patiodog wrote:Did somebody say fossil record?
Quote:The trail of whale evolution begins in Paleocene time, about 60 mya, with a group of even-toed, hoofed, trotting, scavenging carnivorous mammals called mesonychians. The first whales (pakicetids) are known from lower Eocene rocks, that formed about 51 mya; the pakicetids are so similar to mesonychians that some were misidentified as belonging to that group. However, the teeth of pakicetids are more like those of whales from middle Eocene rocks, about 45 mya, than they are like the teeth of mesonychians. Pakicetids are found in nonmarine rocks and it is not clear how aquatic they were.
In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales. Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians. Ambulocetus is regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.
From late Eocene time onward, evolution in whales shows reduction of the hind-limbs, modification of the forelimbs and hands into flippers for steering, development of a massive tail, etc.; all of these changes are modifications for the powerful swimming of modern whales. The fossil Rodhocetus from the upper Eocene rocks, about 38 mya, of Pakistan already shows some of these modifications.
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html
So this is your proof of evolution? And we're supposed to believe this why, because you say so? No wait, maybe it's because the world's great scientists, from the world's greatest universities, publishing and writing in the world's leading science magazines and journals, and exhibiting displays at the world's great museums say so?
The same great persons and institutions that said Piltdown Man was 500,000 years old, was half man half ape and was displayed in some of the world's leading museums for over 40 years, but then turned out to be less than 100 years old, an orangutan's jaw attached to a human skull, and was even shaped with tools and doctored with plaster?
They have no credibility, what they have is agendas.
Also, the web site you're referencing has no credibility because they still say Archaeopteryx is "dinosaurian". This has been repeatedly debunked since 1961:
"Because of its feathers (Archaeopteryx is) distinctly to be classed as a bird." (Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310)
"The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles." (Nature, Vol 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401)
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble is going to change that." (V.Morell, "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 259(5096): 764-65, 5 Feb, 1993.)
For your information, this particular lineage of evolution (mammals from land to sea) is currently not even a theory, it's a hypothesis! -A hypothesis with a completely falsified beginning that isn't even agreed upon by scientists themselves. Some claim artiodactyls ancestry while others claim mesonychian. Also, let's look at the claim of this sites first whale. Pakicetus was discovered (2 bones) in 1983 by Gingerich. Look at the picture he had his favorite artist prepare in 1983 when it was established this was the first whale. Then look at what the real Pakicetus looks like after they find a complete skeleton a decade later. (This thing is a ?'walking whale' just as sure as my dog is a walking tadpole! And I don't even have a dog.) But in order to keep the $sponsorships$ coming, look at the third picture and see what National Geographic had their favorite artist do with Pakicetus after it has already been fully established that he's 100% terrestrial!
Edit (Moderator): Do not post links to your site
What a joke. Also realize, the first customized artist's rendition in 1983 was disseminated to the public and to schoolteachers! (e.g. in J. Geol. Educ. 31:140-144, 1983)
***Side note about National Geographic - In 1998 National Geographic stooped to an "all time low" presenting Archaeoraptor as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. This wasn't just a discussion or something they were studying, this was a full magazine publication (front page I think). It turned out to be a dinosaur tail glued onto a bird's skeleton. Here's a link with a ?'short' story where National Geographic admits the fallacy of the fossil. Interesting, the transitional fossil LIES, Neanderthal, Piltdown, Nebraska, etc., are all front page news and 15 page layouts in scientific magazines and journals or maybe even touted in museums, while every time the LIES are discovered (which they are every time) it's a short little 200 word article you'll never see unless you are looking for it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ee0ba148d0.htm
Here's a link to a letter written from Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian Institutes Museum of National History to National Geographic telling them they've stooped to an "all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." Interesting that the letter also mentions something about smuggling fake fossil "contraband" from China.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3828622d5f37.htm***
These LIES are all common and expected now. We have LIES in our children's texbooks lasting 50 years, and many are still in there. Neanderthal and others were in my class room materials - carrying a stick and dragging his knuckles on the ground. Now we know Neanderthals were excellent artists and were even into astronomy. Not to mention a Neanderthal was found in cased in a SUIT OF ARMOR THAT WASN'T EVEN RUSTED YET! ("Neanderthal in Armour," in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587.) This entire whale thing is so laughable. All you have to know is how divided the scientific community is over the actual lineage and also realize how "customized" all of the artwork is. In the species evolution diagram they present, notice how from one species to the next all of a sudden the nostrils move from the snout to behind the ears and are now "Blow Holes" It's truly all comical.
I would never believe a word of this evolution of species garbage, no matter what scientist, what university, what institution, what museum, what magazine or what news program says it. They have LIED about transitional fossils more than 20 times while actually presenting one 0. They don't know the difference between an orangutan bone and a human bone. Sh|t, they don't even know the difference between bone and plaster! There was a story just the other day claiming a fossil find like Lucy - don't believe it. Many scientists don't believe Lucy, who's bones were found 50 feet away from each other, at different strata levels and a year apart is even authentic. "New fossil? Uh, ok, yeah, right, ok, whatever you say." Then turn around to one of your good friends and say, "get a load of this".
Here, these are ALL evolutionists:
"It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales." (Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 329)
"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales." (B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., 1985, p. 489)
Splifford really likes this next one.
"Given a simple little rodent like animal as our starting point, what does it mean to form a bat in less than ten million years, or a whale in little more time ... If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years ... then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end -to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous ... A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodent like form to a slightly different one ... but not to a bat or a whale!"
(The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven Stanley, Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, 1981. Pg 93-94)
In this last one I really like, "reputations to be made", acclaim to be savored" and "exercise their imaginative talents".
"Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny?-human origins?-is highly emotional, and there are reputations to be made and public acclaim to be savoured for people who unearth ever older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents." (Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory, " in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793)
IronLionZion wrote: you have ended the evolutionary debate ON AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD
Anyway, this whale thing is just a bunch of paleobabble like all the rest has been. But wait, the best is yet to come
.
"
where the wind won't blow,
really shouldn't go,
it only goes to show
"
