That wasn't the first publication since the earlier findings, was it?I didn't get the impression from reading the article that nothing had been published prior, except for the initial paper.

WRONG!

At the time the article was written, all they had was a skull. Capice? Comprende?

WRONG!

It was an incorrect depiction. The article made it clear. The illustration made it clear.

WRONG!

The discovery was published Sep. 20th the Nov. issue is on store shelves, and in the mail in OCTOBRE. Further, big publications take 3-6 months to put together. I have worked in publishing, I know.Lastly, the knowledge of the find was not yet mainstream. National Geo. didn't know about it yet.

WRONG!

Again, at the time the article was written, all they had was a skull. The article makes it clear. As a matter of fact the writter is sitting down speaking with a scinetist while the skull in question is on the table. Your right randman. Its a conspiracy by evil scientists.

Pakicitus's full body findings were not made public till their apearance in science on Sept. 20th 2001. That's it. That's the fact.

Science must have deliberately delayed publication so that the evo myth would be propagated.

pakicetus was first found in 1983, a skull. the article was published in 1998. the reconstruction you like was based on a more complete find in 2001.by the time the national geographic article came out, they had a skull. have you really not been paying attention to the thread? your reconstruction is a NEWER one. i did acknowledge that they were wrong: it's legs are far too short. they seem to have based that on ambulocetus. the evidence above clearly refutes that it was SIMPLY a running land mammal. it has certain aquatic adaptions, though not very many. and even if it didn't, and wasn't even remotely related to a whale, it would not be outrageous to show such an animal swimming. lots of land mammals do. that article was published in 2001, based on the new find. check your dates, randman.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-21-2005 09:59 PM

---

אָרַח

yes, but i missed the part where it said "pakicetus did not have webbed feet." can you point it out for me? you've also been shown similar land mammals that DID have webbed feet (check the first page), and a clear refutation of that article's conclusion.science is not rock-solid fact if and only when you want it to be. right now, the sky is not blue.and you accuse me of oversimplification!

---

אָרַח

that this:looks a lot like this:just a coincidence, eh? that IS the creationist argument, isn't it.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-21-2005 10:07 PM

---

אָרַח

Arach, the National Geographic article was published in 2001 also. It was the Nov. 2001 issue. The nature article came out Sep 20th 2001. National Geo. months are allways a month before the actual month meaning that the issue would have been on store shelves and in the mail during Octobre.The fact is, the release of the new fossil findings was much too close to the National Geo publication. Not to mention the fact, that just because an article apears in Nature, it's not necisseraly the most mainstream info.None the less, the article is very clearly written without knowledge of Pakicetus' body. Infact, the writter is sitting down with a scientist discussing the skull.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-22-2005 08:22 AM

ok, i must have had the issues mixed up.

since you ignored it the first time:

quote:

---

They went with the description which just happens to exagerrate the creature that makes it appear more like the next creature in the so-called transition.

​

just a coincidence, eh?

​

that this:

​

​

looks a lot like this:

​

​

just a coincidence, eh? that IS the creationist argument, isn't it.

---

how can a creationist argue in good faith that these two creatures are totally unrelated, but that these two are the very same species:seems like a pretty blatant double standard to me.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-22-2005 08:59 PM

---

אָרַח

Arachnophilia, I've been pointing out the same sort of thing for ages. Never get a decent response though. Maybe dear ol' randman... nah, who am I kidding?

seems kinda ridiculous, doesn't it? i mean, at least they could be consistent.hey randman, any attempt or even desire to defend this screaming double standard?

---

אָרַח

From the OP:
_____________________________________________________________________
For the lurkers, Pakicetus is purely a land animal that evolutionists claim is a whale or alternatively an ancestor to a whale, and tried to pass it off as semi-aquatic even though they had nothing but a skull. Basically, the animal has a slightly expanded aurul cavity, and pretty much on that basis, they think it must have been the beginnings of whales evolving, but interestingly, some evos call it one of the first whales, even though it looks like a dog or large rate, and has basically no whale features at all.
___________________________________________________________________So, Randman, are you now tacitly agreeing that there was no deception?

Do you think randman knows that is the Neanderthal "frankenstein" skeleton on the left?It certainly looks like you swing pakecetus' arms and legs back to the swimming position and you have a much closer similarity. Semi-aquatic is enough. Tapir like behavior is enough.Some differences in the rib cage area and the eye orbits - which are relatively large: nocturnal (like hippo, also with eyes on the top of the head)? dark waters?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not forgetting that it isn't as simple as it sounds to tell what a critter is capable of doing (as opposed to being incapable of doing). Even if Pakicetus exhibited no aquatic adaptations, it would not mean it could not swim. Most mammals are good swimmers -- who'da thunk elephants could swim so well? But my favourite example is goats. Could one guess, looking at their skeletons, how good they are at climbing trees?!