[VadeRetro]

Babinski documents a better case for whale atavisms than Wieland seems to think possible. Lots of drawings and photos. How is he doing that?

Wieland also says this:

Pakicetus was claimed to be a ‘walking whale’ — yet the type specimen consisted only of jaw and skull fragments.

For a long time, we had no post-cranial Pakicetus bones. Since 2000, we do.

Pakicetidae.

Some creationist sources are still running around pretending that we don't know what Paki looked like post-cranially. Creation science is somehow allowed to use old sources in misleading ways for some greater good.

Pakicetus is not the only such case among the cetaceans. See also: Ambulocetus Has No Pelvis and is Largely Incomplete? AiG strikes again!

[DittoJed2]

And evolutionist posters are allowed to misrepresent creationist sources.
This so-called "evidence" of whale "evolution" has been addressed along with the newer findings by the largest Creation research organization in the world.

[DittoJed2]

BR>Incidentally, I don't care what his ear bone or other features look like, this

Looks more like this (he does have a tail, its tucked between his legs)
Than any of these