Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
Interesting site, though I'm not sure what your point is (but then I'm feelin' might poorly at the moment).

For a long time, Basilosaurus was among the earliest known whales being found in rocks as old as Middle Eocene. Since its discovery in 1834, no older primitive whales transitional to ancestral land-mammals had been discovered from earlier rocks leaving an obvious gap in the fossil record. However, research in Pakistan and elsewhere have found the critical fossils to fill a substantial portion of this gap. Among the ancestors or close relatives to the ancestors of Basilosaurus and modern whales are: 1. Rodhocetus kasrani - Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1994)
2. Pakicetus - latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983, Thewissen et al. 1993)
3. Ambulocetus natans - Early to Middle Eocene (Thewissen 1994)
4. Indocetus ramani - earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993)

577 posted on 10/15/2002 2:46:23 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies ]


To: Junior
Interesting site, though I'm not sure what your point is (but then I'm feelin' might poorly at the moment).

Sorry to "hear" that you are under the weather. I pray you feel better.

My point was to indicate a reason why someone might reject fossils arranged in a sequence due to the way the bones looked. My link presented "unmistakable" characteristics linking the Basilosaurus with the Mesonychus in a chain leading somewhat to the modern whales.(Basilosaurus evidently was excluded from leading to modern whales for some reason). The mesonychus has now been just about eliminated from this chain. What happened to all of the evidence? You can see the problems with the bones. The bones, even with the ankle that "killed" the mesonychus, do not place the alleged grandaddy of the whales close to the hippo. The whole point of this being that, placing bones in a sequence is evidence more of the thoughts of the person doing the placing than the relationships between the bones.

578 posted on 10/15/2002 3:15:39 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies ]

To: Junior
Interesting site, though I'm not sure what your point is

The point is that paleontology is not a science, it is absolute garbage. They change their assertions more often than the wind in Chicago. One day they indubitably , positively assert that one species descended from another and then the next day they assert that no, it descended from some other species just as indubitably, positively, etc. and anyone that does not believe them in a moron and should keep their trap shut. It is like the Communists, do not dare to repeat what they said yesterday or you will be shot.

582 posted on 10/15/2002 3:50:45 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson