Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

Not only that, it's the front cover of a magazine not an illustration in an actual article. I would suggest that the main point of the picture is to get the attention of people. You've got to make owning and reading the magazine interesting and a pleasant experience if you want folks to maintain their subscriptions or pick it up at a newstand or in the airport.I think it's been pointed out before but if you read the 1983 article in Science it specifically says: Note: I had to type this in manually as the link is to a scanned image, so any typos are my fault.So right from virtually the earliest days (I think Pakicetus was first described in 1981 by Gingerich) it's been pointed out: Seems to me that even with just the original partial skull and teeth finds Gingerich got pretty close to the mark. Not to mention that there is no deception, no asserting things he can't back up as facts or any of the other things randman claims.In fact the subsequent body part finds line up surprisingly well IMO (well perhaps not too surprising when you think that it is his job after all).

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

No problem - now if we could only get randman to read what it actually says

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

But in at least the case of the 1983 Science article you clearly didn't read it. You're fixated on the front cover illustration which, as I and others have mentioned, is not part of the hard science - it's to help sell the magazine as much as anything.In my Message 160 I quoted a few bits from the actual article: Damn those evil evo scientists - always misleading everyone by drawing conclusions based on the best currently available evidence.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Where was this claimed?Not in the 1983 Science article as far as I recall or even on the front cover illustration. That shows Pakicetus diving certainly, but not much deeper than its own body length (if even that).

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

You still haven't read the article have you? I strongly contest the view it's "well beneath his body length" - the spine is curved quite a lot so I contend if you were to straighten the spine and put it vertical it would be somewhere around the actual body length.But you specifically claimed but that illustration shows it diving to less than the same depth (relative to body size) that a human can easily manage - let alone something like an otter. How deep do you think 'deep diving' is for a whale?Looks like the evos aren't the only ones who can be charged with making exaggerated claims eh? You still haven't read the article have you? I quote: The front cover illustration is not that closely related to the actual science - it's just not that important. No I don't - not with the information available at the time Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh the irony You still haven't read the article have you?A gazelle!? Look at the teeth described in the article and tell me you still think a gazelle would be a good basis for a picture.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Or like a semi-aquatic mammal perhaps.Actually - and I can't be dogmatic about this - but to the best of my recollection from various nature programs I've seen over the years modern ceteceans don't necessarily surface dive and catch shallow water fish. They spend extended periods underwater hunting for fish and catch them from below and at the same level as much as from above.By the way, how do you think any animal is going to catch fish underwater with their mouth closed? No smart-arse answers about bird claws In 1983 - when all they had were partial skulls - I don't see anything wrong with it, no.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Read the 1983 article and you'll know the answer to that one.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then