1,066
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 121:
Line 121: + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 20:49, February 13, 2007
, 20:49, February 13, 2007→No: counter
:::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)
:::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)
:::: '''Counter''' This may be an example of where going to specialized sources rather than relying on Wikipedia would be in order. However, some of these do in fact make clear why they are considered transitionals. For example, Pakicetus (as discussed in the Wikipedia article) had an inner ear structure that was very cetacean.(Not mentioned in the article but also relevant, Pakicetus had teeth that were very similar to some of the later transitionals in this list although not quite of the standard cetacean form) Proceeding, ambulectus had a bone structure consistent with something which spent time both walking and swimming and bears some similarities to Pakicetus. Basilosaurus looks almost like a modern whale except for the vestigial limbs. I'm not going to go into the others in detail but that should make it clear that there is good reason to see these as transitionals. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:49, 13 February 2007 (EST)
: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!
: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!