Well, after Andrew C did some research on your post, he found, and you admitted that the picture shown is a replica:
It's a replica of an original somewhere.
373 posted on 2/22/02 12:52 PM Pacific by VadeRetro
So again you are offering as proof something which is a construction, not the real thing.
As to the bones of Pakicetus and Ichtyolestes - you will note that not only do they have legs, but also we do not have the breast bones which are quite different in whales as opposed to land animals. Therefore there is quite a large jump between what we know about these land animals and whales. Also note that no pictures of the bones of whales (which are plentiful and easily available) were given for comparison in the article. Therefore my statement that the article posted as proof of macro-evolution by lexcorp is no proof at all.
BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.
Keep reading. You'll eventually see where it's a replica of a single fossil in another museum. I also note that you took AndrewC's correction exactly as he meant you to take it. "All yer missin' links are Piltdowny Nibrasky-Man Eeeee-vol-oo-shunist Fakes!"
Therefore there is quite a large jump between what we know about these land animals and whales.
See also, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, etc. The whale series has added quite a few steps since we started excavating the Tethys Sea sediments in the late 80s. That's what punctuated equilibrium says. The changes happen not only in a time but in a place. You have to find the place.
Once we found the place, things started happening in cetacean paleontology. They're still happening.
Meant to challenge you on this but your posts are so full of baloney it's hard to keep track of it all.
My latest (Sep 2001) understanding is the opposite of your claim.
But in recent years molecular biologists have put forth a different hypothesis—based on DNA from living animals—asserting that the ancestors of whales were instead artiodactyls—a group whose extant members include hippopotamuses, pigs, camels and ruminants. Furthermore, several molecular studies have concluded that whales share a common artiodactyl ancestor with hippos and are thus more closely related to these animals than to any other living artiodactyl or to a mesonychian.So, explain yourself.. . .
"For the first time, morphological evidence shows that artiodactyls are the closest relatives of the cetaceans," Christian de Muizon of the Museum of Natural History in Paris writes in a commentary accompanying the Science report. "The new fossils superbly document the link between modern whales and their land-based forebears," he concludes, "and should take their place among other famous 'intermediates,' such as the most primitive bird, Archaeopteryx, and the early hominid Australopithecus.
. . .
For Gingerich, who previously espoused the view that whales evolved from mesonychids, the significance of the findings took a while to sink in. But after careful consideration, he finally concluded that whales evolved from artiodactyls. "Now I admit the possibility that hippos are a sideline of artiodactyls that might be closer to whales than any other living animals," he remarks.
Still waiting for you to source this or back off. It's wrong.
BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.
Still waiting for you to source this or back off. It's 180 degrees wrong.