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?

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

On Aquatic vs. Semi-Aquatic:I would like to point out that “semi-aquatic” does not necessarily mean that a creature has to look like an otter or a seal. Semi-aquatic creatures come in a variety of shapes and sizes. And BTW randman, humans are considered by some scientists to be semi-aquatic. Semi-aquatic simply means a creature who spends part of it's life on, in, near, and around water and another portion on land. It's a very broad term. As a result all of the following creatures are classified as Semi-Aquatic: It is not an entirely unreasonable assumption that a creature is semi-aquatic when it lives so close to ancient river beds, is related to toothed whales, and it's immediate descendants are even more aquatic looking (Ambulocetus).Ambulocetus: On the Illustration:As was pointed out randman, the article and the illustration make perfectly clear what the scientists know, what they think, and where they are coming from. There is no attempt at deception, they are simply presenting their “best-guess” as to what the creature looked like. You are being disingenuous, obviously you have not read the article yourself and are working solely from presupposition.Let me put it to you this way, are forensic sketch artists lying when they draw up someones portrait based on bones? Are they lying when the sketch a criminal based on description?How about this, where engineers and physicists lying when they described what they thought the future would look like?This is from 1897: Conclusion:You are willfully ignoring the clear cut evidence contradicting your position. There is no deception going on. For some reason you seem to take a drawing (clearly labeled as tentative) as some sort of silver bullet. To be frank, you just don't know what you are talking about.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-21-2005 09:21 AMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 11-21-2005 11:09 AM

The article pointed out that ambulocetuses limbs are splayed out like those of an aquatic animal. I'll repost an image here: Maybe I am wrong, but this is what I understood.

You were right however, I think I came off sounding like Paki evolved into Ambulo. That's not what happened of course, but the ambulocetus body-plan became a "forward trend" Ambulo, BTW, shows up about a million years after Paki.

Don't forget about ol' Paki

Because they didn't know. I read the article and posted the image. The drawing was published after a skull. Ya, it was wrong. No one disputes this. but it wasn't dishonest! That's the distinction.

OMG.... THE FACTS WEREN'T IN YET!!!!!For chrisake! They didn't know yet... did you read the damn article? Did you? I have it infront of me.The article says, they only have a skull. Get it?Further, did you even bother to read the post above the last one.ABE:Randman, let's keep it simple.Did they, or did they not, note that the drawing was only from a skull?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-21-2005 07:10 PM

I'll repost it here, just so you don't miss it.

Did national geographic note that the illustration was based on only a skull?

hint: This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-21-2005 07:12 PM

National Geographic published it's article in Nov. 2001. This of course means that the magazine was on store shelves in Oct. 2001. If you know anything about publishing a major, mainstream, magazine, an issue may be anywhere from 3-6 months in production. Meaning that all items within would not be 100% uptodate (within a 3-6 month tolerance).The first publication for the NEW pakicetus findings went out in Nature on september 20th:

quote:

---

Thewissen, J.G.M., Williams, E.M., Roe, L.J. and Hussain, S.T., Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413(6853):277-281, 20 September 2001.

---

So basicaly, National Geo. was wrapping production, issues were probably in the mail, and the news hadn't really gotten out into the mainstream yet. (After all, National Geo. is great, but it is mainstream ).This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-29-2005 08:37 AM

WRONG!

At the time the article was written, all they had was a skull. Capice? Comprende?

WRONG!

It was an incorrect depiction. The article made it clear. The illustration made it clear.

WRONG!

The discovery was published Sep. 20th the Nov. issue is on store shelves, and in the mail in OCTOBRE. Further, big publications take 3-6 months to put together. I have worked in publishing, I know.Lastly, the knowledge of the find was not yet mainstream. National Geo. didn't know about it yet.

WRONG!

Again, at the time the article was written, all they had was a skull. The article makes it clear. As a matter of fact the writter is sitting down speaking with a scinetist while the skull in question is on the table. Your right randman. Its a conspiracy by evil scientists.

Pakicitus's full body findings were not made public till their apearance in science on Sept. 20th 2001. That's it. That's the fact.

Arach, the National Geographic article was published in 2001 also. It was the Nov. 2001 issue. The nature article came out Sep 20th 2001. National Geo. months are allways a month before the actual month meaning that the issue would have been on store shelves and in the mail during Octobre.The fact is, the release of the new fossil findings was much too close to the National Geo publication. Not to mention the fact, that just because an article apears in Nature, it's not necisseraly the most mainstream info.None the less, the article is very clearly written without knowledge of Pakicetus' body. Infact, the writter is sitting down with a scientist discussing the skull.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-22-2005 08:22 AM

see ya randman!I commend you on your dodge and weave, Ever think of becomming a boxer?ABE: Point taken Admin, I will show how randman is dodging the issue. Check back in a bit.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-28-2005 02:13 PM

What is so low about the honest questions arach has posed? Can you really not see ANY similarity between the two skeletons? BZZT! Stop right there. You can't just make a blanket statement like this. First of all, what do you consider "larger differences"? Do you not see the obvious similarity between the two creatures?If so, why not assume relatedness? Why would two creatures look soooo alike, and not be related? Other than the fact that one is not actually a homo sapiens. First off, we don't know weather he did/didn't have webbed feet. Webbing doesn't fossilize, but how the hell can you say, with total certainty, that the creature didn't swim? After all, hippos spend most of their life in the water and they don't have webbed feet. All we have is bones! No one has unequivically stated he has webbed feat, an artists drawing is simply a guess and everyone freely admits that. The point is valid. You are saying unequivically that paki didn't swim and had no webbed feet. They are showing you how an animal doesn't necisseraly need to "look" like a swimmer to be a good swimmer.You are the one making statements based on knowledge you don't have. We have said over and over that the drawings and theories are based on evidince and therefore tentative. The depiction was based on a skull. It was the best guess at the time. Do you understand that?Look at the two skeletons, do you see how that guess could have been made? You have failed to show any deception. Continually asserting that scientists are liars is essentialy Ad Hominem. You should follow a different line of argumentation.....I saw Haeckel in your next paragraph so I knew it was a rabbit hole. Why not actually answer Arach's questions?If you don't, you are being intellectually dishonest.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-28-2005 02:26 PM