AiG still has materials up on their site claiming Ambulocetus has no pelvis. They should probably take it down. Ambulocetus has a pelvis.
The material referred to is that published by Thewissen in 1994. It is now claimed, on Thewissens web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal.
So far as Sarfati was aware, when?
Thewissen has published his extended Ambulocetus materials a long time ago.
Thewissen, J.G.M., S. I. Madar, and S. T. Hussain. 1996. Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetacean (Mammalia) from Pakistan. Courier Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, 190:1-86.Peer-reviewed and published in refereed scientific journals. AiG's crap is still up and you're still spouting it.
Thewissen, J.G.M., and F. E. Fish. 1997. Locomotor evolution in the earliest cetaceans: functional model, modern analogues, and paleontological evidence. Paleobiology 23:482-490.
Madar, S.I., J. G. M. Thewissen, and S. T. Hussain. 2002. Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:405-422.
AiG's claim that he hasn't yet is just more outdated material left up on their site to fool the deliberately credulous such as yourself.
Edward Babinski explains it perfectly:
What Sarfati is neglecting to tell people, is that in 2001, when he wrote the article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp he knew Ambulocetus' spine, leg and pelvis bones had been recovered five years before!No excuses, Dave. You publish lies about science for professional liars like Sarfati. You are sabotaging science and science education.
So, what does out of date information from way back in 1994 have to do with the information that was available to Sarfati in 2001, when he wrote this article addressing Evolution: Great Transformations a program which aired in 2001. Sarfati may very well have known about the recovery of Ambulocetus' pelvis, leg and backbones in 1996, but he rejected the information out of hand, and continued to refer to a journal from 1994, on purpose and that was to deceive visitors to their website. Answers in Genesis / Jonathan Sarfati would like to freeze the year 1994 in a bottle, and continue to reject the fossil recoveries made by Thewissen in 1996.
No excuses, Dave. You publish lies about science for professional liars like Sarfati. You are sabotaging science and science education.Tell me for curiosity's sake, although I already know the answer. Was there ANYTHING I could have said besides a sucking up to you and others that would have met your approval?