Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

No, my argument is first, evos tried to pass off Pakicetus as semi-aquatic. That was later disproven, but by then they had gotten this into all the popular literature and textbooks, TV shows, all the usual indoctrination sources, that this was the first whale.

So despite not really sharing any of the major characteristics of a whale, they go ahead and call it a whale. Heck, all they have is a claim that the ear is a forerunner of whale ears...

Heck, why not call hippos, deer, or heck, people are whales too!

All cetaceans share a number of similarities: they have a fusiform, or streamlined body shape; paddle shaped front limbs; vestigial hind limbs (which are within the body wall); no external digits or claws; tail flattened laterally and bearing horizontal flukes at the tip; vestigial ear pinnae; basically hairless body (some young have hair on their snouts); thick subcutaneous blubber layer filled with fat and oil; telescoped skull bones; external nares (blowhole) on the top of the head; addition of compressed vertebrae; shortening of the neck; lack of sweat glands; internal reproductive organs; 3-chambered stomach; and an airway reinforced with cartilage down to the alveoli. Many of these characteristics are adaptations to reduce drag for fast swimming in an aquatic environment. Protuberances such as external ears or genitals would create turbulence and would be very inefficient for an animal in the water.

Pakicetids were the first cetaceans, and they are more primitive than other whales in most respects. In fact, they did not look like whales at all, and did not live in the sea.

No one ever called it the first whale.

Pakicetids were the first cetaceans, and they are more primitive than other whales in most respects.

Pakicetus, shown above right, is a Middle Eocene archaeocete from the Kuldana Formation of Pakistan; it is currently the earliest known well-preserved cetacean,

Pakicetidae
The First Whales ...Pakicetids were the first cetaceans,

randman writes:Here are quotes that prove otherwise, or they prove that evolutionists stated Pakicetus was aquatic or semi-aquatic. If they didn't think that, were they lying?

quote:

---

Pakicetus, shown above right, is a Middle Eocene archaeocete from the Kuldana Formation of Pakistan; it is currently the earliest known well-preserved cetacean, and the archaeocete features are clearly visible in this replica skull from UCMP's collections. Pakicetus is so far known only from its skull, but recent finds in Pakistan have produced other whale species that show very primitive characters in both the skull and the rest of the skeleton. These animals had relatively well developed limbs, but were aquatic.

---

Cetaceans

Does Pakicetus even share one single feature that is exclusively whale-like?

The artist’s reconstruction of Pakicetus on page 66 of the November 2001 issue of National Geographic looks very similar to a dog swimming underwater. However, the artist obviously did not take into consideration the fact that the fossil was found in an area containing fossils from terrestrial creatures such as snails. The fossil also was found in a region full of iron ore that was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. This ancient ancestor was discovered in 1983 by Philip D. Gingerich, who immediately claimed the find as a primitive whaleeven though he found only a jaw and skull fragments! So what makes National Geographic so sure this creature is a long-lost walking ancestor to modern whales? Chadwick stated:What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combinationthe arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skullare absent in other land animals but a signature of later Eocene whales (2001, 200[5]:68).So from mere dimples in teeth and folded ear bones, this animal qualifies as a walking whale? Interestingly, the skeletons of Pakicetus published by paleontologists in Nature do not resemble the swimming creature featured by National Geographic (see De Muizon, 2001, and Thewissen, et al., 2001). National Geographic displayed the Pakicetus in a swimming position, obviously trying to sway the reader into believing that the fossilized jawbone and skull fragments represented an aquatic creature.

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.

What about the recently described pakicetid genera?11 The vast majority of the skeletal traits found in the complete skeletons are consistently unlike those of true cetaceans (ancient or modern). By no stretch of the imagination do we observe anything resembling a gradational trend of changes to true cetaceans:‘Aquatic postcranial adaptations are pronounced in late Eocene basilosaurids and dorudontids, the oldest obligate aquatic cetaceans for which the entire skeleton is known, and therefore can be used to evaluate pakicetid morphology. Aquatic adaptations of basilosaurids and dorudontids include [nine features are listed]. Pakicetids display none of these features.’41As if all this were not enough, the few pakicetid traits once believed unambiguously indicative of an aquatic or semi-aquatic transitional lifestyle, are no longer necessarily considered thus.42 Consequently, the already borderline-deceptive practice33 of sketching Pakicetus as a semiaquatic-adapted creature, in a very recent issue of National Geographic magazine,43 is all the more inexcusable. And it is creationists who are supposed to be the purveyors of inaccurate and outdated information!

So from mere dimples in teeth and folded ear bones, this animal qualifies as a walking whale?

Yaro, are you going to dodge the question or answer it?The reasonable way to see if something is cetacean is to examine the features that qualify cetaceans as whales, and then see to what degree those features are found in the subject species.I cannot find one single shared feature exclusive to cetaceans that Pakicetus has.Can you?You claimed I was arguing from incredulity. Obviously you were wrong.Will you admit that?In fact, I am the only one here even bothering to make arguments based on the data particular to cetaceans.Why is that?Could it be you cannot make an argument based on the data because you have no data to refute my claims? It appears your entire argument is to argue from analogies, distortions, false claims, etc,..and to ignore the scientific evidence completely.Why is that?