Evolutionists have needed some kind of transitional fossil to support their theory that mammals of the sea evolved from a land mammal, hence the advent of the walking whale, the supposed ancestor to our modern whales. Although there are many examples, the tale of the walking whale is a perfect example of how evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with science. Science is based on things observable and testable while evolution is based on nothing more than a philosophical belief.
The whale’s ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy, four-legged mammals, in search for food or sanctuary, ventured into water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred. Hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant water world, the body became enormous. (Victor B. Scheffer, in National Geographic, volume 50, “Exploring the Lives of Whales”)
With such as clear statement as this from National Geographic, one is lead to believe there must exist an abundant amount of evidence, including in the fossil recording, showing how the “whale’s ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began.” The problem is there is NO evidence for such an outlandish statement! It seems truth and sciences are the first casualties of evolution theory. Furthermore, with all the changes included in the above statement of the evolution of the whale, one can only imagine the massive amount of intermediate fossils that we should see that show all the changes. As anti-creationist Michael Denton stated:
...we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types...one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales...we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler)
Just as with the supernatural miracle that would be needed for scales to evolve into feathers, for a land mammal to evolve into a whale would also require a miracle. For example, the offspring of whales are born underwater. This means that land mammals would have needed to learn how to birth their offspring without the babies drowning. The entire skull would have to be modified for the nostrils to move to the top of the skull. Somehow the land mammal would have to develop very sophisticated sonar for the whale to function at the tremendous depths of the ocean. The whale’s massive tail would have to somehow change from the tail of land mammals. Furthermore, somehow the entire auditory system would need to change and develop for the whale to dive at tremendous depths of the ocean and withstand the pressure.
In the above statement from Scheffer he mentioned about the evolution of the tail saying, “the tail broadened into flukes.” Just the evolution of the tail would need an enormous amount of transitions. The supposed land mammal ancestors have tails that move side to side, but a whale has a spinal up and down movement. This means that the pelvis of the land mammal would have to gradually disappear and be replaced with a completely different structure of the skeleton, a structure with muscles so strong it could handle the massive size of the whales tail. Because of the massive amount of changes that would be needed with just the tail, I would think there would be at least one fossil showing the evolution of the tail.
One other thing I need to mention concerns the fins of whales. Whale fins have what is called countercurrent heat exchangers that are used to conserve heat in the awesome cold of the ocean water. In a 1997 issue of Science (Heyning and Mead, “Thermoregulation in the Mouths of Feeding Grey Whales), zoologists talk about how these heat exchangers have been found at the base of the tongue of Grey whales. Just as with the fins, these heat exchangers in the tongue are used to conserve heat. One can only imagine the miracle that would be needed for natural selection to create such a complex structure from some type of land mammal.
There are three main fossils that are usually set forth as evidence for the evolution of the whale. These three have been called “walking whales” and are as follows:
Pakicetus; Basilosaurus; and Ambulocetus natans.
As we take a look at each one of these the main question would be: how does a paleontologist conclude they have discovered an ancient walking whale? They find a skull and some teeth, of course.
Not far from the Khyber Pass in the arid Himalayan foothills of Pakistan, University of Michigan paleontologist Philip D. Gingerich found a skull and several teeth and came to the startling conclusion that they belonged to an ancient walking whale. (In Science, volume 220, “Origins of Whales in Epicontinental Remnant Seas: New Evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan”)
The above statement is referring to Pakicetus, supposedly a walking whale based on the fossil skull and teeth that were found. Later when more cranial parts were found it was discovered the hearing mechanism was just like that of a land mammal. Keep in mind that no other parts were ever found, and the few fossils that were found indicates that whatever this creature was, it could not hear underwater. This was not even a whale, much less a “walking whale.”
Basilosaurus is another creature that evolutionists have said was an ancestor of modern whales. This fossil was first excavated in the 19th century and as we can tell by its name, it was thought to be some type of marine reptile (king-lizard). In the late 1980’s this marine reptile fossil was reclassified as a “walking whale” based on the fact that fossil limb and foot bones were found in the same area as Basilosaurus. The first thing that should be noted is nobody knows if these fossil “limbs” belonged to Basilosaurus in the first place. Secondly, even if these “limbs” did come from Basilosaurus, it certainly does not make a “walking whale.” There have been marine creatures, including whales, that were found with what looked to be hind limbs, but these “limbs” have now been realized to be parts that helped with the sex act. As for Basilosaurus the evidence suggests it was a king lizard and these so-called “limbs” were accessories that helped with reproduction.
Thus hind limbs of Basilosaurus are most plausibly interpreted as accessories facilitating reproduction. (Philip Gingerich, B. Holly Smith, and Elwyn L. Simons, in Science, volume 249, “Hind Limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of Feet in Whales”)
Furthermore, evolutionist Barbara Stahl commented on Basilosaurus and others like it:
The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales. (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Press)
Although Pacitus and Basilosaurus do get honorable mention in the walking whale department, there is one main fossil that textbooks tell us is certainly a “missing link”, the walking whale...Ambulocetus natans.
Ambulocetus was first discovered in 1992 by a team led by assistant professor of anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Medical School, Hans Thewissen. Thewissen and his team came to the conclusion that Ambulocetus was able to walk on land as well as swim in water, thereby making it a walking whale.
In the 1994 issue of Science, Ambulocetus is presented as a “walking whale” complete with a sketch of this creature as well as detailed descriptions of how this “walking whale” moved in water and on land. It wasn’t long until newspapers across the U.S. began blaring headlines stating how this “walking whale” might be “the missing link.” But as we will see, this “walking whale” only exists in the imagination of evolutionists.
To begin with, this fossil has very critical parts still missing and the parts that do exist are fragmented. To show the absurdity of calling this fossil a “walking whale”, I will list the parts that do exist:
1 femur; 1 lumbar vertebra; 1 small piece of tibia; a piece of the ankle ball joint; a few toe bones; a few foot bones; and part of the skull and lower jaw.
This is the walking whale! Only in the theory of evolution would something so laughable be allowed. Furthermore it should be noted that 1 caudal vertebra was included in the find, but this vertebra wasn’t even found with the skeleton of Ambulocetus. Although this vertebra was found in a different location, it was still included in the reconstruction of Ambulocetus.
The illustrations of this “walking whale” can be seen in textbooks, scientific journals, and websites. The fact that the majority of the reconstruction has been sketched in by an artist doesn’t seem to bother evolutionists. How can anyone give a detailed description of how this creature moved in water and on land when there was no pelvic girdle found? To show hind leg function there must be a pelvic girdle. How can they give details about the movement of the forelimbs without the humerus or scapula? Both the humerus and scapula are missing. How can they know how all the muscles were attached based on just a few fragmented parts? How do they know anything about the tail when nothing of the tail was found? If you look at the illustrations, they have sketched in a nice long tail.
Along with sketching in the pelvis, humerus, scapula, tail, vertebrae, fibula, etc., some illustrations even show Ambulocetus with webbed feet! The reconstruction of Ambulocetus to make it into a “walking whale” is almost as much of a fraud as when evolutionists built an “ape-man” out of a pigs tooth (Nebraska Man). In evolution theory an artist could reconstruct a 4-bedroom house out of a toothpick.
If Ambulocetus was not a “walking whale” is there any evidence to suggest what this creature really was? Yes there is. Firstly, the teeth in both Ambulocetus and Pakicetus closely resemble a creature that many evolutionists believe “evolved” into Pakicetus. This creature named Mesonyx was a wolf-like creature that is now extinct and was clearly a land mammal.
Secondly, the fossil foot bones of Ambulocetus were found to have a hoof, which is more in line with what a type of wolf-like land mammal would have. Although it is possible that both Pakicetus and Ambulocetus is both an extinct wolf-like land creature, it is impossible they were “walking whales.” When a fossil creature is missing 75% of its skeleton it does not make it a “missing link.”
(It should be quickly noted that although evolutionists believe the sea mammals evolved from some kind of land mammal, the question still exists of how a reptile originally evolved into the first land mammal.)
Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species. (Tom Kemp, in New Scientist, volume 93, “The Reptiles that Became Mammals”)
From a Fish to an Amphibian to a Reptile?
According to evolution theory, the first amphibians evolved from some type of fish ancestor and the first reptiles evolved from some type of amphibian ancestor. This would mean that the very first 4-legged creatures didn’t really walk on land but instead walked on the bottom of the ocean. Because we have literally billions of fish fossils, it shouldn’t be difficult to find hundreds of transitional fossils that show the process of fish fins evolving into legs. These transitional fossils would be creatures with part-legs and part-fins or part-feet part-fins. Out of the billions of fish fossils, how many transitional fossils have been found like this? Zero.
No one can be certain which group or groups of fishes was the first to make the transition to land, or what their evolutionary pathways may have been...the transition from water to land occurred so long ago, and various family trees suggested by the fossil record are so tangled that scientists acknowledge they may never be able to sort them out definitively. (M.W. Browne, in the March 16, 1993 New York Times, “Biologists Debate Man’s Fishy Ancestors”)
Just as with the other examples of one type of creature evolving into another, the changes that would need to take place for a fish to evolve into a land creature are indeed massive. Fish fins are designed and used for steering and locomotion in water, as well as to provide needed balance. Because it is impossible for fins to support the body and weight of the fish, somehow the fins would need to change into legs. Furthermore, a fish acquires water much differently than a land mammal. This means that all the organs would need to change as the fish first began to start moving onto land.
For evolutionists to believe that fins evolved into legs they must admit that the process would have taken numerous transitions possibly taking millions of years. With billions of fish fossils discovered, the evolutionists are aware that it is a huge problem that no fossils have ever been found showing a creature with part-fins part-legs. Of course, this hasn’t stopped evolutionists from continuing to tell us that the first amphibians had a fish ancestor. But because of the fossil record not agreeing with evolution, evolutionists disagree on which fish was the true ancestor of the amphibians.
Some evolutionists believe amphibians evolved from a creature called a Coelacanth fish. Other evolutionists believe the Lungfish was the ancestor of amphibians. But as we will see, there is absolutely no evidence for any of these theories.
It is indeed hard to refute the idea that the Lungfish is the ancestor of amphibians. The reason I say this is because there is no evidence to refute. Evolutionists give a detailed theory of how the Lungfish might have evolved into an amphibian, but there has never been one single fossil discovered that shows any kind of transition. Not only is there no fossil evidence of an amphibian evolving from a Lungfish, evolutionists don’t know where the Lungfish came from in the first place. With billions of fish fossils, why is there not even one transitional fossil?
But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing. (Errol White, in Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London, volume 177, “A Little on Lungfishes”)
The creature most set forth by evolutionists as a “missing link” between fish and amphibian is the Coelacanth fish. According to evolutionary “dating”, evolutionists believed the Coelacanth went extinct 70-80 million years ago. Then in 1938 something happened that put a damper on the theory that the Coelacanth fish was a “missing link.” A living Coelacanth fish was caught off the coast of Africa and it had fins just as any fish would. Then in 1997, a Coelacanth was found in a fish market in Indonesia. How did the Coelacanth fish survive for the last 80 million years and why did it have a body and fins just as any other fish? When you add in the fact that the fossil record does not support the theory that amphibians evolved from a Coelacanth fish, it is clear the Coelacanth is a true fish, not a “missing link.”
While evolutionists struggle for some kind of evidence to support their theory that amphibians evolved from fish, there is still no evidence of where the first fish came from to begin with. Evolution theory teaches that the first fish evolved from some type of marine invertebrate. This means that some type of creature without a skeleton evolved into a creature with a bony skeleton (fish). We have billions of fish fossils as well as invertebrate fossils and one can only imagine the long amount of time that would be needed for the first fish to evolve. Yet, there has never been any transitional fossils discovered.
All three subdivisions of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time...How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely?...And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms? (Gerald Todd, in American Zoologist, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Causal Relationship”)
When searching for intermediates between amphibians and reptiles the fossil evidence is no better. Usually there are two creatures named as being “missing links” between amphibians and reptiles...Seymouria and Ichthyosaur.
Seymouria is believed to be a transition between amphibians and reptiles based on the fact that this creature did have some similarities to both amphibians and reptiles. But calling Seymouria a “missing link” has two huge problems. First, Seymouria appears in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed. Second and more importantly, according to evolutionary “dating” methods Seymouria is dated up to 30 million years younger than the first true reptiles. Paleothyris and Hylonomus are known as the first original reptiles, so how can Seymouria be a transition between amphibians and reptiles when it first appears in the strata 30 million years after the first original reptiles?
Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptile transition unanswered. (Lewis L. Carroll, in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume 44, “Problems of the Origin of Reptiles”)
As for the creature known as Ichthyosaur, the evidence for it being a transitional is weak and unsubstantiated. These fossils have been found all over the world and just as with Seymouria, every fossil has been found fully formed and appears in the record suddenly.
No earlier forms are known. The peculiarities of Ichthyosaur structure would seemingly require a long time for their development and hence a very early origin for the group, but there are no known Permian reptiles antecedent to them. (A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition, Chicago University Press)
Just as with other creatures, Ichthyosaur was a unique creation that shows no evidence as being a “missing link” between amphibians and reptiles.
The basic problem of Ichthyosaur relationships is that no conclusive evidence can be found for linking these reptiles with any other reptilian order. (M. Morales and E.H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.)
The only thing that “links” Ichthyosaur, Seymouria, fishes, etc., is the fact that just as with all the other fossil creatures, they appear suddenly in the fossil record and when a complete creature is found it is seen as fully formed.
The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find, over and over again, not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. (Derek Ager, Proceedings of the British Geological Association, volume 87, “The Nature of the Fossil Record”)
I'm a Monkey's Uncle?
According to evolutionists the very first humans evolved from some type of ape ancestor. Anyone that has ever looked at a textbook has witnessed the artist illustrations of our ancestors, the famous “ape-men.” Out of all the so-called “missing links” known by the public, the ape-men get the most attention simply because these creatures are supposed to be our closest relatives. But as we will see, the only place that ape-men exist is in the imagination of evolutionists.
Evolutionist and Senior Paleontologist for the British Museum of Natural History Dr. Colin Patterson, had this response when questioned on why he didn’t include any transitional fossils, including ape-men, in his book about evolution.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism derived.” I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering that question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. (Letter as published in Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, 1988)
For those readers unaware of some of the terminology used in evolution, I will list some words that are used in the “ape-man” category:
Hominid: Ape-man
Bipedal: On two legs
Morphology: Shape
Cranial Size: Brain capacity
Anthropopithecus erectus: Anthro = Man; pithecus = Ape; erectus = upright
Homo habilis: Toolmaker or Handyman
Australopithecus: Australo = Southern; pithecus = Ape
Australopithecus Africanus: South African Ape-man
Neanderthal Man
Textbooks show the Neanderthal as being a creature somewhere between man and ape that had enough sense to live in caves, but wasn’t evolved enough to build their own shelter. Artist illustrations convey the image of Neanderthal as being some type of savage, and yet just human enough that they could make fire. So how close are these textbook illustrations to the actual fossils?
Paleontologist Marcellin Boule was responsible for reconstructing a Neanderthal skeleton that was found in 1908. The skeleton was buried in a cave in France with almost the entire skeleton being discovered. Despite the vertebrate indicating clear signs of severe arthritis and rickets (bone disease), Boule decided to reconstruct this skeleton with the appearance of an ape. By the time Boule had finished his reconstruction this Neanderthal had toes like an ape, hair like an ape, head and neck of an ape, and the knees bent like an ape. Just the reconstruction of the knees alone showed Neanderthal as a creature that walked like an ape. It is Boules reconstruction of Neanderthal Man that exists in textbooks.
The problem with these textbook illustrations is the fact that numerous studies have shown that Boules reconstruction was seriously flawed. This is just one more example of evolutionists allowing flawed textbook illustrations to exist for the sole purpose of indoctrinating the public. One such study that contradicted Boule was performed in 1957 when two medical examiners studied the bones of Neanderthal Man. Their conclusion was that Neanderthals walked as normal as humans do today and stood erect, not hunched over like an ape. There have been Neanderthals discovered which do show clear signs of severe arthritis, but not all Neanderthals show this bone disease.
Evolutionary scientist have differing opinions about how to classify the Neanderthals. Some scientists believe the Neanderthals are a separate species which they classify as Homo neanderthalensis. Others believe Neanderthals are a sub-species of humans called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Still others now believe that Neanderthals were not in the human line at all, based on mitochondrial DNA testing from a Neanderthal arm bone.
Although there are conflicting views within evolutionist opinions, there is abundant evidence that indicates the humanity of the Neanderthal.
Detailed comparison of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. (E. Trinkaus, in Natural History, “Hard Times Among the Neanderthals”)
Neanderthals did have a heavy brow ridge, but so do many humans today. Furthermore, their anatomy is very similar to humans. They used fire, made and used tools, and although evolutionists come across as if the Neanderthal could only grunt, the evidence shows Neanderthal Man had the same speech abilities as humans.
Paleontologists in Israel have discovered a fossil bone which shows that Neanderthals may have been just as capable of speech as modern humans. The bone, known as the hyoid, is from a Neanderthal who lived between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago. The hyoid, a small v-shaped bone, is a key part of the vocal apparatus in modern human beings. (S. Bunney, in volume 123 of New Scientist, “Neanderthals Weren’t So Dumb After All”)
As if this wasn’t enough to show that Neanderthals were human, evidence also proves they made and played musical instruments, just as humans do.
The earliest known flute has been discovered in Slovenia in south-east Europe. Archaeologists in the former Yugoslavian republic claim the 12-centimeter (5-inch) flute was made by Neanderthal humans 45,000 years ago. The instrument was made from the leg bone of a bear, and its original four fingerholes are intact. Its lowest note was identified as a B flat or A. The flute was found in a cave near the town of Nova Gorica, 65 kilometers west of Slovenia’s capital, Ljubljana. The revelation that Neanderthal Slovenes learned to play music is said to have far reaching implications for human evolution. (The February 21, 1996 issue of the Sydney Morning Herald)
But what about the fact that Neanderthals lived in caves? Personally, this is something that I have never understood. Why would any textbook even suggest that Neanderthals weren’t human because they lived in caves? All through the history of mankind humans have lived in caves. Even today there are people in the world that live in caves. A cave provides good shelter, and what’s even more important is that about half of the Neanderthal skeletons that have been found were buried in caves. This is an important aspect that is sometimes overlooked.
The act of burial is known as a human, and in most cases, a religious act. Plus, there have been Neanderthal cave paintings discovered as well as a discovery of Neanderthals that were buried with flowers in a cave in Iraq.
The more this kind of evidence accumulates, the more they look like us. (New York University archaeologist Randall White, in the January 1997 issue of Discover)
Because over half of the Neanderthals that have been discovered were found buried in caves, this shows these caves were not only used for shelter, but also as ancient cemeteries. When looking at modern humans today we bury our dead in family groups, which is exactly what the Neanderthals did. What is even more noteworthy is there is good evidence that Neanderthals were human based on the discovery of Neanderthals being found buried together with modern humans. This suggests that Neanderthals and modern humans not only lived together but also intermarried, and were buried together in the same location as members of the same family, just as humans today bury their loved ones.
Dr. Marvin Lubenow (a Creationist) points out that:
Skull Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is considered to be a burial site of anatomically modern Homo sapiens individuals. Yet, Skhul IV and Skhul IX fossil skulls are closer to the Neandertal configuration than they are to modern humans. (Corruccini, RS, 1992. Metrical reconsideration of the Skhul IV and IX and Border Cave 1 crania in the context of modern human origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87(4):433-445)
Jebel-Qafzeh, Galilee, Israel, is also considered to be an anatomically modern burial site. However, Qafzeh skull 6 is clearly Neandertal in its morphology. (Corruccini, Ref. 10, pp. 440-442)
Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is one of the classic Neandertal burial sites. But the Tabun C2 mandible is more closely aligned with modern mandibles found elsewhere. (Quam, R.M. and Smith, F.H., 1996. Reconsideration of the Tabun C2 ‘Neandertal’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 22, p. 192)
The Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia, is one of the most studied Neandertal burial sites. At least 75 individuals were buried there. However, the remains are fragmentary making diagnosis difficult. The addition of several newly identified fragments to the Krapina A skull (also known as Krapina 1) reveals it to be much more modern than was previously thought, indicating that it is closer in shape to modern humans than it is to the Neandertals. (Minugh-Purvis, N. and Radovcic, J., 1991. Krapina A: Neandertal or Not? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 12, p. 132)