Barbarian, regarding the supposed absence of an intermediate between Indohyus and whales with non-functional legs:
Unlike Indohyus, which spent a lot of time in water, but was primarily adapted to land, Ambulocetus spent a lot of time on land, but was primarily adapted to water. Oxygen isotopes still indicate a fresh water existence, but this one is larger, more seal-like with legs adapted to swimming, instead of walking. (But it could still walk)
Want to see the next step?
...lets deal with some unfinished business: what are the differences between Pakicetus and Indohyus' feet?
Well, let's see... both have hooves. But Ambulocetus is somewhat more evolved for swimming. Unlike Indohus, which seems to have mostly walked along the bottom, and swam secondarily, Ambulocetus has large, webbed feet (but still with hooves) that allow it to swim more efficiently.
Same bones and musculature, but the legs are relatively smaller, and shorter. Ambulocetus could still walk about on land, but less capably than Indohyus.
Indohyus and Ambulocetus both have rather robust tails, but the tail of Ambulocetus is relatively shorter.
What ribs we have of Indohyus, show that they were more robust than those of most ungulates of that size. Like Ambulocetus.
Like most small ungulates, Indohyus has a relatively flexible, doglike spine, that allows for a good amount of flexion. This allows for quick darting movements. Ambulocetus has a similar spine, well-adapted to dorsoventral flexion. It swam with the same movement that small ungulates gallop. This is why whales have horizontal flukes instead of vertical fins, as fish do.
The skull of both are whale-like.
The Telltale Involucrum
Indohyus shares several dental features with early whales, including a front-to-back arrangement of the incisors, high crowns on its back molars, and similar wear facets. But the clincher is a little thickened lip of bone on the inside of the middle ear cavity, known as the involucrum, which likely assists in hearing underwater. Until this week, only whales were known to possess this feature. But one of the new Indohyus skulls shows that this little raoellid had a lovely little involucrum as well (see it here, and be amazed).
http://vladimirkorsakov.blogspot.com/20 ... tions.html
Precisely what we'd expect to see for an intermediate between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus.
“…Whatever its relationship with whales, Indohyus was probably not a direct predecessor of them, Thewissen says, because the specimen, unearthed 30 years ago in Kashmir, dates to roughly two million years after the earliest known cetacean fossils…â€
Ah, we're back to the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" argument. Sorry, not convincing. No one says that the specimens includes the one that gave rise to present whales. They are just very close to the line that did. It would be remarkable if we happened to find the precise one. And a group does not have to go extinct, just because one population evolved into something else.
Barbarian suggests:
If you ever do find one of those mythical gaps, be sure to tell us about it.
So, by your own reasoning, these two specimens shouldn't even be used as examples of whale evolution. They didn't even evolve into whales. Correct?
See above. Even honest creationists realize that transitionals are almost never the precise animal that gave rise to the next species.
And if they didn't even evolve into whales, what do "unique" ear bones have to do with evidence except to say that other species besides those "leading up" to whales had them?
It just shows that the "gap" you claimed to have, doesn't exist. There was indeed a closely-related population that was precisely intermediate between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus.
I'd say this is a huge gap.
Of course you would. But your denials are not a substitute for evidence.
No evidence of an evolutionary relationship at all: feet, limbs, ribs, back, ears, etc...
Surprise.
Now that you see the many transitional characteristics between the two, are you ready to move on to the next step?
Or will we see some more dithering?
