In both the 1981 and 1983 papers, the authors are quite clear that
nothing is known of the postcranial skeleton of
Pakicetus (from the 1981 paper):
No postcranial remains can be referred to Pakicetus inachus at present.
However, the
Pakicetus fossils did share some characteristics with other fossils believed to be cetacean at the time. So, clearly the editors at
Science took some artistic license in representing a creature that was believed, at the time, to be an aquatic cetacean. But again,
nowhere in the scientific descriptions of these fossils do the authors even speculate on the postcranial anatomy of
Pakicetus.
And then, as Batten indicates, more fossils attributed to
Pakicetus were described in 2001. Thewissen
et al. published their research in the journal
Nature in a paper entitled "
Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls". According to the new evidence presented in this study (from the 2001 paper):
Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations. Some features of the sense organs of pakicetids are also found in aquatic mammals, but they do not necessarily imply life in water. Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir.
In other words, what
actual scientists found was that even though
Pakicetus shared characteristics with cetaceans and artiodactyls, they were most likely not aquatic, but lived on land.
So, in light of new scientific evidence,
Pakicetus was now believed to be terrestrial and not aquatic.
in a discussion of his field, yet you keep posting Creationists credentials as if that makes any difference. Not to put to fine a point on it, but why is Batten getting a PhD from the University of Sydney important enough to mention? It's almost as if you're trying to demonstrate the point I made the other day and you denied.
I suggest you actually read the blog entry I linked to above. He absolutely eviscerates Batten's garbage in that CMI essay.
