Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

These examples, at least the 2 with pics, seem a little less webbed than the depiction of Paki though.

we're looking at an animal less adapted to water than pakicetus.

It is reported that the fossil of Ambulocetus was found in a silt and mud-stone bed which contained impressions of leaves and abundant Turritella, a marine gastropod.[6] This would suggest that it lived near the seashore, feeding possibly on land animals and/or plants, and perhaps foraging into shallow seas to feed on gastropods and molluscs. They report that the fossil beds are lower-to-middle Eocene beds, and about 120 meters (approximately 390 feet) higher than those in which Pakucetus was found. Berta, in her comments on the paper by Thewissen, et al . , gives an age of 52 million years for the sediments in Pakistan where Ambulocetus was found. Thewissen and his coworkers in their paper mention an age of 52 million years for the age of Pakicetus, which they refer to as the "oldest cetacean." Ambulocetus, bearing large forelimbs and hooved hind limbs, was found in strata nearly 400 feet higher than Pakicetus. It therefore cannot be older. Pakicetus is called the oldest cetacean. Yet it is said that Ambulocetus documents transitional modes of locomotion in the evolution of whales. Confused? So are we. It is reported that the teeth resemble those of other archeocetes, which evolutionists believe were either archaic whales or ancestral to whales. The teeth of archeocetes are, however, so similar to mesonychid ungulates, believed to be wolf-like carnivorous mammals, that two of the archeocetes, Gandakasia and Ichthykstes, known only from teeth, were originally classified as mesonychids.[7]G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, while maintaining that Archeoceti occupy an intermediate position between terrestrial mammals and typical Cetacea, states that the problem of the phylogenedc relationship between Archeoceti and modern Cetacea is a highly controversial issue. He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean.[9] If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans).

Perhaps we should not be surprised that Thewissen and coworkers would dare to call Ambulocetus a "whale" when we note the fact that Robert Carroll, in his voluminous tome, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, made the incredible statement that "Despite the extreme difference in habitue, it is logical from the standpoint of phylogenetic classification to include the mesonychids among the Cetaceans."[11] Incredible, indeed! The mesonychids were wolf-like, hoofed carnivores that, as far as anyone knows, never went near the water.

What may we conclude from all of this? Most evolutionists, certain that whales and other aquatic mammals must have evolved from land mammals, would stretch their imagination to whatever extent necessary to declare that Ambulocetus, a creature with powerful forelimbs and hind limbs (the latter bearing hooves), unable to dive to any significant depth or to hear directionally under water, was nevertheless, a whale. On the other hand, not biased by any such presupposition, we conclude that, first of all, it is ridiculous to call the creature a whale, and secondly, that it was certainly not an intermediate between a land mammal and a whale, but was more likely a near-shore carnivore whose exact behavior and habitue is as yet a topic only for speculation.When we consider these profound proclamations by evolutionists we should bear in mind that they were equally convinced when they suggested human evolutionary ancestors, such as Ramapithecus, now recognized to be essentially the same as a modern orangutan; Piltdown Man, a fraud that was nothing more than the jawbone of a modern ape and a human skull; Nebraska Man, that turned out to be a pig's tooth; and Neanderthal Man, a supposed primitive subhuman that is now recognized by most paleoanthropologists as fully human, Homo sapiens, who suffered from pathological conditions, such as arthritis and rickets, a vitamin D deficiency. If evolutionists can get an evolutionary ancestor of man from nothing more than a pig's tooth, it should be no challenge to get a whale from a creature that walked on land.

You keep making the same false claim; that Pakicetus was somehow specially adapted for water. It's not more adapted for water than a bear or human being. Bears and people eat fish too. That doesn't make us aquatic or semi-aquatic.

Being able to swim and being adapted such that you are aquatic or semi-aquatic are not the same thing, no matter how much you insist they are.

Paki is adapted for land. He's a land mammal.

pakicetus's teeth are all very much the same, and clearly indicate that it eats things that live in water, and ONLY things that live in water.

It appears that Ambulocetus has been found in strata 400 feet higher than Pakicetus, and yet Pakicetus is reportedly a couple of million years older and ancestral to Ambulocetus

He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean.[9] If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans).

"Despite the extreme difference in habitue, it is logical from the standpoint of phylogenetic classification to include the mesonychids among the Cetaceans."[11] Incredible, indeed! The mesonychids were wolf-like, hoofed carnivores that, as far as anyone knows, never went near the water.

Pakiceid teeth look a lot like those of fossil whales, but are unlike those of modern whales. Pakicetids did not live in the sea. The rocks in which their fossils are preserved indicate that the bones were buried in a shallow stream, and that the climate was hot and dry. It is likely that pakicetids waded in these streams.

Basically, your claim is that Pakicetus was adapted to ONLY eat things that live in water, right?Mesonychids had the same teeth, and they were not aquatic and ate things on land. So that kills your whole argument.

You do realize, by the way, that the evos making the claim of Pakicetus being a cetacean do not claim it had teeth similar to modern whales.

Also, no one to my knowledge claims Pakicetus' teeth were adapted only for eating fish as you claim.

They still were making the argument of relatedness based on teeth, and teeth that are not peculiar to aquatic animals by the way (some bats have similar teeth)

Certainly, Thiwessen doesn't claim that.

Plus, you mentioned sharks having similar teeth, and Great Whites are known to feed on seals.