I watched this show 3 times, and read numerous articles on this subject. I cannot believe that our scientific community has sunk to this low. Of course, this is par for the course. All of the articles are identical, as if they were copied and pasted. The Nat Geo special was almost copied word for word from these articles. I will be looking at this show and article from a non religious point of view. This whole concept can be dismissed by their own science. When whales had legs “Facts” page, we’ll start there. I’m only going to deal with the first 5 points the rest are modern facts that are true.

1. Charles Darwin suggested that whales had evolved from bearlike animals. This is what Darwin believed , but because of the laughter from his peers he did not include this in his book of origins. There is no proof that whales evolved from bear-like creatures.
2. The evolution of whales started around 50 million years ago. False. We do not know this. If we used Radio Carbon Dating (RCD), then it is not possible to accurately measure 50 million years let alone 1 million years ago. According to science, RCD is only accurate to 45,000 – 60,000 years in the past. Not only that, but the way they calibrate the machine is by using wood from a known age. In short, they count the rings of a tree and calibrate the machine to deliver that age. They have also used some wood from anicent Egypt. So I would say they are accurate to 5,000 – 10,000 years in the past. RCD is figured on exponential scale. This would indicate that anything beyond “45,000″ years would be horribly off. The further away from 45,000 years the more off the results.  And even with K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating the true age cannot be known.  According to this article, K/Ar dating never come out the same results nor can they be reproduced by the same lab. 
3. The evolution of whales took less than 10 million years. False see answer #2.
4. The oldest known “early whale” was called Pakicetus. Below is a picture of the skull of the Pakicetus. What this article says is that this creature is made from a fragment of it’s skull. The dark shaded part of the skull on the high left and a piece in the jaw that is real. The rest of the skull is assumed by someone.  This means that we don’t know if that’s what it really looked like. Gingerich found this fragment in 1983. He then sent the pieces of bones to a lab that “built” the supposed rest of the skull. Then Gingerich said, “I would assume that this mammal had 4 legs.” Now I wonder how in the world did he know it had 4 legs? Then he said, “This mammal had short fur.” Wow this guy needs to pick my lottery numbers.

The next creature they found was called Ambulocetus in 1994 by Thewissen. The skeleton does not have 4 legs, and the skull is very fragmented. I didn’t even see shoulder blades or 4 legs. This leads me to believe that they don’t have the full picture of what this creature looked like let alone how it lived. They assume that this creature has 4 legs and that the hind legs were very short to assist in swimming. But still not very agile in the water. Can we even say this animal swam in water on a regular basis?

Next is a creature called Rodhocetus. I still have not found a skeleton for this creature except one in a museum. It’s hard to trust a museum because they have a full skeleton of a Pakicetus on display. I found many drawings but nothing concrete. If you have a picture or know where I can find one, please let me know. Thanks. Until then I discredit this without real evidence.

The next creature is the Dorudon. I have only one picture of an actual skeleton and there’s not much you can see from it. The skeletons in a museum are not to be trusted as stated above. Again if anyone has a photo of a complete real fossil please let me know. Thanks

This lineage of the modern whale, according to science, is inaccurate at best. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to proclaim this idea as truth or a good working theory. I do believe that they have found bones of creatures that do not exsist anymore or maybe we just haven’t found it in modern times. The reason I’m writting this article is because of the very misleading way that this program and other writers present their ideas and teach them as facts. You can not tell me with certainity that these bones are 50+ million years old, nor can you produce a full intact skeleton, nor can you actually show me that one evolved into the other. Nor can you prove that this skeleton ever produce any offspring.  All you have is 2 simular looking skeletons with differences, that doesn’t mean one became the other. They also say that this creature died out and now we find this one instead. How many Pakicetus skeletons do they have again? They have one piece of one skull and one piece of a jaw. That hardly proves that this creature flurished during that time period. One skeleton isn’t enough to say this creature replaced this creature. When you are dealing in onsy and twosy’s you don’t have enough information to make any definite observation except that this creature was a live at one time. The total assumption of how these creatures look and how they lived is just one mans opinion not fact. How can someone take a fragment of a skull and produce a complete creature including how it lived. Please stop misleading people.