Imagination and evolutionary belief prompt false claims about a "four-legged whale"

Imagination and evolutionary belief prompt false claims about a "four-legged whale" The media is currently buzzing with claims of a newly discovered fossil from Egypt: “A four-legged whale” and here are some of the highlights: US National Public Radio (NPR): "Scientists have discovered a fossil of a four-legged whale with a raptor-like eating style" "Scientists have discovered a four-legged killer whale with a jackal-like head that lives on both land and sea." New York Post "A fossil of a previously unknown four-legged whale has been found in Egypt" BBC: "I discovered in Egypt a new species of four-legged old whale" The headlines go on, and the headlines are accompanied by a sketch of what is supposed to have been found, attributed to one of the authors of the technical paper, geologist Robert W. Bosnicker. That's right, people! The story published on NPR warns us: We're sorry to inform you that your nightmares will now get worse. A team led by Egyptian scientists has discovered a 43-million-year-old fossil in Egypt's Sahara desert of an extinct four-legged amphibious whale. That's right, people. A whale with legs! The problem with these claims? And it's true, people - they didn't find any fossil legs. And all I've read about this fossil now is a product of fiction. In fact, if you examine the technical paper, you'll know that they found very little fossil. Figure 1 in the paper, which can be seen at the link (click here to move). The bones detected are shaded red; zoom in and look at the middle drawing you might notice, as I said, absence. What else is missing in the bones discovered: the pelvis, the vast majority of ribs and vertebrae, and the anterior part of the snout. The organism no doubt has these bones, but calling this organism a "legged whale", or portraying it unambiguously as some species moving between terrestrial mammals and whales (as seen above), adds an enormous amount of evolutionary imagination to the situation. Was it a whale? In keeping with all this, the paper notes in the summary that what they found was a "partial skeleton", and later stated that "the new species is based on a partial skeleton." A full description of the bones was later given in the paper as follows: A partial skeleton belonging to a single individual and including the skull, right mandible, incomplete left mandible, isolated teeth, cervix, vertebrae and ribs The current typical fossil is the only known specimen. Maybe this creature had four legs, maybe it had fins. Maybe it was a relative of whales. Maybe it's not a relative of whales. Nobody really knows. The simple fact of the matter is that we hardly know anything about this creature because, say again, a tiny fraction of it has been found. The coercion of this species on an evolutionary model to fit preconceived notions about the evolution of whales, and make headlines about the "four-legged whale," is hard to believe. Imagination, belief. If you're nice to say; that's what I insist on. We all have imagination, we all have beliefs, and in that sense it makes sense. But if you leave nice to say, a variety of other terms can be used to describe the process of telling the public that the fossil represents a "four-legged whale." Is it strange that people don't trust overblown evolutionary claims in the media or from some scientists? - Dr. Casey Luskin - Translated by: Dr. Zaid Al-Habri — Source: Brahin Center website - Posted on 2021-09-08 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/الخيال-والاعتقاد-التطوري-يدفع-بمزاعم-كاذبة-عن-حوت-رباعي-الأرجل