Research on Intelligent Design

To put together scientific advances from the perspective of Intelligent Design.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Dolphin Variation

I prepared the next slide for my students as well as the next information (click on the picture, even twice, to enlarge it):

Taken from; (Thanks to for saving it!)

Interbreeding between Dolphin and false killer whale: There has been one case of a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) producing a fertile female hybrid that has been called a wholphin. She, the offspring, went on to breed with a dolphin and produced a daughter in the Hawaii's Sea Life Park. Since the offspring in this case is fertile, these two 'genera' are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species

Note: Other members in the group (12 living 'genera') are much more alike than the two that produced this offspring in Hawaii.

MacLeod declared: " the order Cetacea, there appears to be few, if any, postcopulatory species isolating mechanisms as successful hybridization between many species, genera, and even sub-families have been recorded."
MacLeod, C. D. 2000. Species Recognition as a Possible Function for Variations in Position and Shape of the Sexually Dimorphic Tusks of Mesoplodon Whales. Evolution, 54(6):2171-3

Fraser, F. C. 1940. Three anomalous dolphins from Blacksod Bay, Ireland. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 45(B):413-455.
Nishiwaki, M., and T. Tobayama. 1982. Morphological study on the hybrid between Tursiops and Pseudorca. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 34:109-121.
Reyes, J. C. 1996. A possible case of hybridisation in wild dolphins. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 12:301-307.

A great website that presents the three, dad, mom and daughter jumping at the same time to allow us to compare their size differences: In my article submitted to ISCID, "Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity", I answered to the excellent comments posted by Stuart Harris and by Jerry D. Bauer:

The first practical and elementary genetic formula to be used here is:


(3) P1 + P2 = F1 Fertile


P1 and P2 are just varieties of the same kind or 'genos' (as we read in the book of Genesis) of organism, no matter how morphologically different they may appear.

This will be further illustrated with this dolphin striking example, also mentioned in my article:


(4) Pseudorca crassidens + Tursiops truncatus = F1 Fertile


Pseudorca crassidens = male false killer whale (14-foot, 2,000-pound)

Tursiops truncatus = female Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (6-foot, 400-pound)

F1 Fertile = a fertile female called a 'Wholpin', that itself has been able to conceive in three different occasions, her first calf lived for 9 years, the second died when born and this third one [its offspring], a female, a putative product of this F1 female interbreeding with a 8-foot long Atlantic bottlenose male dolphin was born last December 2004.


Pseudorca crassidens and Tursiops truncatus are just varieties of the same kind or 'baramin' (according to current nomenclature) of organism, not a different 'genus' [or as the Bible presents it to us, the same and compatible 'genus', not an 'evolving', different and incompatible, as gathered by using the uncertain scientific nomenclature of (misclassifying them as) 'genus'], as it is wrongfully and currently held by evolutionary scientists.

No matter how morphologically different they may appear and in disregard of the common names given to the involved animals (false killer whale, dolphin, wholphin), these are just varieties of dolphins!

Still, you won't read this full successful F1 (Pseudorca x Tursiops) x Tursiops interbreeding story in indexed journals, at least not yet...

Pro Darwinians will want to continue the winnow game by watering down this great example of variation by saying that this only happened once and 'in captivity', but that this 'does not happen normally in the wild'. The fact is that they, these P1 and P2, have a 'genetic compatibility', as Stuart Harris declared, no matter their 'psychological mating preferences', as Goldschmidt may have said it.

This 'psychological mating preferences' is an aspect overemphasized in the current neo-Darwinian 'mind-game' of 'divide', in the darwinist's attempt to 'prove' a fallacy, they want to convince everybody that new 'species' are emerging all the time, when what we really see all the time is just varieties within the same kinds (genetic compatible groups).

The sheer fact is that those misnamed varieties of dolphins can interbreed producing fertile offspring!

And like this, I have seen that the misclassification of varieties as if pertaining to different species or worse, to different genus, like in the example provided here, can reach the hundreds of thousands!

But, oh well, that's not important right now for the evolutionists, as far as they keep high the public ignorance in regards to this topic, in their attempt to keep promoting their sterile 'speciation' fallacy...

While evolutionists now try to violently stop alternatives to their views, they think that on doing so their failed evolutionary multi-theories may still 'afloat'. But thanks God that today we have 'the Internets' (smile).

A related example can be seen in the HybriDatabase (confirming MacLeod's statement , substantiated by Fraser, by Nishiwaki and Tobayama, and by Reyes, etc.):

Hyb. # 1693. Grampus griseus x Tursiops truncatus. Intermediate characters suggest natural hybridization [Gray AP 1972]

This last one found using the:

Concluding: Then, by using this Intelligent Design perspective, we can predict also that the real 'killer whale' is just the ‘Saint Bernard’ of the dolphins, and that is able also to interbreed producing fertile offspring with the rest of its genetically compatible 'mates', being them the rest of the real varieties of dolphins!

Update: After posting this example at ARN, I received a note from the original webmaster that took and posted those amazing pictures, linked here:

The photos were actually provided by Sea Life Park for the Waimanalo News (now defunct) that i was helping to get online many years ago.
You take care.
You may also want to read The Fraud of Evolution: Variation sold as Speciation as well as Microevolution In Action.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awesome observations. There is so much of this going on that is being ignored like dokeys, zebras, horses, etc.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One main problem with your thesis is that these hybrids (including the famous "liger," or less famous counterpart "tigon")can only produce FEMALES that can continue to reproduce, while male hybrids born are sterile. Female hybrids can reproduce with males of either side of their parent's family just fine and further the mix, but eventually - with only females being able to procreate and being forced to mate with males of a "parent species" - the mix will be eventually washed out and you will only be left with very little true substantial and lasting difference.

Hybrids do not prove evolution to be wrong, so far there is no hybrid where the male and female can mate and become a true "species" that can pass on their own particular DNA without further dilution - like true species. Without further careful interbreeding and research - hybrids don't prove much more than sometimes you can put the triangle shape in the square hole.

Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Brad said...

Most species of dolphins seem to be able to interbreed, and many do so in the wild. They don't do it very often because they maintain apparently stable populations of separate species. The definition of species 'Organisms that can interbreed are the same species and organisms that can't are different species' is outdated and the following definition is probably currently the most popular 'Populations of organisms that naturally interbreed in the wild are the same species, while population that don't aren't.'

All this talk of species is completely moot however because it is a human invention that tries to impose a discrete classification system to life. Life however doesn't care with dolphin species/subspecies/breeds and 'ring species' as examples.

Biology is moving away from the species model for this reason, but it is still universally used because it is almost impossible to discuss life without it.

Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:45:00 AM  
Blogger fdocc said...


Sue Ann, who is Caucasian, doesn't want to interbreed with Latinos or Blacks, does it make her a different species?

If an organism has the same number of genes and able to do homologous recombination with another, the willingness or unwillingness to mate is irrelevant to the genetic compatibility.

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Brad said...


The species model is an artificial creation. So the answer to your question depends on the definition of species you decide to use.

Monday, April 27, 2009 12:50:00 AM  
Blogger fdocc said...

I stress to my students that the model of molecular compatibility (mentioned previously) will allow you to generate new biodiversity, and that is in agreement with the primeval truth of 'everything according to its "Genos".'

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:47:00 AM  
Blogger Gwaeraurond said...

From a purely scientific perspective, Evolution as it has been taught in school has already been dis-proven.

For example, on the Galapagos islands the very Animals that Darwin himself observed in many different forms were all found to be genetically identical in EVERY way. The only difference between the Finches with the different beaks, for example. (see source: "What Darwin Never Knew" on PBS) Each suited to the food of a different island. Is in the Switches which seem to be affected by the Methyl Markers.

As observed in the emerging field of Epigenetics, genes are switched on and off in real time in a response to environmental stimuli. Since the way genes switch on and off and the duration that certain genes remain on or the timing in which they turn on or off entirely determines the way genes are expressed it has been proven conclusively that random mutation isn't even required for the emerging of new species.

On the contrary, Evolution as Random Mutation probably isn't even possible. The reason is simple: Most Mutations are harmful, and if a Mutation was required for survival than the periods in which Evolution is most active in geological history - natural disasters - would have had environmental conditions that wouldn't have given species enough time to go through natural selection and random mutation. Considering that the same changes has been proven to apply through the Epigenome which itself has been proven to be affected by the conscious mind proves that at least the model they teach in school no longer has a scientific basis.

There is, however, some benefit to a species for random mutation. All humans, for example, have a genetic disease. The gene for jaw muscles is broken so our jaws are half as strong as that of a chimp. The reduced size would have been a serious disability. But it came with it the ability for larger brains. There is anthropological evidence that this mutation came first, but immediately after were changes in switches. In fact, most of the cosmetic differences between humans and apes aren't even genetic. The primary genetic differences are in and around the brain and there is evidence here too that is was brought about not by random mutation but by a conscious choice among individuals.

In modern times we can see something similar in the Sea. In nature. Around some islands that see plenty of tourism and fishing, one species of squid - which for millions of years has been not only a solitary animal but one that does not teach it's young or it's peers - has changed dramatically through it's observations of humans. Some have even taken to riding on the backs of eels who once preyed on them. And this has let to an explosion of changes in their biology and biosphere.

In short, while intelligent design from a Divine perspective may not be scientifically admissible, it is a scientific fact that consciousness is the guiding force of Evolution. That changes occur not by chance. It doesn't make sense for schools to continue to teach a completely debunked theory when better ideas have come forward.

Especially considering that the science shows how your thoughts and actions impact every level of the health of your children and your children's children.

Friday, October 22, 2010 12:41:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home