Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[The Barbarian]

I hate to break it to you, Barb, but Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rhodocetus are, one by one, being falsified

How does an actual fossil of a living organism become "falsified?"

and their "whale features" are being withdrawn by "whale evolution experts" and even by the discoverers themselves.

You were badly fooled on that one. Pakicetus was thought to be a normal whale because the skull was very, whale-like, even with an adaptation for hearing well under water. Only after they found the rest of the skeleton, did it become clear that it was a transitional form between ungulates and whales. Oops.

More and more skeletons of Ambulocetus have been found, confirming the original find. Here's the first one:

There are now about ten of them known, and those additional specimens filled in the gaps. Formerly missing ribs, left leg bones, upper jaw parts, and cervical vertebrae have been found.

In other words, the increasing evidence for whale evolution amounts to the most difficult problem for YE creationism. Even honest creationists admit that the large number of transitional series are very good evidence for evolutionary theory. Kurt Wise is honest enough to admit it. And he is quite familiar with the evidence, which he has examined and knows is not faked.

This is called an appeal to authority.

In the sense that your doctor's opinion on your need for an appendectomy carries more weight than the guy who trims your hedges. Wise is a creationist who actually knows paleontology and is honest enough to admit that the many whale transitionals cannot be explained by YE creationism.

No fake "hydroplate" stories needed.

 

[Stripe]

How does an actual fossil of a living organism become "falsified?"



You were badly fooled on that one. Pakicetus was thought to be a normal whale because the skull was very, whale-like, even with an adaptation for hearing well under water. Only after they found the rest of the skeleton, did it become clear that it was a transitional form between ungulates and whales. Oops.

More and more skeletons of Ambulocetus have been found, confirming the original find. Here's the first one:

There are now about ten of them known, and those additional specimens filled in the gaps. Formerly missing ribs, left leg bones, upper jaw parts, and cervical vertebrae have been found.

In other words, the increasing evidence for whale evolution amounts to the most difficult problem for YE creationism. Even honest creationists admit that the large number of transitional series are very good evidence for evolutionary theory. Kurt Wise is honest enough to admit it. And he is quite familiar with the evidence, which he has examined and knows is not faked.



In the sense that your doctor's opinion on your need for an appendectomy carries more weight than the guy who trims your hedges. Wise is a creationist who actually knows paleontology and is honest enough to admit that the many whale transitionals cannot be explained by YE creationism.

No fake "hydroplate" stories needed.

Oops.

You got lied to. That's not a huge problem, though, if you're willing to learn.

So, tell us, Barbarian: Have you got the humility to spend a little time learning what the challenges are to your ideas, or are you just going to keep asserting them as facts?

 

[ok doser]

He's old, he's resistant to learning and he's exhibiting signs of dementia

He's too far gone to change, I'm afraid

 

[Stripe]

He's old, he's resistant to learning and he's exhibiting signs of dementia

He's too far gone to change, I'm afraid

:think:

Maybe. :idunno:

But it might be helpful for others who are willing to learn to see his silly challenges answered. :up:

 

[Right Divider]

So, tell us, Barbarian: Have you got the humility to spend a little time learning what the challenges are to your ideas, or are you just going to keep asserting them as facts?

My guess is #2

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution along with the 'Big Bang' idea are losing the people as more evidence comes to light.

Well, let's take a look.

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

Does anyone believe in creationism, anymore? Yes, still a few, but fewer and fewer as the years pass...

The people responsible for this shift are the young. According to a recent Pew Research Center report, 73 percent of American adults younger than 30 expressed some sort of belief in evolution, a jump from 61 percent in 2009, the first year in which the question was asked. The number who believed in purely secular evolution (that is, not directed by any divine power) jumped from 40 percent to a majority of 51 percent. In other words, if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you’re likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God.

The increase in younger people embracing evolution is “quite striking,” says Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University and an expert witness the landmark court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, which kicked “intelligent design” out of public school classrooms in 2005. “We’re moving in the right direction.”

How could the universe just appear out of nothing, and be spinning in all different tangents rather than one way as they should, be larger than we can even chart in such a short time.

Creation by God, and motion by conservation of angular momentum. Easy.

Many ideas of man which no longer seem to have any validity with people today.

One of those is YE creationism. Dying out at an increasing rate.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does an actual fossil of a living organism become "falsified?"

By being shown to be faked.

Just like Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus.

You were badly fooled on that one. Pakicetus was thought to be a normal whale because the skull was very, whale-like, even with an adaptation for hearing well under water. Only after they found the rest of the skeleton, did it become clear that it was a transitional form between ungulates and whales. Oops.

The full fossil has no resemblance to a whale whatsoever.

More and more skeletons of Ambulocetus have been found, confirming the original find. Here's the first one:

I don't know about you, but to me, that looks nothing like a whale...

There are now about ten of them known, and those additional specimens filled in the gaps. Formerly missing ribs, left leg bones, upper jaw parts, and cervical vertebrae have been found.

In other words, the increasing evidence for whale evolution amounts to the most difficult problem for YE creationism. Even honest creationists admit that the large number of transitional series are very good evidence for evolutionary theory. Kurt Wise is honest enough to admit it. And he is quite familiar with the evidence, which he has examined and knows is not faked.

A "proof by repeated assertion" argument is a type of fallacy, Barb.

That's the kind of argument you're making.

In the sense that your doctor's opinion on your need for an appendectomy carries more weight than the guy who trims your hedges. Wise is a creationist who actually knows paleontology and is honest enough to admit that the many whale transitionals cannot be explained by YE creationism.

No fake "hydroplate" stories needed.

:blabla:

This coming from someone who believes, contrary to evidence, that Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus are whale ancestors...

Would you like to learn why your beliefs are incorrect? or are you going to continue to assert your position is correct without evidence.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know about you, but to me, that looks nothing like a whale...

Come on JR... put on your evolutionary glasses and see....

Would you like to learn why your beliefs are incorrect? or are you going to continue to assert your position is correct without evidence.

#2

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
How does an actual fossil of a living organism become "falsified?"

By being shown to be faked.

As you learned, they are all real, not fakes.

Just like Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus.

Because the first ones found had some parts missing? Bad argument; as more are found, the missing parts become known. It particularly amusing that one creationist was whinging about not having a left front leg, when the right front leg was present. (never heard of bilateral symmetry, I guess)

The full fossil has no resemblance to a whale whatsoever.

Except for the head, teeth, and particularly ears, which have bony structures only found in true whales. Incidentally, Ambulocetus made it clear why whales have horizontal flukes, not vertical fins. Would you like to learn how we knew that?

Barbarian observes:
In other words, the increasing evidence for whale evolution amounts to the most difficult problem for YE creationism. Even honest creationists admit that the large number of transitional series are very good evidence for evolutionary theory. Kurt Wise is honest enough to admit it. And he is quite familiar with the evidence, which he has examined and knows is not faked.

A "proof by repeated assertion" argument is a type of fallacy, Barb.

Here's the facts, he cites:
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
Palentologist (and YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms)

Wise doesn't believe that these all evolved from land animals. He is honest enough to admit that these are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary thoery", and suggests that although these seem to directly contradict YE beliefs, there may be a creationist explanation some day. He merely lays out the evidence and notes that it is consistent with evolution, not YE creationism.

That's the kind of argument you're making.

Yep. He's a scientist, too, and evidence is the way it works.

As you learned, these very early whales have anatomical features that mark them as whales. Wise believes what you believe, but he's not going to deny the facts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As you learned, they are all real, not fakes.

No, Barb. They were faked.

(Emphasis mine...)

Dr. Werner documented that blowholes were added to skeletal models of the walking whales Pakicetus and Ambulocetus even though fossil evidence of the blowhole region had not been found; a whale’s tail (fluke) was added to the walking whale Rodhocetus except no tail fossils had been found; and front fins were added to the walking whales Rodhocetus and Pakicetus when fossils of fins did not exist. According to Dr. Werner, “The two scientists who found the lion’s share of walking whale fossils essentially created the best fossil proof of evolution using plaster models and drawings and supplied these to museums and science magazines. In each case, they started with incomplete fossils of a land mammal. Whenever a fossil part was missing, they substituted a whale body part (blowholes, fins and flukes) on the skeletal model or skull that they distributed to museums. When these same scientists later found fossils negating their original interpretations, they did not recall the plaster models or drawings. Now museums are full of skulls and skeletons of ‘walking whales’ that are simply false.” Dr. Werner went on to say, “I suspect some curators are not aware of the significance of these substitutions nor are they aware of the updated fossils. Museums should now remove all of the altered skeletons, skulls and drawings since the most important parts of these ‘walking whales’ are admittedly made up. Museums will also have to delete these images from their websites as they are misleading the public.”

Because the first ones found had some parts missing?

No, Barb, because they were MADE UP!

AND ON TOP OF THAT, when presented with fossils that negated their original interpretations, they DID NOT RECALL their models or drawings.

Bad argument; as more are found, the missing parts become known. It particularly amusing that one creationist was whinging about not having a left front leg, when the right front leg was present. (never heard of bilateral symmetry, I guess)

It's not that the missing parts are found, it's that what is continued to be presented in museums AROUND THE WORLD are still not updated to match the evidence, which shows that they were NOT, in fact, related to whales.

Except for the head, teeth, and particularly ears, which have bony structures only found in true whales. Incidentally, Ambulocetus made it clear why whales have horizontal flukes, not vertical fins. Would you like to learn how we knew that?

I don't find anything that you post to be convincing, Barb, because the evidence says otherwise:

Since only two closely linked scientists had found nearly all of the “fossil” evidence of walking whales, Dr. Werner began to wonder if the other walking whales were created in this same way. In 2013, he interviewed the second scientist, Dr. Hans Thewissen, (a former student of Dr. Gingerich), who found the walking whale called Ambulocetus. Dr. Werner said, “It was like Déjà vu. I walked in for the interview and saw the skeleton lying there on the table and I was again stunned. The most spectacular part of the fossil, a partially evolved blowhole, was missing on the fossil. It appeared that Thewissen had added whale parts (in this case a blowhole) to the areas where he had no fossil evidence, just as his former professor had done.” When Dr. Werner began questioning Dr. Thewissen about the shape of the skull and missing fossil parts, Thewissen retracted the entire blowhole idea even though he had supplied the world’s top museums with skeletons having blowholes. Dr. Thewissen had reported seven other whale characters of Ambulocetus, but all of these, according to Dr. Werner, are problematic. “Dr. Thewissen said that the cheekbone of Ambulocetus was ‘reduced’ as in modern whales and dolphins; but, in fact, the cheekbone of Ambulocetus is larger than the cheekbone of a horse. If Ambulocetus is a whale based on its cheekbones, then Mr. Ed is a whale too. It is surprising that the editors of Science did not pick up on all this when he submitted his article.” Finally, according to Dr. Werner, Dr. Thewissen also retracted his statement that Ambulocetus had a key feature, a whale-like ear bone called a sigmoid process. For scientists, this important part cinched the idea that Ambulocetus was a whale in the first place. Dr. Werner: “The ear bone of Ambulocetus looks nothing like a whale ear bone. What he called a sigmoid process does not look like a whale sigmoid process. Surprisingly, in our interview, Dr. Thewissen changed his position and suggested that the ear bone of Ambulocetus looked more like a mole rat ear bone. You see, all eight characters he reported as whale features are disturbingly non-whale characters.”

As you learned, these very early whales have anatomical features that mark them as whales. Wise believes what you believe, but he's not going to deny the facts.

Rather, many of the features that you are claiming are natural are, in fact, fabricated. Literally.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, Barb. They were faked.

These "they are all lying" stories usually turn out to be fantasies, but let's take a look...

Dr. Werner documented that blowholes were added to skeletal models of the walking whales Pakicetus and Ambulocetus even though fossil evidence of the blowhole region had not been found;

Show us that. It would be rather odd, since the nostrils on Pakicetus were already known. Sounds like another "just-so" creationist story. But maybe not. Show us. Since the nostrils were missing on Ambulocetus, but there was no blowhole on the head, that wouldn't have been done. I showed you the first reconstruction of Ambulocetus, but there's no blowhole reconstruction at all. Take another look, at the reconstruction of the first Ambulocetid:

No such thing. They lied to you. No other way to put it. It would be impossible to fake a blowhole, since the part of the skull where the blowhole would be located, was there. I have to say, this does no small damage to the credibility of the people who presented that dishonesty to you.

a whale’s tail (fluke) was added to the walking whale Rodhocetus except no tail fossils had been found;

That's wrong. There are enough specimens that the tail is known. The flesh was shown as a reconstruction. Here's an example:

So on what evidence did they infer a fluke? The fact that this whale is much more adapted to swimming and less adapted to walking than ambulocetus suggests a fluke, as do the more robust tail segments. The fact the hind feet were much smaller, and less effective for swimming, indicates that the tail was more important for movement. Hence a flattened tail was inferred.

Compare to Ambulocetus, with a much less robust tail. We don't know for sure what the shape was, but it was a large tail and would be more efficient if flattened. Why horzontally?

Because the first whales swam with a gallopiing motion, like otters. We know this because of Ambulocetus' feet. So it wasn't a sinuous motion like that of fish or reptiles.


Barbarian asks:
Because the first ones found had some parts missing?

No, Barb, because they were MADE UP!

No, that's wrong. As I showed you, reconstructions are made with the missing (but inferred) parts unstippled to show. Your guys didn't realize what that meant, and blew it entirely.

I don't find anything that you post to be convincing, Barb

Doesn't matter. As you see, the evidence doesn't support your beliefs.

Since your guy's story about Dr. Thewissen is unsupported, and since we've already caught him in a dishonesty, you'll need to provide some support for that one.

Finally, according to Dr. Werner, Dr. Thewissen also retracted his statement that Ambulocetus had a key feature, a whale-like ear bone called a sigmoid process. For scientists, this important part cinched the idea that Ambulocetus was a whale in the first place. Dr. Werner: “The ear bone of Ambulocetus looks nothing like a whale ear bone. What he called a sigmoid process does not look like a whale sigmoid process.

Well, that's a testable claim...

The whale ear, initially designed for hearing in air, became adaptedfor hearing underwater in less than ten million years of evolution. Thisstudy describes the evolution of underwater hearing in cetaceans, focusingon changes in sound transmission mechanisms. Measurements were madeon 60 fossils of whole or partial skulls, isolated tympanics, middle earossicles, and mandibles from all six archaeocete families. Fossil data werecompared with data on two families of modern mysticete whales and ninefamilies of modern odontocete cetaceans, as well as five families of non-cetacean mammals. Results show that the outer ear pinna and external auditory meatus were functionally replaced by the mandible and the mandibular fat pad, which posteriorly contacts the tympanic plate, the lateral wall of the bulla. Changes in the ear include thickening of the tympanic bulla medially, isolation of the tympanoperiotic complex by means of air sinuses, functional replacement of the tympanic membrane by a bony plate, and changes in ossicle shapes and orientation. Pakicetids, the earliest archaeocetes, had a land mammal ear for hearing in air, and used boneconduction underwater, aided by the heavy tympanic bulla. Remingtonocetids and protocetids were the first to display a genuine underwater ear where sound reached the inner ear through the mandibular fat pad, the tympanic plate, and the middle ear ossicles. Basilosaurids and dorudontids showed further aquatic adaptations of the ossicular chain and the acoustic isolation of the ear complex from the skull. The land mammal ear and the generalized modern whale ear are evolutionarily stable configurations, two ends of a process where the cetacean mandible might have been a keystonecharacter. Anat Rec 290:716–733, 2007.

ig. 1.A: Diagram of the land mammal ear.B: Diagram of themodern odontocete ear. For technical reasons, the mandibular foramen and the mandibular fat pad are shown on the lateral side of themandible, although they in reality are situated on the medial side. Abbreviations in Figures 1 and 7: Coc, cochlea; Dom, dome-shapeddepression for periotic; EAM, external acoustic meatus; FaPa, man-dibular fat pad; Inc, incus; Inv, involucrum; Mal, malleus; Man, mandi-ble; MeTy, medial synostosis between periotic and tympanic bone, incetaceans this synostosis is absent and is homologous to a gap between these bones (‘‘MeTy’’); OvW, oval window; Per, periotic bone;PeTy, joint between periotic and tympanic; Sin, air sinuses; Sk, skull;Sta, stapes; TyBo, tympanic bone; TyMe, tympanic membrane; TyPl,tympanic plate. Reprinted by permission from MacMillan PublishersLtd: Nature (Nummela et al., 2004a
http://repository.ias.ac.in/4651/1/321.pdf

So not at all what you were told. No surprise there.

 

[JudgeRightly]

These "they are all lying" stories usually turn out to be fantasies, but let's take a look...



Show us that.

http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html
See the section on Pakicetus.

The skull that was presented was a fabrication of Dr. Gingerich, and (at least at the time of writing that page) the fossils that were available had no "nose" section to begin with. In other words, he used his imagination to come up with a full skull, not actual fossils.

It would be rather odd, since the nostrils on Pakicetus were already known.

No, they were not.

Here is the original skull fragments that were found:

There is no way to have known whether the creature had a blowhole from these fragments.

From the link I provided above, talking about Gingerich:

He then created and supplied this full skull (above) to museums (the American Museum of Natural History in New York, The Ditsong National Museum of Natural History in Pretoria) and the producers of the National Geographic television special When Whales Had Legs. He also supplied this artistic drawing (below, left) of this “walking whale,” (complete with flippers, whale ears and whale neck) for the 1983 cover of Science. Later, a full skeleton of this same animal (below, right) was found in 2001. Contrary to what Dr. Gingerich had imagined, it was a land mammal. There was no blowhole; there were no flippers (only hooves); and there was no whale’s neck. Even so, the American Museum of Natural History in New York and The Ditsong National Museum of Natural History in Pretoria continued displaying the false “walking whale” skull with a blowhole supplied by Dr. Gingerich.

In other words, unlike Gingerich's imagined creature, Paki was a land animal.

Sounds like another "just-so" creationist story. But maybe not. Show us. Since the nostrils were missing on Ambulocetus,

I'm pretty sure we're talking about Pakicetus. Why the sudden jump to Ambulocetus?

but there was no blowhole on the head,

Sorry, but Ambulocetus is portrayed as having a blowhole. But the problem with that is that there are NO fossils that have the tip of the snout of Ambulocetus, which means that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO KNOW if Ambulocetus had a blowhole or not.

https://youtu.be/tkwhd_gIR7c
In the video, Dr. Werner asks Dr. Thewissen about the Ambulocetus fossil and its skull.

that wouldn't have been done. I showed you the first reconstruction of Ambulocetus, but there's no blowhole reconstruction at all. Take another look, at the reconstruction of the first Ambulocetid:

No such thing. They lied to you. No other way to put it. It would be impossible to fake a blowhole, since the part of the skull where the blowhole would be located, was there.

See the above video.

I have to say, this does no small damage to the credibility of the people who presented that dishonesty to you.

:blabla:

That's wrong.

No, Barb, you've been misinformed. When the drawings of the fluke tail were first put out by Dr. Gingerich, there were no, repeat, NO tail fossils.

Then later, when they found foreleg fossils, they found out that it didn't have flippers at all (the bone structure is not one that can be spread out like flippers can), and because of that, it would likely not have had a fluke tail at all.

Here's Gingerich himself (in case you've forgotten, he's the discoverer of Rodhocetus) saying that he doubts that Rhodocetus had a fluke tail. 1:17
https://youtu.be/R7e6C6yUqck

There are enough specimens that the tail is known. The flesh was shown as a reconstruction. Here's an example:

See above.

So on what evidence did they infer a fluke?

By "they," do you mean Dr. Gingerich?

According to the man himself, it was speculation. See the above video, timestamp 0:45.

The fact that this whale

Question begging, Barb. Shame on you.

is much more adapted to swimming and less adapted to walking than ambulocetus suggests a fluke, as do the more robust tail segments.

EXCEPT IT'S NOT!

Gingerich DOES NOT BELIEVE ANY LONGER that Rodhocetus had a fluke tail, because the fossils they have now DO NOT HAVE FLIPPERS. 1:17 in the video.

You've been sadly misinformed. Are you willing to humble yourself and submit to the evidence?

The fact the hind feet were much smaller, and less effective for swimming, indicates that the tail was more important for movement. Hence a flattened tail was inferred.

Which has been retracted, due to the front legs not being flippers. Again, 1:17 in the video.

Compare to Ambulocetus, with a much less robust tail. We don't know for sure what the shape was, but it was a large tail and would be more efficient if flattened.

How do you know?

Why horzontally?

Because the first whales swam with a gallopiing motion, like otters. We know this because of Ambulocetus' feet. So it wasn't a sinuous motion like that of fish or reptiles.

Cite, please.

No, that's wrong. As I showed you, reconstructions are made with the missing (but inferred) parts unstippled to show. Your guys didn't realize what that meant, and blew it entirely.



Doesn't matter. As you see, the evidence doesn't support your beliefs.

Since your guy's story about Dr. Thewissen is unsupported, and since we've already caught him in a dishonesty, you'll need to provide some support for that one.



Well, that's a testable claim...

The whale ear, initially designed for hearing in air, became adaptedfor hearing underwater in less than ten million years of evolution. Thisstudy describes the evolution of underwater hearing in cetaceans, focusingon changes in sound transmission mechanisms. Measurements were madeon 60 fossils of whole or partial skulls, isolated tympanics, middle earossicles, and mandibles from all six archaeocete families. Fossil data werecompared with data on two families of modern mysticete whales and ninefamilies of modern odontocete cetaceans, as well as five families of non-cetacean mammals. Results show that the outer ear pinna and external auditory meatus were functionally replaced by the mandible and the mandibular fat pad, which posteriorly contacts the tympanic plate, the lateral wall of the bulla. Changes in the ear include thickening of the tympanic bulla medially, isolation of the tympanoperiotic complex by means of air sinuses, functional replacement of the tympanic membrane by a bony plate, and changes in ossicle shapes and orientation. Pakicetids, the earliest archaeocetes, had a land mammal ear for hearing in air, and used boneconduction underwater, aided by the heavy tympanic bulla. Remingtonocetids and protocetids were the first to display a genuine underwater ear where sound reached the inner ear through the mandibular fat pad, the tympanic plate, and the middle ear ossicles. Basilosaurids and dorudontids showed further aquatic adaptations of the ossicular chain and the acoustic isolation of the ear complex from the skull. The land mammal ear and the generalized modern whale ear are evolutionarily stable configurations, two ends of a process where the cetacean mandible might have been a keystonecharacter. Anat Rec 290:716–733, 2007.

ig. 1.A: Diagram of the land mammal ear.B: Diagram of themodern odontocete ear. For technical reasons, the mandibular foramen and the mandibular fat pad are shown on the lateral side of themandible, although they in reality are situated on the medial side. Abbreviations in Figures 1 and 7: Coc, cochlea; Dom, dome-shapeddepression for periotic; EAM, external acoustic meatus; FaPa, man-dibular fat pad; Inc, incus; Inv, involucrum; Mal, malleus; Man, mandi-ble; MeTy, medial synostosis between periotic and tympanic bone, incetaceans this synostosis is absent and is homologous to a gap between these bones (‘‘MeTy’’); OvW, oval window; Per, periotic bone;PeTy, joint between periotic and tympanic; Sin, air sinuses; Sk, skull;Sta, stapes; TyBo, tympanic bone; TyMe, tympanic membrane; TyPl,tympanic plate. Reprinted by permission from MacMillan PublishersLtd: Nature (Nummela et al., 2004a
http://repository.ias.ac.in/4651/1/321.pdf

So not at all what you were told. No surprise there.

https://youtu.be/GxcZCJ_WgXo
Dr. Thewissen was asked about the Ambulocetus's ear. This is the portion of the interview with Dr. Werner on it.

 

[ok doser]

I don't know why anybody wastes any time on his foolish trolling

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't know why anybody wastes any time on his foolish trolling

For the benefit of the lurkers and readers.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
These "they are all lying" stories usually turn out to be fantasies, but let's take a look...

Show us that.

http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html
See the section on Pakicetus.

Just your guy's assertions with no support for them. And given that we've already caught him in at least one dishonesty...

The skull that was presented was a fabrication of Dr. Gingerich, and (at least at the time of writing that page) the fossils that were available had no "nose" section to begin with. In other words, he used his imagination to come up with a full skull, not actual fossils.

He's a pretty good anatomist. Often, a part of a skull can tell you much about the rest of it. In this case, Dr. Gingerich nailed it. When another skull was found, his reconstruction was right on.

Ambulocetus also had the whalelike skull characteristics that are found in the Archaeocetes, including an ectotympanic with a large sygmoid process, a reduced zygomatic arch, a wide supraorbital process and a narrow muzzle. While these characteristics may also be present in the terrestrial Mesonychids, Ambulocetus also possessed the small protocones and large accessory cusps which distinguish the whales from the Mesochynids.
http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html

Sorry, but Ambulocetus is portrayed as having a blowhole.

Nope. Notice in the first reconstruction, it is depicted as having nostrils. Take another look.

But the problem with that is that there are NO fossils that have the tip of the snout of Ambulocetus

Closer than your guy led you to believe:

which means that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO KNOW if Ambulocetus had a blowhole or not.

No, that's wrong, and if you thought about it, you'd realize why. A blowhole would be at the top of the skull. But it's not there. So the nares will have to be somewhere in the red area of that skull. No way around it.

In other words, unlike Gingerich's imagined creature, Paki was a land animal.

Yeah, that was a surprise. It had a very whale-like skull, so they imagined a whale-like body with flippers. And then, they find it had functional legs.

Sorry, but Ambulocetus is portrayed as having a blowhole.

No, that's wrong. Here's that first reconstruction, again...

They supposed the nostrils were at the front. See where they put them? As you now realize from that Ambulocetus skull, they were pretty close, if not exactly right.

No, Barb, you've been misinformed. When the drawings of the fluke tail were first put out by Dr. Gingerich, there were no, repeat, NO tail fossils.

The bones of the tail have been found, and they are, as you have seen, much more robust than the relatively small and weak tail of Ambulocetus. So this, along with the smaller hind legs and feet, was the evidence that Dorudon was using its tail for propulsion. As you learned earlier, the swimming motion of whales is from the up-and-down galloping motion of swimming mammals. So it wasn't hard to figure out.

How do you know?

Functional analysis. The spine of Ambulocetus is formed to move freely up and down like a galloping horse. That's pretty much how swimming mammals do it, when they spend a lot of time in the water.

That's how Ambulocetus swam. It was built to use the hind feet as propulsion, but only for an up-and-down motion. So that's why whale flukes are horizontal, not vertical.

Cite, please.

Richard Pierce, PH.D. Marine Biology & Plankton, University of Rhode Island (1996)

The fact that whales have horizontal flukes is easily interpreted by the fact that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. Try bending side to side and then front to back. Unless you have terrible back problems, your range of motion front to back is much greater than side to side due to the structure of your spine. For whales, the spine made it most efficient for the flukes to be horizontal and the tail movement be up and down.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-e...al-tail-fins-and-fish-have-vertical-tail-fins


New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming

Philip D. Gingerich, S. Mahmood Raza, Muhammad Arif, Mohammad Anwar & Xiaoyuan Zhou

Naturevolume 368, pages844–847 (1994)

MODERN whales (order Cetacea) are marine mammals that evolved from a land-mammal ancestor, probably a cursorial Palaeocene–Eocene mesonychid1–3. Living whales are streamlined, lack external hind limbs, and all swim by dorsoventral oscillation of a heavily muscled tail4,5. A steamlined rigid body minimizes resistance, while thrust is provided by a lunate horizontal fluke attached to the tail at a narrow base or pedicle6. We describe here a new 46–47-million-year-old archaeocete intermediate between land mammals and later whales. It has short cervical vertebrae, a reduced femur, and the flexible sacrum, robust tail and high neural spines on lumbars and caudals required for dorsoventral oscillation of a heavily muscled tail. This is the oldest fossil whale described from deep-neritic shelf deposits, and it shows that tail swimming evolved early in the history of cetaceans.

 

[Stripe]

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

Darwinists love it when the discussion is over how popular an idea is. They think it's evidence.

Does anyone believe in Darwinism, anymore? Yes, still a few, but fewer and fewer as the years pass.

“We’re moving in the right direction.”

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a shot of a Dorudon skeleton in situ:

Notice the very robust tail vertebrae with large spinous processes. That's a functional swimming tail. So it wasn't just the relatively small feet that gives it away.

Here's the leg bones in place on the spine:

Very small feet and legs, but very robust tail vertebrae. Note the size of the tranverse processes. There was a lot of muscle attached to that tail.

Biomechanics and Form/Function analysis are used to determine the function and movement of animal bodies.

See Leonard Radinsky's The Evolution of Vertebrate Design University of Chicago Press, 1987, p.8.

"Form function correlation involves looking for the behaviors or functions that are correlated with a particular biological form, and then extrapolating the correlation back to extinct forms in order to infer function from their form...Biomechanical design analysis involves looking at a biomechanical structure from a biomechanical or engineering perspective, and inferring from its shape and structure how well it would perform a given function."

I was an ergonomist for years, and this approach makes a lot of sense to me for that reason. The wild card is, of course, homology. There's a lot of suboptimal structure which evolved from something else and so often not the way a good engineer would design it. But usually, it works good enough, and over time such suboptimal structures tend to be refined.

Cetaceans are a good case in point.

 

[Stripe]

These stories usually turn out to be fantasies, but let's take a look.

The whale ear, initially designed for hearing in air, became adaptedfor hearing underwater in less than ten million years of evolution.

The evidence?

Measurements were made on 60 fossils of whole or partial skulls, isolated tympanics, middle earossicles, and mandibles from all six archaeocete families. Fossil data were compared with data on two families of modern mysticete whales and ninefamilies of modern odontocete cetaceans, as well as five families of non-cetacean mammals.

So not at all what you were told. No surprise there.

They got a ruler and measured skulls. Some arbitrary distances convinced them that their story was correct. Did they explain why this is convincing? Not really.

They lied to you. No other way to put it. I have to say, this does no small damage to the credibility of the people who presented that dishonesty to you.

:think:

I wonder if this would work on Barbarian's go-to "challenge" of "name any two animals." :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Here's a shot of a Dorudon skeleton in situ.

A whale.

Wait. You're surprised that it has all the trappings of ... a whale?

You got lied to. :chuckle:

Notice the very robust tail vertebrae with large spinous processes. That's a functional swimming tail.

Not surprising on a whale:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjARegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2g7nSye5hBtVotdDr753s-

 

[The Barbarian]

Creationism isn't only declining in America:

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0083-9