Mother Davis snorkels through the science news as she observes,
One of the big science stories to emerge over the weekend was the tale of the Wolphin. It seems that a few years back, a false killer whale mated with a bottlenose dolphin, and produced a hybrid. That hybrid went to perform at a marine waterpark, where it jumped and flipped for herring to amuse human audiences. Now, that hybrid has in turn mated with a bottlenose dolphin, and produced a new hybrid, which is one-fourth false killer whale and three fourths atlantic bottlenose dolphin.
The headlines have been bubbly in their enthusiasm. They call it a “wholphin”! They say it’s “amazing!” They say that it’s the only wholphin ever known to have existed.
Well, that’s silly. The fact is that hybrids between dolphin species have been observed in the wild before. Notice I said hybrids “between dolphin species”. The fact is that false killer whales are big dolphins, essentially. Just take a look at the similarities in the profile in the two pictures here, one of a bottlenose dolphin, and the other of a false killer whale.
Yes, yes, I know that one species has a common name with the word “dolphin” in it, and the other species has a common name with the word “whale” in it, but that doesn’t mean that a whale can’t be a dolphin. Dolphins are a kind of whale, you see. Calling the hybrid a “wholphin” is cute, but it misses the point of what’s happened. False killer whales and bottlenose dolphins are actually closely related.
Besides, is it really so extraordinary to have a hybrid between two different species? Heck no! Ever heard of a mule? Ever seen a brocciflower (hybrid of the cauliflower and broccoli) at the grocery store? These are interspecies hybrids. In the microbial world, extreme gene swapping is the standard order of business.
The whole idea that species are absolutely distinct things, with identities as separate as Mars and Paraguay, is a common misconception. Creationists are particularly vulnerable to this mistake. They base huge regions of their pseudoscientific theology upon it. Creationists claim that while there may be adaptation within species, as seen so obviously with dogs, cattle and other domesticated animals, there is never never never enough adaptation for the development of new species. Creationists argue that species are separate creations of God, with no gray areas between them. For Creationists, coyotes and wolves are absolutely different – never mind that the two species interbreed frequently, and mix with domesticated dogs too.
The mistake that Creationists and excessive science writers make is to confuse the idea of a species with a real thing that has independent existence. The thing is that people made up the idea of species. It’s an idea that makes sense most of the time, so long as you deal with a static slice of time. But, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, there is no definite border between one species and another as evolution takes place over time. It is not as if a Homo erectus mother gave birth to a fully modern Homo sapiens. There was continuity, even with change.
Understand that a species is a nifty idea, and not a thing with independent, divinely defined existence, and biological diversity becomes a truly fascinating idea, even without wholphins. The natural world is much more filled with blends than with stark, insurmountable walls.
Skipping the ride down to Sea World this year,
Mother Davis
C’mon, Mother… Years ago the so-called Creationists were in the vanguard of thr Racists who deplored “cross-breeding” between people of different races…even religion.The often-heard “mischling” described the result of sex between a so-called “aryan” and a jew in Nazi Germany. Here in America, we used the term “mullato” in the last century, quite commonly, when describing a “child of mixed parentage”. We really haven’t traveled all that far, have we? These are the same folks…and itwouldn’t surprise me in the least if they still used those terms, and worse…but only after looking over both shoulders, to make sure nobody else heard them.
So what’s “c’mon”? How is what you’re saying in opposition to what I wrote?
Okay, I will.
Closely related animals being able to reproduce, such as horses and donkeys (even a zebra and a pony), lions and tigers, and so on; they ARE pretty common, sure. But for them to have fertile offspring?
THAT is rare.
Dogs are only separated from wolves by a few hundreds of thousands of years, so with them I wouldn’t be surprised (and it is all dogs, most of which also seem to originate from a simiular location).
Goats and sheep can also produce fertile offspring.
And that… Just about rounds up all the ones I’ve heard of.
Admittedly, since they’re both dolphins (hey, even real orcas are just big dolphins), it’s not THAT surprising, but your article made it sound like mules are also fertile, which they aren’t.
Other than that one little point that the “Wholphin’s” having a fertile cross-species parent is actually pretty rare, it’s a comfortable read.
To me, though, “wholphin” said aloud implies a wolf-dolphin.
Well, you know, whales and dolphins are actually more closely related to ungulates than to wolves, I believe.
Some mules are.Where I trained and rode as a much younger man we had a “jenny” mule (not donkey) who would come into season and breed. If a horse covered her she’d throw a horse colt. If she was covered by a donkey of some kind, she’d throw a donkey colt. Most of them were also fertile.
Okay, looked it up, first site:
http://www.murphymules.com/pages/553827/
Agrees that some cases have been reported, but that there’s more study going into the truth behind how and such, and if so they’d only be a tiny fraction.
Wait… Dolphins and whales almost are ungulates, aren’t they? They’re coming awful close to being put with them if they’re not already…
Of course, thinking “dugong” instead of “deer” helps to visualise that.
Don’t you see? You have a great weapon here against creationists. A new species has now appeared during OUR lifetime. Also, a few false killer whale/Atlantic bottle nose dolphin hybrids have recently (October 05) been spotted in the Atlantic ocean near Norway. The implication is that if they are also fertile, they can begin reproducing and “start” a new species (which hopefully will garner a better name than Wholphin.) This couldn’t happen with Liger’s and many other cross breeds. Creationists have no choice but to accept a new species of marine mammal has been
“created” outside of the Biblical history. This also may be an unique opportunity to study a vehicle of evolution that could explain some of the larger evolutionary leaps observed in the fossil record.
yall r losers to want to know about this!!!!!lol the only reason y iam on here is for a research paper which is gay!
Oh, yes, what losers we are to want to know things! Oh, what a brilliant point you have there! Ha, ha.
As opposed to you, Mr. eA, who is trapped in a class where you have to come here and use us as a reference. That surely makes you a winner, sir! Ha, ha.
Are you crouched over that “gay” “paper” now, eA?
You obviously are not well versed in the more common creationist belief system which does propose that evolution does occur. In fact, that new species of the same “kind” can and do develop. The creationist argument is that there were created by God a number of “kinds” and that these kinds differentiated. So from a wolf/dog kind we get the variety of wild and domesticated dogs. From the dolphin kind you would expect the variety of dolphins and killer whales. From the horse kind you have the zebras, horses, donkeys, etc. This is why many of them still can interbreed although loss of genetic material or mutations sometimes make it difficult or impossible.
I realize your post is old.. but considering you based creationists on their lack of understanding of the obvious, I thought you should know that you are wrong about them. Go read the article on these strange mixes on answersingenesis if you can “lower” yourself to do so.