Every marine Biologist knows what the Hen bone is and what it's used for it's not legs. It's a pelvic bone designed by GOD for mating "hen" bone
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp Doesn't list speculation it's listing facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus is very clear that some people THINK that, but that's not based off evidence.
Pakicetus is an extinct genus of amphibious cetacean of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to the Eocene of Pakistan.[1]The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale.
-If this was fact with real evidence all paleontologist would agree.
Pakicetus was originally described as being a mesonychid, but later research reclassified it as an early cetacean due to characteristic features of the inner ear found only incetaceans; namely, the large auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanicbone only. It was then believed to be descended from mesonychids, according to Gingerich & Russell 1981. However, the redescription of the primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl Indohyus, and the discovery of its cetacean-like inner ear simultaneously put an end to the idea that whales were descended from mesonychids, while demonstrating that Pakicetus, and all other cetaceans, are artiodactyls. Thus, Pakicetus represents a transitional taxon between extinct land mammals and modern cetaceans.[4]
- Gingerich again but then corrects himself when he finds what he calls "new evidence" LOL
-Gingerich also from the 2001 November issue on the walking whales LOL which
It was illustrated on the cover of Science as a semiaquatic, vaguely crocodilelike mammal, diving after fish.[5]
- LOL completely not what it looks like on wikipedia
Somewhat more complete skeletal remains were discovered in 2001, prompting the view that
Pakicetus was primarily a land animal about the size of a wolf, and very similar in form to the related
mesonychids.
Thewissen et al. 2001 wrote that "Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."
[6]
However,
Thewissen et al. 2009 argued that "the orbits ... of these cetaceans were located close together on top of the skull, as is common in aquatic animals that live in water but look at emerged objects. Just like
Indohyus, limb bones of pakicetids are
osteosclerotic, also suggestive of aquatic habitat"
[7] (since heavy bones provide ballast). "This peculiarity could indicate that
Pakicetus could stand in water, almost totally immersed, without losing visual contact with the air."
[8]
The
Pakicetus skeleton reveals several details regarding the creature's unique senses, and provides a newfound ancestral link between terrestrial and aquatic animals. As previously mentioned, the
Pakicetus' upward-facing eye placement was a significant indication of its habitat. Even more so, however, was its auditory abilities. Like all other cetaceans,
Pakicetus had a thickened skull bone known as the auditory bulla, which was specialized for underwater hearing.
[9] Cetaceans also all categorically exhibit a large mandibular foramen within the lower jaw, which holds a fat pack and extends towards the ear, both of which are also associated with underwater hearing. "
Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular foramen is small, as is the case in all terrestrial animals. It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial mammals. Thus the hearing mechanism of
Pakicetus is the only known intermediate between that of land mammals and aquatic cetaceans."
[10]With both the auditory and visual senses in mind, as well as the typical diet of
Pakicetus, one might assume the creature was able to attack both aquatic and terrestrial prey from a low vantage point.
- Your basically reading this and thinking because this creature isn't just like another one, it's got to be in the middle of it evolving phase LOL
None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.) Pakicetus, which
National Geographicdeclared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which
Pakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”[
3] Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.
Do you think the duck billed platypus turning into a complete duck?
So your'e saying GOD can't create creation and has always been? but the Universe can create and has always been? That's literally believing in something that you claim is impossible.
"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous. The only reason GOD is before everything is because GOD is a living omnipotent being that you cannot fathom. Before the beginning GOD was."- page 43
