Whale Fossils Tell No Tales

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, December 7, 2017 10 comments

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.


ashleyhr said...

"Genesis 1:21 tells us all we need to know about the origins of the whale and other great sea creatures." You sound like a hater of science. Oops.

Steve said...

Good day, Ashley. No "oops" at all unless you meant that you made a mistake. Quoting the book of Genesis has no relation to my love (or hate) of science. The funny thing to make exceptionally clear here for you is that when you say "science" you mean "humanism." The creation account of Genesis is contrary to your origins myth, so you despise it. That's fine, but keep in mind that you have absolutely no exclusive rights or privileges when it comes to real science (again, the majority of which was created/founded/molded by creationists) and you certainly don't have a monopoly on the information we discover about the universe.

I would love to hear how you interpret the above quoted statement (the ONLY thing you've commented on in this post which makes evolution look foolish, naive, and dishonest at best) as being anything but a statement fact--the Word tells us where these creatures came from (all of them in the fictional sequence) and that's it. That's not anti-science. It's pro-Bible and perfectly in line with observation. The two are far from the same thing. I firmly believe (and can support fairly well) that the Bible and what we observe in the universe around us are perfectly in harmony. I say this because the One Who fashioned the universe revealed the message in the Bible. There cannot be a conflict. If one allegedly appears, it's nothing more than a misunderstanding on our part.

Thanks for reading.

ashleyhr said...

No. I did NOT mean 'humanism'. If I meant humanism I would say humanism.

Your comment strongly implied that you are against scientific enquiry. "Genesis 1:21 tells us all we need to know about the origins of the whale and other great sea creatures." Science will carry on investigating the past whether you people like it or not.

Steve said...

Haha! Okay. Humor is lost on some. I suppose it was more of a sarcastic comment than a humorous one.

When you say "science" you don't mean unbiased inquiry into our surroundings. You don't mean honest investigation of creation--biology, the earth, chemistry, physics, astronomy and cosmology, or anything like that. You mean made up nonsense that supports humanism's origin's myth. That's a myth, by the way, that has no support from actual science.

My comment not only did not 'strongly imply' that I am against scientific inquiry, it made no such implication on any scale. You read it that way because, well, as we've seen repeatedly, you're heavily biased against anything or anyone that supports the obvious truth--God is real and created the universe and everything in it.

What's interesting is that you actually think scientific inquiry can lead us to where whales come from. I have an eye witness account of where they came from and you mock it. But wait! An eye witness account means we're talking about history, not science. That's weird, right? You've once again managed to be in the dark about what science is capable of.

And since this blog post exposes the absolutely dishonest way evolutionists (notice I didn't say scientists but evolutionists) will go about propping up their false narrative, I'm not sure why you call it science anyway. Be honest, Ashley. Be unbiased. Come on. There is NO evidence that something crawled from the sea onto land. There is NO evidence that this thing became a mammal over time. And there is certainly NO evidence that some of these mammals decided to crawl back into the ocean. Hence, you have nothing to say about science, sir. Nothing at all. Your faith is based on wishful thinking and literally nothing more at all. My faith is based on the evidence. How do you even hope to stand against facts and truth when your belief system is so weak and impotent when it comes to genuine facts and reality?

ashleyhr said...

You call me biased yet it is you who is telling me what I 'really' mean by certain words - words you wish to define. Which is what bigots do. Whereas I simply made a reasonable interpretation of a whole sentence written by you. Those with a dishonest mindset (many fundamentalist Christians) always accuse their critics of 'dishonesty'. Your claims of 'NO evidence' are false. It's all a matter of how evidence is interpreted (that's what most young earth creationists admit is the case).

Steve said...

I call you biased because your actions/words betray you. You are biased and blindingly so.

I note you've resorted to name calling, which means you've lost the discussion altogether.

You did not make a reasonable interpretation but an interpretation heavily biased towards your skewed incoherent worldview.

The irony of you calling me dishonest while you call me a bigot is comical, but sad.

My claims of "NO evidence" are verified and backed with the rest of my writings.

"It's all a matter of how evidence is interpreted "--WHAT??!!?? You've finally come to the right side of fence. Thank you. You claim that young earth creationists admit this, but it's young earth creationists who've insisted on it forever. You are now admitting it which is fantastic. However, we have a serious problem: you want the issues with whale evolution to be about interpretation but interpretation of what? There are no facts supporting the story evolutionists want to tell us. What you call "interpretation" I call story telling. Interpreting the facts cannot under any circumstances lead to the farce you call whale evolution. There are not nearly enough facts to make such claims. I've discussed them in the above blog post if you'd care to take a crack at a few.

ashleyhr said...

Please read my email copied to Jaime at Worldview Warriors.

I have nothing further to say because you hate reasoned discussion and despise anti-creationists.

(Whether you publish or censor this I don't care either way.)

Steve said...

You bet I'll publish it, man. That's great. You're running from the conversation claiming I'm not interested in reasoned discussion! That's rich. I'm waiting for you to reason with me.

I've asked you to explain yourself repeatedly and you can't. I've shown you what I believe and you can't explain why I'm incorrect. I've explained why you are incorrect. If you can't handle the discussion, I'm not sure why you jumped in on it.

Have a Merry Christmas. Blessings to you and your family.

Steve said...

I received your email. You give yourself way too much credit and I'm not even sure why you sent it. I'm not losing anything except, perhaps, for some of what little respect you may get from me. You've gone headlong down the path most atheists end up taking--making no sense, lashing out irrationally, and then projecting that behavior onto the creationist who's taken it to you for your nonsensical beliefs. Can we discuss the blog post here, or do you still need to comment on unrelated things or a single line in the post you took issue with?

Steve said...

...and not sure why I received the second email. If anyone on that email list would be interested in specifically critiquing my blog posts (any of them) I'd be happy to explore it with them. I assume there are few if any recipients who are friendly towards the truth. I would love to help them.

Merry Christmas