You have one terrestrial animal that is "no more amphilbious than a tapir" and claim it's an "walking whale."
Interesting theory. Where is your proof again?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
WiYC picks a sentence here and a sentence there but for gets the most important part:
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"
This is after all an evolutionary series that demonstrates this transition. We would expect the early ones to have more terrestrial characteristics. We would expect that there would be significant differences between them and modern whales. We see that and more importantly, we see graduated changes between the two. You had no argument the first time through and you don't have one now.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
“You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”
1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
WIYC summary of Pakicetus
"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com
WIYC summary of Ambulocetus:
“In Ambulocetus, the radius, ulna, wrist, and much of the hand are preserved. They show that Ambulocetus had mobile joints at elbow, wrist, and fingers, and that the fingers were not embedded in a flipper. All of these features are similar to land mammals and unlike modern cetaceans …”
“The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals…”
“In Ambulocetus and Kutchicetus, the pelvis is much like that of a land mammal.”
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)
In regard to the ‘supposed’ disproportionate increase in size of the mandibular foramen:
Without any connection to hearing, the mandibular foramen is present in mammals for the purposes below:
"The Mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus (posterior and perpendicularly oriented part of the mandible) for divisions of the mandibular vessels and nerve to pass.
The mandibular nerve is one of three branches of the trigeminal nerve (CN V) and the only branch with motor innervation.
The inferior alveolar nerve and inferior alveolar artery enter the foramen traveling through the body and exit at the mental foramen on the anterior mandible at which point the nerve is known as the mental nerve.
These nerves provide sensory innervation to the lower teeth, as well as the lower lip and some skin on the lower face."
The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.
Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater.
2. In regard to the last two sentences of the posting:
“More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”
How interesting that evolutionists actually admit that:
a. Macroevolution is above the specie level.
b. Evolution is only true because nothing naturalistic can explain creation.