Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

Photographic evidence of vestigial hind limbs on Cetacean Species exists:In latter 2002, Edward T. Babinski posted on this Forum, about whale evolution. I was searching months later, out of my own personal interest, in a vague hope to find something on the web, that would give some hard evidence for whale evolution, to be true.I ran into a lot of dead ends, and information which I didn't consider convincing enough. I found some sites, where Creationist(s) mocked that no photographic evidence exists for hind limbs on whales.... the more I searched, the more disillusioned I became.I came across Ed's article in this forum - - it was the only thing I came away with that day, in my entire Google search, which gave me some hope evidence exists. After acquainting Ed through this Forum, we've had extensive email correspondence, and I still maintain the same interest in Cetacean Evolution as I did that day, when I bumped into him.Since then, he's done a lot of research on the subject and we've worked to get an article, prepared and placed on the web. He's done an excellent job, if I might say so.Creationists claim no photographs exist?
Edward Babinski has provided an abundant amount of graphic evidence, also with appreciation to WGBH-Boston/Carl Zimmer's "Evolution Project", for their contribution to the article.This article "Cetacean Evolution: Whales, Porpoises, Dolphins" is located at Edward T. Babinski - Cetacean EvolutionThe public may also review the amusing response by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., from Answers in Genesis, in regard to Ed's earliest version of "Cetacean Evolution". (Long before Ed got the article on the web).That article, containing Dr. Sarfati's emails, is located at
File Not Found--
Ed Babinski and myself, welcome people to visit.Thank you, Sharon Lemke
http://www.skeptical-christian.net
Scrivenings[This message has been edited by Sharon357, 06-29-2003]

To Readers of EvC Forum: This information was available to Dr. Sarfati in 1994-1996, and as a PhD, he should have known better.Quote from:
Mutations | Answers in Genesis
Top: Ambulocetus skeleton, as drawn in Miller's book
Middle: Ambulocetus reconstruction, as drawn in Miller‘s book
Bottom: Actual bones found (Yellow). Note missing pelvic girdle.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis The question that comes to mind is if this was a deliberate attempt to mislead AiG readers, or simply an oversight due to negligence on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati? The fossil certainly does include backbone, leg bones, and pelvic bones. As is noted in the paraphrased excerpt below from National Geographic, Professor Hans Thewissen was discussing the spine of Ambulocetus as early as 1994, it would seem Answers in Genesis would be aware of this fact, ten years later.Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:
On p. 265, Miller claimed, ‘the animal could move easily both on land and in water', and contained a drawing of a complete skeleton and a reconstructed animal. But this is misleading, bordering on deceitful, and indicative of Miller's unreliability, because there was no indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than appear in his diagram. Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was not found (see diagram, right). Without this, it's presumptuous for Miller to make that proclamation.------------I could not help but to notice your rendering of Ambulocetus, and how it portrays a lot of bones supposedly being missing from the fossil.Your sketch is drastically misleading Dr. Sarfati. We have a photo image of the Ambulocetus skeleton and it not only contains the entire pelvic region but it contains all the primary leg bones as well.
File Not FoundAlso, you portray the spine missing and it's certainly not missing.
Please do update your fossil info.Best regards------------------It's worse than I presumed. I read over the article I had dug out from a 1994 National Geographic magazine, [paraphrased in our whale article], Thewissen was well on the way of discussing the spine of this creature:"In a May 1994 issue of National Geographic, it reports the find of Ambulocetus in a former inland sea of Pakistan. Thewissen dubbed the ancient whale fossil Ambulocetus natans for "swimming, walking whale". He explains, on land it would lumber like a sea lion, and "it would look clumsy, but it could still get around." His team recovered much of the fossil including a skull which identified the fossil as a cetacean. The spine indicates the creature moved in similar fashion to modern whales, using its lower back in an up and down motion, while using its hind limbs for propulsion. It's forelimbs are believed to have been used for steering."----------------------- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Question on Ambulocetus DiscoveryDear Professor Thewissen,When exactly was the spine, the leg bones, the pelvic girdle discovered of Ambulocetus?This morning I decided to take a look at Answers In Genesis
Mutations | Answers in Genesis
where Sarfati is arguing against the PBS Special #2 "Evolution:Great Transformations".Sarfati is saying there was no spine, no pelvic bones, no leg bones -- and you were discussing the spine as early as 1994, and I have a reconstructed photo image of the Ambulocetus -- very much complete! Where he got his information is questionable -- and it seems clear to me he has never so much as seen this fossil. I've added all the questions I arrived at to the whale page. This is a misleading article by Creationists.I ask when the spine, the leg bones, especially the pelvic bones were discovered because Dr. Sarfati should have known about these fossil finds when it happened, and it's now 2004, and he still believes they do not exist? (So it is pictured on their web page).Thank you----------------------------- Original Message -----
From: J. G. M. Thewissen
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Question on Ambulocetus DiscoveryThe specimen was dug up in two phases, results from the first were published in 1994, results from the second in 1996. In 1994, we described some vertebrae, most leg bones, but no pelvis. In 1996, we described many more vertebrae, as well as the pelvis. So inferences about the spine in 1994 were based on the vertebrae we had then. The figure we published in 1994 shows, in stippling, what was known and not-known for the specimen at that time. So there is really no reason why anyone should be misled (as long as they take the trouble to go back to the original publication).The reason for the delay between the two publications sounds like somewhat from a police movie. We tried to go back and collect the rest of the specimen before the publication in 1994. However, the region had turned in a haven for outlaws. On the day that we were going to start to work there, a man had been kidnapped and a large number of policemen was stopped along the road there to confront the kidnappers. They told us to keep on driving and not stop on that road where the action was happening. At that point, I decided that there was no point waiting to collect more material, because it was not obvious that we would ever be allowed (able) to go back to the site.Hans Thewissen-------------------This explains why Sarfati was referencing a journal from 1994 in his article, although he should have known the information was updated and changed in 1996 with the new discoveries by Thewissen's team:‘ since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.
Berta, A., What is a Whale? Science 263(5144):180—181, 1994; perspective on Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T. and Arif, M., Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales, same issue, pp. 210212. Mutations | Answers in Genesis --------------------Thank you
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon as possible.
> Return to home page---------------------I just wanted to pass along a note of interest to Dr. Sarfati, that I have been working all day on the subject of Ambulocetus, in regard to his article located at:
Mutations | Answers in Genesis Professor Hans Thewissen verified for me today information about Ambulocetus' pelvis, backbone and leg bones, that indeed they were known to scientific circles between 1994-1996 and he explained in depth the cause for the gap between finds. Dr. Sarfati's article indicates a lack of knowledge on this critical issue, by outright denying the existence of pelvis, backbone, and leg bones. Dr. Sarfati perhaps is interested to visit, and read, Edward T. Babinski - Cetacean Evolution
and hopefully willing to consider revising his current hypothesis on whale evolution, at least where Ambulocetus plays into the picture. We have a photograph of the Ambulocetus fossil, and it is as near to a complete skeleton, as is necessary for this discussion.

"Loudmouth" wrote:
Great post Sharon. Mind if I quote your post (especially the email from Thewissen) in other forums?Sharon: Please do.

Here's something that's just as good as being able to get into a time machine and go back a few million years -- though the "vestigials" are in our own day and time.SIRENIAN EVOLUTION: Manatees... Sea Cows... Dugongs.
It's the same process with whales, land to sea.Some of the manatee have lost their elephant toenails, and others still have them.I do not know how AiG and the creationists would explain away the phenomena of sea cows with elephant toenails on their flippers. (Along with all the other shared features in common with elephants).I finished merging our whale evolution article into a site, along with the museum photos, including the page I have been working on with Sea Cows (though I'm waiting on Ed Babinski to compile his history on the common ancestry between elephant and sirenians).Hans Thewissen has added information to his website on Sirenian fossils.
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/We obtained permission from PBS' Reading Rainbow to use clips from their episode of Sam the Sea Cow.It's available under Special Featured Articles on the site.
Sirenian Evolution
(Manatee, Sea Cow, Dugong)
Sirenians and Elephants are evolved from a common ancestor. Like whales, sirenians returned to the water. Though hind limbs on whales may be rare and difficult to witness, many sirenians (not all) still retain vestigial toenails like their elephant cousins, and share other traits in common with modern elephants. Includes commentary between LeVar Burton and Dr. Mark Lowe, Veterenary Science. Contains images courtesy of Reading Rainbow, PBS Television. (GPN/Nebraska Educational Telecommunications and WNED-TV, Buffalo NY).http://whales.creation-science.usThis message has been edited by Sharon357, 12-04-2004 10:18 PM