It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Paleontologists in Peru have uncovered the fossils of a "walking whale," remains believed to be at least 40 million years old. The whale fossils were found in the Ocucaje desert, one of the richest sources of fossils in the world, and may be evidence of a link between sea mammals and their ancestors living on land.
(Above, an artist's rendering of the Rodhocetus, a horrifying ancient creature related to the recently discovered whale. )
"We already knew about the paleontological richness of Ocucaje dating back 10-12 million years," said Rodolfo Salas, a paleontologist who was part of the discovery team. "Now we can say that the most important primitive sea mammal deposit in South America is at Ocucaje."
The whale fossils belong to a creature in the suborder Archaeoceti, meaning "ancient whales." These sea mammals share certain characteristics with their land-dwelling ancestors, most notably evidence of legs. The whale had teeth that were more like that of a terrestrial animal, as well as a cavity in the cranium that is more consistent with land mammals than sea mammals.
The first whale ancestors were very different from the whales of today. Some 50 million years ago, the "first whale," a furry, wolf-sized creature, lived on land but ate fish. Whale ancestors lost their hair and acquired web feet; eventually they lost their feet and gained flippers and a more streamlined shape for swimming. By about 45 million years ago, whales had developed into the more familiar, fully aquatic species.
Fossils from sea mammals as old as the whale found in the Ocucaje desert have never been found in Peru before. Previous ancient sea mammal fossils have been found in Egypt, Pakistan and India. The Ocucaje desert has yielded remains of other marine creatures, and there are probably plenty more to be found.
AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by Grimpachi
Excellent find.
S+F!
Another point scored for the Evolution debate.
No transitional state species in the record?
We hear this all the time from the Creationist side of the fence.
Well, with this, as well as many other species in the fossil record I encourage another look.
The whale fossils were found in the Ocucaje desert, one of the richest sources of fossils in the world, and may be evidence of a link between sea mammals and their ancestors living on land.
Their discovery of fossils of walking whales reveals important clues about how these animals got around and what they had in common with living and extinct land-living animals. Some researchers use morphology (the study of an animal's structure and form) to suggest that whales are descended from mesonychians, an extinct group of meat-eating animals that resembled hyenas with hooves. Others use DNA, molecular, and genetic techniques to suggest that whales and hippos are more closely related to one another than either of them is to any other species. The fossils found in Pakistan last year add weight to the second theory: that whales descended from the group of animals known as artiodactyls, whose members include sheep, cows, pigs, camels, deer, and hippos. Artiodactyla (Greek artios, entire or even numbered, and dactylos, finger or toe) are named for the even number of fingers and toes (two or four) found on each hand and foot.
Quadrivium
Please take note of this sentence from the first paragraph in the op's link.
The whale fossils were found in the Ocucaje desert, one of the richest sources of fossils in the world, and may be evidence of a link between sea mammals and their ancestors living on land.
It MAY be evidence of a link. It may not be as well.
Quad
AliceBleachWhite
Quadrivium
Please take note of this sentence from the first paragraph in the op's link.
The whale fossils were found in the Ocucaje desert, one of the richest sources of fossils in the world, and may be evidence of a link between sea mammals and their ancestors living on land.
It MAY be evidence of a link. It may not be as well.
Quad
It would seem some are quite unfamiliar with the Language of Science.
Science typically does not speak in definitives.
Words and phrases like "may", "indicates", "gives likelihood", "potentially", "seems", "possibly", "would appear to be", and other pointer indicatives are common vernacular.
When a Scientist says something "may indicate", or "may be evidence of a link" in reference to a relation with something else, the employment of any comparison is much closer to saying the comparison is strong enough to actually say something in favor of the relation.
In other words, if the case wasn't strong enough in favor of the indicators, nothing would have been said about it at all.
Other terminologies like "Theory" as applied in the Scientific vernacular are also commonly misunderstood by the under and uneducated as it applies to Science where "Theory" in Science is akin to Law as opposed to the more common definition that could apply to someone's "Theory" about how their favorite sport team might win the next game.
Further, as it applies to the evolution of Whales, I encourage some self study.
The following pictures may even assist in that endeavor:
Please, let us know if any of the above graphics detail anything that MAY look familiar.
edit on 1/12/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)
AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by Grimpachi
Another point scored for the Evolution debate.
No transitional state species in the record?
We hear this all the time from the Creationist side of the fence.
Well, with this, as well as many other species in the fossil record I encourage another look.