[_ Old Earth _] Article of Whale and Dolphin Evolution

[Barbarian]

"...CR was confusing oxygen ratios with nitrogen and carbon ratios..."

No I wasn't.

Clearly, you were. Not only is the oxygen ratio a function of drinking water, the nitrogen and carbon ratios are the ones related to diet.

 

[Crying Rock]

"...CR was confusing oxygen ratios with nitrogen and carbon ratios..."

No I wasn't.

Clearly, you were. Not only is the oxygen ratio a function of drinking water, the nitrogen and carbon ratios are the ones related to diet.

Where is the fresh water coming from? Whales can't live off of seawater.

 

[Bronzesnake]

http://www.physorg.com/news173031353.html

Don't you ever wonder why there are never any photos of these supposed transitional fossils?
All we ever see are illustrations.
Here's why...

This is the kind of dishonest "proof" evolution offers us.
Hey, if this is good enough for you then God bless you people.
I wouldn't be betting the farm on this kind of illustrated reality.

The critical bone structures which are needed to make this a transition are completely missing. But that never stops the diehard evolutionists, they simply take out the crayons and add the necessary bones in and they know their disciples will greedily eat it up once they supplement their nice colorings with language such as "we believe" and "could have" and "looks like" etc.

We really need to be more critical about what we accept as "evidence" as opposed to couldabeen, mightabeen, shouldabeen offerings that we are getting exclusively.
We want to believe so badly that we can’t see the obvious added bits and pieces, and we accept inference as though it were factual.


John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Don't you ever wonder why there are never any photos of these supposed transitional fossils?
All we ever see are illustrations.
Here's why...

This is the kind of dishonest "proof" evolution offers us.
Hey, if this is good enough for you then God bless you people.
I wouldn't be betting the farm on this kind of illustrated reality.

Well, let's take a look...

Here's a photo of just one specimen:

Now, I'm pretty sure that you just copied what some dishonest creationist told you, and posted it here, without meaning to be deceptive. But I did tell you that if you posted material without reading all of it first, you would be accountable.

In the future, check to make sure you aren't being lied to, once again.

 

[jasoncran]

and those pesky athiests dont lie do they, nah they want to know god and are just kiddin when they say that evolution doenst need God. nah.

 

[Crying Rock]

Now, I'm pretty sure that you just copied what some dishonest creationist told you, and posted it here, without meaning to be deceptive. But I did tell you that if you posted material without reading all of it first, you would be accountable.

In the future, check to make sure you aren't being lied to, once again.

Barb, as a fellow Christian brother, I request you treat fellow brothers more respectfully (i.e.- comments relating to a brother's intelligence). I understand you're a very intelligent man, but please show a little compassion.

I'm not here to judge. I'm very imperfect.

Peace,

CR

 

[Barbarian]

B

arb, as a fellow Christian brother, I request you treat fellow brothers more respectfully (i.e.- comments relating to a brother's intelligence).

It's not as though he hasn't been repeatedly shown that the source of those doctored quotes is dishonest. The bar is simple and clear enough; if you haven't read the article, you're asking for trouble if you post the supposed quote.

I understand you're a very intelligent man, but please show a little compassion.

First ten times or so, I didn't criticize.

I'm not here to judge. I'm very imperfect.

To err is human. To make the same error time and again is something less.

 

[Crying Rock]

Is this really a photograph of one specimen? What about the hammer?

How was the specimen found, while in situ?

I don't know the answers to my questions.

Please elaborate.

 

[Barbarian]

Is this really a photograph of one specimen?

Yes.

What about the hammer?

Common practice in such pictures. Gives the scale.

How was the specimen found, while in situ?

Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales

S. I. MADARa, J. G. M. THEWISSENb, S. T. HUSSAINc

aDepartment of Biology, Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio 44234, madarsi@hiram.edu

bDepartment of Anatomy, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 4209 State Route 44, Rootstown, Ohio 44272, thewisse@neoucom.edu

cDepartment of Anatomy, Howard University, 520 W Street, Washington, D.C. 20059
Abstract

Continued excavation at the type locality of Ambulocetus natans led to the recovery of a majority of the axial skeleton of the holotype of this early Eocene cetacean, including both innominates, the sacrum, and most of the thoracic cage and thoracolumbar vertebral column. Additional appendicular, caudal, and cranial materials were also recovered, resulting in a specimen that is now approximately 80 percent complete. This new material allows refined interpretations of its functional morphology. Ambulocetus has a longer thoracolumbar column than that reported for later remingtonocetid and protocetid genera, suggesting that previous estimates of spinal length derived from models of mesonychid ancestry may be inaccurate. Ambulocetus also possesses a co-ossified ecto–mesocuneiform, a character found in some early and middle Eocene artiodactyls, but not mesonychids. New postcranial material provides further evidence of a systemic shift to aquatic locomotion.

Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(2):405-422. 2002
doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022[0405:AHROAN]2.0.CO;2

 

[Crying Rock]

I see. So more of the specimen was recovered during a later excavation.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Barbarian]

Being three-dimensional, it's normal for fossils to be brought out a little at a time. The stone takes some time to remove.

However, AIG just removed some of the bones in their illustration. Note that the ones they claim were just imagined, turned up to be quite real. Unless you grant an amazing talent for visualizing missing bones to Thewissen, AIG was being blatantly dishonest here.

 

[Crying Rock]

When was the AIG article published? It's obvious that all the skeletal material was not excavated until the early 2000's. I wouldn't come right out and say that "AIG was being blatantly dishonest" unless you can show that consensus opinion indicated that the additional skeletal material belonged to the same specimen before the article was written.

 

[Barbarian]

When was the AIG article published? It's obvious that all the skeletal material was not excavated until the early 2000's. I wouldn't come right out and say that "AIG was being blatantly dishonest" unless you can show that consensus opinion indicated that the additional skeletal material belonged to the same specimen before the article was written.

Well, how about what they are currently telling people on their website? I just checked. They are still not telling the truth:

Other fossils have been claimed as whale ancestors since the exhibition was put together. A key one, and one of the most complete, is Ambulocetus ('walking whale'), announced in 1993. Major conclusions were made about its mode of walking, and about its tail structure, and yet the important fibula bones, pelvis, and tail bones were not found. Only one tail vertebra was found, and it was five metres away from the rest of the skeleton. But because the researchers assumed the skeleton was of a 'whale', they assumed a long tail for Ambulocetus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... whales.asp

Since they've been caught in the past misrepresenting what scientists have found, it's not surprising to catch them again.

 

[Crying Rock]

I'm being lazy: Will you point me to the most current link on AIG addressing this issue.

 

[Barbarian]

The one I gave you is still up on the AIG site. They are misleading people right now.

 

[Crying Rock]

The one I gave you is still up on the AIG site. They are misleading people right now.

I don't have time to read the article. Could you please quote the portions of the article that are misleading people. I understand that this article was written 14 years ago:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... whales.asp

 

[Barbarian]

I just cited and linked the lie. And no, I don't think it's a good excuse that they wrote it a long time ago. If they know it's false,(and it's been brought to their attention more than once) and they have it on their website, they are lying.

That's how it is. Isn't the first or even the most egregious example from AIG. But it's still dishonesty.

 

[Crying Rock]

I just cited and linked the lie. And no, I don't think it's a good excuse that they wrote it a long time ago. If they know it's false,(and it's been brought to their attention more than once) and they have it on their website, they are lying.

That's how it is. Isn't the first or even the most egregious example from AIG. But it's still dishonesty.

I'll write and ask them about it. If there is updated data they should relegate the article to the archives.

 

[Crying Rock]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/ ... aker_ID=48[/url]

He's with their outreach department, so I'm guessing he'll pass me off to someone more familiar with "whale evolution". I'll let ya'll know.

 

[jasoncran]

please do.