Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

no, randman, you evidently do not. ≠ evidence ≠ evidence. = evidence.do you still no understand the difference?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-01-2005 09:53 AM

---

אָרַח

do you understand yet that aig is not a reputable source? someone posted the science article itself a few pages back. shall i post the illustrations that were in it, or can you find it yourself? nevermind, scroll down. tell me is you understand the difference. of course it is. it's only valid when you want it to be. right now, you'd rather talk about paintings and drawings. the second part of that is what we're taking objection too: pakicetus dental anatomy is adapted for eating fish, and his eyes are adapted for a life in and around water. he wasn't fully aquatic by any means, not much more adapted than other semi-aquatic mammals (hippos, otters, etc) but he also didn't just live on land if he hunted fish.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-01-2005 10:37 AM

---

אָרַח

I stilll like the ending in the TV show better.

fuckin ahhh!stop that. it's just mean.

Hi, rand. I'm glad I've finally found a sympathetic listener to my plaint. The dishonesty and deception of the artist renditions below speaks for itself. Will you join me in my attempt to find someone "man enough" to admit that?This one is just silly--though we don't have photos or fossils, we know the subject couldn't have looked anything like this. But images of this kind have been used to brainwash billions! He is kinda cute,though. Blue-eyed JesusThis one may have been well-intentioned, but it is certainly no more honest: Black JesusBased on what some claim about the subject's geographic origin and time of birth, some say this image is more congenial to the truth, but it is still totally conjecture: Semitic JesusWell, as you can see, we've got our work cut out for us!Never mind those silly pakiwhatsits--people who truly think for themselvs don't read those stupid nature magazines, anyway, and these images impact far, far more people.As you can imagine, these untruths, these willful deceptions, and many, many, many others, are what led me to reject the whole shebang.Not only do such images have no basis in fact, their creators have the nerve to tailor them for each regional set of suckers!As though we wouldn't notice! They are not only dishonest but downright insulting as well.I look forward to working with you on correcting the record. If you are too busy with sneaky webbed feet, though, donations will do.Edit: Converted images to links per Better Form.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-02-2005 01:25 PM

oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize that magazine for the national association of geoscience teachers was a technical academic journal. do you really not understand the difference?while it is peer reviewed, it wouldn't suprise if the article is a republication of the science article. but it's hard to find out which hit the presses first. and, really, it's still an artistic interpretation, NOT a technical reconstruction.oh, and it's still on the cover:

quote:

---

Cover drawing of the oldest fossil whale

---

notice also that it doesn't use the generic name, pakicetus, let alone the actual species name, p. attoki or p. inachus (gingrich's find). doesn't that indicate to you that the people reading it are not scientists, but, well, science educators? we're talking middle school and high school here. tell me something randman. this is an old problem we have in the dinosaur paleontology world: how do you decide on a color?your post also shows a bad knowledge of the art publication world. while it stands to reason that a drawing is the preliminary stage of a painting, you don't just "color" a drawing and get a painting. paintings are usually done by a person with skill. drawings that are the same as paintings are usually reproductions for publication in magazines or books that do not have color.for instance, here's an etching (lithograph?) by one of my favourite artists, mc escher:and here's the original painting by bosch:i promise you that bosch's, the full color one, came first.

---

אָרַח

but it's peer-reviewed! clearly that means the cartoons must be fact! no, he doesn't. i caught him in the nde thread saying i didn't have any suuport for my claim, so i quited a half a dozen references from the source he posted.

---

אָרַח

not to be a smartass or anything percy, but the paper is online. mangytiger posted a link to it:University of Michigan: File Not Found ( 404 )here are the illustrations that are actually in the article:this, randman, is what technical illustrations in a peer-reviewed scientific article look like: exacting, labeled, long captions. do you see the key difference yet?

---

אָרַח

Apparently randman takes it to be dishonest to present pictures that are based on partial information.So how about those dishonest creationists?This is from The Flood | Answers in Genesis and claims to show the appearance of Noah's ark.This one is from Bible Passages Relevant to the Creation Controversy and claims to be of the flood.Another from The Tower of Babel that claims to depict the tower of Babel.If using artists conceptions is so dishonest, and so dangerous to the minds of children, why are creationist sites posting them?

Smartass? No, this is good. Gingerich's list of papers at his site doesn't include a link to his paper, and a search with Google Scholar didn't bring it up, so I assumed it wasn't out there.But wasn't Randman was mistaken in claiming that the picture was in this Gingerich paper that he referenced. That was my main point.I'm also still interested in why Gingerich would maintain that the 1983 artist's picture is still fairly accurate. Here's that picture again alongside what I thought people were claiming is the current conception of Pakicetus's appearance: --Percy

Having seen Otters both on land and in the water, I don't find the two drawings that disimilar.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, on land I'm Yogi Bear, but in the water I'm Clark Gable. Amazing what a little slick-down can do.

But in at least the case of the 1983 Science article you clearly didn't read it. You're fixated on the front cover illustration which, as I and others have mentioned, is not part of the hard science - it's to help sell the magazine as much as anything.In my Message 160 I quoted a few bits from the actual article: Damn those evil evo scientists - always misleading everyone by drawing conclusions based on the best currently available evidence.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Omniverous - I love it!

The depictions of Jesus, as related to this topics theme, had occured to the non-admin mode. Such (IMO) is relevant to the discussion - But let's handle it with care.Coragyps comment, however, is yet another example of a "noise not signal" message. There is no real content in it. Perhaps a "Post of the Month" nomination would have been more appropriate?Yes, this moderation message is also "noise not signal" content. Or at best "signal to try to combat noise". Do not post a reply to this message, in this topic. If you must reply, take it to the "General discussion..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---