[DittoJed2]

What was the point of asking for photos that had already been linked?
See my reply above. It was a genuine oversight.

If you look at the link I gave you, two of the four sources directly address articles from 2001. The article also directly addresses the skeleton bone find.

There are two skeleton bone finds. In one case, Sarfati makes the tiniest nod toward acknowledging the truth. He mentions the early lack of postcranial bones on Pakicetus, doing the usual jeer at attempts to reconstruct from a few pieces. He goes on to say that later Thewissen found "some more bones." He quietly lets the word "postcranial" slip in, but nowhere acknowledges that recent reconstructions are based on relatively complete information. If you didn't know from better sources what he was spinning here, you'd still think all we know of Pakicetus came from two skull bones.

For the record, here is what he said regarding the other find (including a link to the original article on Nature Magazine's website which is available with a FREE subscription):
A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.2 The commentary on this paper in the same issue3 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See illustration, left) This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.

AIG is not playing the cloak and dagger baloney that you are trying to accuse them of. You, on the other hand are deliberately misrepresenting AIG.

In the other case, Ambulocetus, he's still telling people there are no pelvic bones. Furthermore, I linked the refutation of the "no pelvis" silliness before you even linked the stupid article containing it. Does no good.
He is quoting an evolutionist in Science Magazine who said ‘Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton.' (Berta, A., What is a whale? Science 263(5144):180­181, Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T., Arif, M., Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales, pp. 210­212, 1994.)

Some people on this thread have been impressed with your performance. I am not one. You know only the pig-ignorant AiG strawman version of evolution. And you're just going through their articles one by one, blasting them out. There's no stopping you and it's not an intelligent dialogue. You just fire the stuff out there.

And you have "fired out" nothing but off the top of your head scientific "proof" of evolution? Regardless, fortunately, I'm not in a popularity contest for your approval. Furthermore, you seem cranky tonight. Maybe it is a good idea for you to go to bed.

[DittoJed2]

You all have probably seen this before, but I thought it was good (and I had not read it prior to a previous reply on this thread).

Differences between humans and animals
by Andrew Lansdown

First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo17(4):45
September-November 1995

On the lighter side, are there really any differences between us and the inhabitants of farms and zoos?

‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.’ So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine (‘How Man Began’, March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to warm to it.

For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.

Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.

The apes’ ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on ‘How Man Began’. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orangutan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.

Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.

Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.

Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, ‘Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I've got a problem.’

Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?

Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.

The sense of humour shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.

Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour…such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means unique to humans, as I hope I have conclusively shown. Therefore, in the profound words of TIME magazine: ‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.

This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different. And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness. And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us.

Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free—free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors—free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.

Did I say 'free'?

Hiss! Oink! Heehaw!

ANDREW LANSDOWN, B.A., B.A. (Hons), Dip. Ed., is a writer, teacher and pastor He is well known for his articles on social and spiritual issues, and for his poetry and fiction.

[VadeRetro]

Screeching that Pakicetus is a land animal is making a point of missing the point. Whales, the marine animal, evolved from land animals. You don't expect the land animals to have tail flukes, flippers, and no hind legs. They weren't landwhales like the landshark of Saturday Night Live fame. Yes, Pakicetus was a land animal. If it weren't, Sarfati would be screaming, "It's just a extinct whale! Where are the transitionals?"

Ambulocetus has a pelvis. It was found in 1998 after an interruption in excavations at the original site as has already been explained here. What is the point of dredging up quotes from out-of-date papers if not to mislead people about the current state of the evidence?

We have nearly complete skeletons on Paki and Ambu now. Anyone reading the AiG site would still think otherwise. The proof is they show up on this forum all the time thinking otherwise and linking AiG.

So, back to the larger progression, Sarfati attacks each piece as if it were the only fossil in the world and makes no sense, ignoring that it is one bead on a chain and there's a warehouse full of chained beads. Sarfati still denies the existence of necklaces by breaking the wire and losing the beads.

Science changed its story (the reconstruction) about Pakicetus as new bones were found. Sarfati looks smug and says "Tah-dah!" One bead gone.

Sarfati waves quotes that say, "No pelvis." "Tah-Dah!" Two beads gone.

Basilosaurus is ten times longer than Ambulocetus. [But Sarfati skips the truly intermediate Kutchicetus and Dorudon.] The transition is not as smooth as presented by the evolutionists. [Not if you skip two stages.] "Tah-Dah!"

So, backing up, there is a chain of fossils with similar teeth and similar ear bones and similar other features that seem to show a true land mammal "kind" morphing into a true marine mammal "kind." Nostrils migrate back to become a blowhole. Legs disappear. For all that, the relationship remains visible and the stages appear in the right order.

Evolution predicted this before it was true. Pretty uncanny. Creation denied it after it was true. You could argue about which is harder, but the first is very hard to explain if evolution is not a theory with useful predictive power.

So, backing up futher in the discussion, we have the question of whether "common designer" makes as much sense as "common descent." And I said that God filled the sea with fish, but then, to make a thing which superficially looks very fish-like, He used mammal parts. Then he put fossils in the ground that look like land animals turning into those sea animals. Then he put molecular data in their cells to make it look like whales have suffered the same accidents of history in their DNA to which the even-toed terrestrial ungulates (pigs, camels, hippos, deer, sheep, goats) have been subject.

But we're not allowed to notice any patterns. We're not allowed to remember any other lines of evidence when considering a new one. He evidently commands some of us to look at a bead at a time, and when we look at a bead, not to notice the chain, and not to remember the warehouse full of other chains. There are no necklaces.

[AndrewC]

How many different hip bones can you find in these pictures?