I made a thread a while back about the evolution of whales from four legged mammals. The gist of it was that in Pakistan and nearby regions, a number of fossils have been found that appear to be representative of the ancestors of whales. The older ones look less like modern whales, and early ones even lived on land, and the less old ones would probably fit right in with modern whales. If one ancestor had lost a trait that an earlier species had possessed, for example, well developed hind limbs, later species did not possess that trait, except perhaps as poorly developed vestigial organs. All the evidence appeared to me to be an excellent example of macroevolution. After posting the thread, I eventually found this webpage, which explains whale evolution much better and in much greater detail than I could:
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
There appear to be several lines of evidence (fossils, vestigial organs, biogeography, genetic evidence, and so on) that terrestrial, four legged mammals evolved over many, many generations to become the whales we know of today. I see no other way this evidence can be interpreted in a reasonable way, but I remain open to suggestions from people who disagree with the theory of evolution. Is there any way to interpret this evidence that does not entail an evolutionary history for whales?
This message has been edited by Gary, 08-13-2005 02:10 PM
™ Version 4.2
