Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

It has been obvious to me since forever, that such accounts depend on a lot of guesswork filling in the unknown. As far as I can tell, this has always been openly admitted, whether in museum diaramas, dinosaur books, national geographic articles. They are typically described as artists reconstructions based on fossil evidence. The accompanying printed text usually indicates what the reconstructions are based on.If I go to an art gallery and see a painting of Jesus, I take that to be mostly guesswork too. The police often give artists sketches of a crime suspect. These too are based on guesswork, combined with what limited information is available.These types of reconstruction, based on available information plus informed guesswork, are common in many aspects of our lives. They are done because they are useful. There is never any claim that the result is exact. There is never any denial that guesswork is involved.What exactly is this thread about? Are we at almost 70 messages, merely to demonstrate what should be common knowledge to all, and what has never been denied - namely that the reconstruction of natural history is based partially on guesswork?There are archeologists out there, digging up evidence and attempting to find support for some of what is reported in the old testament. They are using informed guesswork based on partial information. Are you out there lambasting the archeologists for their use of guesswork? Are you claiming that the Bible is false, and that the use of guesswork by archeologists proves it false and proves there is a conspiracy to conceal the evidence of its falsity?History of all kinds, not just natural history, depends on informed guesswork. History of all kinds, not just natural history, is periodically being revised as new information becomes available.The whole line of argument you are taking is quite silly.

quote:

---

This answer also provided the context which, in my opinion, showed that there was no deception or misrepresentation involved.

​

And I disagree. I think showing an aquatic description based on the skull is the result of bias and trying to make it more whale-like without a reasonable amount of data to make that claim.

---

It's not as if scientists looked at a skull, isolated from all other evidence, and decided to pretend that it was a whale.When paleontologists examine fossils, they do so in the light of considerable experience. The look at the parts of the skull that are most distinctive and most reliable in identifying the fossil. They have tested their methods for reliability.This is not to say that they never make mistakes. But their record is generally pretty good.If you want to go show deception or misrepresentation, you need to go through the comparison skulls they used, and show where they made clear mistakes.

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

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.

Apparently randman takes it to be dishonest to present pictures that are based on partial information.So how about those dishonest creationists?This is from The Flood | Answers in Genesis and claims to show the appearance of Noah's ark.This one is from Bible Passages Relevant to the Creation Controversy and claims to be of the flood.Another from The Tower of Babel that claims to depict the tower of Babel.If using artists conceptions is so dishonest, and so dangerous to the minds of children, why are creationist sites posting them?

Maybe because your "issues" are seen as non-issues. The picture that apparently bothers you most, the first on in Message 196, is of pakicetus shallow diving in a stream or estuary. I don't see any "diving deep" there.In response to your question in Message 196, it does not look at all sensationalized to me. Certainly, it involves guesses that go beyond the data available in that skull. Anybody reading Science should surely know that it depends on some degree of guesswork, and that the guesses might turn out to be wrong.I see no deception, nothing sensationalized.

Is pakicetus even mentioned prior to college level classes?Are students old enough to read National Geographic capable of understanding that an artist's depiction is only an artists depiction? I would have thought they were.Do you have actual examples of people being harmed by the depictions in National Geographic or in Science?

No doubt having a complete skeleton is better. I expect you would have a hard time deciding the size of the legs with just a skull. However, it is my understanding that paleontologists gain a lot of information from skulls. For example, the jaws and teeth tell them what kind of food the animal ate. In the case of pakicetus, the teeth are what show a fish diet. Note that I am not a paleontologist, so I only have informal information on this. A full skeleton might not indicate whether there were webbed feet either. It would give some idea as to whether the legs were better adapted to swimming or to running, but that's not much to go on with regard to whale ancestry. It is my understanding that the skull is the main reason that pakicetus is believed to be a whale ancestor. Again, please note that I am not a paleontologist.I would assume that if your aim was to educate, you would be discussing the skull, maybe passing a model of the skull around to the students for them to examine. You would be discussing the various features, and why they suggest that pakicetus is a whale ancestor. I doubt that the picture would be of any importance in the class work.I also suspect that learning pakicetus is a whale ancestor would be only secondary, and the main part of the class would be to teach the students how to examine skull features, how to examine teeth and jaw to determine the animal's diet, etc. Again, I'm guessing here, for I have never taken any class in paleontology.I really doubt that any indoctrination would be used. Propaganda and indoctrination are not very useful in an education program. I'm not convinced that this is far-fetched. If you have dentition that shows a fish diet, you have other skull features that have previously only been found in whales and whale ancestors, then I think you have a pretty strong case that pakicetus is a whale ancestor or a near relative of a whale ancestor.Guessing the body appearance is a bit iffy, but from what is known about early whales, from what is known about other mammals with fish diets, you have enough to go on to make plausible guesses. You will expect some degree of revision will be needed when more complete evidence is available.

I'm no expert here, and I certainly don't know whether pakicetus is a whale. But it is important to understand that whether a particular animal is a whale is not necessary cut a dried. It will be determined by the classification scheme. But since pakicetus was a new find, it would not have exactly fitted into the existing classification.Maybe it was called a whale "for effect". Maybe the desired effect was to influence colleagues as to how the existing classification schemes should be modified to accomodate pakicetus. That would be a very different issue. It is a matter of fact as to whether pakicetus had webbed feet, although we might not have the evidence to settle on such facts. Whether pakicetus was a whale might not have been a matter of fact at all, but rather a matter of negotiation as to how to best adjust prior classification schemes. As has been explained to you in the past, this has nothing to do with advancing evolution. Evolution is already well established without pakicetus. The science here is the attempt to construct the history of life on the planet. Sure, it adds a little extra support for evolution, just as that orange falling from a tree in your backyard adds a little support for gravitation. It would be a problem for gravitation if that orange fell upwards instead of downwards, and it would be a problem for evolution if pakicetus did not fit into the evolutionary tree. But that's the main relevance to evolution.

I completely agree with that. I certainly hope that isn't true. For me it was not indoctrination. I'm pretty sure it is not indoctrination in the university classes. I can't comment on the high school classes. Regrettably, the quality of high school education in the sciences is often not as good as it should be.