MrDarwin

Here are some of the questions and claims made by randman in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000403" target="_blank">this thread </a>(now moved to RRP):

and from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000407" target="_blank">this thread:</a>

and finally, in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000189" target="_blank">this thread </a> (which I won't quote from because now randman is just whining).

Regarding the "walking whale", I first asked randman a question regarding claims made about Pakicetus in the primary scientific literature (i.e, not National Geographic), just to verify that he hadn't seen it, other than the second-hand claims about it from a creationist website. In fact, I had to do a bit of digging to find the original articles; Harun Yahya and randman have their undies in quite a bunch over the supposed misrepresentations of National Geographic, but have only presented, without attribution or permission (i.e., in violation of copyright) a diagram of Pakicetus from an unnamed and uncited article in the science journal Nature. I believe the illustrations come from one of two articles published in Nature in 2001. However, the 2001 journals in my library are out for binding, so I don't have immediate access to them. But just for fun I thought I'd look up the original publication of Pakicetus (Gingerich et al. 1983, Science 220: 403-406, "Origin of Whales in Epicontinental Remnant Seas: New Evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan"). And here is what they have to say:

So let's examine randman's claims and questions one by one:

They are both right, and they are both wrong. As I already pointed out, they are artistic interpretations, based on an interpretation of the evidence. Nobody can know precisely what an extinct animal, known only from fossils, looked like. That should be common sense. But did the Nature illustration indicate it was "land-based"? (What does that mean, in the first place?)

Gingerich, Thewissen, and others who have examined the fossils do not doubt at all that Pakicetus is a whale. In short, it is a "walking whale", and is depicted as such in the original scientific literature. They have most assuredly not depicted it as "just another land animal", but neither was it fully aquatic as are modern whales. Moreover, the article clearly states that the fossils were found in sediments deposited in fresh water, not only in assocation with terrestrial mammals but with aquatic or amphibious vertebrates and invertebrates.

If whales descended from land animals, then their ancestors must have lived on land and had 4 legs, and here we have evidence of these creatures. Randman seems to find this idea incredible; he must expect us to believe that a land mammal with legs gave birth one morning to an whale with fully formed flippers!

Well, criticizing a popular magazine for oversimplifying science, and sometimes even getting it wrong, is like shooting fish in a barrel. But once more, for emphasis:

Both! It was a whale. It had legs, not flippers. It lived on land, along rivers. It had characteristics both of aquatic whales and terrestrial mammals--exactly what we would expect from an animal transitional between 4-legged terrestrial mammals and fully aquatic whales but of course randman hasn't read any of the original literature (and I'm willing to bet he hasn't read the National Geographic article either). He is depending entirely on the article by Harun Yahya for his information.

So I can't resist addressing one assertion made by Harun Yahya in the web article that randman found so compelling, and apparently forms the basis for his objections:

On the contrary, Gingerich et al. detail numerous characteristics connecting Pakicetus with whales. They also make it quite clear that the sediments were not terrestrial. (Randman, please look up "fluvial" in a dictionary.) Incredibly, Yahya then refers to the snails and crocodiles as "terrestrial", doesn't mention the fish at all, and changes "turtle" to "tortoise" to strengthen his assertion that Pakicetus was found only in association with terrestrial animals! Now who's telling lies?

(fixing links, formatting, etc.)

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Lone Wolf

This is indeed an interesting topic, so I dug up a couple of links for those who'd like to read a bit more on-line. Be advised though, that these articles have NOT been approved by the geniuses at AiG!

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/" target="_blank">The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence</a>

and...

<a href="http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/acker01.html" target="_blank">The Emergence of Whales</a>

Just doing my part for the cult!

{cue Batman music}

Nana nana nana nana LEADER!

Coragyps

Harun Yahya! Now there is a piece of work!

Kosh

Would ya'll just put away them ugly sticks,
please? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

MrDarwin

Kosh, are you suggesting I'm beating a dead horse? I only wish I had been able to put this together before randman fled!

MrDarwin

*bump*

MrDarwin

This is actually becoming comical. In <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000478&p=4" target="_blank">this thread,</a>
randman has this to say about what I posted here:

I don't think any further deconstruction of randman is necessary here.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>