... to mention Archaeopteryx (bird), Archaeoraptor (a fake), Pakicetus (land mammal fragments), and many others. Since each evolutionary "link" turns out to be false, what does that say about the whole theory? How much better it would be to rely...
... of non-whale. Since 1981, evolutionists have imagined that Pakicetus was a fully aquatic evolutionary ancestor of whales. Back then, it was only known from a fossilized partial jaw and teeth. But by 2001, “newly discovered fossils show...
... The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species). This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or...
upper- and lower-cheek teeth. The creature was given the name Pakicetus inachus. This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial...
... to be another Lucy, Java Man, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Pakicetus, and Eosimias. It will undoubtedly join the growing collection of fossils that were once thought to be missing links, but that upon further study turned out to be extinct...
... belong in modern whale evolutionary ancestry. Remarkably, Pakicetus was also on display. Although it was depicted as a distant whale ancestor when only skull fragments of it were known,8 more recent data shows it had four legs that were fully...
... have been debunked, such the classification of Tiktaalik and Pakicetus as transitional forms (aka "missing links"),8 and the accuracy of potassium-argon radioisotope-dating techniques.9 Appealing to public emotions can be effective,...
Displaying 1 - 7 (of 7 results)

© 2014 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

Proclaiming Scientific Truth in Creation | www.icr.org