🚀 go-pugleaf

ksjj (ksjj@fast.net.nospam) wrote:

:  Do fossils really show the transitions between species.
: The Wolf like animal evolving to Whale is just one of those exhibits.
: 
: The evolutionist tell me that the Mesonyx is the *PROBABLE* ancestor of
: all marine mammals. Through the slow gradual process of evolution it
: become a Cetacean. 

*** Disengage lurker mode ***

[snip whale argument remainder which I have seen at least once before and
hasn't seemed to have changed much, despite some suggestions for
corrections.]

: Quite amazingly  the evolutionist, some how, from these few fragments were
: able to determine that these two creatures were long lost cousins.    

Don't the evolutionary biologists _say_ how they determined that they were
"long lost cousins"?  It would be more convincing if you actually cited
the literature and explained WHY the conclusion is in error.


  The fossils of the
: legs show that the Ambulocetus natans had a hoof. Now, what is a whale
: doing with a hoof? Some how a flipper seems more approporiate. 

Um, I'm not an expert, but isn't that the point?  You have a fossil series
that is in the right place (geologically) and time (geologically) with
morphology which indicate a relationship and one member of this series has
traits that are whale-like and not-so-whale like.  Isn't that what an
evolutionary biologist would expect and predict?  Your argument,
unfortunately, doesn't come across as very convincing; a few more facts
and the process of reasoning explained might help future readers.

 :  This is just two
examples of scientific illusion given as evidence by
: evolutionist.  There is more to the whale story, but this should be enough
: to make my point. 

You seem to have succeeded in making a few points AGAINST the position you
were arguing.  I have a question, though, which is why I dared out of
lurker mode:

It has been argued (in the book "The Neck of the Giraffe", which I don't
tend to credit too highly, since I quit reading after I found 3 blatant
errors that I was aware of in the first 10-20 pages--and I'm no expert in
paleontology) that the cetaceans have an "inverted pelvis" compared to
terrestrial quadrepeds.

I am aware that the argument that "transitional structures would not
function" is often empty and specious (see below for what seems a good
example of this) but it strikes me that a "half-rotated" pelvis wouldn't
be very functional.  You'd want it inverted in pretty much one blow, it
would seem to me.  My question:

a) Is the modern pelvis inverted, and what does the fossil sequence of
putative transitionals tell us about this trait?
b) What is the current thinking on the development of the pelvis (if it is
indeed inverted, see question (a).

[snip]

: The snout half way evolved to a blow hole would not be very
: practicle either.

Why not?  In looking for an answer to my above question, I read the t.o
FAQ on the matter.  The skulls show the two nares (nostrils) moving up the
skull in progressive species and finally fusing.  You can breathe just as
well out of two holes as one, and you can stick your nose out of the water
to breathe if need be (I know I do! :>)  But, it is probably easier to
breathe if your nostrils are higher up--this strikes me as a good example
of a trait that does just fine at any intermediate stage you like, yet
there would still be selective pressures to continue the movement
dorsally.

I'd appreciate any answers.

*** Reengage Lurker Mode *** ;)

Sincerely,

Greg Smith
glsmith@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
University of Alberta