is irrelevant.]
eric l.
Jonathan W Hendry
Closest *non-whale-like* relative.
Silk Dick
>
>Closest *non-whale-like* relative.
>
>
Ah. that's better. :-)
Silk Dick
(ELurio) writes:
You've obviously never explored the power of your own Infinite being.
"who is the messiah?"
"the son of David"
"then how is it that David calls him 'Lord'?"
[condensed/paraphrased]
My father ONLY exists because I existed first.
Without my existence, his existence would never have been.
(oh, he may have been someone else's father, but he would not have been MY
father.)
Time exists only in the present. Only the echoes of the past (or future) may
be sensed, but ONLY the present moment truly exists. Fossils are merely
records of where the present has been traveling thru. And the future is merely
a corridor thru which the present may eventually be passing.
.
bull.net Cal King
>If the NY Times indeed put it this way, it's just another misleading
>media attempt at portraying evolutionary concepts.
>
>Here's the thing: Hippos and whales may have shared a last common
>ancestor to the exclusion of other cetartiodactyls (and there's getting
>to be a fair bit of data to support this). In no way can this be
>interpreted as hippos being direct ancestors of whales.
Hippos did not evolve until quite recently (11 million years ago). Whales
began its journey to the water some 50 million years ago. Hence the hippo
cannot possibly be the ancestor of whales. The 50 million year old fossil
Ambulocetus, "the swimming walking whale," was a semiaquatic protowhale that
was the probable evolutionary link between land mammals and whales. What the
molecular data says is that the hippo is the closest *living* relative of the
whales. But since DNA is not available from fossils, this data does not rule
out some fossil species as being even more closely related to whales than
hippos. Since all of the other close living relatives of whales (ruminants,
swine, camel in decreasing order of closeness; see Peter Nyikos' post "The
relationships of the Eutherian Orders") are ungulates, the latest molecular
data firmely establishes whales as evolving from ungulates some 50 millions
years ago. One of the relatives of the whale's ancestor eventually evolved
into the hippo some 40 million years later, so Matt Fain is correct that
hippos cannot be interpreted as the direct ancestors of whales.
>This year's March issue of Systematic Biology would be a better place to
>get a handle on what systematists actually think on this topic.
>
>Disregarding the fossil record has not become, and never will be, the
>"norm" for systematists, whether they include molecular data or not.
>
>regards,
>Matt
I disagree. Cladists often disregard stratigraphic data. They, for example,
continue to insist that the synapsid reptiles are the first group to diverge
from the basal amniotes, even though the fossil record indicates that the
anapsids are the first group to do so. Further, they continue to maintain
that a theropod is ancestral to birds, but theropod fossils that possess the
bird-like characters did not appear until at least 40 million years after
Archaeopteryx did.
pete
`Hippos did not evolve until quite recently (11 million years ago). Whales
`began its journey to the water some 50 million years ago. Hence the hippo
`cannot possibly be the ancestor of whales. The 50 million year old fossil
`Ambulocetus, "the swimming walking whale," was a semiaquatic protowhale that
`was the probable evolutionary link between land mammals and whales. What the
`molecular data says is that the hippo is the closest *living* relative of the
`whales. But since DNA is not available from fossils, this data does not rule
`out some fossil species as being even more closely related to whales than
`hippos. Since all of the other close living relatives of whales (ruminants,
`swine, camel in decreasing order of closeness; see Peter Nyikos' post "The
`relationships of the Eutherian Orders") are ungulates, the latest molecular
`data firmely establishes whales as evolving from ungulates some 50 millions
`years ago. One of the relatives of the whale's ancestor eventually evolved
`into the hippo some 40 million years later, so Matt Fain is correct that
`hippos cannot be interpreted as the direct ancestors of whales.
Are both the dolphin/toothed whales and baleen whales believed now to
come from the same ancestor, or were their two separate origins (returns
to aquatic habitat) for the two types of whales? And if the latter, is
the hippo still the closest relative to both types?
--
==========================================================================
vin...@triumf.ca <== faster % Pete Vincent
vin...@vcn.bc.ca (freenet) % Disclaimer: all I know I
% learned from reading Usenet.
ELurio
>come from the same ancestor, or were their two separate origins (returns
>to aquatic habitat) for the two types of whales? And if the latter, is
>the hippo still the closest relative to both types?
There are fossil baleen whales with teeth.
eric l.
Glen Gardner
: Apparently, in ancient times hippos had time machines, as according to the NY
: Times, all "molecular evolutionists" agree that they are the ancestors of
: whales. This despite the fact that whales predated hippos by thirty million
: years at least.
: Is disreguarding the fossil record completely now the norm for evolutionary
: biology?
: eric l.
Eric;
First of all the fossil record is so incomplete that such a scenario seems
possible.
Secondly, When in doubt, I think I would be swayed more by the fossil evidence
than by opinion.
Glen E. Gardner, Jr.