From Creationsafaris:
The only examples these evolutionists always trot out are a few extinct semi-aquatic candidates, like Pakicetus and Rodhocetus. The artist’ reconstruction of Rodhocetus in the article shows a squat long-snouted tan-colored animal with dog-like feet and a wide tail that flips left and right, unlike a whale’s vertically-moving fluke. Great. 15 mutations down, and only 49,985 to go. The caption says, “The early whale Rodhocetus probably paddled like an aquatic mole, using its tail as a rudder, rather than wiggling like an otter.” Notice two things: the word probably, which reminds us one cannot deduce lifestyles from fossils, and the observation that there are aquatic moles with similar lifestyles today. Are the moles evolving into mini-whales? How do we know the extinct animals were not perfectly content to stay what they were for eternity?
The paleontologists got all excited that Rodhocetus might have used its hind feet for swimming. What’s all the excitement about? Whales have no hind feet, nor do they swim with them. The gap between Rodhocetus, Pakicetus or any other candidate transitional form and true whales is huge, yet the article calls Pakicetus the “earliest known whale.” Given the gap to bone ratio, that is no more plausible than calling Icarus the earliest known bird.
In a way, it’s admirable that these paleontologists exhibit the power of positive thinking. Otherwise, playing Darwin detective must be a very depressing job. But the first step toward recovery for EA (Evolutionists Anonymous) is to admit that they have a problem.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1103.htm
==============
Keep sippin' that kool-aid, Vade. The good news is, EA meets every day here at FR, so you aren't alone. :)
Pakicetus was better adapted to land than a modern otter. In fact, aside from something or other about its earbones, it shows almost no aquatic modifications at all. For all that, it's the starting point for the series that follows it because of similarities of skull, teeth, ankle bones, etc.
Your chronic naysayer at Creation Safaris has the hobby of researching every possible excuse to discard as much of mainstream geology, biology, and even astronomy as possible. In his frantic haste to do so, he allows himself great license.
He couldn't find much on Rhodocetus, evidently. In alleging the poverty of the whale series, he forgets to mention Ambulocetus, the alligator-like one before Rhodocetus, and various later whales--Basilosaurus and Dorudon come to my aging mind--which are fully obligate ocean swimmers whose hind legs slowly disappear. Isn't it a cheat to allege that a fossil series is skimpy and then "forget" more than half its contents?
The guy casts his aspersions so recklessly that it's not clear if he's lying or he simply didn't bother to check first. The quality of his work has been dissected for you before. It does not hold up to serious scrutiny. The way you keep trotting him out as if he were Albert Einstein doesn't look good, either.