Blog

by Steve Risner

Whale evolution has moved to the front of the story telling machine of the evolutionist, taking the place of horse evolution (the lineage for horse evolution has been rearranged and discredited so many times they've dropped it for the most part). Whale evolution is a curious thing for the evolutionist. It would describe a process by which an animal left the water a few hundred million years ago and slowly evolved into an amphibian, and then to a reptile, and finally to a mammal. But land dwelling mammals are not what we're referring to here. We're talking about creatures that live in the sea. So the evolutionist is left with figuring out how and why land dwelling mammals would evolve (quite marvelously, by the way) into completely aquatic animals with several major modifications.

This is a story much like many other tales evolutionists like to tell. It's filled with half truths, fraud, artistic license, and a great deal of imagination. What is even better is after the story has been rearranged and modified and demonstrated as false, it still gets told. This is because, according to Dr. Keith Stewart Thomson, “We often are highly conservative and will hold to a viewpoint longer than is justified when there is no alternative or, worse, when the logical alternative upsets the rest of our world view.” It's just laziness or deception that demonstrably false ideas constantly keep getting promoted to our youth. If you see a made up lineage in your science textbooks of whale evolution from sea to land and then back to sea, please understand there is literally no truth to it at all. Let's take a look.

Here are some basics on whales and dolphins (called cetaceans). They are classified as mammals but live exclusively in the water. What else differentiates them from other mammals? Quite a lot, actually. They can hold their breath for very long periods of time—on average a little less than half an hour but sperm whales have been known to stay under water for up to 90 minutes. The record for a human was set by Peter Colat and was a measly 19 min! The eyes and ears of cetaceans are very different than those of land dwelling mammals. They have to be, due to the difference in environment. The primary reasons for both of these sense organs being designed differently is the immense pressure they must endure and that light and sound travel differently in water. Their skin is different—no hair and lots of fat (blubber). Many also have unbelievable echo location skills (sonar) to find objects in the water and to communicate. There really is no pelvis either, at least not one that would accommodate any sort of mobility aside from aquatic. There are other fairly major differences, but that's enough to show they are tremendously different from what evolutionists will call their land-dwelling cousins. How an animal on land developed these things before it went into the water is fantasy. How it would have developed these things after it went into the water is also fantasy. And, to be clear, there isn't a single fossil from the fossil record that shows any sort of transition from land dwelling mammals to aquatic mammals. None at all. This was confirmed by E.J. Slijper: “We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between ... land animals and the whales.” This was in 1962, but the facts haven't changed much since then.

Let's take a walk down the imaginary path they would like to take you on to get from sea to land and back to sea. The great-great-great-grandfather to the whale is said to be Ambulocetus. Combined with its species name, the translation from Latin is “walking whale that swims.” What a terrific name since the animal has been clearly demonstrated to not be anything like a whale and lived on land. This guy measures about 7 ft in length. The smallest whale known today is 9 ft long and the blue whale, the largest animal to ever grace our planet, can approach 100 ft. When these animals are shown in their fabricated lineage, they are all conveniently made the same size. That seems rather deceptive, doesn't it?

This animal's remains are exceptionally incomplete, missing some of the most important parts to determine any relation whatsoever to whales. Although drawings and models indicate it had a blowhole, there was none. There was no pelvis. That's critical for this discussion because anything on the tail end of the animal will have to be made up in terms of how it's attached and meant to function. However, the tail pieces that were found show that this animal didn't have anything that would allow it to swim like a whale—the bones were too small and had little to no place for muscles to attach. There's also the very robust leg bones and a hoof that indicate the animal was nothing but a land dweller. Using the standards of deep-time and evolution, this fossil find is also dated to be younger than many “modern” whale fossils found. I don't agree with the dates, but they do and this makes this an impossible candidate for a whale ancestor, especially one of the first or oldest in the line. How can such terrible observational skills and such a huge story be fabricated out of so little? How can these findings be published in well respected science journals? Dr. Don Batten answers, “It’s probably an indication of the status of paleontology as a ‘science’ and also the desperate desire of neo-Darwinian evolutionists to find some fossil evidence of an ‘intermediate’ form.” Those seem like fighting words, but in reality, it's appalling that such shoddy work is accepted in the scientific community. Their standards are exceptionally low.

Basilosaurus is another great example of the lengths to which the priests of Darwinism will go to make their belief system appear to be a reality. Its name means “king lizard,” but what is interesting is this guy was a completely aquatic animal. It was far from a transition from land to sea. It had no ability, according to its remains, to walk on land at all. Some paleontologists have said, based on the fossil evidence of the teeth and other parts, that this animal couldn't possibly have been an ancestor to modern whales. It also did not have a blowhole. They did have very small appendages to the rear of their bodies, but they were certainly not for walking on land. They were most likely for reproduction.

Pakicetus is another suggested intermediate from land animal to whale. However, researchers looking at all the available skeletal fragments (which isn't much) have concluded, “All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.” Its ears were wrong to be a whale. Its tail was wrong to be a whale. I don't feel there's a need to delve into that one much further.

Rodhocetus is yet another attempt at land animal to whale transitional organisms. Its discoverer claimed it was on its way to having a whale like tail and front flippers. However, its fossil evidence did not suggest either of these things. There was literally no evidence for a whale tail or flippers of any kind. Eventually, its discoverer, Dr. Gingerich, admitted he no longer believed the animal had either of these distinct whale characteristics, although you will clearly see them in many of its representations in books and charts. This is more evidence for the fraud and deception that goes into evolution as they attempt to brainwash our children.

I've included some conceptual drawings of these creatures with this post. I had a hard time finding one of Rodhocetus that didn't include flippers and a tail for swimming, so I omitted it since there is no evidence of any kind to suggest that. But the others you can plainly see are not whales or, at the very least, are not transitional to whales from land animals. They are either fully a land animal or fully an aquatic animal and have no characteristics that can be called transitional. However, this is the current favorite of evolutionists to show you if they want to support their origins myth. Let's be clear about this; I don't want anyone confused. The fossil record in no way shows any transition from land dwelling mammals to aquatic mammals—there is literally no evidence for this at all. The best evidence they can point to is totally made up and/or completely misrepresented. On the other hand, so we are equally clear, the evidence strongly supports creation in this matter. All species noted are fully formed and appear to be highly adapted to their particular environments. Whales show up in the fossil record with no evidence of more primitive ancestors. Whale evolution is of great interest to evolutionists because it's a great issue for them. But the evidence heavily supports special creation.

Genesis 1:21 tells us all we need to know about the origins of the whale and other great sea creatures.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.