Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Haha Creationists!!! Want to see actual proof of a transitional fossil!!!!?
See!!! We have plenty more where that came from. We have thousands of these!!!! Ha!
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The November 2001 issue of National Geographic capitalized on recent propaganda in an article titled “Evolution of Whales.” While the official scientific names and full-color reconstructions contained in the article appear quite impressive, the data are far from it. A closer examination of two alleged whale predecessors—Pakicetus and Ambulocetus—reveals that these creatures had little in common with whales, and thus do not represent the animals’ ancient ancestors.
Pakicetus was discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan, who claimed the find as a primitive whale—even though he found only a jaw and skull fragments (see Gingerich, 1994, 2001). So what makes National Geographic so sure this creature is the long-lost “walking” ancestor of modern whales? Douglas Chadwick (author of the article) stated:
What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination—the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull—are absent in other land animals but a signature of later Eocene whales (2001, 200:68).
So, from mere dimples in teeth and folded ear bones, this animal somehow “qualifies” as a walking whale? Interestingly, prominent whale expert J.G.M. Thewissen and his colleagues later unearthed additional bones of Pakicetus (Thewissen, et al., 2001). The skeletons of Pakicetus published by Thewissen et al. do not look anything like the swimming creature featured in either Gingerich’s original article or in National Geographic. In fact, in a commentary in the same issue of Nature in which the article by Thewissen et al. was published, the following statement appeared: “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 De Muizon, 2001, 413:260). National Geographic, however, deceptively chose to display the Pakicetus in a swimming position, obviously trying to sway the reader into believing that Gingerich’s fossilized jawbone and skull fragments represented some type of aquatic creature—which they do not.
The next alleged ancestor, Ambulocetus natans, was proposed as a whale long before the dust settled from its fossilized remains. The name itself, “Ambulocetus natans,” comes from the Latin words “ambulare” (to walk), “cetus” (whale), and “natans” (swimming), meaning quite literally a walking, swimming whale. The scientists who discovered and subsequently named this fossil screamed “walking whale” well in advance of a complete analysis, and the illustrator for National Geographic exercised a vast amount of “artistic license” in assigning webbed feet to the creature. While such feet definitely make the creature look more aquatic, it is impossible to come to any such conclusion from a study of the fossils themselves. Soft tissues (such as webbed feet) normally do not fossilize well. There is no evidence this creature ever spent any amount of time in the water—yet the drawing shows an animal with rear legs that appear to be built for an aquatic environment. An examination of the actual skeleton (see Carroll, 1998, p. 335) quickly dispels the notion that the rear legs performed as obligatory fins. The legs on Ambulocetus were not fins at all, but rather legs made for walking and supporting weight.
While artists make the transition appear easy, the logistics of going from a terrestrial environment to an aquatic one would be incredibly complex. Evolutionist Anthony Martin admitted: “Principally it meant developing a new mode of locomotion (from walking to swimming), a physiology to cope with a dense medium (water rather than air), new methods of detecting and catching prey, and a means of breathing efficiently at the sea surface” (1990, p. 12, parenthetical items in orig.). Martin’s analysis did not even address the metabolic, neuronal, reproductive, and cellular changes required for such animals to live underwater. Duane Gish summed it up well when he stated:
It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (1995, p. 198).
- - - - - - -
I'll keep praying for you, man. There are no proven transitional fossils, only these artist renditions. But if you want to start with the major issue, where are the "transitional" specimens which precede the simple-celled organisms or complex Cambrian animals that were antecessory to the vertebrate families? There are no transitional fossils to account for how they arose; they just suddenly and immediately emerge on the scene in what is called the "Cambrian explosion." Also amusing how it is an artist's rendition of what the animal Ambulocetus natans allegedly looked like. It's rather impressive considering the extreme lack of material the artist had to work with. But, that's just more imagination--I guess that's where macroevolution gets the brunt of its argument. Imagination.
"A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic"
[In fact, there is no evidence that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors of whales. They are merely described as ‘possible ancestors’ by evolutionists keen to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals in the light of their theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures with the marine mammals that emerge in the fossil record at a very similar geological time.]
- Anonymous1 decade ago
proof?? looks like a comic book drawing to me- what exactly does that prove . . besides foolishness??
If I draw a unicorn and some fairies and spout some intelligent scientific sounding garble that proves nothing will you believe in unicorns too- wait! I believe I have some fossilized fairy dust in my daughters rock collection!! I'll send you a drawing of it!Source(s): I know, I know, I "just don't understand how it works" Seems to me , neither do you-thanks for giving me something to laugh about today
- opalistLv 61 decade ago
if anyone had never seen a crocodile and only had a few bones to go by.. anyone could come with a picture using their imagination of what it looked like.
but it wouldnt be scientific proof.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They are GUESSING that is a transitional fossil... they don't really KNOW for sure. Besides, even if it were a transitional fossil that doesn't prove cosmic evolution... only micro evolution.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Don't forget the archaeopteryx and dimetrodon
- 1 decade ago
That's an artist's rendering of Ambulocetus, but there are actual Ambulocetus fossils that have been found.
- .Lv 71 decade ago
in case you donÂ´t realizing it, thats a cheesy painting.
- JedLv 71 decade ago
Proves nothing except the fact that after the fact they conveniently "found" something else that they could make up to "prove" what they wish.
- ♥ThruThick&Thin♥Lv 41 decade ago
So I'm staring at a cartoon picture..?Source(s): Christian
- SiarLv 51 decade ago
you need the avatar of the person you want to clone you genius