|
SE Nebraska | It doesn't say anything about a hypothesis until the second page, and that is quoting a different guy. The first guy sounds to me like he is stating the facts, and his evidence is the bones they found and put together. I would say being upfront would be to put it in the first couple of sentences. Like to say "Scientist hypothesize that whales had legs."
The article says
After analyzing the fossils for almost three years, Uhen concluded the individual had a tail, but no fluke, and that Georgiacetus wiggled its hips and moved its entire trunk up and down through the water to move forward—a swim stroke whales no longer use.
If I remember the scientific method correctly, a conclusion comes after the hypothesis is proven to be true. So they are saying that they have proven that a whale had legs when they put together the bunch of bones they found from different sites over several years.
How about if you don't know there are 2 puzzles? And how about if some of the pieces in both puzzles are the same general shape (similar bones from different species). And how about if you were to put the puzzle together with the pieces picture side down. That would be a little like putting a skeleton together with extra similar bones in the box and no picture to go by. You will probably find several pieces out of place when you turn the puzzle over. Only you will never get a picture of what the creature looked like when it was alive.
I think I remember a while back that the had put the wrong head on a certain dinosaur, and it had been this way for many, many years. So long, that is was taught incorrectly in many schools. Not sure how they finally found out it was wrong. And who knows, maybe it wasn't and they have it wrong now.
I'm still wondering why we haven't found skeletons of most of the supposed transitional species. And what happened to all of the whales with legs. | |
|
The "Noah" movie.......save your money
