New whale fossil represents intermediate stage between foot-powered and tail-powered swimming

Newly described fossil whale represents intermediate stage between foot-powered and tail-powered swimming

Article here

A newly described fossil whale represents a new species and an important step in the evolution of whale locomotion, according to a University of Michigan paleontologist and his colleagues.

The fossilized remains of Aegicetus gehennae were recovered in the Egyptian desert in 2007 and were dated to around 35 million years ago. The creature appears to have been well-adapted for swimming through undulation of the mid-body and tail, somewhat as crocodiles swim today, according to U-M's Philip Gingerich.

The discovery is detailed in a paper scheduled for publication Dec. 11 in the journal PLOS ONE.

The fossil record of whale evolution tracks the transition from land-dwelling ancestors to ocean-dwelling cetaceans. Protocetids are a group of early, semi-aquatic whales known from the middle of the Eocene, a geological epoch that began 56 million years ago and ended 33.9 million years ago. Protocetid remains have been found in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

While modern whales are fully aquatic and use their tails to propel themselves through the water, most protocetids are thought to have been semi-aquatic and swam mainly with their limbs.

In their PLOS ONE paper, Gingerich and his colleagues describe a new genus and species, Aegicetus gehennae, the first late-Eocene protocetid. Its body shape is similar to that of other ancient whales of its time, such as the famous Basilosaurus.

The researchers suggest that an undulatory swimming style might represent a transitional stage between the foot-powered swimming of early whales and the tail-powered swimming of modern whales.

"Early protocetid whales living 47 to 41 million years ago were foot-powered swimmers. Later, starting about 37 million years ago, whales became tail-powered swimmers," said Gingerich, a professor emeritus in the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and curator emeritus at the U-M Museum of Paleontology....more at source

Direct link to research paper here

Can't wait to hear the denialist excuses for this one.

Excuses?
For what?
I saw proof it is the ancestor of any whales living today. Just an assumption and speculation or at best a Hypothesis.
Nothing to Deny,

a reply to: Barcs

Can't wait to hear the denialist excuses for this one.

FFS - you and i both know the " answer " . its the old canard :

" yeah but where is the fosil of its immediate ancestor and projeny species - you have not shown the full chain "

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Barcs

Can't wait to hear the denialist excuses for this one.

FFS - you and i both know the " answer " . its the old canard :

" yeah but where is the fosil of its immediate ancestor and projeny species - you have not shown the full chain "

Absolutely! Anything else is assumption, speculation and wishful thinking.

a reply to: Barcs


Well there is absolutely zero doubt so far that Whales are mammals but why is it that after all of these dinosaur fossils discovered, there is not a single piece of evidence to prove that Whales once roamed the earth?

The same goes for Dolphins.

No pics, bummer.

S &F

a reply to: KKLOCO

www.sciencenews.org...

a similar creature was found in peru with pics. Not sure how to embed the pics but i imagine the one found in egypt was much like this.

a reply to: Quadrivium

And when other species dated around the same time show similar taxonomic traits its still all speculation?

a reply to: Barcs

Sure you might be able to explain how legs evolve into flippers but try explaining how blow holes formed.

There cannot be an intermediate blow hole. It literally had to form completely in one jump.

Either you breathe with that hole or you cannot. There was no half-hole.

Look up cetacean blow hole anatomy, it's complex. How the hell that form in a single jump?

Literally these creatures went from breathing with mouth/nose to having an entire passage form at the top of their heads.

There's no in between. Either you have a functioning air passageway or you don't. There's no selection...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Quadrivium

And when other species dated around the same time show similar taxonomic traits its still all speculation?

Informed speculation, yes.

Whales came on to the land, didn't like what they saw and went back to the ocean.

I think that they had the right idea.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It wasnt a single jump... it was a long drawn evolution. Do you even know how evolution works?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: muzzleflash

It wasnt a single jump... it was a long drawn evolution. Do you even know how evolution works?

Probably better than most of those that claim to know how it works.
Most people do not dispute the science behind "evolution" just the spin that some people try and put on "evolution".
I understand the theory very well, yet I also see many times that there is no direct evidence for the claims made. There is a lot of "informed speculation", a lot of assumption and some guess work involved.
Case and point:
Many times a single bone fragment can be found and assumptions are made about everything to do with the animal it came from. There simply is no way of KNOWING. You can speculate, you can assume but that is not science, it is wishful thinking.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: muzzleflash

It wasnt a single jump... it was a long drawn evolution. Do you even know how evolution works?

Of course we know how evolution is theorized to work. But just incase I am wrong, could you explain to me how a blow hole evolved on a animal that previously did not have/need one?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Finding anything that is fossilized is more supporting evidence of evolution.

What's the alternative?

I'd ask you the question. Why do we find so many fossils with such vast varieties of physical traits and they correspond with others like it, found exactly where paleontologists predict them to be?

And yes, how do you think these fossils are found, they are calculated to be almost exactly where they should be.

a reply to: HomeBrew

I'm not getting into this again. You have access to google and a library, hell when you search whale evolution wiki isnt even the first link, it's a very well reputable source.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: muzzleflash

It wasnt a single jump... it was a long drawn evolution. Do you even know how evolution works?

Why would only a partial blowhole form, remain useless for thousands of generations, and then finally one day ta-da, a blow hole is fully developed and can finally be used to breathe air??

How does natural selection know to delay punishing an animal for bad mutations and then wait for thousands of generations to finally reward it with a useful beneficial adaptation??

It's ridiculous.
The slowly forming blow hole theory isn't consistent with natural selection theory.

a reply to: muzzleflash


You need to actually do some research before you make your claims. the nasal passage simply moved back further on the head as the whales evolved. Makes perfect sense actually why would you want to have nasal passages in front with an animal that dives, to assume blow holes couldn't evolve is silly.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: muzzleflash

It wasnt a single jump... it was a long drawn evolution. Do you even know how evolution works?

And as a Christian I will accept that when there is valid evidence not a few random fossils from here and there

I don't have a problem with the possibility of evolution, I don't see the evidence to justify evolution

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Quadrivium

Finding anything that is fossilized is more supporting evidence of evolution.

What's the alternative?

I'd ask you the question. Why do we find so many fossils with such vast varieties of physical traits and they correspond with others like it, found exactly where paleontologists predict them to be?

And yes, how do you think these fossils are found, they are calculated to be almost exactly where they should be.

All a fossil proves is something lived and died
Anything else is not science it's assumption

Your argument is childish