I notice that they are called whales, albeit primitive ones. That is somewhat like the four-toed horse, being called a transition to something else, but what that something else was no one knows. The same with this so-called "primitive whale." It is, after all, a whale. A whale is a whale is a whale. Why then conclude that it is related to the hippo? In order for that to be proved, we would need a transitional form leading from the hippo to the whale-- a transitional form that is neither hippo nor whale. Has any such ever been discovered? I mean an animal that does not fit neatly into one of the recognizable catagories?

Despite the whale-like characteristics of the skull, however, Pakicetus lacked two important adaptations which are present in modern whales. In living whales, the ears contain large sinuses that can be filled with blood, allowing the animal to maintain pressure while diving. Modern whales also transmit sound vibrations to the inner ear using a "fat pad," which allows them to hear directionally underwater. Pakicetus lacked both of these features, indicating that it was unable to dive deeply and that it could not hear well underwater. These anatomical clues meshed well with its habitat, since the Pakicetus bones were found in deposits that had been laid down at the mouth of a river on the shore of a shallow sea, where the opportunities for deep diving would be limited. Although no post-cranial bones of Pakicetus were found, it seemed logical to assume, from the teeth and ear structure, that the animal spent a great deal of time in shallow water looking for food, but returned to the land to rest, somewhat like a modern sea lion. It was expected, therefore, that the limb bones of the earliest Archaeocetes would be large and functional, unlike the atrophied remnants of limb bones found in modern whales. (This hypothesis was supported by the fact that several species of modern whales have well-developed rear limbs while embryos, which later atrophy and become nonfunctional).

This conclusion was bolstered in 1990, when Gingerich found another fossil in the Zeuglodon Valley in Egypt. This was a specimen of Basilosaurus, an animal that had originally been uncovered back in 1834, but misidentified as a marine reptile. It was identified as a whale in 1840. Like the earlier specimen, Gingerich's new Zeuglodon specimen included a four-foot long skull and a number of ribs, all of which bore the unmistakable characteristics of whales, and which matched the corresponding points in the old Pakicetus skull. More importantly, Gingerich also found a femur, a kneecap, both lower leg bones, a number of ankle bones, and three toes, showing beyond any doubt that Basilosaurus had complete rear limbs.

Although the limbs were fully-formed and functional, however, they did not connect to the whale's pelvic bones, and could not have been used to support the animal's weight out of the water. Basilosaurus, therefore, was a whale with a prominent rear leg, but one that was so adapted to a marine existence that it could no longer leave the water. As Stephen Gould puts it, "They are anatomically complete, and they did project from the body wall (unlike the truly vestigial hind limbs of modern whales), but they could not have made any important contribution to locomotion--the real functional test of intermediacy.

(Gould, Hooking Leviathan By Its Past, Natural History, May 1994, p. 13). This is exactly what paleontologists had predicted they would find in ancient whales.

Just two quick comments, at the risk of being considered an apologist for evolution. I assume that you are interested (including in the context of creationism evangelism) in strengthening the logic and clarity of your points?

The 'monkeys typing Shakespeare' example is flawed because it is teleological: we already know what the complete and correct typed works of Shakespeare would look like. The monkeys, whether they knew it or not, would be working toward a specific and definite end goal in such an experiment. Evolution, as it is understand by virtually all evolutionists, is not teleological, it has no predetermined end point. Rather, it is the on-going process of adapting to changes in the evironment.

...Second point is that bevin's example about the coins was aimed at introducing the principle of selection. Your points (John317) have been phrased in terms of the *random* chance combinations of molecules, but the whole point of evolutionary theory is that its process are *not* random, but are selected for in terms of survival.

There are suggested possible mechanisms for the development of simple amino acids both in solution and on clay matrices, in ways that would 'select' for certain types.

Simple amino acids can build proteins, and proteins cells. What is a virus - life or non-life?

Anyway, I'm not arguing a position here, I'm trying to 'sharpen steel' by moving beyond misunderstandings of evolution to discuss substantive issues.

John 317; I must say I enjoyed reading your post. I appreciate the time and effort that went into your post. I could never spent that much time on this subject. I know that we should all probably take time to study this subject more. I've always accepted the bibles account of Creation, based on Faith, not any evdence's one way or the other. I've also never been able to accept that we evolved from anything, evidence or no evidence, christian or not christian, sda or not sda. Your post has made me proud to be a Christian and believe in Creation.

pkrause

As I read texts on the theory, especially those concerning the beginning of life, I keep running into "perhaps", "possibly," "could have," "might have," "probably," "in theory," and very rarely, "we know." I can see why some question whether evolutionary theory is even truly scientific.

In fact, it violates two of the most basic rules of modern science: biogenesis and the fact that like produces like.

... At the end of a thousand years (or is that 360 thousand, given it is a prophetic period?) the earth is destroyed and recreated - but the Bible doesn't say much about how.

...I don't know of any evolutionists who think of this in terms of 'getting it right'. They just think in terms of 'the rocks show us...'

/Bevin

I've run into more evolutionists who have never entertained things from the viewpoint of the creationist than the other way around

Once again it demonstrates to me how great it is to be SDA.

[quote] In fact, it violates two of the most basic rules of modern science: biogenesis and the fact that like produces like.

There is no rule that requires like to produce like.

There is no rule that says that it takes life to produce life.

These are rules that creationists invent and then claim prove their case.

/Bevin

There is no rule that requires like to produce like.

There is no rule that says that it takes life to produce life.

/Bevin