[Junior]

Bones are strong evidence that evolution has occured. How do you explain the fossil record? Are the creatures therein predecessors to modern creatures, or were they (and modern critters) created in situ? As for your question, I don't know all that much about whale evolution; seems to me VadeRetro and you have that corner pretty much to y'all's selves.

[AndrewC]

Are the creatures therein predecessors to modern creatures, or were they (and modern critters) created in situ?

Which ones(fossils) and to what(modern critters)?

As to whale evolution, you don't need to know anything except read a chart. You can see that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are on a fork. Thus one cannot lead to the other(in a simple tree diagram). Also notice that the whales(Paki and Ambulo) are outside of the Artiodactyls, with the Hippos deeply "buried" in the tree. DNA evidence says they are kissing cousins. Now you must understand that this tree was produced from the bone evidence even after including the artiodactyl ankle bone. The bones are thus still at odds with the DNA evidence. The bone casters still trust their computer models and subjective character measuring over DNA evidence. Some scientists.

[gore3000]

bones are simply another clue to the relationships between organisms.
468 posted on 10/14/02 4:22 PM Pacific by Junior

Bones are strong evidence that evolution has occured.
473 posted on 10/14/02 4:39 PM Pacific by Junior

Gee Junior, can't you make up your mind? Can't you stop contradicting yourself?