Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

Except that these teeth are seen in other land mammals.Furthermore, just because it is standard MO in evolutionism does not make it right.Where is the evidence that similarity in teetch cannot arise in similarity in design, common designer, or from convergent evolution?Moreover, to classify something as a whale with at best some claims on similar teeth, not exactly the same, and some whale-like features in the ears while ignoring the massive number of differing traits linking the same creature to land mammals, such as hooves, hair, 4-legs, etc, etc,...jus shows demonstrably the incredible levels at which evos are willing to distort the data and the evidence.Clearly, Pakicetus has more in common with other land mammals than to whales. It does possess a few chimeric traits, but in no sense is it even close to being cetacean, except that evos call it cetacean because they desperately want to claim transitional forms.

quote:

---

We are at post 25* at this point, and essentially you have driven it around in circles and into a ditch.

---

I was hoping that someone would post something general about transitional so I could mention archaeopteryx. I would love to see randman chew up an entire 300 post thread on archaeopteryx.

quote:

---

It does possess a few chimeric traits....

---

Great! That is the definition of a transitional species. You have just admitted that this species is a transitional.

Yes, randman, you are correct. Pakicetus should more correctly be called the earliest identified cetacean ancestor. Does that still deny the point that some of its eventual ancestors evolved into whales?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-06-2005 05:41 PM

Thanks.On whether it's ancestors evolved into whales, I don't think it did because I think had such a process occurred, or occurred naturally, we would see with such long periods of semi-aquatic creatures a large percentage of fossils of the species that would have evolved along that path.We see nearly every known whale species and certainly every family fossilized, but we see almost none of these transitional forms.We've been looking a very long time, and yet despite being able to find numerous examples of all the whale families fossilized, we cannot find these transitional species.At best, we have a handful, and imo, those are iffy. Pakicetus appears to be more analomous than strong evidence for anything. It's features are chimeric in a few details, such as the ankle, hooves (being meat-eating), and difference in ears, but that's it.I also think we need more comparitive studies, even if one accepts some evolutionist assumptions, of the limits of convergent evolution.For example, concerning the teeth. Let's say we find several families of land mammals with similar teeth to whales.Why would these land mammals not have evolved the same teeth since we are dealing with adaptations for meat-eating?How could you tell that with such scant evidence, a few isolated tendencies towards some similar-looking structures in mammals are not just the result of mutual adaptation for 2 distinct meat-eating creatures?Surely, meat-eating would, based on evolutionist assumptions, produce better forms of teetch adapted for that purpose, and if 2 creatures are mammals, they may well share some similar genetic qualities predisposed to mutate according to a certain pattern.'It is thus far from clear that a few adaptive similarities equals a common ancestry line.

Randman, try not to be so obtuse."These animals" refers to the specified creatures before the sentence ie. to other whale species that show very primitive characters in both the skull and the rest of the skeleton. This is subsequently expanded on by giving details of Rodhocetus which has fossils of other parts of the skeleton which show that it was aquatic.Your interpretation of the paragraph that it says that Pakicetus was aquatic is unsupported and contradicted by a full reading of the paragraph which you failed to reproduce in toto.I note that you have been very free in impuning the integrity of scientists who study the material.

About as free as some have been calling a non-whale a whale.

Aren't we waiting for you to substantiate your assertion that there should be a large number of fossils of transitions and that most of the fossils which ever existed have been found? If you have already given evidence for these assertions then please direct me to them.

So, Randman. Since you seem to have figured out that Pakecetus is not a member of the Order Cetecea, maybe you should write a paper?I mean, you could put some real waves into the field of Cetacean ancestory. You don't need to be a scientist to do this eaither, if you have valid findings you could easely find someone to team up with you and help you get thrugh the technical writting required for publication.I mean crap, you've picked up on what seems to be some major oversightes that people working their whole lives in the field have never concidered. Imagine, and all you had to do was open up your web browser. If you ask me, you stand the chance of getting some serious grant money.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-06-2005 07:44 PM

Yaro, I realize you are being facetious, but if I thought it was possible, I might, particularly on analyzing fossilzation rates for known mammals, and even for extinct mammals.On Cetaceans, like some of the many other whale transition scenarios prior to that, I suspect it will change, and we'll have a substantially different "explanation" out forward in 10-15 years.

I've cited some evidence that all known families of whales have fossilized remains. So considering the high rate of fossilization among whales, it is likely that earlier whales and whale-like creatures would be well-represented.

No, because the aspects of chimeric traits don't match well, and that's a problem with a lot of chimeras. On that point, the YECers have a good point. They are problematic for ToE, and appear to support creationism.But chimeras are really a different thread topic.

Yep, just as I thought, you really don't know what a transitional species is.Using the theory of evolution, scientists predicted that these *ahem* "chimeras" existed. Now we all know that these "chimeras" did, in fact, exist, just like the theory of evolution predicted. Another point for the theory of evolution.By the way, any fish/whale chimeras?

It really is possible. I remember reading how Nature admited the work of a 12 year old and her mom who had a science project dealing with global warming. The project had merit, so scientists offered to help her write the paper.If your Cetacean theory really does hold water, try and write something up. See if you can get a scientist to help you with the finer points.Oh, and I'm not totaly being fascecius, if you really have this knowledge there are plenty of scientists who are willing to jump at the chance to disprove a currently held theory. Likely, but I bet you that the difference will allways be based on what came before. Meaning, there will never come a day when scientists are claiming that cetaceans came from fish.The way science works is to refine and revise. It's not simply a guessing game played by fools with Phd's.

randman, This is pointless, childlike equivocation.Whether you stop calling something a whale at point x, or point y is irrelevant.DNA, protein, & morphological data taken from modern mammals suggest cetaceans are nested within the artiodactyla. A corollary of this is that fossils should exist that possess characters from both modern cetacea & ancient artiodactyls. Furthermore, the fossil record should show a general "phasing" from one "morph" to another. These predictions are borne out.Your position would have merit if intermediates existed between all possible combinations of taxa, but they don't.If you are going to ignore the evidence or dismiss it as mere coincidence, then do so. It wouldn't be the first time, would it? Remember your assertion that cladograms based upon different datasets don't show overall congruence, & your example of whales to demonstrate this?Camels, pigs, peccarries, mystocetes, odontocetes etc. always fall within artiodactyla and consistently form the same family level clades (above) among themselves. Moreover, they never fall in the following orders (what a coincidence!):Perissodactyls, paenungulata, rodentia, chiroptera, primates, carnivora, xenarthra, ameridelphia, australidelphia, multituberculata, docodonta, triconodonta, symmetrodonta, enantiothornes, hesperornithiformes, icthiornithiformes, anseriformes, galliformes, podicepiformes, gaviiformes, sphenisciformes, pelecaniformes, procellariformes, gruiformes, charadriiformes, columbiformes, ciconiiormes, falconiformes, strigiformes, caprimulgiformes, apodiformes, coraciiformes, piciformes, passeriformes, pelycosauria, therapsida, testudines, araeoscelidia, younginiformes, placondontia, nothosauria, plesiosauria, sphenodontia, squamata, prolacertiformes, crocodilia, pterosauria, saurischia, ornithischia, aistopoda, nectridia, microsauria, temnospondyli, gymnophiona, urodela, anura, anthracosauria, seymoriamorpha, diadectomorpha, thelodonti,heterostraci, arandaspida, astraspida, galeaspida, osteostraci, ctenacanthiformes,hybodontiformes, xenacanthiformes, symmoriformes, eugeneodontiformes, petalodontiformes, iniopterygiformes, chongrenchelyformes, ptyctodontida, rhenanida, acanthoraci, petalichthyida, phyllolepida, arthrodira, antiarchi, saurichthyiformes, paleonisciformes, pholidopleuroformes, perleidiformes, peltopleuriformes, pynodontiformes, parasemionontiformes, amiiformes, osteoglossiformes, anguilliformescrossognathiformes, ellimmichthyiformes, clupeiformes, esociformes, gonorhynchiformes, cypriniformes, charachiformes, siluriformes, salmoniformes, stomiiformes, aulopiformes, myctophyformes, polymiciiformes, percopsiformes, ophidiiformes, lophiiformes, gadiformes, atheriniformes, cyprinodontiformes, beloniformes, beryciformes, lampridiformes, zeiformes, gasterosteiformes, dactyliopteriformes, scorpaeniformes, perciformes, pleuronectiformes, tetraodontiformes, diabolepidida, dipnoi, porolepiforms, rhizodontiformes, osteolepiforms, pandericthyida...I could list the hundreds of other animal order level clades that camels, pigs, peccarries, mystocetes, odontocetes etc. never fall into regardless of dataset used, but what would be the point?The only incongruence is the branching order/location of the family level clades within order artiodactlya. But if you ignore all of that mighty congruence, then different datasets are indeed incongruent overall. The predicted evidence exists, & it all points the same way. Live with it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-06-2005 08:13 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't