No Seal of Approval for Evolution

The recent discovery of an incomplete northern Canadian fossil is causing waves in certain evolutionary circles.1 Some scientists claim that Puijila darwini is a flipper-free pinniped (a group that includes walruses, sea lions, and seals) that is supposedly a long sought-after Darwinian transition between a land and freshwater animal. But although a BBC headline proclaimed it a "missing link," this status is made doubtful by the article's uncertain verbiage. Terms such as "probably," "very likely," "suggest," "hint," "apparently," "may have," and "appears to have" are used to describe this animal and its characteristics. It is also important to note that...

Colbert's quote is from a book written in 1955, well before the major discoveries in the sequence of whale evolution.

One wonders why quoting from a book written fifty-four years ago would be necessary. Perhaps a clue might be found here.

A sample:

Until fairly recently, the fossil history of the earliest whales (known as Cetaceans) was quite unknown. Edwin Colbert pointed out in 1955, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life." (Colbert, 1955, p. 303) The oldest whales then known, the Archaeocetes, already exhibited all of the typical whale characteristics, including lack of rear limbs, paddle-like front limbs, and a tail with a horizontal fluke for propulsion. The teeth of the Archaeocetes, however, very closely resembled an ancient group of carnivores called Mesonychids, which were wolf-sized scavengers that lived in the early Eocene period. Based on these similarities, most paleontologists hypothesized that the whales were the evolutionary descendents of the terrestrial Mesonychid carnivores.
The first hint that they were probably right came in 1983, when researcher Phil Gingerich found a 52-million year old skull in shallow deposits in Pakistan. Although fragmentary, the skull had teeth that were nearly identical with those of Mesonychids and the Archaeocetes. The configuration of the bones at the rear of the skull, however, were different from those in the Mesonychids, and were identical to that of the Archaeocetes. Gingerich thus concluded that the animal, which he named Pakicetus, was a very primitive whale. "In time and in its morphology," Gingerich reported, "Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales." (Gingerich, The Whales of Tethys, Natural History, April 1994, p. 86)

... and ...

The most recent discovery in cetacean evolution has also been the most spectacular. In January 1994, Hans Thewissen announced the discovery of several 49 million year old Archaeocete skeletons, the most complete one consisting of parts of the skull and jaw, a number of vertebrae, some ribs and nearly complete front and hind limbs. The large limb bones were fully capable of supporting the animal's weight on land, and were also capable of paddling it through the water using an up-and-down motion of the spine (although it lacked the loose sacral bones found in the Zhou skeleton). Thewissen named the animal Ambulocetus natans ("the swimming whale that walks"). In morphology and in timing, it is a perfect intermediary between the Mesochynids and the younger Archaeocetes.

Quite an interesting article.

So, some cheat (no link so I can’t read the story). Bankers cheat, so we should eliminate the Banking industry?

That is why there are checks and balances and peer review.

LOL....

just ignore that the checks and balances are shouted down, smeared, lied about and sued into silnce in this case though right?

MAN are you....100% programmed or what?

SEEK a cult deprogrammer in your area today!

What I was responding to, Ted, and what you've cleverly omitted from your response was you wouldn't find them swimming or wading into deep water. Why an animal would wade into what you've now specified, water one to three hundred feet deep is something of a mystery. But then why I would expect someone who can't understand why there are no feral chickens to suddenly start posting rational questions about animal behavior in nature (even under a new, post-banning name -- by the way, how many times have you been banned, Ted?), is my own failing.

Can you name another animal that might do what you proposed -- wade into water one to three hundred feet deep?

Even Splifford the ascii bat in his most beknighted moments wouldn't ask a question that silly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.