>****
>
>Evolutionists point to Mesonyx as the so-called
>ancestor of all marine mammals. Carroll states:"Mesonyx was the size and
>proportions of a wolf and perhaps, had a similar way of life."(see p. 483,
>Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Carroll) Doesn't sound like much of
>a transitional form to me.
>
>Basilosaurus? Was it a whale, or a transitional creature? Again, it all
>depends on one's interpretation of the evidence. Yes, it had fairly large
>front feet and legs, and tiny hind legs. But even evolutionists state these
>tiny hind legs were too small to assist in swimming and could not have
>supported the body on land. To think that this creature could be an
>intermediate between a wolf-like animal and a whale is ridiculous.
The reason that your friend is so perplexed is that he has not only shown that
he has not studied the area very well, he has done this by skipping over
several other forms which exist between Basilosaurus and the Mesonychids. Is
this friend Phillip Johnson? He makes this same mistake in Darwin on Trial.
This is from the Talk Origins archive and was written by Kathleen Hunt
Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between
Eoconodon and the mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways
to look like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene
meat-eating animal) with molars more like premolars & several other tooth
changes. Still had 5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) --
A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shaped
zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the molars. Probably a
running animal that could swim by paddling its feet. Hapalodectes itself may
be just too late to be the whale ancestor, but probably was a close relative
of the whale ancestor. Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear
unmistakable resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the
early Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with
distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth. Although
the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the mesonychids,
especially Hapalodectes...."
Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Same
skull features as Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic
membrane, no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound
localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still have very
mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of later whales.
Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale- like skull crests and
elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5 m long. This skull was found with
terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious, like a hippo.
Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered
early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the
early whales moved on land and in the water. This whale had four legs! Front
legs were stubby. Back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad
feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a
long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with no blowhole.
Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of
steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet. So, just as
predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions -- they could
swim, but they could also still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale
discovery. Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans. Could
probably still "waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail
(indicated by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for
long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of the snout.
Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged
whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- After Rodhocetus came several
whales that still had hind legs, but couldn't walk on them any more. For
example, B. isis (42 Ma) had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the
2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have
been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a
locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this
long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to modern
whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is Protocetes, a
slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene. It was about 3m long
(dolphin sized), and still had primitive dentition, nostrils at end of snout,
and a large pelvis attached to the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is
known from only fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late
Eocene legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of the
whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only the teeth w
The mesonychids were the only carnivore mammals to have a tiny hoof on each
finger. Ambulocetus has this same trait.
And as to the Ambulocetus specimen being found in rocks 2 million years
younger than Pakicetus, species are not required to go extinct if they give
rise to a new species. Ask yourself this: did your granfather and grandmother
both die the day your father or mother were born?
Somebody wrote:
Within this general creationist perspective, Basilosaurus can be
>viewed as a specialized form of whale, needing hind limbs on its
>serpent-like body in order to fulfil the Designer's intention that it
>should reproduce 'after its kind.'
No where does the Bible say animals will reproduce after their kind. It says
God created animals after their kind. There is a big difference between the
two.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm