Dr. Jonathan Sarfati should have known better 8-10 years ago

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_nova/ambulocetus.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

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

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/babinski/whale_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.
Received on Fri Dec 3 17:10:02 2004