Replies

Allow me to analyze the ways in which the above constitutes "lying with truth,"

Talk about lawyering and lying!! The subject is a fossil that upsets the sequence of events and you go on into Ad Hominem.

Then you bring up the whale, remember, back then you were the champion of the mesonychus, but you seem to have changed your tune. It is still a problem. Compare these images.

The first image hides the difficulties exhibited by the second. Camels, pigs, and cud chewers split off above the whale/hippo split. Now put the antracotheres and paki in their respective chains, they should be kissing cousins. Are they?

And as I pointed out, when you get to pick and choose what is important you can achieve whatever you want.

From your link.

Teeth are not as reliable as people thought."

...

"Our study is the most complete to date, including lots of different taxa and a lot of new characteristics,

"lying with truth,"

Hilarious!!

The first image hides the difficulties exhibited by the second.

One tree has more resolution, but both images show the same branching pattern.

Camels, pigs, and cud chewers split off above the whale/hippo split. Now put the antracotheres and paki in their respective chains, they should be kissing cousins. Are they?

Let's check. Anthracobunodon, early coal beast.

Von hier.

Pakicetus.

Illustration by Carl Buell, and taken from http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/Pakicetid.html.

Paki is from about 50 million years ago. Coalbunodon is die zu Lebzeiten des Tieres vor ca. 47 bis 45 Millionen Jahren auf der Erde existierten. One is livelier than the other and less transparent. I'm not sure if either one is much of a kisser. Otherwise, though, smoochie smoochie!