Ed

I was referring to Basilosaurus, see above. And if what you say is true then how come crocodiles didnt evolve into the reptilian equivalent of a whale?

Ed

Hippos don't have hooves, those are called toenails. Ungulates have hooves. Also ambulocetus has a fully developed pelvis, there are no transitions from a fully developed lpelvis to no pelvis in whales. And grippers are neither legs nor fins.

Duvenoy

Why should they? Crocodilians have an excellent, basic design to begin with. Indeed, they can be called 'living fossils' (I really don't like that term), along with the tuatara, the coelacanth, and the cockroach.

Of course, they've evolved a bit, becoming much smaller (as if a hungery, 20+ foot Nilotic can be called 'small'), and have had considerable species diversification. But over all, they have fit into their ecological niche(s) so well that a radical change to something whale-like has simply not been necessary.

Interestingly, crocs are pretty much ambush predators. Wholly aquatic mammals are much more active in pursuing prey.

For a real back to-the-sea evolution saga, happening right before our very eyes, check out the marine iguanas of the Galapagos Islands.

doov

Ed

True hooves are not very good swimming tools. And toe nails are not hooves. And see above about that well developed pelvis.

Jack the Bodiless

There WERE reptilian equivalents of whales! Have you honestly never heard of icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs etc?

They became extinct when the dinosaurs did.
Hooves ARE toenails.

And where did you get the notion that whales don't have pelvic bones? They DO have vestigial pelvises! And there are transitional forms which cover that.

Are you just making this up as you go along?
Falsehoods don't magically become true by repetition.

Oolon Colluphid

Well that’s just tough, Ed.

“Toes are terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof, as in mesonychids...”

Ambulocetus had hooves.

and

“The same bed also contains impressions of leaves and abundant Turritella and other marine molluscs, indicating that the carcass was buried in a shallow sea.“

It plainly spent time in the sea.

(Thewissen, Science, vol 263 p 210-212.)

So Ed, what does it take for you to admit error?

TTFN, Oolon

Jack the Bodiless

I think what we're seeing here is a fascinating example of how creationist falsehoods develop: one creationist makes an imaginative leap, then the next leaps on from where the first one landed.

Whales have pelvises, and this poses grave problems for creationism. So one creationist is forced to deny that the whale's pelvis actually is a pelvis. The next one accepts as "fact" that whales do NOT have a pelvis, and leaps on from there: "whales should have pelvises if they evolved from land creatures, but they don't, and this is a problem for evolution". Ed has, in fact, managed a truly impressive double leap, moving on to a totally unfounded claim that "there are no transitional forms" in which the pelvis was becoming vestigial. Ed prefers to believe that it abruptly vanished, therefore (in Ed's universe) it did.

The result is a new level of creationist absurdity: rather like arguing that dogs and bears can't be related because dogs have fur and bears don't.

Ed, I genuinely want to know if your own extension of the "pelvis denial" originated with you. Will you admit to making it up, or claim some "authority" from which you got it? If the latter, will this "authority" actually support your position, or will this be further wishful thinking on your part?

Ed

Taxonomy among both evolutionists and creationists is a very complex and detailed process. As we learn more about genetics we can gain greater confidence of how organisms should be classified. And we can learn what may have been the original kinds. Also the fossil record helps in this area. We have already learned that some organisms have wider morphological forms than others. So "probably" is quite justified.

Jack the Bodiless

Not for creationists, it isn't. Creationist "taxonomy" is based on the principle of the "200% critter". If a transitional form can be judged to resemble creature A more than creature B, it is "100% A". If it's closer to B, it's "100% B". If it's squarely between the two, it's both. Thus, archaeopteryx is claimed by creationists to be 100% reptile and 100% bird, and Homo Erectus is 100% ape and 100% human (and hence 200% primate).
No, we will not. Why do you use the future tense here? The research has been done, and creationism is dead (or, rather, even more dead).

Ed

The book of Job.