Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

I hate to rehash stuff, but I thought before going on, we could have a few threads to establish some basic facts so we don't have to argue if they are real or not.One fact is that when Pakicetus was first presented to the world, the diagrams and illustrations, such as the quite extensive lay-out in National Geographic, depicted Pakicetus with webbed feet. Later, textbooks such as the ones for my kids also showed Pakicetus with webbed feet.Do the evos here believe this occured, or not?For the lurkers, Pakicetus is purely a land animal that evolutionists claim is a whale or alternatively an ancestor to a whale, and tried to pass it off as semi-aquatic even though they had nothing but a skull. Basically, the animal has a slightly expanded aurul cavity, and pretty much on that basis, they think it must have been the beginnings of whales evolving, but interestingly, some evos call it one of the first whales, even though it looks like a dog or large rate, and has basically no whale features at all.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. Are you just looking for a yes or no answer? If you can provide a reference to the particular National Geographic issue, then it would seem that this can be settled without discussion.Are you willing to also discuss why you think this a significant issue? If you are, please edit the OP to include that as part of the topic.

I agree with nwr that a link or two to the articles could get the facts established. In addition, which forum would you want your edited PNT placed in? What audience are you wanting to reach?

We can scratch it if you want. It's just that it seems like basic facts are not acknowledged by some. It's like arguing the sky really is blue. My feeling is some evos refuse to acknowledge any basic fact if they think the fact can be used to argue against their case.But let's just move on....

Yaro has a copy of that National Geographic available, and is willing to post the picture. But there isn't much point if the discussion is limited to a "yes" or "no" answer.Are you willing to include a discussion of why you think this is important? If you are, I will be happy to promote this thread. If you would prefer to limit your time by making this a one-on-one debate with Yaro, I am happy to promote this to a Great Debate thread.

---

PK, promote it in Education so he can present the pictures, and we can discuss whether the way Pakicetus is presented was right or not.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

your question is about a reconstruction. do you believe the reconstruction to be in error? what evidence do you have that pakicetus did not have webbed feet?note also that we have partially webbed hands and feet. it has very little to do with whether or not we are aquatic, unless you buy that aquatic-ape stuff which i think you don't. nothing but a skull? here's the skull of a modern false killer whale:here's the skull of a modern german shepherd:which one does it look like to you?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-20-2005 07:50 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-20-2005 06:59 PM

---

אָרַח

Here is the image in question: As you can see the illustration clearly points out that the creature in question is only known from a skull. This is done to hylight the tentativity of the depiction. None of the other illustrations bear this tag, and to anyone who reads the article it becomes clear why the illustration is done this way.

quote:

---

The skull belonged to a relatively small, furry, four-legged, meat-eater, one that walked on hooves and died around 50 million years ago. The fossil, named Pakicetus, was unearthed in the Himalayan foothills from sediments whose other contents tell us that the creature lived with land dwellers that included marsupials and our own very early ancestors, squirrl-size primates.

​

Its remains are closely linked with river channels, suggesting a life spent partly in the water. What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination - the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull - are absent in other land mammals but signiature of late Eocene whales.

---

Note the emphasis. The creature was known to have hooves because of it's relationship with previous specimines (mesonychids), yet assumed to be partly aquatic like it's later ancestor ambulocetuc who's body was known, and was sort of built like a "hooved otter". Couple that with it's prevelance in ancient river beds, and you can deduce the creature may have been aquatic.This is where the illustration comes from. Note the tentativity of the illustration, it is clearly pointed out in the article that they only have a skull and the illustration is based on what scientists thought the creature may have looked like.But, and here is the most important bit that I do not want anyone to miss, so pay attention. The reason Paki is concidered a whale, has NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS BODY PLAN, it has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ITS SKULL! That's it. That's what's important about the find.Are we clear?

quote:

---

Its remains are closely linked with river channels, suggesting a life spent partly in the water.

---

for reference, here's a picture of an otter's feet.it's not inconceivable that another mammal living in a similar habitat would have the same feature, even if they are not directly related. depicting pakicetus with webbed feet is, imo, quite reasonable.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-20-2005 08:07 PM

---

אָרַח

These are the feet of various ungulates. Showing how an ungulates feet can vary. The term "hoof" does not allways mean horse hoof.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-20-2005 08:08 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 11-20-2005 08:13 PM

We could look at what Dr Gingerich, the man that dug up the fossils, has to say: from Philip D. GingerichPakicetus is shown with paddle-like feet in the '83 picture, and Rodhocetus has separate toes. They had no foot material in 1983, but they do now. They guessed wrong for the 1983 illustration. The error has been corrected.'K, randman?

quote:

---

Based on what we know today, these animals were probably less different than shown here, and the hands and feet reconstructed for Pakicetus probably looked more like those now known for Rodhocetus.

---

i would like to point out that the drawing on the right of rodhocetus has webbed feet as well. they're simply talking about bone structure -- pakicetus on the left has little stubby toes, rodhocetus has longer toes.

---

אָרַח

Your comments are becoming annoying since presumably you are already aware of the documentation I showed earlier where the initial find was just a skull, and they showed the creature with webbed feet, and then later when more parts were changed, they admitted the animal was not semi-aquatic as clearly shown in the illustration.If you are not aware of the hours of posts already establishing this fact on other threads, then take the time to get up to speed so you don't waste our time asking easily questions to answers you can verify for yourself.It appears to me you are just trying to waste my time and divert the conversation to debating already established facts.This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 09:55 PM

i'm sorry rand, but evidence for relation to modern whales is not an assinine comment.and yes, i know the original find was just a skull -- but we have a lot more than just a skull now, don't we? you yourself said the depiction of webbed continues. what evidence do you have AGAINST webbed feet? where. source, please. try to participate in THIS thread, randman, not refering to questions you previously dodged. we're talking about it HERE, and NOW. all you did before was dance around the point and repeat your intial premise over and over anyways.now it's time to show us some evidence.

---

אָרַח