Talk:Evolution of cetaceans

Untitled

"the structure of their ears, which contain an adaptation to underwater hearing that is possessed only by whales." Isn't this the crux of the whole thing? We readers need more information on this particular point. Wetman 06:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to remove references section

Both papers are now online at University of Michigan and Nature.com in pdf format, so I took the liberty of merging the references into external links, and hyperlinking to the documents. Certainly they will make useful resources on the page.

• EXTREME ERROR. References are mandatory for articles. If they are linkable, by all means link them, but certainly do not move a reference to an external link section.--ZayZayEM 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Rodhocetus Correction

This page states, "The protocetids, which include Rodhocetus and Artiocetus, are another recent discovery. They lived around 45 million years ago. Their principal adaptation was flukes (horizontal bars) on their tails."

This, that Rodhocetus had a fluke, cannot be known at the present time.

Dr. Thewissen stated this in an email: "Rodhocetus tail is not known, it has been suggested that it has a fluke, it has been reconstructed that it was short (as you show it)."

pictures

this site

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/BasilAndDor.htm

linked to in another article has pictures that are "public access" and would be good to include in articles - Omegatron 15:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pakicetus

This site says that Pakicetus did not hear well underwater: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

I've heard some people say that it could hear well underwater and others say that it couldn't. I think that Pakicetus may have had unusual ears, which later evolved into something that was good for hearing underwater.

Also, I just wanted to say that you are all doing a great job, I looked at this page several months ago, and the improvements you've all made since then are amazing. Thanks!

sizes

Dorudontids were dolphin-sized, about 5m long. That's what the article said. Dolphins are not that big. Maybe Killer-whale-sized. Dolphins are much smaller, maybe 5 ft. Can the author change this. --ChadThomson 04:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made an edit to this to clarify the size statement. However, we are all collectively, including you, the authors. Please be bold and edit as you see fit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sidenote: you are probably underestimating the size of dolphins a bit. I reckon the archetypal dolphin length is 3m/10ft. Only porpoises are 5ft. Killer Whales 25ft or more. But yeah, the wording wasn't that great. Pcb21 Pete 14:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Creationist website and pakicetid evidence questioning

An anonymous user has considerably altered the pakicetid section to suggest that the evidence for pakicetus as a proto-whale has been overstated [1]. The user cites this creationist website which uses an article in Nature to point up the holes in the case. Lacking a scientific background I don't feel comfortable with adjusting this section, but I don't feel the changes deserve reverting either, since regardless of the creationist slant it's plainly true that the Nature article's words contradict the earlier version of the section. Could someone take a look and sort it out? The Singing Badger 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I was irritated enough simply to excise the objectionable material. Even in a world where the creationist position was epistemologically valid, the excised material would still have been objectionable because it was argument in a vacuum. It did not even set out the orthodox view it was arguing against. 23 Jan 06.

I updated the entry under Pakicetus to include information from the Pakicetus entry. I also removed/reworded the last part of the entry to remove the creationist POV content at the end, which plainly contradicted the information at the beginning of the section.EvilOverlordX 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworded some of your changes; please double check my edits for accuracy and provide a citation if possible. The Singing Badger 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds better than my original text. I added cites from Pakicetus pages, and an additional bit of evidence from Thewisson's web site on the teeth linking Pakicetus to fossil whales. EvilOverlordX 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again overstatement of evidence

First of all they show complete skeletons. Nothing like that was discoverd. Just a few skull bones, jaw bones and spine. The rest was interpreted. The pics of the animals are very cute. However imaginary. They should show which bones were actually found and make sure people know the pics are figments of an artists imagination. let's be honest isnt there a controvery about that the whales came from a hippo like animal and not hoofed-mammals doesnt molecular biology show that the origin of whales is not certain. lets be honest

raspor 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I hate to break it to you, but, hippos ARE HOOFED ANIMALS. Hippos are a kind of non-ruminating artiodactyl. Molecular evidence shows that whales and hippos share a common ancestor, fossil evidence pointing towards the mesonychids, which were a group of carnivorous artiodactyls.--Mr Fink 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i meant wolf-like mammals

you seem to know about this. was there not recently a controversy about the origins of whales?

raspor 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be noted that raspor shows considerable enthusiasm for asking questions, but a consistent refusal to accept any answers. .. dave souza, talk 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

dave.

apok has given me a good answer. unfortunatley you seldom have.

do you believe that astrology can be falsified?

raspor 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to intrude, but, how does astrology, which is a form of fortunetelling that involves the movements of the stars and planets to give people advice on what to do the next day, figure into whale evolution?--Mr Fink 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

it all has to do with defining science. astrology is more than fortune telling. i dont believe in it at all but it is a great example.

we were talking about wether astroloyg is a scientific theory. i say yes. invalid but scientific

anyhow please tell me if you believe also there is a 'plethora' of whale transitional fossils

raspor 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrology is not scientific, at all. Since ancient times, the Gods have governed over it, and astrologers never used astrology to enhance the collective understanding of the Universe, like determining the size, temperature or distance of stars, unlike astronomy, they used it solely for the sake of their customers' love lives and planting seasons.--Mr Fink 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mesonychids WERE wolf-like animals. In life, they would have resembled wolves with pig's feet. The only recent controversy concerning whale origins involves whether or not whales share a more recent common ancestor with hippos, or mesonychids.--Mr Fink 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks apok,

now you seem level headed. one editor said there is 'plethora' of mesonychids to whale tranistional fossils. in my research i found that to be incorrect. can you tell me your opinion on this.

raspor 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks

He must be refering to the way the Early to Mid Eocene whale fossils, like Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, and Himalayacetus, not only had fully functional legs, but also bore striking similarities to the mesonychids. Information on the mesonychids tends to be somewhat obscure and or scarce on Google, though. Have you tried Scholar Google [2]?--Mr Fink 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

mr fink,

do you also believe there is a 'plethora' of whale transitional fossils?

raspor 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I just answer your question with those four genera of legged whales already? These four, coupled with other legged whale genera, especially such as Ambulocetus from the Eocene show a very detailed transition from primitive artiodactyls to whales. What makes you think that these haven't provided any information?--Mr Fink 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

do you also believe there is a 'plethora' of whale transitional fossils? you really didnt understand this question?

raspor 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Plethora" is a vague word when used as a query- and Mr. Fink's (or any other editor's opinion) on what constitutes a "plethora" is irrelevent to the improvement of the page. He has provided you with specific information instead of personal opinion, and as such he has illustrated more than was asked. --HassourZain 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A superabundance; an excess. That is the on-line defintion. Does not seem vague to me. And it was other editors choice of words. The point is that it seems that many here are very uniformed or lack analyticals skills and are writing these articles which require both.

The are saying something is not 'scientific' without know what the term means. They refer to 6 fossil bones as a 'plethora'. They cannot logically walk through a concept. It is all rote learning and a sad commentary on the US education system

raspor 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The terms "superabundance" and "excess" are value-laden words that do not necessary have a strict meaning, either. They express an opinion, not a falsifiable (as you've been bringing up) assertion. Six fossils, at least in my opinion, constitute strong evidence in favor- and as far as whether six constitutes an excess, in a specific area with such a dearth of preserved information, more than one is significant.

I know it's hard to avoid, but please try not to use talk pages to extol a personal viewpoint unless it constructively adds to the discussion. Raising small points that do not add any substance to the discussion or article itself is generally not a useful way to spend time editing. --HassourZain 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Plethora was not my choice of a word. Interesting that you told me that raising small points does not add substance but that is exactly what you did. No to me it is not reasonable to base the theory that whales came from land animals on a couple of very partial skeletons. What people should know is how much evoltuion is based on guessing. There are few experiments. Mostly interpretation. How do we know that those were not just defomities. To make a theory and then scramble for any evidence is not the way to go. It is unobjective. Darwinism cannot be falsified and is not a scientific theory. Popper agreed with that.

Are you going to waste time bringing up another small point?

raspor 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect! I was refuting your small point. Additionally, your assertion of making a theory before observing evidence means absolutely nothing without evidence. :) --HassourZain 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the point is there is little evidence of whale evolution and what evidence there is has been interpreted unobjectively.

at least be honest raspor 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't disrupt the flow of conversation by neglecting to indent, please. To address your point, you are incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that points to the evolutionary path of whales, and I see no evidence that it has been interpreted in anything other than an objective fashion. Would you like to provide some to the contrary? --HassourZain 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Raspor, you're the one wasting our time with small points. I know what "plethora" means, what we want to know is what you mean by "plethora of transitional whale fossils"? You fail to, if not refuse to realize that an enormous amount of information can still be gleaned from a few bones. On the other hand, do realize that we have found COMPLETE whale skeletons from the Eocene, which gives us a good idea of what whales were like early in the group's evolutionary history. Perhaps if you actually took the time to read about whale evolution and paleontology, you would understand this.--Mr Fink 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

yes but i believe in accuracy. it gives a wrong impression. there is NOT a plethora of whale fossil bones and to say to is to give a false impression.

i believe in accuracy sorry.

raspor 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not a plethora of whale fossil bones, but there is a plethora of evidence within the bones that are available. Speaking with accuracy to what Mr Fink was saying, that is. --HassourZain 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

wow so a few bones is a super-abundance? that seems fakey to me.

anyhow you will agree that there are few if any complete skeletons, and maybe 20 or so bones that darwinists use to say that the evidence is overwhelming?

raspor 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately confusing the terms. There are a few bones, from which lots of evidence can be drawn. --HassourZain 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To use an analogy, in a court of law, it takes only a tiny amount of DNA residue to provide immense amounts of positive assertions of information and evidence regarding a given person's actions, presence, or what have you in a certain place, with a specific item, etc. The material's physical size can be minuscule but provide strong evidence. More material evidence only makes the case stronger. --HassourZain 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

so you agree that there are very few transiitional fossils. thanks

DNA has lot of info in it. thousands of times of what few bones has

thanks for proving my point.

please do not respond

raspor 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He was making an analogy, not agreeing with you. Your opinions and wordgames can not wish away the fact that there are transitional fossils of whales, with many recent whole skeletons found, and that libraries' worth of information has been extracted from those fossils.--Mr Fink 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Fink, and I am free to respond to whatever I please on talk pages. Your assertion that DNA has lots of information while bones have little is disingenuous. You have failed to understand my meaning. --HassourZain 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"many recent whole skeletons found"

where? when?

libraries worth of interpretations

raspor 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[3] and [4]

Try looking there--Mr Fink 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Raspor, please stop disrupting the talk page with unindented text. Standard formatting states that you should indend using a colon (:) once for each indent above you, plus one. Additionally, place comments after the last comment on the indent line that you are responding to (instead of bumping mine out of the way as you did). --HassourZain 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Raspor is obviously just a Creationist or ID believer (well same thing really), trying to push that POV because he's angry that Evolutionary facts a presented on Wikipedia. He has demonstrated that there is absolutely no point in trying to debate with him (just like all the others like him), they will simply never get it. --Hibernian 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told that not indenting was disruptive. So I guess you are dispruptive. anyhow I really feel it should be mention that there is not a 'plethora' of intermed whale fossils. When people look into it an find out its a lie it makes them disbelieve the whole shabang. Anyhow so you are saying that Creationists or ID believer should not have a say here. I think that is what is going on here raspor 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They should have a say on here, but they should be proportionally represented in the article. In order to preserve neutral point of view (one of the most important parts of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view policy, which insists that proportional representation be given to ideas. The fact is that the research community does not think that there is a lack of evidence regarding cetecean evolution, and as such it would not be possible to say in a neutral fashion "There is not a plethora etc." in the article. --HassourZain 14:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

but can it be mention the actually number of bones that are used to make the cute pictues and cute skeletons. and here is why. untill very recently i thought that there were thousands of fossils that showed us all this transitions. now a realize in many case there is not even 20% of a skeleton. i thought that evolution was gradual. but now i found out that most creatures appeared suddenly. i beleieved that ontogeny repcaps phologeny. that was a lie. and darwinism is not as validated as gravity. that is a lie. see since no one is allowed to criticize darwinism all these error are propounded sometimes for decades. i think morphogenic fields is where this will lead. research in that will be stifled as long as darwinism is a sacred cow. well i better stop. i have found out that here doubting darwinism = disruption. and the comments will be removed or moved. if anyone want to work with me to make this article more objective visit me in my private quarters raspor 15:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that one important thing to remember is the way the scientific method works. It draws a conclusion given the evidence it has access to- the explanation of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution has some very strong evidence given the limited field from which it pulls in this case. Other editors are not after you for doubting Darwin's theory of natural selection, they are after you for wanting to give undue weight for a position that does not have as strong a standing in the world of research. I certainly think that any scientific proposition that has not been explicitly proven but which is drawn from inductive/deductive logic should always be open to question. For the most part, though, many people who DO want to question it have an agenda that wishes to advance superstitious or nonscientific thinking- that is to say, thinking that does not have its roots in drawing conclusions from evidence, or other fallacious reasoning. --HassourZain 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So to recap, poor raspor has now found that a few fossil bones can be used by palaeontologists to reconstruct an estimate of the whole skeleton, and so provide the basis for an artist's impression. And so has lost all belief in "darwinism". Of course the "plethora" term came from a response on a talk page, and isn't in the article: one person's plethora is another's paucity. Next week, raspor may find that rainbows are caused by the physics of light so that each one is not miraculously created by God to celebrate the flood. Or alternatively s/he may find that physicists don't personally examine every water droplet, and so lose all belief in physics. .. dave souza, talk 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

since doubting any aspect of darwinims is considered disruption here. if anyone wants to see my response go to my talk pageraspor 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it impossible for this person to comprehend that a) there have been several complete skeletons of primitive Eocene whales found, b) that it is possible for scientists to gather information from incomplete skeletons, and c) that there is an enormous difference between "doubting," "dissidence," and "scientific examination"?--Mr Fink 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep beating me to the gun, Apokryltaros. :) I just wanted to comment here as well that all cases for evolution are drawn from inductive and deductive conclusions about biological progression and evidence- it certainly can be questioned, and MUST if evidence is presented which is contradictory to the conclusions so far. The matter is, though, that there has not been any positive evidence presented against it, only gaps in the map which can be filled, as all inductive reasoning results in. --HassourZain 15:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

This article is a great start, but it needs to be unbiased, adapting for both evolutionists and creationists. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but, you do must realize that a) Wikipedia articles are allowed to be biased towards a particular view that the most evidence supports, b) Biologists and paleontologists assume that whales evolved from primitive artiodactyls most closely related to either the mesonychids or the hippotami, or both, c) Creationists believe that God poofed whales into existence as they look now, on the 4th or 5th day of Creation 6000 years ago, and d) the Fossil record, particularly that of the Eocene period, supports b), and not c), therefore e) the evidence provided by the Fossil Record is the reason why this article is biased towards biologists and paleontologists.

In other words, even though there is a small minority of people who think that the Earth's Moon is made out of cheese, Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide a voice for this particular view.--Mr Fink 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While Fink isn't precisely correct about policy, it is close to how he describes it. Essentially, the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV states that sufficiently minority views should not be mentioned because to do so by nature gives them undue weight. JoshuaZ 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Even, if that's a correct interpretation of policy, that still shouldn't prevent adding text that is validly critical of whale evolution. And it shouldn't really matter who makes those arguments. --41.135.17.23 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of the so-called "criticisms" that the vast majority of editors who bring this topic up are always myriad rewordings of either "evolution of anything never occurred because I don't feel like learning about it," and or "evolution of anything never occurred because it contradicts and gravely offends my religious beliefs." And yes, it does matter who makes such arguments, as Creationists and other science-deniers do not reject evolution for scientific or even logical reasons, what with this page having a scientific topic, and all. Furthermore, if Wikipedia does pander to a fringe minority, it would compromise the quality of the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is not Science

Does Wikipedia provide some sort of label for exterior link, such as "Opposing Views" to established scientific findings? I have a real problem with the new link added. The page hints at lack of smooth transitions between earliest whales and modern, of course, this should be, considering an estimated 10% of fossils is all which have been presently recovered and the gap may be larger than this, some fossils may never be found. The link provided is certainly not science if it is an "ID" perspective on whale evolution (due that no empirical evidence for intelligent design exists), but readers may not know the difference. Further, I do not know what peculiar views on God designing or lack thereof have to do with whale evolution in the first place! I really do not feel the link belongs on the page at all. It has nothing to do with "cetacean evolution", however it does have something to do with Intelligent Design. I would prefer some to review this link, and see if it actually provides credible information on "evolution of cetaceans".

What you write is a bit confusing, but how is Neodarwinian macroevolution more scientific then postulations of intelligent design? 41.135.17.23 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology is a science because A) there is evidence for evolution occurring, and B) it provides explanations on how and why evolution occurs. Intelligent Design is not scientific at all because Intelligent Design makes no attempt to explain anything, merely using "DESIGNERDIDIT" as a handwave to stop scientific inquiry and avoid doing hard work. If Intelligent Design was scientific to begin with, then Intelligent Design proponents would be easily able to explain how it is science. But proponents have never ever bothered to do so.

Having said that, please stop soapboxing to imply that Evolution is not scientific simply because you have no interest in learning about it.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be in an opposing views section to itself if this link is even allowable by conservative or liberal standards, clearly implied that this is not science, neither related to actual evidence for cetacean evolution. *yawn* If every opposing view are added to the external links, there won't be any room for legitimate scientific links on cetacean evolution.

The contributor apparently has contributed very limited information to Wikipedia, thus giving no indication of their comprehension of the complexity of this issue, and seems interested in Evangelism. This page was not intended to evangelize, but to provide up to date information on the Evolution of Cetaceans, and an "ID Perspective," is merely this, an Intelligent Design perspective, and belongs categorized under Intelligent Design...

• [Whale Evolution - Dr Marc Surtees brings an ID perspective] Removed URL to spam link from talk page.

Readers are forced to ask themself, "What even is an ID perspective"? It is an intelligent design question, it should be on Wiki's intelligent design entry, which is by all means, unrelated to the issue cetacean evolution. Personally I do not feel such links belong on this page, unless there is empirical evidence to support the information.

It is reasonable, if a section were added to this page which provided disclaimer of sorts, a clear explanation of the Opposing Views and yet, why they are *not* based on scientific evidence. Provide a couple links to outside sources to humor the opponents to evolution. I feel this would be more than reasonable, yet, by acknowledging, it would still be giving their view too much attention and credibility. That is to say, are links to the Flat Earth Society found on Earth Geology or Geography pages, or links to outdated science? Such views are religion, not science. Beyond this, Intelligent Design simply does not belong on this page at all. Cetacean evolution is not even in dispute, it is a matter of documented fact today. Such links certainly do not belong among legitimate sources/references, only to confuse readers which are fact and which, religious views.

Update: the contributor of the Intelligent Design link was apparently a vandal and "rebuttal" link removed from whale by Mnemeson.

—The preceding (-Sharon Mooney) unsigned comment was added by Edwardtbabinski (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Category

It has been that we make subcategories for the Category Evolutionary biology. Now I wish to place this along with human evolution, horse evolution into their own category. The only problem is what can it be called and should there be one? Enlil Ninlil 05:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Indohyus?

If anybody has a link to put Indohyus as a reference as to a possible ancestor of cetaceans I strongly recommend it. I recommend a stable news article of long standing duration. Lighthead ^þ 02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See the Indohyus article here. Lighthead ^þ 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Protungulatum and Chriacus?

If, according to the family tree showing the evolution of Cetaceans (amongst others), Protungulatum and Chriacus are in fact ancestors, shouldn't they be mentioned in the article? --Maurice45 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Protungulatum deserves at least a brief mention as being the earliest ungulate ever. I don't know about Chriacus, though, as arctocyonids (which it is) aren't terribly relevant to cetacean evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Small brain equals solitary existence?

The article states that "[t]hey had small brains; this suggests they were solitary and did not have the complex social structure of some modern cetaceans." I changed the last part, which originally just said "modern whales." I didn't know baleen whales had "complex social structures"? To my original point, how does one equate small brain size to a solitary existence? Unlike what the sentence originally stated, many relativley large-brained baleen whale species lead (for the most part) a solitary existence. Anyone suggest a way to correct the sentence in question? Jonas Poole (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; birds are social, and they have.. well.. "bird brains". For that matter, some INSECTS are social. If brain size really has something to do with sociality, there should really be a refference. 76.64.156.168 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to the "complex social structure of some modern cetaceans", which seems rather different in kind from the much simpler social behavior of insects and birds. However, I agree that it definitely needs a reference. Otherwise, for all we know, it is only the opinion of the original editor... 80.235.57.239 (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is very confusing.

Do the different creatures go in order of how cetacean supposedly evolved to become dolphins and whales today, or is each section a new theory of how they originated? Thank you. 209.151.52.192 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than the first part of the Earliest ancestors section which discusses the Mesonychids, it seems to be a pretty straight forward explanation of modern theory on whale evolution to me. I'm not an expert on the subject though. Can you be more specific about your complaint? -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see what the OP is saying here in that perhaps the structure of the article could be improved to clearly illustrate the theorised evolutionary course. I was thinking actually each section may benefit simply by having the approximate time period included (e.g. Ambulocetids and remingtonocetids (50-49 MYA)). This would show that the sections are chronological or otherwise? Unfortunately, in many cases the article referenced (e.g. Protocetids) does not exist so I can't give a complete set of dates at this time. Does anyone have any further thoughts? -- Nick Ottery (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrestrial Origins

The DNA and embryological evidence of the terrestrial origins of cetaceans needs to be added to the list. While accurate, the current three bullets seem incomplete and flimsy. -Glyph250

Why not place the pictures of the actual bones found...?

... of the alleged intermediate fossils within the evolution form land mammals to cetaceans? --41.135.17.23 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A) Yes, as soon as we get more public domain photographs of them into Wikimedia and figure out how to insert them into the article without making it look cluttered, and B) Your use of the word "alleged" makes it sound like you're too reluctant to bother looking in search engines like Google, I mean, yes there are bones and skeletons of land-dwelling whales and their immediate ancestors. Then again, if whales aren't descended from land-dwelling ancestors as you're implying, then why is there no evidence of them being magically poofed into existence as according to the Bible?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that images of actual skeletons are more "citable" than restorations, and we do actual have such photos of most of those animals. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Is there a better way we could place the images so it does not look so scattered and messy. The necessary image clutter makes the page hard to read. Suggestions? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Major Editing

Hi all, I'm intending to add contents into this page, and at the same time reorganise the description for each family. For each family, I'm trying to group their characteristics into General, Skull morphology and Postcranial morphology for the time being, starting from Pakicetus. Since I'm new here, if I made some mistakes with anything at all, please do let me know. (especially with the syntax.) Thanks and cheers. G1noah (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To previous authors, I have integrated most of the previous contents into the present one, without deleting them directly. G1noah (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done with adding more information to families within order Archaeoceti. Will continue working on this article. For more information please visit my talk page. G1noah (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

graphical timeline

The article is missing an easy to grasp timeline of cetacean evolution. For each proposed ancestor of whales one has to read the whole paragraph to find out when and where they lived. Also, how to include the new finding in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/ about a pretty old (49 mya) fully aquatic archaeocete (btw, this species is missing altogether in the article).Northfox (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages

Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)