|
Author
|
Topic: Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 12 of 305 (261650)
11-20-2005 8:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-19-2005 6:15 PM
|
|
We could look at what Dr Gingerich, the man that dug up the fossils, has to say:
Figure 13. Artists' restorations of Pakicetus inachus (left) and Rodhocetus balochistanensis (right), as featured on the cover of Science. These accompanied articles by Gingerich et al. (1983) and Gingerich et al. (2001). The Pakicetus cover was painted by Karen Klitz of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology (now at U. C. Berkeley), and the Rodhocetus cover was drawn by John Klausmeyer of the University of Michigan Exhibit Museum. Based on what we know today, these animals were probably less different than shown here, and the hands and feet reconstructed for Pakicetus probably looked more like those now known for Rodhocetus.
from Philip D. Gingerich Pakicetus is shown with paddle-like feet in the '83 picture, and Rodhocetus has separate toes. They had no foot material in 1983, but they do now. They guessed wrong for the 1983 illustration. The error has been corrected. 'K, randman?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 6:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 121 of 305 (264052)
11-29-2005 8:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by randman
11-29-2005 1:19 AM
|
|
Re: why not answer my question?
skeletal remains of a golden mole
Golden moles are placentals, Randman, of the family Chrysochloridae. But I'm sure you knew that, and just threw in marsupial moles (Notoryctidae) for shits and grins.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 1:19 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 136 of 305 (264201)
11-29-2005 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by randman
11-29-2005 4:36 PM
|
|
Re: take a look at the OP
Also, I don't buy the ole innocent mistake bit because the Nature study only came out a month before. They interviewed the scientists,
The freakin' thing had already gone to press before the Thewissen paper was published! We've been over this!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:36 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 137 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:53 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 147 of 305 (264231)
11-29-2005 5:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by randman
11-29-2005 4:56 PM
|
|
Re: take a look at the OP
They interviewed Thewissen for the article. It's not like Thewissen came up with his idea the month before and rushed them into print.
And Thewissen likely had the Science paper submitted and accepted by the time he was interviewed. It would have been a Very Big No-No to spill the beans on his own paper before publication. That's part of the science game. He could have told Gingerich over a cold beer, but Gingerich would have been honor-bound to wait for publication before saying anything.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 4:56 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: These images fooled billions!
Omniverous - I love it!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 185 by Omnivorous, posted 12-01-2005 10:15 AM | | Omnivorous has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 200 of 305 (264789)
12-01-2005 4:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by randman
12-01-2005 3:07 PM
|
|
Re: evo-hysteria warning
Wonder why? This couldn't be the result of constant creationism criticism, could it? Forcing evos to start moderating their overstatements?
Far more likely it's going where the unfolding data led! Sure, the 1983 picture might be viewed as "sensationalized" by you evolution-denier folk, but a more accurate description would be "overreaching the available evidence." Not ideal, but not - really, NOT - part of the Evilutionist Conspiracy to Subvert America's Youth. Not fraudulent. Just overstated a bit, but CORRECTED BY SCIENTISTS when further data became available. ETA: sorry about straying OT This message has been edited by Coragyps, 12-01-2005 04:01 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by randman, posted 12-01-2005 3:07 PM | | randman has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 228 of 305 (264857)
12-01-2005 6:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 214 by randman
12-01-2005 5:18 PM
|
|
Re: evo-hysteria warning
It seems ludicrous on the face of it to call Pakicetus a whale.
It might seem ludicrous to someone who has yet to look at all the pictures of skulls and skeletons that have been posted on this thread. Or to someone who hasn't read the papers linked on this thread. But, even to amateurs like me that have looked at these things, it's pretty damned obvious that it was an ancestral whale. Go back and look, and read Gingerich and Thewissen's papers.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by randman, posted 12-01-2005 5:18 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 230 by randman, posted 12-01-2005 6:20 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 273 of 305 (265021)
12-02-2005 10:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 269 by Percy
12-02-2005 9:37 AM
|
|
Re: Education versus Indocrination.
I think most here acknowledge the problem that textbook publishers tend to get locked into certain views and presentations that eventually become dated or misleading or wrong
And, just slightly OT, a lot of the distortions in textbooks are the direct result of fundamentalist Christians tampering with the textbook adoption process in places like this grand state I live in. I spent a day at the public hearings on biology texts for our high schools a couple of years back, and it wasn't a real pretty sight.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 269 by Percy, posted 12-02-2005 9:37 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 274 of 305 (265022)
12-02-2005 10:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 271 by Percy
12-02-2005 10:04 AM
|
|
Re: Respond to what?
Can hooves be webbed?
I'm pretty sure they can, as the hoof is really just sort of a glorified toenail at the end of a digit. The webbing of mammal webfeet is between digits, so the two features don't need to depend on each other. (Though a modern horse, having only one functional digit, would have a tough time deciding where to keep his web.)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 271 by Percy, posted 12-02-2005 10:04 AM | | Percy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 276 by randman, posted 12-02-2005 3:09 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 283 of 305 (265099)
12-02-2005 5:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 282 by randman
12-02-2005 5:13 PM
|
|
Re: Hippos Too
These examples, at least the 2 with pics, seem a little less webbed than the depiction of Paki though.
What, everything that has webbed feet has to be webbed to the same degree now? You're pretty hard to please, Randman.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 282 by randman, posted 12-02-2005 5:13 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 285 by randman, posted 12-02-2005 5:39 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2