I seem to be forever offending people's fragile sensibilities on here. Now it's the bold feature. Actually shouting on here is when you use caps, not bold. I have not got the hang of quoting each and every paragraph on here. Bear with me. Sharon, I'd be happy to continue in bold <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Anthony Flew is most definitely one of the leading past evolutionists/atheists, this is well known.
As for Richard Dawkins? I would not call him of "sound mind" I've seen the guy. Not impressed. Ever seen a liar in action? Watch the expressions and body language. They had to stop a taping of him after being cornered by a creationist with a very direct question. He sat and couldn't answer and had to stop the cameras, so he could compose himself and redirect the interview.
If you want to show me pictures, you can put them up here yourself. I could not locate them on the information you gave. But hoping they are not nice neat pics based on artists' imaginations (not interested), because that should not be compared with the actual bones found.
I see no evidence, but simply quotes with assumptions. Nice neat stories for readers? but what about the technical details of the research, including its limitations...(my answers in bold, hope others aren't offended <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
(a) - Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
Unfortunately, Pakicetus was only known from some cheek and lower jaw, so there was insufficient basis for knowing whether its locomotion was transitional. Only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, whilst the rest is "reconstructed". New discoveries have blown away this imaginative "reconstruction". A prominent whale expert, Thewissen and colleagues unearthed some more bones of "Pakicetus" and published their work in the journal "Nature". "All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals and....indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground". This is very different from Gingerich's picture of an aquatic b) Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
Critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from a non-swimming and land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing. Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil: "Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpreations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis". Finally, it is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than indisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales. c. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
Indocetus ramani is known only from partial remains, including the skull, pelvic bones, vertebrae, and parts of hind limb bones. This tells us little to nothing. d. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
As in "modern" whales, the so-called legs help with reproduction and have nothing to do with feet. The designation of the rear appendages as vestigial legs is based purely on the assumption of evolutionary change. e. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales". Small hind limbs (possibly used during copulation), according even to other evolutionists (e.g. Philip Gingerich) "It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper. f. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).
The far forward position of the blowhole on this fossil simply show the past variety among baleen whales. The rib bones to vertebrae attachments and length of arm bones are more impressive but there is no indication of them in "older" as well as "later" whales, so no hint of real transition . The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).
It is deceptive to call Artiocetus and Rodhocetus primitive whales. While they may both have been largely aquatic, both have substantial limbs. The fact that their ankle bones show artiodactyl traits only shows a relationship if one assumes evolution. ]The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realised by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper" "We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals (i.e., carnivores and ungulates) and the whales.[/i] The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, evolution reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. [b]A Whale of a Tale?[b]
<img src="http://www.acsonline.org/education/images/whalemail-sm.gif">
