Problems With Superficial Sequences

Alongside the facts we have discussed above, the dates ascribed by National Geographicto the species in question have been selected in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are shown as following each other in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. Ashby L. Camp clarifies the situation, based on paleontological data:

In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.166

In brief, there are two different views of when the animals that National Geographicchronologically sets out one after the other really lived. If the second view is accepted, thenPakicetus and Ambulocetus, which National Geographic portrays as "the walking whale," are of the same age as, or even younger than, true whales. In other words, no "evolutionary line" is possible.