Innovation and Speciation: new amphibious whale found or not (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 05, 2021, 14:55 (958 days ago) @ David Turell

Previous presentation:

In Egypt where a very early group of whale fossils exist, forty million years ago:

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-egyptians-fossil-amphibious-whale.html

"The fossil was found in the Fayum region, a part of Egypt that was once covered by sea and is home to Whale Valley, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

"The newly discovered species, which was more than three metres (10 feet) long and weighed about 600 kilograms (about 1,320 pounds), has been named Phiomicetus anubis.

The problem is the actual fossil found:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2021.1368

"The new species is based on a partial skeleton, revealing the most basal protocetid whale known from Africa. Moreover, the new specimen further shows that early protocetid whales were more diversified in their anatomy and feeding behaviour than was previously thought."

Comment: Please download the article and see the fossil bones (in red) found and the imagined rest; the head and snout, a sixth vertebrae and a couple ribs!!! The head apparently is similar to other previously found fossils. Note the second illustration which shows its placement in the whale series where amazingly legs disappear in earlier forms and reappear in this fossil. How? Why are legs reimagined?

The ID take:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/evolutionary-imagination-and-belief-drive-false-claim...

"Was It a Whale?
Consistent with all of this, the paper notes in the abstract that what they did find was “a partial skeleton,” later stating, “The new species is based on a partial skeleton.” A complete description of the bones is provided later in the paper as follows:

"an associated partial skeleton of a single individual including the cranium, the right mandible, incomplete left mandible, isolated teeth, the fifth cervical, and the sixth thoracic vertebrae and ribs. The holotype is the only known specimen.

"Perhaps this organism had four legs. Perhaps it had flippers. Perhaps it was closely related to whales. Perhaps it has nothing to do with whales. No one really knows. The simple fact of the matter is that we know hardly anything about this creature because, again, so very little of it was found. Forcing this species into an evolutionary paradigm to fit preconceived ideas about cetacean evolution, and promulgating headlines about a “four-legged whale,” is beyond belief. Actually, I take that back. Belief — belief in an evolutionary paradigm — is the thing that’s driving these headlines.

"Imagination. Belief. That’s putting it politely, which I insist upon doing. We all have imaginations, and we all have beliefs. So in that sense this is understandable. But if I weren’t so polite, a variety of other terms could be used to describe telling the public this fossil represents a “four-legged whale.'”

Comment: And we should trust Darwinist "findings"?