Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

LOL. Show me where Pakicetes was rendered this way? I have yet to see it. Wanna see something funny? It's a squirl! But crap, it flies! It must a bird then. Yes you are, you don't know the first thing about comparative anatomy.ABE: An animal dosn't need to look like another to be in the same order. As I showed you earlier Dogs and Walruses fall under the same suborder Caniformia.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-06-2005 03:43 PM

Actually, punctuated equilibrium is a model that describes some speciation events, but by no means all of them. Gould was an expert on Bermudan land snails (particularly the genus Cerion, I believe), and Eldridge on trilobyte evolution. Gould and Eldridge found examples of punctuated equilibrium in their studies, but I believe that both also found examples of the traditional Darwinian steady-rate evolution.

Care to back that up? Please document that.Here are quotes that prove otherwise, or they prove that evolutionists stated Pakicetus was aquatic or semi-aquatic. If they didn't think that, were they lying? CetaceansCheck out the reprint of the illustration with webbed feet when they originally put Pakicetus, which evolutionists still want to call a whale based on the ear and teeth, a very specious argument, especially since it appears in mammals according to evolutionists that there is some convergence in the evolution of the ear bones anyway. My contention would be to take such a slight similarity and say this has to be an ancestor or transitional form, and even classifying this pseudo-canine as a whale is all the evidence any objective observer needs to show the utter absurdity of what evolutionists pass off as science.http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.phpMaybe though, it just isn't a whale at all. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htmBut hey, it must be true because it's such a spiritual experience. Review of Strange Tale of the Leg on the WhaleOf course, that could be the problem. Evolutionists think they are relying on data, but seem to rely more on their faith.

So are you saying in the context of this discussion, there was a steady-state of evolution from land mammals to whales?If so, where's the data.Evolutionists posit a fully land mammal as a whale with hardly any similarities at all, except that some differences in the ear and teeth.Of course, the teeth actually are seen in other land mammals, and evolutionists have not been so accurate on ear evolution since we see now that ear evolution must have occurred in mammals at least twice indedepently via convergent evolution (or were created that way).So maybe there is a predisposition with certain gene sequences that make up mammals to cause ear bones to develop in a certain manner.Or maybe all we are seeing is a slightly different ear in a land mammal that evolutionists, so lacking in finding true transitional forms, jumped on, even to the absurdity of calling Pakicetus a whale.I think, personally, if we did not introduce ID or creationism in the class-rooms, but just let kids here what critics say about the evidence, that evolutionists would become the laughing-stock of the nation within one generation.Calling such a land mammal a whale is just freaking absurd.

No they weren't, I actually have the magazine your talking about, its from freakin 98! That's almost 8 years ago! And at the time it was a pretty good theory based on what they had. No one is trying to lie.My beef is you trying to paint it as deliberate deception on the part of scientists. Scientists make predictions and theories based on the evidence they have, and sometimes those theories need to be revised as time goes on. Whats the problem with this?

quote:

---

So are you saying in the context of this discussion, there was a steady-state of evolution from land mammals to whales?

---

No, I'm just clarifying the proper place of punkeek in evolutionary theory.-

quote:

---

Calling such a land mammal a whale is just freaking absurd.

---

Why?

It's a cetecean. It's the ORDER Cetecea.What do you make of Dogs and Seals belonging to the same order?

Yawn. I provided links that show the actual illustrations, but you pretend they are not there.Pakicetus is not a whale and does not have true whale features even.He is hooved, 4-legged, fully land animal.End of story.

I have, did you ever hear that the people that formulated stated that it was mutually exclusive to gradualism? It was put forth because the fossil record seemed to indicate that there was long periods of time with very little divergence punctuated with periods of relatively rapid divergence.I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking, but do you associate PE with saltationism?If you don't then I provide this link for the benefits of the other readers, and yourself, if you are interested. Punctuated Equilibrium

Indeed, palaeos seems to agree with you.

It was an overstatement, just as calling Neanderthals ape-men, and just about with every other claim of evolutionists.It may be a "spiritual experience" for them, as one evolutionist claims, but for the rest of us, after awhile, there is no excuse in continuing to pass off such gross overstatements and premature conclusions as valid science.This message has been edited by randman, 08-06-2005 04:12 PM

The point is we really don't see evolution occuring like the fine points of the light spectrum, as some have claimed here, at least not with mammals.That is easily disproven.If that were the case, there would be no branching off, as evolutionists theorized, but we would have one, long, single line with probably every little step attested to.Imo, some here such as robin and ned have argued a theory of evolution that not even evolutionists themselves, at least not the scientists in that field, believe in.

quote:

---

He [pakicetus] is hooved....

---

Not only hooved, but carnivorous as well. Meat eating hooved animals. Doesn't anyone else think that's so cool?

So, Ya. Dogs and Walruses are in the same Order. They don't look very much alike.Pakicetus is in Cetecea the same order as modern whales.What's the problem?Your argument basicaly boils down to an argument of ignorance/incredulity. "I can't belive something that dosn't look like a whale is an ancient ancestor of modern whales! SHAM SHAM! FOOLS! BLAAARG!"

Ya man! Ain't it grand Wouldn't it be cool if the impala were carnivorus? Would be neat to see one go head to head with a Lion or something hahaha.