• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Speciation

meogi

Well-Known Member
newhope101 said:
You also mean like TOE's hope to defend their faith and would not see evidence for creation if it jumped up and smacked them in the face, becasue they ain't looking for it!
You do realize there are creationists who believe in evolution, right? Evidence that jumps up and smacks me in the face didn't need to be looked for. It just smacked me in the face. :)
newhope101 said:
I also evoke the fossils yet to be found reasoning in support of my view eg precambrian mammals.
You even find a cambrian mammal, I'll believe creation. I wasn't evoking 'fossils yet to be found' as evidence for evolution, it amazes me we have any fossils in the first place.
newhope101 said:
I feel I have. While we have PW misrepresenting and minimising such basic research as the Y chomosome differences in chimps and humans and giving all pekicetus hooves, it must be hard for you to follow! If you extrapolate back far enough you'll find the same as a creationist... a dead planet devoid of life and hostile to it. yet look ehat happened only here on earth. You can hope in life elsewhere. So far we are it and that is the proof re how unique the earth earth really is and mankind also. You'd think there'd be a bit of mould or fungu or something started somewhere close..but nope...just here. That IS PROOF., BUT MANY CANNOT OR REFUSE TO SEE IT.
First off, quit bashing PW, she's one of the nicest people I've ever met on the internet. And she knows her stuff. Second, humans have only been in space for 50 years. You seem to expect a lot from such a short period. Third, water in liquid form. Even the nearest star is 4 light years away, we're not getting to another liquid water environment any time soon. Europa and Titan are in the cross-hairs so who knows what we'll see when we get there.
newhope101 said:
That is only if you are not unaware how fallible and every changing your dating and resulting convoluted models work eg human/chimp split 4mya...not wait...5mya no wait 6mya..no wait with Ardi maybe 8mya. I may not be a YEC, but they have not lost it yet. Your dating methods are flawed and I can produce creationists use of models that date the earth to 6,000y etc also. It is no big deal when you see what probabilities are used and assumptions are made in obtaining results.
Ah, old earth but you don't trust the methods? Really? Why do you claim old earth then?

Also, you didn't answer my questions about what it is you believe:
Do you think of Him, up there, playing with a little science set; occasionally adding a new kind to spice it up a bit?
Is He personal at all?
 

newhope101

Active Member
Hey Painted wolf. Below is what hooved feet are meant to look like.




Deer


Horse.



pakicetus.JPG

NOT HOOVES>>>>>>


Pakicetus as is most commonly displayed in literature. The spinny bits on the back are a nice touch. However, not based on any evidence of course, just what the sketcher thought they would look like, including posture. PW says there are variations of them and so there is, and huge variations at that. However, THESE ARE NOT HOOVED. I couldn't even find a picture of one with hooves, although they are meant to be hooved creatures. Go figure that out! Even with biased sketchers the head appears dog like, as is the remainder of the skeleton I posted recently. Tails, no tails, number of toes is irrelevant, as these are the adaptations that arise. This could just as easily be sketched up to look not unlike a modern coyote. The skeletons are similar, even more so with the revised model of the skull.

THUD for you again.



Pakicetus



Coyote. Let's remember that the sketched in ears and features of Pakicetus are guesses and not based on evidence. All they have is a skeleton.


_wsb_700x409_bones+of+leg.JPG


A hoof in case you have forgotten what they look like.

You may woffle on as much as you wish PW, this specimen of Pakicetus does not show hooves. If you and your researchers are unclear what a hoof looks like they should go back to BIO101. So are you suggesting this specimen had lost its hooves already,,and what use is half a hoof? It is rubbish PW. You are struggling to find connections and you lot are starting to look silly. So what happens to similarities in the pig to whale,,,did they suddenly disappear. I think what you lot are really saying is that all creatures share many traits any you can use this homoplasic traits to show irrefuteable evidence for human ancestry to teletubbies as they are bipeds.

Your link appears to be grasping at straws PW. If they reckon this specimen that is put up is a representation of something with a hoof then you'd think they would have made some half hearted attempt to sketch in some sort of hoof. There is no hoof, just ballet from the ridiculous posture that gave Pakicetus to make it look odd. You could sketch Palicetus to look like a coyote or indeed what ever suits you.

Let's also not forget that your researchers misrepresented Neanderthal big time untill DNA testing, and plenty more.

You can post as many links as you like with as many explanations as you like and this specimen still will not show hooved feet. Why? Because it does not have hooves, Your researchers have had to misrepresent for headlines and to keep your TOE afloat.

I also note that you have not put even one that has hooves. Haven't they sketch up even one of these mysterious animals with heads like dogs, hooves like deer, but closely related to whales? This is a fairly sad representation of an animal this is meant to be hooved. Why because despite your wish for it to be hooved...it isn't.

Lets not forget that initial DNA studies put the hippo closer to the pig, until they decided they'd found another supposed whale ancestor and poof...it all changed to suit. The whale auditory bully is connected to underwater hearing..It is said to be related to Indoyus, remember the deer that dives and can spend lots of time in the water and underwater for 5 minute or so. It is not surprising that it has this adaptation.,,it doesn't make it a whale relative at all.

The second possible common ancestor was an cat-sized Eocene animal from India known as Indohyus. This animal was considered habitually aquatic because it have osteosclerotic bones. This means that Indohyus have thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is useful to reduce buoyancy and make it possible for the animal to stay submerged. This is similar to the bone composition of Hippopotamus
The Relationship Between Hippopotamuses and Whales | Scienceray


Hippopotamus and whale phylogeny : Abstract : Nature

What's more..before the DNA connection for hippo/whale ancestry ancient pigs apparently had more in common with hippos. Now all of a sudden the auditory bulla is the rage...and that prooves whale and hippos share a close common ancestor do they? What rubbish. Talk about chop and change exactly what is evidence for what. I maintain your researchers could proove humans had a close common ancestor to a turtle.



She says Thewissen did not use DNA evidence, instead used fossil evidence alone to create a family tree and reach the conclusion that hippos have more in common with pigs than whales.
"And the reason their tree is so different is simple: by excluding all the DNA information they left out all the data that shows a strong relationship between whales and hippos."
Hippo ancestry disputed | e! Science News

Mosaics of Convergences and Noise in Morphological Phylogenies: What's in a Viverrid-Like Carnivoran?



So morphologically hippos and pigs are close, but the bulla connects the whale to the hippo now.. sounds just like a load of bull.

Any creature that spends time in water will have a similar trait because that is the way they were made. Just like whale neural spindles are very similar to humans, but humans do not share a close ancestor with whales..or do we?



This is all such straw grabbing that it is almost hilarious.

..and still Pakicetus is not pictured with his hooves on! ! and as much as I do not believe any of this nonsense, you lot and your researchers are straw grabbing as usual.
 
Last edited:

newhope101

Active Member
You do realize there are creationists who believe in evolution, right? Evidence that jumps up and smacks me in the face didn't need to be looked for. It just smacked me in the face. :)
You're kidding me right?????????? Do you mean theists also believe in evolution????


You even find a cambrian mammal, I'll believe creation. I wasn't evoking 'fossils yet to be found' as evidence for evolution, it amazes me we have any fossils in the first place.
The level at which TOE is made falsifiable is ridiculous. basically anything goes, hence flavour of the month is the basis for TOE
First off, quit bashing PW, she's one of the nicest people I've ever met on the internet. And she knows her stuff. Not to me she isn't. Second, humans have only been in space for 50 years. You seem to expect a lot from such a short period.and we've got lots of close ups and there is not so much as bacteria to wave back Third, water in liquid form. All planets and moons in this solar system had the same opportunity as earth Even the nearest star is 4 light years away, we're not getting to another liquid water environment any time soon. Europa and Titan are in the cross-hairs so who knows what we'll see when we get there. Bla bla. I know there are all sorts of hypothesis about it all. The fact remains you've found zilch and we remain all alone.
Ah, old earth but you don't trust the methods? Really? Why do you claim old earth then The YECS may be right, yet. They've also got models and papers and hypothesis that back themselves as well. Evos are not the only ones that play with models?

Also, you didn't answer my questions about what it is you believe:
Do you think of Him, up there, playing with a little science set; occasionally adding a new kind to spice it up a bit?
Is He personal at all? What I think is irrelevant, much the same as thinking about dark matter when you have no clue what it is..Hey!

Listen this is about speciation. I say...deer is represented within Indohyus, Dogs are represented within Pakicetus, cats are represented within miacis. These have not changed much at all and are evidence that speciation is limited.

Speciation is adaptation, sometimes resulting in variations of kinds being unable to breed and for good reason as by design. Speciation is an insufficient mechanism to bring about major evolutionary change.

Besides..one of your evo researchers reckons we are closer to orangatans., and there is some genomic research to back it. Seriously all of this is a nonsense, both your fossil classifications and genomics.

Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.

Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests

Genetic archaeology finds parts of human genome more closely related to orangutans than chimps

It is not only creationists that think you have huge problems!!! It is all just pipe dreams and wish lists.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Here is a pretty picture that shows that a clawed foot looks like compared to a non-clawed foot. Notice hoe having clawed toes pushes up the toe bones to accommodate them.
canine-front-paw-bones-compare.jpeg

Notice how hoofed toes don't need to have such a crazy bend to them.
275px-Artiodactyla_feet.png

notice how Packicetus has strait uncurvey toes. Because they have cute little hooves rather than claws to go with their double-pulley artiodactyl ankle.

A doodle that has the toes ending sharp and pointy doesn't change the actual anatomy.
It also doesn't change the fact that hooves can indeed be sharp and pointy and still not be claws.

here is a dog skeleton showing it's bendy clawed toes.
Dog-Skeleton-by-Cheryl-R-Dhein-Washington-State-University.gif


wa:do
 

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
I'm not sure NewHope101 is familiar with the fact that some organisms have multiple hooves per leg. Maybe she's never seen a pig's foot?
 

newhope101

Active Member
Paintedwolf.... it is too bad with all this woffle that your fossil Pakicetus does not come with feet, conveniently. So it appears that all your assertions based on it are woffle.

This below is also what a hoof looks like, just in case your sketch artists would like to paint some onto Pakicetus and poof him into a real fantasy of an intermediate.


Cloven hooves of Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus), with dew claws


Go to this site below and you will see a bunch of creatures supposedly the earliest whales. One looks like a wolf, one like a hipopotamus and the other two are just whales...and let's not forget the bias and preconceived ideas these sketches are based on.

Then you will see the line of fossil evidences that support the transition. These so called transitionals are not transitionals at all, but are clearly different kinds. You may as well say a mouse evolved into a cat and then a dog and line up the skeletons aside each other and go ''Walahhhhh"..there's proof of transition.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | How whales learned to swim




pakicetusskull.jpg

Paleontological reconstruction can often be a bit of a gamble, especially if the specimen you're working with is incomplete. In most of the newer books about prehistoric animals I had when I was young, Pakicetus was often reconstructed as a stubby, seal-like creature, and the AMNH reconstruction followed the trend. Fortunately for paleontologists, more complete material has come out of the ground in recent years, causing a total revision of what Pakicetus looked like.
While still not entirely complete, the newer skull material shows that the reconstruction pictured above is incorrect on a number of points, the most easily-recognizable difference being that the old reconstruction has the nasal apeture placed too-far back. The position of the eyes between the old & new reconstructions has also changed, and the newer skull shows the presence of a sagittal crest lacking in the older reconstruction. Unfortunately there was so much excitement over the 1980's model that many casts are still displayed in museums and the chubby, stubby seal model is still on display in some places, but hopefully they will soon be removed and replaced with something more accurate.
(2008)
Photo of the Day #128: An outdated Pakicetus skull : Laelaps


Are you not listening at all when I tell you that the mouse deer is able to submerge for periods of 5 minutes or more, and have been seen to stay in water for periods of longer than an hour. The mouse deer, a variety of which you call Indohyus, is still alive today and is not a transitional anything, it is just a variety of deer. Now if all life died and had to evolve again, in squillions of years the then researchers dug up a mouse deer they may well think all deer were aquatic, which would be a false assumption based on a lack of evidence. If this deer can stay uderwater for 5 minutes it has, by design, the gene expression that allows it to store more oxygen and possibly a version of the canals necessary to avoid imbalance while swimming underwarer and hearing better underwater.

You keep affirming a myth. Where is even one of these supposed intermediates that evolved from hooved to non hooved. This fossil does not even have feet....and still Pakicetus is drawn with feet according to what your researchers think. It is very convenient how the most important bit is missing.



Pakicetus fossil


Fox skeleton.



Modern whales do not even have similar teeth to the Basilosaurus. Teeth are usually the basis for much of your lineages...it's out the window on this one.,,or do you just look at what suits you.

Pakicetus and the huge variety within, contains a dog like creature, that may have looked like a cyoote or wolf...and my previous link displays such a creature. Are you going to insist you know better than they?

Now read this..

Some researchers use morphology (the study of an animal's structure and form) to suggest that whales are descended from mesonychians, an extinct group of meat-eating animals that resembled hyenas with hooves. Others use DNA, molecular, and genetic techniques to suggest that whales and hippos are more closely related to one another than either of them is to any other species.



Despite this evidence that cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) evolved from artiodactyls, substantial discrepancies remain, Rose said. "If cetacaeans belong to artiodactyls," he said, "then similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians and cetaceans must be the result of convergent evolution or must have been lost in artiodactyls. "Well-preserved ankles of the earliest ancient whales are now needed to confirm that the traits seen in the new skeletons are indeed inherited from early artiodactyls and not a result of convergent evolution," Rose said

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html

So you have morphology that links cetaceans to mesonychians, then you found a DNA connection and suddenly the old morphological connection is out the window and the auditory bulla is in, is it? Rubbish. You lot basically have your eggs in every basket and can fabricate a connection between anything you like.

So your sketch artist has presumed what a transitional hoof might look like. Well they did a bad job, because it appears paws may be a better fit than hooves to this creature.

Painted wolf for all your pastings and pictures how can you speak so assuredly to the hooves when they are missing from a fossil? Why are you unable to produce a couple of biased sketches showing one of the pekicetus or even indohyus with hooves? ANSWER: There aren't any.
 
Last edited:

newhope101

Active Member
Paintedwolf.... it is too bad with all this woffle that your fossil Pakicetus does not come with feet, conveniently. So it appears that all your assertions based on it are woffle.

This below is also what a hoof looks like, just in case your sketch artists would like to paint some onto Pakicetus and poof him into a real fantasy of an intermediate.


Cloven hooves of Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus), with dew claws


Go to this site below and you will see a bunch of creatures supposedly the earliest whales. One looks like a wolf, one like a hipopotamus and the other two are just whales...and let's not forget the bias and preconceived ideas these sketches are based on.

Then you will see the line of fossil evidences that support the transition. These so called transitionals are not transitionals at all, but are clearly different kinds. You may as well say a mouse evolved into a cat and then a dog and line up the skeletons aside each other and go ''Walahhhhh"..there's proof of transition.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | How whales learned to swim




pakicetusskull.jpg

Paleontological reconstruction can often be a bit of a gamble, especially if the specimen you're working with is incomplete. In most of the newer books about prehistoric animals I had when I was young, Pakicetus was often reconstructed as a stubby, seal-like creature, and the AMNH reconstruction followed the trend. Fortunately for paleontologists, more complete material has come out of the ground in recent years, causing a total revision of what Pakicetus looked like.
While still not entirely complete, the newer skull material shows that the reconstruction pictured above is incorrect on a number of points, the most easily-recognizable difference being that the old reconstruction has the nasal apeture placed too-far back. The position of the eyes between the old & new reconstructions has also changed, and the newer skull shows the presence of a sagittal crest lacking in the older reconstruction. Unfortunately there was so much excitement over the 1980's model that many casts are still displayed in museums and the chubby, stubby seal model is still on display in some places, but hopefully they will soon be removed and replaced with something more accurate.
(2008)
Photo of the Day #128: An outdated Pakicetus skull : Laelaps


Are you not listening at all when I tell you that the mouse deer is able to submerge for periods of 5 minutes or more, and have been seen to stay in water for periods of longer than an hour. The mouse deer, a variety of which you call Indohyus, is still alive today and is not a transitional anything, it is just a variety of deer. Now if all life died and had to evolve again, in squillions of years the then researchers dug up a mouse deer they may well think all deer were aquatic, which would be a false assumption based on a lack of evidence. If this deer can stay uderwater for 5 minutes it has, by design, the gene expression that allows it to store more oxygen and possibly a version of the canals necessary to avoid imbalance while swimming underwarer and hearing better underwater.

You keep affirming a myth. Where is even one of these supposed intermediates that evolved from hooved to non hooved. This fossil does not even have feet....and still Pakicetus is drawn with feet according to what your researchers think. It is very convenient how the most important bit is missing.



Pakicetus fossil


Fox skeleton.



Modern whales do not even have similar teeth to the Basilosaurus. Teeth are usually the basis for much of your lineages...it's out the window on this one.,,or do you just look at what suits you.

Pakicetus and the huge variety within, contains a dog like creature, that may have looked like a cyoote or wolf...and my previous link displays such a creature. Are you going to insist you know better than they?

Now read this..

Some researchers use morphology (the study of an animal's structure and form) to suggest that whales are descended from mesonychians, an extinct group of meat-eating animals that resembled hyenas with hooves. Others use DNA, molecular, and genetic techniques to suggest that whales and hippos are more closely related to one another than either of them is to any other species.



Despite this evidence that cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) evolved from artiodactyls, substantial discrepancies remain, Rose said. "If cetacaeans belong to artiodactyls," he said, "then similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians and cetaceans must be the result of convergent evolution or must have been lost in artiodactyls. "Well-preserved ankles of the earliest ancient whales are now needed to confirm that the traits seen in the new skeletons are indeed inherited from early artiodactyls and not a result of convergent evolution," Rose said

Ancient Walking Whales Shed Light on Ancestry of Ocean Giants

So you have morphology that links cetaceans to mesonychians, then you found a DNA connection and suddenly the old morphological connection is out the window and the auditory bulla is in, is it? Rubbish. You lot basically have your eggs in every basket and can fabricate a connection between anything you like.

So your sketch artist has presumed what a transitional hoof might look like. Well they did a bad job, because it appears paws may be a better fit than hooves to this creature.

Painted wolf for all your pastings and pictures how can you speak so assuredly to the hooves when they are missing from a fossil? Why are you unable to produce a couple of biased sketches showing one of the pekicetus or even indohyus with hooves? ANSWER: There aren't any.


Hyena_wolf_skeleton_comparison_by_Dark_Hyena.jpg



Here is even a better picture to show the diffences in the hyena and wolf skeletons.






Most certainly Indohyus looks like a variety of mouse deer and looks nothing like pakicetus. The sketches has been scewed that way. Your researchers can invent a relationship between just about anything.

What you mostly have evidence of is Kinds remaining the same for 30my or so, if not more..that is assuming your flawed and biased dating methods and models are even close to truth.
 
Last edited:

Big_TJ

Active Member
First off, quit bashing PW, she's one of the nicest people I've ever met on the internet. And she knows her stuff.

then NewHope Responded:
newhopeResponse said:
Not to me she isn't.
:biglaugh:


This reminds me of a joke I heard:

Wife: "Honey, be careful on the highway; there is a mad man driving in the wrong direction"

Husband: "Actually, all the drivers are mad; they are all driving in the wrong direction!!!"
:banghead3:punk::biglaugh:
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Newhope the drawing you supplied of the Pakicetus skeleton showing the known bones.... includes the feet.

Here is another picture of one of the known Pakicetus specimens... notice it has toe bones.
whale-pakicetus_fossil.gif


As for your bluster about Mesonycids.... they are a poorly understood group and as I've said several times, I'm hoping to be able to help study them up as part of my MS. and PhD. work later on. They are also hoofed predators, but they don't have the artiodactyl ankle like Pakicetus. We learned about that before DNA when we found better Pakicetus fossils. The DNA added to the evidence provided from the ankle and vice versa.
We have learned a lot since the 1980's. Generally this is seen as a good thing. :cool:

I know you want to jump all around to Basillosaurus and Indohyus and countless other points... but I'm addressing one point at a time. I'll get to them eventually.

wa:do
 

newhope101

Active Member
whale-pakicetus_fossil.gif


And it still doesn't have anything that looks like hooves. I told you the pictures will not change no matter how many times you post them. In fact this one looks more like it has paws, not hooves, than the other one.

Some researchers use morphology (the study of an animal's structure and form) to suggest that whales are descended from mesonychians, an extinct group of meat-eating animals that resembled hyenas with hooves. Others use DNA, molecular, and genetic techniques to suggest that whales and hippos are more closely related to one another than either of them is to any other species.

Despite this evidence that cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) evolved from artiodactyls, substantial discrepancies remain, Rose said. "If cetacaeans belong to artiodactyls," he said, "then similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians and cetaceans must be the result of convergent evolution or must have been lost in artiodactyls. "Well-preserved ankles of the earliest ancient whales are now needed to confirm that the traits seen in the new skeletons are indeed inherited from early artiodactyls and not a result of convergent evolution," Rose said



So it doesn't matter here about physical traits shared, so why go on about bulla's? It's like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, when you need one.

Where are the hyena looking creatures with hooves...???? Or do they mean a hyena looking creature with half hooves or quarter perhaps???

And I restate...your researchers could find a connection between just about anything. Rather than see that all this is nonsense you make up convergent evolution and homoplasy. Rubbish. Different traits are shared between non related or distantly related species because there is only a few best ways to make anything. You appear to be saying that evolution stumbled blindly on these traits that only appear similar in non related species because they have evolved independently and is a coincidence, is it? How scientific!.

What you have found is evidence of GOD's and his design. Rather than throwing it all out the window, like you should have, your researchers have had to invent numerous speciation styles to butt cover themselves by applying sticky tape to a dead theory.

What you are left with is no evidence for anything really just a long list of 'wish you hads'.
 
Last edited:

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
Remember when pictures of extinct organisms were "just models" and "all hypothetical". Man, I miss those days.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
newhope: What is your point. Whether whales evolved from mesonychians or artiodactyls has absolutely no bearing on whether the ToE is correct. ToE is correct regardless of which extinct species whales evolved from. You're just way off track here.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
So, once again Newhope's argument and evidence is best summed up by: :ignore:

Anyone genuinely interested in learning anatomy?

wa:do
 

newhope101

Active Member
Some of you may be interested in this

Mesonychids possess unusual triangular molar teeth that are similar to those of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), especially those of the archaeocetids, as well as having similar skull anatomies and other morphologic traits. For this reason, scientists had long believed that mesonychids were the direct ancestor of Cetacea, but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent phylogenetic analyses[3][4][5] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[6] Most paleontologists now doubt the idea that whales are descended from mesonychids, and instead suggest that whales are either descended from or share a common ancestor with the anthracotheres, the semi-aquatic ancestors of hippos.[7] However, the close grouping of whales with hippopotami in cladistic analyses only surfaces upon deletion of Andrewsarchus, which has often been included within the mesonychids.[8][9] One possible conclusion is that Andrewsarchus is not a mesonychid, but rather closely allied with hippopotamids. The current uncertainty may in part reflect the fragmentary nature of the remains of some crucial fossil taxa, such as Andrewsarchus.[8]
Mesonychid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Impact of increased character sampling on the phylogeny of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia): combined analysis including fossils - O'Leary - 2007 - Cladistics - Wiley Online Library

Do note that to achieve your close whale hippo connection you need to delete Andrewsarchus...and I don't blame you. After all you can't have something with imagined paws in the pot! Why don't you just say they were all hooved and sketch them that way? Is the pawed version based on evidence or imagination?


Andrewsarchus
Which looked like this

This lion type one has paws 45mya. Some researchers think it is a SHORT FACED bear...go figure!
OR this Which looks like a hippo.

Andrewsarchus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MMmm,what a mess! Could it possibly be that these are just different kinds all clumped together for convenience, again?? You have proven primitive creatures were shape shifters, and could look like whatever you want. Well done!


Sarfarti has this to say about Pakicetus:

So what was all this based on? In fact, only the bones in the inset (right)! Note that there’s nothing below the skull. And it’s even worse—only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, while the rest is ‘reconstructed’. So how could they know what any of the body looked like below the skull? Answer: they couldn’t! So one must wonder how the editors of the two journals allowed so much speculation to be built on so few facts.

New discoveries have blown away this imaginative ‘reconstruction’. A prominent evolutionary whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues, unearthed more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.7 The commentary on this paper in the same issue8 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See skeleton, right.) This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an animal right at home in the sea!

Not at all like a whale


Creationist must battle on with magicians that can pull rabbits and intermediates out of the air, where needed. ..but it is still fun for me all the same.

 

newhope101

Active Member
Here is something else you may be interested in: Another little hidden secret! Shush!





Baugh said the scans prove that the impressions are real and could not have been carved or etched into the stone.

“The compression lines, the density features, do show, and there is no way to fake that,” he said. “It is possible to carve a track in limestone. But there is no way to compress the material in the rock under the track. That is absolutely impossible. That’s why the CAT scans are so important.”

He said the scans demonstrate the human footprint was made “during locomotion. That’s very important. That distribution is shown here. Compression is in the right place under both prints. Density. Compression, distribution. The density factor is there. Weight distribution. Forward locomotion, rocking of the foot.”

He also noted how the dinosaur’s impression pushed up material from the human print and altered its shape in the area of the intrusion.

The rock is approximately 30 inches by 24 inches. The human footprint, with a deep big toe impression, measures 11 inches in length. Baugh said the theropod track was made by an Acrocanthosaurus. Baugh said this particular track was likely made by a juvenile Acrocanthosaurus, one he said was probably about 20 feet long, stood about 8 feet tall and walked stooped over, weighing a few tons.

Its tracks common in the Glen Rose area, the Acrocanthosaurus is a dinosaur that many experts believe existed primarily in North America during the mid-Cretaceous Period, approximately 125 million to 100 million years ago.

Baugh said Delk’s discovery casts doubts on that theory. Baugh said he believes both sets of prints were made “within minutes, or no more than hours of each other” about 4,500 years ago, around the time of Noah’s Flood. He said the clay-like material that the human and dinosaur stepped in soon hardened, becoming thick, dense limestone common in North Texas.

He said the human print matches seven others found in the same area, stating the museum has performed excavations since 1982 in the area Baugh has dubbed the “Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint” discovery.

Baugh said he knows there are and will be skeptics, especially since the find is very recent and so far has been tested only in a medical laboratory by a medical doctor. Still, he said he is so confident in the authenticity of the specimen he is ready to put his reputation entirely on the line. He said he is willing put the rock to any non-destructive tests.

“It’s dynamite,” Baugh said of the fossil.


myLot - Human and Dinosaur footprint found together!




http://au.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0zu....toonpool.com/user/589/files/yo_yo_209745.jpg
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Here is something else you may be interested in: Another little hidden secret! Shush!





Baugh said the scans prove that the impressions are real and could not have been carved or etched into the stone.

“The compression lines, the density features, do show, and there is no way to fake that,” he said. “It is possible to carve a track in limestone. But there is no way to compress the material in the rock under the track. That is absolutely impossible. That’s why the CAT scans are so important.”

He said the scans demonstrate the human footprint was made “during locomotion. That’s very important. That distribution is shown here. Compression is in the right place under both prints. Density. Compression, distribution. The density factor is there. Weight distribution. Forward locomotion, rocking of the foot.”

He also noted how the dinosaur’s impression pushed up material from the human print and altered its shape in the area of the intrusion.

The rock is approximately 30 inches by 24 inches. The human footprint, with a deep big toe impression, measures 11 inches in length. Baugh said the theropod track was made by an Acrocanthosaurus. Baugh said this particular track was likely made by a juvenile Acrocanthosaurus, one he said was probably about 20 feet long, stood about 8 feet tall and walked stooped over, weighing a few tons.

Its tracks common in the Glen Rose area, the Acrocanthosaurus is a dinosaur that many experts believe existed primarily in North America during the mid-Cretaceous Period, approximately 125 million to 100 million years ago.

Baugh said Delk’s discovery casts doubts on that theory. Baugh said he believes both sets of prints were made “within minutes, or no more than hours of each other” about 4,500 years ago, around the time of Noah’s Flood. He said the clay-like material that the human and dinosaur stepped in soon hardened, becoming thick, dense limestone common in North Texas.

He said the human print matches seven others found in the same area, stating the museum has performed excavations since 1982 in the area Baugh has dubbed the “Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint” discovery.

Baugh said he knows there are and will be skeptics, especially since the find is very recent and so far has been tested only in a medical laboratory by a medical doctor. Still, he said he is so confident in the authenticity of the specimen he is ready to put his reputation entirely on the line. He said he is willing put the rock to any non-destructive tests.

“It’s dynamite,” Baugh said of the fossil.


myLot - Human and Dinosaur footprint found together!



I love it when you provide known loons and con men as sources. Let's look at wiki:

Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims. In 1982–1984, several scientists, including J.R. Cole, L.R. Godfrey, R.J. Hastings, and S.D. Schafersman, examined Baugh's purported "mantracks" as well as others provided by creationists in the Glen Rose Formation.[12] In the course of the examination "Baugh contradicted his own earlier reports of the locations of key discoveries" and many of the supposed prints "lacked human characteristics."[12] After a three year investigation of the tracks and Baugh's specimens, the scientists concluded there was no evidence of any of Baugh's claims or any "dinosaur-man tracks".[12]
On September 27, 1984, Al West, a Baugh co-worker for two years, who followed the mantrack claims since 1974, and friend of Glen Kuban, publicly announced that Baugh "never had evidence for manprints as claimed.[12] Gayle Golden, writer for The Dallas Morning News, reported that Baugh "paid $10,000 for his Moab skeleton and confirmed that Baugh knew at their purchase that the bones had already been dated at 200-300 years. However Baugh later claimed that the bones were found in Cretaceous deposits."[12]
One of Baugh's more famous claims, aside from the dinosaur tracks, is an alleged out of place artifact of an "18th century miner's hammer" found in million-year-old Ordovician rock (he has also claimed it is in Cretaceous rock) found in 1934 from London, Texas.[18][19] Baugh asserted this as evidence against scientifically known ways that rocks form.[18] However, laboratory tests discounted his claim about the hammer's being formed in the rock.[18][19] J.R. Cole wrote, "The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble."[20]
In July 2008, Baugh was in contact with Alvis Delk and James Bishop, who claimed to have found a dinosaur-human print fossil.[21] Bishop is a convicted murderer.[22] Baugh bought the "fossil" from Delk who used the money to pay his medical bills.[23] On the authenticity of the claims, reporter Bud Kennedy noted, "since no scientists were involved, about all we really know so far is that the museum has a new rock."[24]
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Newhope this is why I suggested not judging critters based on pretty drawings but on the actual bones.

Andewsarchus isn't used in studying Mesonichids because it's so very skimpy and isn't likely to be one. It was originally described as an Entelodont for example.

It has never been confused with a short faced bear... it is exactly opposite of short faced for example. I think you may be confused here.

I know you mistook a short faced bear with a cat... but that is a far cry from confusing it with an animal whose skull has a three feet of long snout.

wa:do

ps.... your "pawed" pictures have hooves btw. Mesonichids (which is generally the body plan used by artists to draw Andrewsarchus have hooves.)
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Newhope this is why I suggested not judging critters based on pretty drawings but on the actual bones.
But hasn't it already been firmly established that NewHope's approach to extinct organisms is "Here's a picture/drawing I found on the internet, and it looks like a cat/like it doesn't have hooves."?

I mean, I've gone round and round with my share of creationists in my time, but good grief, you guys must be really, really, really bored to continue to try and educate NewHope for this long.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I've long since given up on educating Newhope... She clearly isn't inerested in learning or honest discussion... so, I'm in it for the lulz.

And for anyone who actually wants to learn about the topic. Do you happen to have any questions about early whale evolution? :cool:

wa:do

ps. it gives me an excuse to root around more in the literature. :D
 
Last edited:
Top