Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

I would like to point out a few things for you Randman.The picture you linked to is the artists depiction based on only the skull, just as the national geographic's depiction. There will always be some differences in how artists portray the animals based on their skeletal features. Unless we have some more information, such as fossilized fur or other soft parts it's rather hard to get everything exactly right. The artists depictions are to give Joe Public and the scientists themselves some taste of what the animal might have looked like.As far as your linked picture goes, how can you tell if it has webbed feet? For the life of me I could not tell if it did or did not have webbed feet from that perspective. It's really a moot point anyways because we really don't know either way. But we can hazard our best guess! Our best guess, so far, is that it is likely to have had webbed feet, based on our knowledge of the anatomy's of animals living today in similar environments.By the way, did you actually read what comments were made in the link you provided about Pakicetus??? Here let's see:1) "Pakicetids were the first cetaceans..."
2) "...may have fed while wading in shallow streams."
3) "Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing." The above taken from Randman's linked siteClearly the website you posted from believes beyond a doubt that Pakicetus is a Cetacean! (Basically they're calling it a whale) Who would have thunk it!Are we to infer that you believe that Pakicetus is a cetacean then?

What part of

quote:

---

Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing.

---

do you not understand? What part of

quote:

---

Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing.

---

do you need clarified?Have we not discussed the specializations of the ear with you already? I could have sworn that Yaro or somebody discussed these issues with you already? Or am I mistaken, because we can go through them again if you wish? I often find that having information repeated to me, often allows me to be able to clarify mistakes I or the presenter might have made before.Perhaps you should peruse through your link again to clarify any question you might have? To help clarify the ear issuesThis message has been edited by DBlevins, 11-20-2005 11:38 PM

Are you sure? From this paper:
Gingrich, Philip D. (2003). Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals.
Paleobiology: Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 429-454. From:
THEWISSEN, J. G. M., BAJPAI, SUNIL. Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution. BioScience: Vol. 51, No. 12, pp. 1037-1049.What papers can you reference that indicate an adamant conclusion that Pakicetus is fully terrestrial?If you can't give me a peer-reviewed paper, how about a web-site with a reference to a recent publication?This message has been edited by DBlevins, 11-21-2005 12:37 AM

The paper I quoted is a refutation of Thewissen's statement that Pakicetus was no more aquatic than a Tapir. There is not much debate that I could find. Most appear to me to accept a likely (note LIKELY) semi-aquatic lifestyle for Pakicetus. See below. See also below: From:
THEWISSEN, J. G. M., BAJPAI, SUNIL. Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution. BioScience: Vol. 51, No. 12, pp. 1037-1049.

I don't know that I am trying to get him to realise that Pakicetus is some transitional cetacean. I just want him to recognize that it is likely that Pakicetus was semi-aquatic. I don't think that it is 100% certain, proof beyond doubt that it is so, but that the fossils and their location indicate some kind of semi-aquatic lifestyle.It does appear as you say, that he is deathly afraid that Pakicetus might be a transitional, as if his whole house of cards might tumble down upon him.I think the other thing that bothers him greatly, is that he doesn't understand the tentativity of science. He thinks quoting something, whether it is 50 years old or 5 years old, makes it a fact and that scientists are bambooziling the world with "facts" that might be considered wrong these days. He doesn't understand that science constantly evolves.

The part of that article in 2001 that stated that Pakicetus is no more aquatic than a Tapir has been refuted. What part of "refuted" is hard for you to understand?Here: What part of "much more aquatic than a Tapir" is hard for you to grasp?Do you think we believe Pakicetus was an otter, with no doubts? Do you think they fabricate evidence as part of a worldwide evo conspiracy? Listen please, artists and scientists may have hazarded a guess or two when all we had was the skull, and there is nothing wrong with making guesses. Scientists even tell you they're guessing! Note the artistic representation says in Large easy to understand words "This is an artists representation based ONLY on the skull." What more do you want?We now have more of the skeleton to determine what kind of an animal it might have been. We are still guessing about many things but we can also deduce what is likely to have been its lifestyle. If you notice, this article refuted thewissen's Tapir statement and looks at the fossil bones to determine that Pakicetus is likely to be more aquatic than a Tapir.From this paper:
Gingrich, Philip D. (2003). Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals.
Paleobiology: Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 429-454.Can we move on? Do you still contend Pakicetus is purely terrestrial?
Is there something about the tentativity of science that grates on you?

You never adequately responded to the refutation of the paper you cited that claimed Pakicetus was a purely terrestrial animal. Notice that this refutation is AFTER the paper you cited.Here it is again:The part of that article in 2001 that stated that Pakicetus is no more aquatic than a Tapir has been refuted.Here: What part of "much more aquatic than a Tapir" is hard for you to grasp?Do you think we believe Pakicetus was an otter, with no doubts? Do you think they fabricate evidence as part of a worldwide evo conspiracy? Listen please, artists and scientists may have hazarded a guess or two when all we had was the skull, and there is nothing wrong with making guesses. Scientists even tell you they're guessing! Note the artistic representation says in large, easy to understand words "This is an artists representation based ONLY on the skull." What more do you want?We now have more of the skeleton to determine what kind of an animal it might have been. We are still guessing about many things but we can also deduce what is likely to have been its lifestyle. If you notice, this article refuted thewissen's Tapir statement and looks at the fossil bones to determine that Pakicetus is likely to be more aquatic than a Tapir.From this paper:
Gingrich, Philip D. (2003). Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals.
Paleobiology: Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 429-454.Also the fact that it's eye orbits were oriented toward the TOP of the skull. Any purely land animal you know of that has orbits on top of it's skull?

Nice dodge.The techinical aspects of the paper I cited addressed your assertion and Thewissen's argument that Pakicetus was "no more terrestrial than a Tapir." It points out that his bones match those of creatures who ARE semi-aquatic.Reconstructions of Pakicetus based on just the skull were just that: reconstructions. Amazingly enough they deduced that Pakicetus was likely more aquatic than a purely terrestrial animal based on all sorts of morphological evidence in it's skull and analogous skeletons believed to be representative of related species. Plus the fact that the damn thing had EYES ON TOP OF IT'S SKULL!As far as having webbed feet, why wouldn't it have webbed feet? Do you know BEYOND a doubt that it did not? Could you amaze us and the scientific community with soft tissue from a Pakicetus remains along with your interpretation of what the soft tissue represents based on your extensive biological and morpholgical expertise??Someone can correct me if I am wrong but why couldn't hooves have webs between them?You are making wildly outrageous claims that there were no disclaimers about the drawings being guesses. Yaro and others have repeatedly called you on this assertion.While representations may be seen by some as representative of some evo controversy, many see this as the build-up of a body of knowledge and that scientists are capable, as a group, to address when they are wrong. What you fail to comprehend is that science is tentative and new information is presented continuously, making it the responsibility of scientists to discard or change old hypothesis, or make new ones.