That was an artist's depiction, and not part of the research report. Also an artist's depiction. That, too, is an artist's depiction. Sure. Pictures sell magazines. Ah, yes. It is all part of the world wide evo conspiracy. I was wondering when you would get to that.If I am reading that Science article, or that Nat'l Geographic article, I pay little attention to the pictures. I know the pictures are artistic, not factual. They are not going to influence my opinion in any way.But sure, they will help to sell magazines. Frankly, this is because you haven't a clue how to evaluate evidence. If you understood how to evaluate evidence, you would be ignoring the pictures. Similarly, if you knew how to evaluate the evidence you never would have started Near-death experiences and consciousness. But instead you are off in that thread making wild claims that are not in any way supported by the data.

i DO see a pattern. they're ALL DRAWINGS. here's some more drawings. the question is do YOU see a pattern, or do YOU have blinders on?now, i admit, the jump from hindlegs to vestigal hips is kind of a big one, but dalanistes, gaviocetus and takracetus are a bit tricky to find pictures of on short notice. no more time, for the peanut gallery.

it's a drawing.

most people when they read scientific journals know that artistic interpretations are a little different than technical drawings (as above). technical drawings focus on actual detail, fact, and educated reconstruction. artistic interpretatiosn are just how some artist felt about it.even still, technical drawings are slightly less reliable than photos, which are less reliable than the actual object, or the study performed by a trained scientist. artistic interpretatiosn are THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN.competant people read science journals for the science -- the words. shildren flip through for the pictures.now, if you look at the WORDS of the article it says that, guess what, pakicetus was still very terrestrial. the 1983 article even says that, and they reached that conclusion from the skull alone. you may not know or understand this, but just a skull can tell a lot. heck, just a TOOTH can tell alot. but skulls have information about diet, intelligence, hearing, smell, eyesight, environment, eating habits, musclature, and probably scores of features i wouldn't be able to tell either.one of the things that we can tell from the skull, however, is that it was indeed partially aquatic. i challenge you personally to show me another completely terrestrial animal that has eyes on the top of its head. and you think it's a belligerant lie designed to decieved people and detract from the glory of god's creation. yes, randman, i'm sure it's a conspiracy. scientists are really just all frauds and charlatans, making it up as they go alone with malicious intent. i see a lot of false advertising for the armed forces on televsion. we could easily call that propaganda and fit the literal definition. so let's dissolve the army. anyone who deals in such methods must be dishonest and wrong.randman, it's a painting. paleontology has a long and amusing history of innaccurate paintings that perhaps you're not aware of. it's been fowling up from the very beginning. here's the very first dinosaur ever found, igaunodon:that horn on it's nose? that's a thumb. when they realize dinosaurs weren't exactly lizards, they revised it:correcting their mistakes, right? we've all seen this one. well, it turns out that it's even MORE WRONG than the original. iguanodon couldn't possibly have stood like this. they had to break several vertebrae to display the skeletons as such. here's a more modern version, back on four legs:was the first image trying to decieve people? was it propaganda? was the second? the DATA is. people make arguments based upon the data. the DRAWINGS however, are actually CALLED "interpretations." understand the difference yet? art ≠ science. we're not going to agree because it'd indefensible to think that art = science. the above example i gave, btw, was actually the fledgeling science changing, not just the drawings. no more haeckling from you. they took a guess. it's not whether or not it's justified -- most people understand that it's a guess. why is it that creationists seem to think that theory = guess, and drawing = fact?what were they supposed to do, randman? not show any pictures at all? show just anatomical drawings? technical drawings? it's pretty dry stuff for the public. something with color works better, and the INTERPRETATION of a living creature works better.if you want accurate drawings, stick to technical journals and peer reviewed studies. you read popular magazines, you get stuff designed to draw and audience.

---

אָרַח

there is a reason the masses read nat'l geo and not scientific journals.wait for it....artist representations. so the retards don't have to think.

While I agree that they aren't ment to be 100% accurate, I still think they serve a very good purpose!They help one visualize and imagine the creatures as they MAY have been. I mean, would archeology/dinosaurs/etc. be half as fun if we didn't have the cool pictures we all grew up with ?In any case, anyone with half a brain understands that artwork is only a representation. You don't have to be a retard to appreciate it, enjoy it, and still understand that it may not be wholey accurate.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-01-2005 12:06 AM

half pictures i remember are wrong. such as iguanodon.

---

אָרַח

I subscribed when my children were children. It's pretty good for that.I doubt that they were misled by artists conceptions.

No, I know how to evaluate evidence which is why I called BS on this stuff. My point is the average person reading this is or being presented this as part of their textbooks swallows the evo distortions hook, line and sinker, and unthinkingly accepts it.

Are you sure? This web-site article indicates a diagram looking suspiciously like the one above was published in the following; Gingerich, J. Geol. Educ., 31: 140-144, 1983.I am not sure what journal that is so maybe you can help me out here?You can view the image here; scroll down. Mutations | Answers in Genesis In the context of this thread, the peer-review stuff is immaterial. This thread is about the slant evos put on the data they present to the public and students, and imo, using faulty artistic renditions designed to sway the reader that Pakicetus was aquatic when he was not, and there was insufficient evidence to even make a valid claim that he was, is misleading and deceptive.This message has been edited by randman, 12-01-2005 02:48 AM

OK everyone, you claimed that the depiction is just an artist rendition not included in the peer-reviewed literature, and once again, you are wrong. While the coloration was added by someone working with the paleontology department, the original diagram, which is identical in form was published in the following peer-reviewed paper.The Journal of Geoscience Education, Volume 31, Pages 140-144, 1983
Gingerich, P.D.Subject Index for the Years 1980 - 2000 : Paleontology - Vertebrate Mutations | Answers in Genesis The question is whether anyone on the evo side here is man enough to own up to their error in insisting this was just an artist rendition by a non-scientist.anyone? retraction in order???This message has been edited by randman, 12-01-2005 03:14 AM

this is your source? You have everything from Cartoons to discussions of observations from Custer to discussions of creationist fallacies to MOVIE REVIEWS ... and you claim this is the same kind of journal as Nature?Did you even look at your source?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That doesn't look like a paleontology research journal.Why would this make any difference? Surely the only issue is whether it is presented honestly.People wanted to know what pakicetus might have looked like. A picture (an artist's conception) is the best way of satisfying them. What's wrong with having such pictures?These pictures involve a lot of guess work. Nobody is denying that. Why is this a problem? It is usually quite obvious that the pictures are artists conception based on limited evidence.This seems to be nothing but a creationist witch hunt.

Message 127
Message 156
Message 164Both are relevant to the discussion and you have conviniently ignored them. You are probably the most intellectually dishonest poster on this board.This is not adhominem. It is backed up by evidence. Namely this thread.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-01-2005 08:34 AM

I think you have your evidence a little confused. The Ginerich paper is not online, and so you have no idea what illustrations, if any, accompanied it. The picture I think you're thinking of is this one of Pakicetus inachus, the one on the left, and I've included another related image of Rodhocetus balochistanensis from a Gingerich webpage (Philip D. Gingerich): This illustration on the left appeared on the cover of Science for a Gingerich paper in that issue, and not in Gingerich's Journal of Geoscience Education paper.Interestingly, Gingerich seems to mainly stand by this initial representation. This text appears below those images: So Gingerich still believes Pakicetus had a very aquatic appearance and webbed feet, so I'm confused. Is there still a debate about the likely appearance of Pakicetus today? Or is the fact that his image is of Pakicetus inachus significant? Perhaps other Pakicetus species had a more terrestrial appearance?--Percy

haha education. now that's bs.

i dunno, but the one on the left gives me nightmares a la neon genesis evangelion.