tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-340857236022505524.post9169871276178490680..comments2023-06-27T07:27:39.257-07:00Comments on Cetacean Evolution: Pelvic Bones on Whales, AmbulocetusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-340857236022505524.post-51496593378331579582014-01-26T20:30:38.577-08:002014-01-26T20:30:38.577-08:00Please read the entire article before prematurely ...Please read the entire article before prematurely concluding anything,<br /><br />"This is the skeleton with all the bones found since 1994. It is one of the most complete fossil skeletons ever discovered."<br />http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/thewissen.jpg<br /><br />IF you had read thoroughly, you would have read the explanation from the paleontologist himself, who discovered the fossil of this beast. He explains ambulocetus was dug up in TWO PHASES. <br />The first phase, provided diagram for the images Answers-in-Genesis referenced. However, it was only partially recovered. Their information was incomplete and misleading because the rest of the fossil was recovered during the SECOND PHASE, and a complete fossil was then available.<br />Answers in Genesis simply refused to acknowledge the updated fossil information.<br /><br />"Dear Professor Thewissen,<br />When exactly was the spine, the leg bones, the pelvic girdle discovered of Ambulocetus?"<br /><br /><b>From: J. G. M. Thewissen<br />Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004<br />Re: Question on Ambulocetus Discovery<br /><br /> 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).<br /><br /> 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.<br />Hans Thewissen</b>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14996742275971416967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-340857236022505524.post-64602710331463499142014-01-26T14:42:49.705-08:002014-01-26T14:42:49.705-08:00Is there a photograph available (not "an appr...Is there a photograph available (not "an approximate computerised reconstruction, based on the fossil remains that do exist" as per image label) of a single complete Ambulocetus fossil in-situ? i.e. A complete fossil skeleton recovered from a single, non vertically or horizontally dispersed locus. This would end conjecture on the correct morphology.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09642216884783827097noreply@blogger.com