Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

How do bears become whales?

This is not an argument for Creationism, it is just a minor point I feel illustrates the nonsense of macro-evolution.

Well for the answer to my original question lets refer to Darwin:

On the Origin of Species, original edition, 1859, p.184

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

This passage was removed from later editions of his book because of how it was perceived.

Yet Darwin still maintained his stance although he did seem to try and tone it down a bit...

“I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits.” (More Letters of Charles Darwin, 1903, p. 162)

Still trying to maintain his point, yet kind of shying away from references to whales.

Hmmm....and people wonder why some of us don't believe in macro-evolution. Perhaps it's because there isn't the science to prove it.

19 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Why didn't we evolve to just shoot laser from our eyes to kill food easier?

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Any "evidence" of this happening is purely speculative. Nobody was there to witness a bear with "slightly whale like" attributes that helped it survive better than other bears, nor do we see any bears today that are in the process of becoming more whale-like. I guess that must have been a one time event and the first bears that got those first whale-like features must have been fortunate enough to continue randomly developing more and more whale-like features, while the poor bears we still see as bears today were not fortunate enough to have developed any of those whale-like features that would have helped them survive. Probably because they were not forced by their environment into the sea to hunt for food. How fortunate for the ones who were that they luckily had some random mutations that turned them into whales over millions of years! Hey, I guess I can make up these fish stories as well as anyone. Maybe I should become a "scientist" and publish a paper. As long as you say it was evolution in action, they'll print just about anything in the science journals these days.

  • 9 years ago

    Did you even bother to read that passage? Darwin never said that bears became whales. However, the idea that a species of bears can follow of chain of evolution and one day become a whale like creature is possible.

    You are following one of the major errors when people try to perceive evolution. They want to think it is an overnight kind of thing where the bears wake up to be whales. Nope, not even close. In a process taking many millions of years and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of generations the bears would make very gradual changes while adapting to their environments. The children of the bears would look pretty much identical to their parents. However, there are small, subtle differences that show up with a few generations difference. These will become greater as time goes on.

    Now, does this mean that a bear that swims and catches insects like that will one day lead to whales? It could but not necessarily so. It could be these animals follow a different path and evolves to be some type of species we do not recognize today.

    As for the science to prove that whales evolved from land animals there is solid evidence to support it. Look at the comparative anatomy. Look at the fossil records. I am unaware of any DNA or genetic research in this area but I feel pretty certain that would also show that whales are genetically linked to land animals. The land animals (probably not bears, the part you have in your question is an example) started on land but thru selective adaptation and a whole lot of time they ended up being sea creatures.

    Also, your saying this is not a part of creationism. If you do not believe in evolution then how do you believe that whales came to being on this planet? Evolution is the only scientific theory. If you are rejecting that then what are you putting in its place?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Do you not realise that a little bit more work has been done since Darwin?

    We know how whales evolved from quadrupeds from the fossil evidence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/07122...

    from the fact that they still have leg bones: http://ncse.com/cej/3/4/true-vestigial-structures-...

    and from the fact that we know the mechanism of natural selection is DNA, which is acted on by providing advantages through adaptations.

    Bears did not become whales, bears are carnivores. Whales are cetaceans, having evolved from artiodactyl ancestors.

    If you want to claim that animals have been created, there are several things you need to explain. First, you need to explain how natural selection acting on genetic changes does NOT lead to new species when all the evidence indicates it does. Then, you have to explain when the animals were created, why and by whom. You also need to explain why they were not all created at the same time. This is why creation is only deemed possible by those with no understanding of evolution and usually science in general.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Yet Darwin still maintained his stance although he did seem to try and tone it down a bit...

    How about if you join the 21st century. Quote someone who has millions of facts to support or discredit the concept rather than a 200 year old concept that was nothing mope than an interesting idea then.

  • 9 years ago

    That is a pretty minor point, Darwin was speculating and that somehow proves to that all biology (the majority of which is based on evolution) must be wrong.

    People don't accept evolution due to being religious nutters, no other cause found.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    So... Your argument is that over 150 years ago the ideas about how whales might have come about was a bit iffy and you find it hard to believe?

    Really dude? Catch up with the times would you? There's been a LOT of work done since Darwin. Just google it if you want to find out how whales got to be the way they are and how we know that it is the case. It's not that hard.

  • 9 years ago

    Given millions of years, and if enough bears did that, they would probably become whale-like.

    Hmmm...Maybe the reason that people don't believe in Natural Selection is because there are so many idiots running around.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    "This is not an argument for Creationism, it is just a minor point I feel illustrates the nonsense of macro-evolution."

    Make up your mind, kiddo.

    "people wonder why some of us don't believe in macro-evolution."

    No, we don't. We know why: it's because you are imbeciles.

    As demonstrated once again by you.

  • 9 years ago

    Now evolutionists believe that whales may have come from a Pachyaena, an Ambulocetus, a Rodhocetus or a Basilosaurus. Scientists have even added tails and flippers to illustrations where none existed in the fossil record. They did this to be able to "sell their theory". This is just a continuation of the "bear to whale fairy tale" that Darwin promoted.

    WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY....... IS THIS SCIENCE OR WISHFUL THINKING?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.