Bronzesnake
Member
- May 7, 2010
- 241
- 0
OK Barb, I acquiesce. I was not aware more bones had been found. But to call it deceit?
You claim that AIG “removed†some bones and that is an hyperbolic statement because that illustration is legitimate albeit outdated as we have discovered.
In any case. How do you get from this -
To this?
In any case, if AIG is dishonest for not updating their info, then what do you call evolutionists that use the bones in your photograph and put this on display?...
Here is an illustration from an evolution site.
Notice the artistic licence being taken?
The top supposedly shows the "whale transition" (simply declared to be) while walking on land.
The bottom shows it swimming; however the critical joints are shown in white and are missing from the actual fossil. Is this deceit also Barb?
This is typical evolutionary shell game tactics Barb.
Take a single isolated fossil and make an open ended baseless claim that it is a whale transition.
I could theoretically call it a dolphin transition and who would tell me otherwise.
Now the actual animal could very well have looked very much like the illustration Barb, and I have absolutly no problem with that at all. My problem is that evolutionists are telling us that animal is a transition on it's way to becoming a whale, without offering any intermidiary series of transitions!
This is exactly what Gould is talking about when he says transitionals exist - these are seperate specifci animals that are "declared" to be "transitionals" In other words, they "could" be a cog in the gear but it's only one cog and in order for the gear to work we need many cogs.
This is my most serious objection to the theory Barb. virtually every so called "transitional" example I have ever been presented is exactly like this. It's obviously an animal that no longer exists, and it is arbitrarily declared to be a transitional to (fill in the blank) whatever animal it seems to be morphologically similar to.
This is not Darwinian evolution my friend! In order for this to be a true transitional there MUST be other transitions leading up to a new species. This is ONE animal, and it does not look like any whale i've ever seen. I need to see the next in line and the one after that and the one after that which slowly and progressivly go from looking like this animal to looking like a whale and that is what Gould says is absent!
In order for speciation to be corroborated, we must have a series of graduated transitional fossils which clearly and unambiguously show one species becoming a new species and that is what Gould and Eldridge for example, are talking about when they say the lack of transitional between species is the trade secret of paleontology.
Here's is an interesting article.
3:9 When is a whale a whale? Gish, http://www.icr.org/article/379
Evolutionists predict the presence of billions of transitional life forms that have existed in earth’s history. Despite the presence of 250,000 fossil species, clear transitional forms, which would bolster evolutionary theory, are virtually absent. The situation of transitional forms is glaringly obvious in the case of whales and other marine mammals. The gap in transitional forms was supposedly filled by a partial fossil specimen named Pakicetus inachus. Even though the fossil was only a fraction of the skull and a few teeth, the media and scientists portrayed it as a whale-like transitional form. The fact that it was found in a deposit that was likely from a river area puts the interpretation of Pakicetus in doubt. (More complete specimens have been found that show Pakicetus as a dog-like land animal.)
Fossils of Ambulocetus natans were later discovered, and this creature was considered to be a walking whale. Despite the lack of a pelvic girdle (a partial pelvis was found in later specimens), Ambulocetus is described as having walked on land much as sea lions do and swimming with a combined motion much as otters and seals do. Why a whale would have hooves on its rear feet and be living near the seashore are questions that are not answered by the fossils.
The deposits containing Ambulocetus were found 400 feet higher than where Pakicetus was found, but both are supposedly 52 million years old. Pakicetus is called the oldest whale (cetacean), but Ambulocetus is supposed to display transitional features as land animals turned into whales. Based on teeth alone, several other wolf-like carnivores (mesonychids) are thought to be ancestors as well. The exact arrangement of these groups is disputed, and some consider the mesonychids to be a branch separate from whales.
This interpretation of scant fossil evidence is very imaginative and totally necessary to support the notion that whales evolved from land animals. Such imaginative claims of evolutionary history have been claimed in the past only to be shown false. Further evidence will certainly change the current thinking in drastic ways.
OK, just to hammer my point home.
We need transitionals to get from this
to this.
Now can you please direct me to the series of transitions that shows this "whale" of an evolutionary tale Barb? Or is there only the one fossil that has been declared to be a whale transitional out of thin air?
I think a better case could be made to try and convince people this fossil is a crock ancestor rather than a whale...just sayin...I mean if we're just taking wild shots and making it up as we go, then my vote is for the crockadile, but hey that's just me.
John
