Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

In case some might be wondering why I've been limiting my administrative contributions mainly to noting instances of arguing the person instead of the topic, I offer this clarification.Tightened enforcement of a "only rational and scientific discussion in the science forums" policy caused a decline in participation there by Creationists, rather than the hoped for improvement in quality. Rather than persisting in a well-intended but obviously unsuccessful endeavor we loosened up.This means that the unconstructive pattern of discussion preferred by certain posters will not be met with restrictions or suspensions of posting privileges. They will be permitted to post to their heart's content as long as they don't approach true lunacy or become overly abusive.So while I can't even pretend to be able to make sense of Randman's position, nor of his unwillingness to even entertain the possibility that there is something worth discussing, suspending people for blatant unwillingness to constructively move the discussion forward has not been shown to ever produce any positive result. Hence, Randman will be permitted to continue in his current manner.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

back on the first page, i posted the same image of pakicetus, and an image of a modern whale skull. do you care to comment on their similarities and differences? also back on the first page, i posted another picture of a modern dog skull (as the claim was original "...than a dog does."). do you care to comment on the similariets and differences between it and the whale, and it and pakicetus?which skull is more similar to pakicetus, the whale skull or the dog skull? i'll help you.i believe the others have all been posted already. was it sensationalized? maybe. you find a skull that looks like a cross between a whale and a more terrestrial animal, it's bound to make a stir.was it inaccurate? certainly -- you get problems like this when you make a GUESS based only on a skull. but it's also important to note that this guess was based on similar animals, ie: ambulocetus. since the skulls have a lot in common, a good guess would be that the bodies did too. and they DO -- just not to the degree shown in the drawing.most of us recognize that drawings and paintings like these are not hard scientific fact. they are subject to the artist's own interpretation, creativity, whims, and expression. they are personalized, not standardized.the drawing being inaccurate or sensationalized does not mean that the whole idea is wrong. pakicetus cearly has a lot of whale-like features, in a more terrestrial form. the question of how terrestrial may be under some legitimate scientific debate (the studies posted here) but its similarity (and relation) to the modern whale is not. most land mammals can swim. so i agree, it is beside the point. it may have sounded facetious when i said it, but i really don't care if "no more aquatic than a tapir" is right. it's a starting point. supposing it was highly terrestrial, and rarely (if ever) swam. what do you do with a walking whale?

---

אָרַח

and it seems to be working!! I'd like to point to everyone (a relative of kermit's especially) that it works best when everyone minds their manners and keeps to the points.This way folks like Rand and Faith dig their own holes and I must confess to enjoying watching it from the sidelines.

are we allowed to abuse back? [edit] i do have one request though. for god's sake, can you please warn randman against talking about haeckel's drawings in this thread? it's just a big red herring, and doesn't belong here. but mostly, i'm just getting really tired of reading that darned two-word phrase.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-29-2005 08:02 PM

---

אָרַח

no yaro, i tried that. he didn't want to play. here is the original post.

quote:

---

pick out the semi-aquatic animal from these modern mammals.

1. 
   ​
2. 
   ​
3. 
   ​
4. 
   ​
5. 

​

no cheating now!

---

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-29-2005 08:06 PM

---

אָרַח

hmmm...Alright. Randman seems to like this depiction of paki better: How do we know he had wiskers?How do we know he had fur?How do we know he didn't have more body fat?How do we know he had ears and not just little holes on the side of his head?How do we know his snout had a little nose on the end?This picture must be grossly exagerated to make pakicetus look more terrestrial!! Those scam artists!!!!See the logic?

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.

And the difference is that when mistakes are found, they are corrected.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

maybe this is the problem. creationists are used to an unchanging and definitive truth. joe schmo may have written it down, but it's the word of god, and so it stands. evidence, logic, reason be damned, we have the truth and that's good enough for me.they expect science to do the same -- so when it revises something they think it's some huge revolution and topples the whole theory.

---

אָרַח

Not only that, it's the front cover of a magazine not an illustration in an actual article. I would suggest that the main point of the picture is to get the attention of people. You've got to make owning and reading the magazine interesting and a pleasant experience if you want folks to maintain their subscriptions or pick it up at a newstand or in the airport.I think it's been pointed out before but if you read the 1983 article in Science it specifically says: Note: I had to type this in manually as the link is to a scanned image, so any typos are my fault.So right from virtually the earliest days (I think Pakicetus was first described in 1981 by Gingerich) it's been pointed out: Seems to me that even with just the original partial skull and teeth finds Gingerich got pretty close to the mark. Not to mention that there is no deception, no asserting things he can't back up as facts or any of the other things randman claims.In fact the subsequent body part finds line up surprisingly well IMO (well perhaps not too surprising when you think that it is his job after all).

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

hey, thanks for the link there. that should be handy.

---

אָרַח

No problem - now if we could only get randman to read what it actually says

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Like what? Tell me the distinquishing whale features among whales today, observed features, that Pakicetus shares.I think regardless of your response, we can wrap up this thread and the hysteria of denial among the evo-camp here with just examining the following depictions.First, the description on the cover of Science to detail Gingrich's findings.Next, National Geographics somewhat watered down version, notably less whale-like than the earlier depiction, although supposedly the authors and publishers had no inkling that Pakicetus may be less aquatic than Gingrich claimed. Now, let's look at the most recent and accurate image available, to my knowledge at least. Anyone else see a pattern here, or do you guys all have blinders on?I'll spell it out for you. The subtle use of pictures is a well known powerful propaganda technigue. The fact there are a few disclaimers really does not absolve the scientific community involved here of the fact they knowingly depicted, and highlighted, heck put it on the cover, depictions of excessively aquatic features with practically no real evidence for it since all they had was a skull.You guys think it's an innocent mistake. I can tell you what many think that once believed in evolution. People like me look at this, and other ways the data is presented and see propaganda, which is why I quit accepting ToE as accurate. Imo, the data is not presented in an objective, scientific manner, but more like someone making a case for their candidate in a political campaign.We aren't going to come to agreement here because imo, it's indefensible to present such inaccurate depictions based on very limited data in such a high profile manner. It's irresponsible, and yes, I do think this is how such errors as Haeckel's forgeries remained in use for over 100 years by the evolutionist community.You can argue all day that somehow the inaccurate depictions are justified. I think presenting any depictions based solely on finding parts of a single skull is totally inexcusable. I think it clearly was designed to sway the reader, especially since the target audience was not working scientists, but the public, and imo, evos have thus continually broken trust with the public in the manner they publicize evolution.

Wow...I'm glad you lined 'em up that way! They are now in chronological order.So basically what we are seeing are illustrations that become more accurate as more evidence acrues. In other words, you are afirming the self correcting nature of science.The pictures get 'righter' over time, as new evidence comes to light.You just shot yourself in the foot.ABE: For posterity I will post the pictures as well: Very cool.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-30-2005 11:33 PM

I couldn't help but respond to this bit as well: Hey randman, what do you think about forensic reconstruction?Ya knew, they find a skull, some bone fragments etc. Then the cops use a specially traines sculptor, or sketch artist, to reconstruct the persons face using only the skull as a base.The results are never 100% spot on. But offten, it's close enugh to make a posative ID.If we can apply such methods to bones of the recently dead, what's wrong with doing the same for the long dead? Does the fact that forensic artists often produce somewhat inacurate artwork cast doubt on the viability of their profession?