"mid-Paleocene"
As the following link illustrates, the skeleton and skull are incomplete raising question about some aspects of the reconstruction. Dissacus represents #2 on this list and the dark areas in the drawings of the skeleton and skull are the actual bones.
The reconstruction looks like a dog.
"early Eocene"
Click
here to see picture
The
Velvet Claw: Chapter 1a
Hapalodectes and Dissacus are probably the same kind of animals and unrelated. In addition they know that Hapalodectes is not a whale ancestor, but naturally this ancestor must have existed according to evolutionists.
"early-mid Eocene"
Click here to see picture of skull
Hapalodectes, Dissacus and Pakicetus seem to be varieties of the same kind of animal.
"early-mid Eocene"
Click
here to see picture
A Whale of a Tale?
Ambulocetus natans is based on only fragmented evidence and even then some of the bones were found 5 meters above the rest. This makes the whole reconstruction questionable at best, but as we have seen evolutionists do not require much in the way of fossil remains to reconstruct an animal in a manner favorable to evolution.
"mid-Eocene"
Palaeos Vertebrates 520.120 Cetartiodactyla: Cetartiodactyla: Cetacea: Protocetidae
The original fossil did not have complete hind legs nor any front limbs, but more recent finds show that Rodhocetus had substantial hind limbs showing that it walked on land contrary to earlier reconstructions. This shows that the reconstruction showing a whale like animal with small limbs was wrong, thereby creating a more substantial gap between Rodhocetus and whales.
Rodhocetus does seem to have been a powerful swimmer, but there are plenty of land animals that fit this category.
"mid-late Eocene"
The idea that the rear appendages are vestigial legs is false like "modern" whales this feature helps with reproduction and as nothing to do with feet.
"late Eocene"
Once again Prozeuglodon's rear appendages are called vestigial legs. The simple fact is the these structures aid in reproduction, they are not vestigial legs.
"late Eocene"
These links show partial skeletal remains
Cetacea.de | Palaeocetologie - Eocetus schweinfurthi
Mark D. Uhen, Cetacean Research
The remains of this type do not seem to add up to any were near a complete skeleton. Hardly enough to claim as an evolutionary link.
"late Eocene"
BBC - Science and Nature - Beasts - Evidence - Programme 2 - Dorudon
Mark D. Uhen, Cetacean Research
It's just a variety of whale.
This is evidence for evolution? One of the most critical "links" in this chain; Ambulocetus; from land animals to whales are too fragmented to be considered objective evidence. The other; Rodhocetus; has been shown to be reconstructed inaccurately in a manner that favors Evolution. This is particularly important because the parts that are missing in those most critical to establishing such a link.
As has been typical in this study the so called transitions consists of partial skeletons, and types for which there is little information. These are distinct kinds and variations with in kinds of animals.
Here is an article that shows that Killer Whales and Dolphin are the same kind: Ligers and wholphins? What next?
For more on this topic see
Overselling
of Whale Evolution.
Cetaceans (whales, dolphins)
Return to: Transitional Forms?
