Replies

Okay. First off, the coyote head was for scale (you know, the practice where you put something people know next to something people don't know so they can get an idea of how big it is).

Now, as for the two whale-critters in there, if one were to actually research cetacian evolution (something I understand is against your religion/programming), one would see these critters bear a strong resemblance to more whale-like aquatic critters, who bear a strong resemblance to more recent, even more whale-like aquatic critters, who bear a really strong resemblance to modern whales. Now, the fossils of these two critters are very much older than the fossils of any of the later critters that resemble them (following so far? If not, get your programmer to explain the big words). And, these fossils have legs. Now, from the fossil matrix (stuff around the fossil), and the shape and location of the appendages, these fossils were quite evidently semi-aquatic (that means they spent time on both land and in the water). The fossils that resemble them and come later in the fossil record (the fossils don't appear side-by-side, but in distinct layers in the rocks) are much more aquatic (live in the water). Now, all these fossils from the land critters to modern whales can be put into a sequence and paleontologists (the, what you would call "spawn of Satan" folks that study fossils) can trace changes in anatomy over time (the movement of the nostrils farther and farther back on the head, the gradual disappearance of the hind legs and the changes to the front legs and tail, etc.). Now, they can draw one of two conclusions:

1) Each of the younger fossils represents a much more aquatically-adapted descendant of one of the older species.

2) God pops in every now and then to zap a new species into existence.

Now, I understand the illustrated Bible your programmer input into you has pictures of God zapping critters into existence (I know mine does), and I know you are incapable of moving beyond your programming, being a simple looping algorythm and not a full-blown AI, so I don't expect any of this will affect any discussion with you in the least.

I know, I know:

"Slime, slime, slime, slime. Wonderful slime! Glorious slime!"

Nice story. However, the bones shown of pakicetus and ichtyolestes show absolutely no proof of their being ancestors of whales. First of all, no bones of whales are shown for comparison. To consider the article in post#29 (for which I show the pictures in post#87) as proof of anything shows a lot of wishful thinking on your part and that of lexcorp.

"Now, as for the two whale-critters in there,"

My point is that there are no two whale critters in there. You have two four legged animals in there which bear no similarity to modern whales. Now, if you wish to show a transition from these to whales, you need quite a lot more such as intervening species which show signs of aquatic locomation, adaptation to water, etc. The bones in the article do not show that at all. So the article that lexcorp linked to and I showed the "evidence" of in post#87 is not proof of anything at all.