Quote from:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp
Top: Ambulocetus skeleton, as drawn in Miller's book
Middle: Ambulocetus reconstruction, as drawn in Miller‘s book
Bottom: Actual bones found (Yellow). Note missing pelvic girdle.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_...mbulocetus.gif

The question that comes to mind is if this was a deliberate attempt to mislead AiG readers, or simply an oversight due to negligence on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati? The fossil certainly does include backbone, leg bones, and pelvic bones. As is noted in the paraphrased excerpt below from National Geographic, Professor Hans Thewissen was discussing the spine of Ambulocetus as early as 1994, it would seem Answers in Genesis would be aware of this fact, ten years later.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:
On p. 265, Miller claimed, ‘the animal could move easily both on land and in water', and contained a drawing of a complete skeleton and a reconstructed animal. But this is misleading, bordering on deceitful, and indicative of Miller's unreliability, because there was no indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than appear in his diagram. Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was not found (see diagram, right). Without this, it's presumptuous for Miller to make that proclamation.

------------

I could not help but to notice your rendering of Ambulocetus, and how it portrays a lot of bones supposedly being missing from the fossil.

Your sketch is drastically misleading Dr. Sarfati. We have a photo image of the Ambulocetus skeleton and it not only contains the entire pelvic region but it contains all the primary leg bones as well.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/ambulocetus.jpg

Also, you portray the spine missing and it's certainly not missing.
Please do update your fossil info.
(Note to T-Web Readers: Eight to ten years out of date information, for a PhD? Sarfati should have known better and changed his page years ago).

Best regards


------------------

It's worse than I presumed. I read over the article I had dug out from a 1994 National Geographic magazine, [paraphrased in our whale article], Thewissen was well on the way of discussing the spine of this creature:

"In a May 1994 issue of National Geographic, it reports the find of Ambulocetus in a former inland sea of Pakistan. Thewissen dubbed the ancient whale fossil Ambulocetus natans for "swimming, walking whale". He explains, on land it would lumber like a sea lion, and "it would look clumsy, but it could still get around." His team recovered much of the fossil including a skull which identified the fossil as a cetacean. The spine indicates the creature moved in similar fashion to modern whales, using its lower back in an up and down motion, while using its hind limbs for propulsion. It's forelimbs are believed to have been used for steering."


------------------

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Question on Ambulocetus Discovery

Dear Professor Thewissen,

When exactly was the spine, the leg bones, the pelvic girdle discovered of Ambulocetus?

This morning I decided to take a look at Answers In Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp
where Sarfati is arguing against the PBS Special #2 "Evolution:Great Transformations".

Sarfati is saying there was no spine, no pelvic bones, no leg bones -- and you were discussing the spine as early as 1994, and I have a reconstructed photo image of the Ambulocetus -- very much complete! Where he got his information is questionable -- and it seems clear to me he has never so much as seen this fossil. I've added all the questions I arrived at to the whale page. This is a misleading article by Creationists.

I ask when the spine, the leg bones, especially the pelvic bones were discovered because Dr. Sarfati should have known about these fossil finds when it happened, and it's now 2004, and he still believes they do not exist? (So it is pictured on their web page).

Thank you

------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: J. G. M. Thewissen
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Question on Ambulocetus Discovery


The specimen was dug up in two phases, results from the first were published in 1994, results from the second in 1996. In 1994, we described some vertebrae, most leg bones, but no pelvis. In 1996, we described many more vertebrae, as well as the pelvis. So inferences about the spine in 1994 were based on the vertebrae we had then. The figure we published in 1994 shows, in stippling, what was known and not-known for the specimen at that time. So there is really no reason why anyone should be misled (as long as they take the trouble to go back to the original publication).

The reason for the delay between the two publications sounds like somewhat from a police movie. We tried to go back and collect the rest of the specimen before the publication in 1994. However, the region had turned in a haven for outlaws. On the day that we were going to start to work there, a man had been kidnapped and a large number of policemen was stopped along the road there to confront the kidnappers. They told us to keep on driving and not stop on that road where the action was happening. At that point, I decided that there was no point waiting to collect more material, because it was not obvious that we would ever be allowed (able) to go back to the site.

Hans Thewissen

-------------------

This explains why Sarfati was referencing a journal from 1994 in his article, although he should have known the information was updated and changed in 1996 with the new discoveries by Thewissen's team:

‘ … 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 interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.
Berta, A., What is a Whale? Science 263(5144):180–181, 1994; perspective on Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T. and Arif, M., Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales, same issue, pp. 210—212. http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp


--------------------

Thank you
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon as possible.
> Return to home page

---------------------

I just wanted to pass along a note of interest to Dr. Sarfati, that I have been working all day on the subject of Ambulocetus, in regard to his article located at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp

Professor Hans Thewissen verified for me today information about Ambulocetus' pelvis, backbone and leg bones, that indeed they were known to scientific circles between 1994-1996 and he explained in depth the cause for the gap between finds. Dr. Sarfati's article indicates a lack of knowledge on this critical issue, by outright denying the existence of pelvis, backbone, and leg bones. Dr. Sarfati perhaps is interested to visit, and read,
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babins...evolution.html
and hopefully willing to consider revising his current hypothesis on whale evolution, at least where Ambulocetus plays into the picture. We have a photograph of the Ambulocetus fossil, and it is as near to a complete skeleton, as is necessary for this discussion.

Originally posted by etb_wm_sharon

Quote from:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp
Top: Ambulocetus skeleton, as drawn in Miller's book
Middle: Ambulocetus reconstruction, as drawn in Miller‘s book
Bottom: Actual bones found (Yellow). Note missing pelvic girdle.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_...mbulocetus.gif

The question that comes to mind is if this was a deliberate attempt to
mislead AiG readers, or simply an oversight due to negligence on
behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati? The fossil certainly does include
backbone, leg bones, and pelvic bones. As is noted in the paraphrased
excerpt below from National Geographic, Professor Hans Thewissen was
discussing the spine of Ambulocetus as early as 1994, it would seem
Answers in Genesis would be aware of this fact, ten years later.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:
On p. 265, Miller claimed, ‘the animal could move easily both on land
and in water', and contained a drawing of a complete skeleton and a
reconstructed animal. But this is misleading, bordering on deceitful,
and indicative of Miller's unreliability, because there was no
indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than
appear in his diagram. Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was
not found (see diagram, right). Without this, it's presumptuous for
Miller to make that proclamation.

------------

I could not help but to notice your rendering of Ambulocetus, and how
it portrays a lot of bones supposedly being missing from the fossil.

Your sketch is drastically misleading Dr. Sarfati. We have a photo
image of the Ambulocetus skeleton and it not only contains the entire pelvic
region but it contains all the primary leg bones as well.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/ambulocetus.jpg

Also, you portray the spine missing and it's certainly not missing.
Please do update your fossil info.

Best regards


------------------

It's worse than I presumed. I read over the article I had dug out from
a 1994 National Geographic magazine, [paraphrased in our whale article],
Thewissen was well on the way of discussing the spine of this
creature:

"In a May 1994 issue of National Geographic, it reports the find of
Ambulocetus in a former inland sea of Pakistan. Thewissen dubbed the
ancient whale fossil Ambulocetus natans for "swimming, walking whale". He
explains, on land it would lumber like a sea lion, and "it would look clumsy,
but it could still get around." His team recovered much of the fossil
including a skull which identified the fossil as a cetacean. The spine indicates
the creature moved in similar fashion to modern whales, using its lower
back in an up and down motion, while using its hind limbs for propulsion. It's
forelimbs are believed to have been used for steering."


------------------

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Question on Ambulocetus Discovery

Dear Professor Thewissen,

When exactly was the spine, the leg bones, the pelvic girdle
discovered of Ambulocetus?

This morning I decided to take a look at Answers In Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp
where Sarfati is arguing against the PBS Special #2 "Evolution:Great
Transformations".

Sarfati is saying there was no spine, no pelvic bones, no leg bones --
and you were discussing the spine as early as 1994, and I have a
reconstructed photo image of the Ambulocetus -- very much complete! Where he got his information is questionable -- and it seems clear to me he has never so much as seen this fossil. I've added all the questions I arrived at to the whale page. This is a misleading article by Creationists.

I ask when the spine, the leg bones, especially the pelvic bones were
discovered because Dr. Sarfati should have known about these fossil
finds when it happened, and it's now 2004, and he still believes they do not
exist? (So it is pictured on their web page).

Thank you

------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: J. G. M. Thewissen
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Question on Ambulocetus Discovery


The specimen was dug up in two phases, results from the first were
published in 1994, results from the second in 1996. In 1994, we
described some vertebrae, most leg bones, but no pelvis. In 1996, we
described many more vertebrae, as well as the pelvis. So inferences
about the spine in 1994 were based on the vertebrae we had then. The
figure we published in 1994 shows, in stippling, what was known and
not-known for the specimen at that time. So there is really no reason
why anyone should be misled (as long as they take the trouble to go
back to the original publication).

The reason for the delay between the two publications sounds like
somewhat from a police movie. We tried to go back and collect the rest
of the specimen before the publication in 1994. However, the region
had turned in a haven for outlaws. On the day that we were going to
start to work there, a man had been kidnapped and a large number of
policemen was stopped along the road there to confront the kidnappers.
They told us to keep on driving and not stop on that road where the
action was happening. At that point, I decided that there was no point
waiting to collect more material, because it was not obvious that we
would ever be allowed (able) to go back to the site.

Hans Thewissen

-------------------

This explains why Sarfati was referencing a journal from 1994 in his article, although he should have known the information was updated and changed in 1996 with the new discoveries by Thewissen's team:

‘ … 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 interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.
Berta, A., What is a Whale? Science 263(5144):180–181, 1994; perspective on Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T. and Arif, M., Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales, same issue, pp. 210—212. http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp


--------------------

Thank you
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been
sent to the appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will
reply as soon as possible.
> Return to home page

---------------------

I just wanted to pass along a note of interest to Dr. Sarfati, that I
have been working all day on the subject of Ambulocetus, in regard to his
article located at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp

Professor Hans Thewissen verified for me today information about
Ambulocetus' pelvis, backbone and leg bones, that indeed they were
known to scientific circles between 1994-1996 and he explained in depth the
cause for the gap between finds. Dr. Sarfati's article indicates a lack of
knowledge on this critical issue, by outright denying the existence of pelvis,
backbone, and leg bones. Dr. Sarfati perhaps is interested to visit,
and read,
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babins...evolution.html
and hopefully willing to consider revising his current hypothesis on
whale evolution, at least where Ambulocetus plays into the picture. We have
a photograph of the Ambulocetus fossil, and it is as near to a complete
skeleton, as is necessary for this discussion.

Takes some reading, that.

Sounds like the usual creationist lies of omission, claiming the pelvis was never found is obvoiusly not the same as saying that it wasn't found until 1996.

Originally posted by Kulindrichnus

Takes some reading, that.

Sounds like the usual creationist lies of omission, claiming the pelvis was never found is obvoiusly not the same as saying that it wasn't found until 1996.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_...mbulocetus.gif
He needs to get out that yellow crayon and start coloring.

• Edited by a Moderator • The statement of faith on AiG is enough by itself to distrust any and all information found there.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Undisclosed

Yep. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Wow! We've not had moderator action in here for ages. Makes me so nostalgic for the days of Socrates that I'm going to the pub!

Well done piece of research, and thank you.

Good research. AiG also has currently running links claiming that observed star formation isn't happening. I dealt with that in the "Creationist no longer..." thread.

But here is something else to think about. Sarfati is a chemist, and not a very good one at that (see "Problems with a global flood" on talkorigins.org). Why is he preaching to us about fossil anatomy?

Originally posted by Constantine

Good research. AiG also has currently running links claiming that observed star formation isn't happening. I dealt with that in the "Creationist no longer..." thread.

But here is something else to think about. Sarfati is a chemist, and not a very good one at that (see "Problems with a global flood" on talkorigins.org). Why is he preaching to us about fossil anatomy?

Because a better informed opinion would not support AiG's agenda?

How often does AiG update its pages? Should we expect to see some alterations next year?

Originally posted by AdvocatDiaboli

How often does AiG update its pages? Should we expect to see some alterations next year?

I don't know, but it may be a children's television program that yet gives AiG and Dr. Sarfati a run for their money.

Here's something that's just as good as being able to get into a time machine and go back a few million years -- though the "vestigials" are in our own day and time.

SIRENIAN EVOLUTION: Manatees... Sea Cows... Dugongs.
It's the same process with whales, land to sea.
Some of the manatee have lost their elephant toenails, and others still have them.

I do not know how AiG and the creationists would explain away the phenomena of sea cows with elephant toenails on their flippers. (Along with all the other shared features in common with elephants).

I finished merging our whale evolution article into a site, along with the museum photos of pelvises on whales, including the page I have been working on with Sea Cows (though I'm waiting on Ed Babinski to compile his history on the common ancestry between elephant and sirenians).

Hans Thewissen has added information to his website on Sirenian fossils.
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/

We obtained permission from PBS' Reading Rainbow to use clips from their episode of Sam the Sea Cow.

It's available under Special Featured Articles on the site.

Sirenian Evolution
(Manatee, Sea Cow, Dugong)
Sirenians and Elephants are evolved from a common ancestor. Like whales, sirenians returned to the water. Though hind limbs on whales may be rare and difficult to witness, many sirenians (not all) still retain vestigial toenails like their elephant cousins, and share other traits in common with modern elephants. Includes commentary between LeVar Burton and Dr. Mark Lowe, Veterenary Science. Contains images courtesy of Reading Rainbow, PBS Television. (GPN/Nebraska Educational Telecommunications and WNED-TV, Buffalo NY).
http://whales.creation-science.us

Originally posted by AdvocatDiaboli

How often does AiG update its pages? Should we expect to see some alterations next year?

The material presented is often in the form of copies of articles published in the past. Such material will tend to become out of date in time; but AiG does sometimes post addendums.

Here is a directly relevant example... Don Batten has an article A Whale of a Tale, first published in TJ (Technical Journal) Vol 8, Issue 1, pp 2-3, April 1994. This article also speaks of the highly incomplete skeletal remains for Ambulocetus, just as Sharon described for Sarfati's article in the OP.

After the article, there are a couple of "Addendums". The second (4 Jan 2002) speaks of criticism from "evolutionists" for misrepresenting the amount of available evidence, and points out that at the time the article was published, the remains that had been described in the literature were as limited as indicated in TJ. The addendum says:

It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence (evolutionists are quick to demand this of creationists). However, even if it is so published in the future, I don’t have much confidence in the peer review process when it comes to paleontology—there seems to be a different standard applied to these papers, compared to experimental (operational) science. So many false claims have been given credit in prestigious peer-reviewed journals that I have become rather sceptical of all the claims. ...

Don could not have known this, but in fact peer reviewed formal description of the additional material had already occurred, and it had been accepted for publication already at the time Don wrote his addendum. It appeared shortly afterwards as

2002, Madar, S.I., J. G. M. Thewissen, and S. T. Hussain. Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:405-422.

Perhaps another addendum will be forthcoming; but it is really only interesting for the insight into the curious psychology involved.

Cheers -- Sylas

Originally posted by Steve Forden

Wow! We've not had moderator action in here for ages. Makes me so nostalgic for the days of Socrates that I'm going to the pub!

Huh, why? Did his posts drive you to drink? ;)