A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic (Form Harun Yahya)
moby
carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its
readers. It is clear that the magazine is a major source of information in a
great number of important areas, yet it passes this information through an
ideological 'filter' when handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even
twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up
completely imaginary stories.
The ideology in question in National Geographic is Darwinism. In the name of
defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views of
discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example,
there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which was presented by
National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence that birds evolved
from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been 'hand made.'
Even scientists who support the theory criticize the magazine for the blind
propaganda it carries. According Dr. Storrs Olson, the Curator of Birds at
the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, "National
Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic,
unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" (1)
One instance of National Geographic's 'sensational, unsubstantiated and
tabloid' evolutionist propaganda was its 'Evolution of Whales' article
carried in the issue of November, 2001. The article maintained that a string
of fossil discoveries had proved the evolution of whales thesis, and even
quoted paleontologist Hans Thewissen as arguing that whales were one of the
best examples of evolution. The pictures, reconstructions and diagrams
plastered all over the 14-page article were intended to visually reinforce
the same claim in readers' minds.
However, the 'evolution of whales' scenario, so fiercely defended by
National Geographic, was-and is-nothing but a fairy tale, devoid of any
scientific evidence.
The parade of reconstructions on pages 66-69 in National Geographic's
November 2001 issue were meant to sum up the magazine's claim regarding the
origin of whales. A whole string of creatures were lined up one after the
other and described as transitional forms in the evolution of the whale.
According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to the
geological periods they lived in, was as follows:
Pakicetus (50 million years ago), Ambulocetus (49 million years ago),
Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago), Procetus (45 million years ago),
Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago), Durodon (37 million years ago),
Basilosaurus (37 million years ago), Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago).
National Geographic's list continued, but included known categories of
dolphins and whales.
There are very misleading features in this list. Let us consider the most
fundamental of these. According to National Geographic, the first two
creatures in the list, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, were both 'walking
whales,' yet the claim that these two terrestrial creatures were 'whales' is
totally fictitious, even ridiculous.
Let us first consider Pakicetus.
Pakicetus inachus: A Quadrupedal Forced to be the 'Ancestor of the Whale'
Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its
proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his
assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming
that it was a 'primitive whale,' even though they actually only found a
skull.
Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton
turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves.
It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such
terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles. In other words, it
was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a 'primitive whale'
and why is it still presented as such by National Geographic? The magazine
gives the following reply:
What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in
combination-the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone
of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull-are
absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales. (2)
In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, National
Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as
a 'walking whale.' Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the
evolutionist illustrator Carl Buell will reveal the absurdity in terming it
a 'walking whale.'
The features of the details discussed by National Geographic, "the
arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle
ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull" are no evidence
on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale:
First of all, as National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing
"subtle clues in combination", some of these features are actually found in
other terresterial animals as well.
Furthermore, none of the features in question are any evidence of an
evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the
theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities
between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the platypus, beaked
mammals living in Australia, and ducks were extinct, then evolutionists
would happily say that one was the ancestor of the other using the same
logic (starting from the fact that both had beaks). Whereas the platypus is
a mammal, and the duck is a bird, and according to the theory of evolution,
no relationship can be established between them. Pakicetus, which National
Geographic declared to be a 'walking whale,' was a unique species harboring
different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate
paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be
a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters".(3) Such
prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that 'mosaic creatures' of this type
cannot be considered as transitional forms.
In short, describing Pakicetus, which is clearly a land dweller, as 'walking
whale' simply on the structural features in its ear bones and molars, is
nothing but another example of National Geographic's tradition of
'sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.' In his article 'The
Overselling of Whale Evolution,' the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp
reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which
should include land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors
of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:
The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to
archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual
lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities.
These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for
ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature
of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and
even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales. (4)
Ambulocetus natans: A false Whale Whose Claws are Webbed
The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in National Geographic's
imaginary sequence is Ambulocetus natans. This fossil was first brought to
the world's attention in 1984 in an article in Science magazine. It is
actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on 'turning into a
whale.'
The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words 'ambulare' (to walk),
'cetus' (whale) and 'natans' (swimming), and means 'a walking and swimming
whale.' It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like
all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and hooves on its hind
legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice however, there is absolutely no
basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in
water (like an amphibian).
In order to see the border between science and wishful imagination on this
subject, let us have a look at National Geographic's reconstruction of
Ambulocetus. This is how it is portrayed in the magazine:
If you look at it carefully you can easily see the two little visual
manipulations that have been employed to 'turn the land-dwelling Ambulocetus
into a whale:
The animal's rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk,
but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examines the
animal's leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on
land. (5)
In order to present an impression of adaptation for water, webbing has been
drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion
from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to
impossible to find soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on
features beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. That offers
evolutionists a wide-ranging empty space of speculation to use their
propaganda tools.
With the same kind of evolutionists touching up that has been applied to the
Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make any animal look like any other.
You could even take a monkey skeleton, draw fins on its back and webbing
between its fingers and present it as the 'primate ancestor of whales.'
The invalidity of the deception carried out on the basis of the Ambulocetus
fossil can be seen from the drawing below, based on real paleontological
data:
In publishing the picture of the animal's skeleton, National Geographic had
to take a step back from the retouching it had carried out to the
reconstruction picture which made it seem more like a whale. As the skeleton
clearly shows, the animal's feet were designed to carry it on land. There
was no sign of the imaginary webs.
The Myth of the Walking Whale
In fact, there is no evidence that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors
of whales. They are merely described as 'possible ancestors' by
evolutionists keen to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals in the
light of their theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures with the
marine mammals that emerge in the fossil record at a very similar geological
time.
After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the National Geographic plan moves on to
so-called sea mammals and sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus,
Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals that lived
in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall be touching on this matter
later). However, there are considerable anatomical differences between these
and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. No matter how much National Geographic tried
to reduce these to a minimum by slight touches of the brush, when we look at
the fossils it is clear they are not 'transitional forms' linking each
other:
The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and
powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land mammal anatomy.
In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is
no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10
million years after Ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other
words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between
Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.
Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small
bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be vestigal
legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones actually had another
function. In Basilosaurus, these bones 'functioned as copulary guides' and
in sperm whales '[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia.'(6) To
describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, as
'vestigial organs' is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice.
In conclusion, despite all National Geographic's best efforts, the fact that
there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they
both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no
evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in
evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of
mesonychids leading directly to whales." (7)
Other scientists accept that the animals that evolutionist publications such
as National Geographic try to portray as 'walking whales' actually have
nothing to do with true whales, but are a separate living group. Although he
is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze does
not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans and similar
four-legged creatures as 'possible ancestors of the whale,' and describes
them instead as a completely isolated group. (8)
Problems About National Geographic's Superficial Sequences
Visual effects (plans and drawings) play a major role in the imposition of
Darwinism on society. Yet these are sometimes completely unscientific, and
at other are scientific discoveries interpreted in a biased manner. National
Geographic's time scale diagram (pages 64-77) of mammals that become
increasingly more 'whale-like' through time is an example of these deceptive
tools.
We have so far been considering small, but misleading adjustments to the
reconstructions of the animals in the diagram. Alongside this, the dates
ascribed to them by National Geographic 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. (9)
In brief, there are two different views of when the animals that National
Geographic chronologically sets out one after the other really lived. If the
second view is accepted, then Pakicetus 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. National Geographic has totally ignored the problem and has only
used views that correspond to its own thesis. This is a method of
propaganda, not of science.
Tales About Ears and Noses
Any evolutionary scenario between land and sea mammals has to explain the
different ear and nose structures between the two groups. By means of the
showy graphics it used, National Geographic has tried to give the impression
that the question has been resolved. Yet that impression is a false one.
Let us first consider the ear structure. Like us, land mammals trap sounds
in the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the
middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have
no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors in
their lower jaws.
National Geographic claims that the second system evolved from the first.
This is made clear on Page 71 in the diagram headed 'hearing aids.' This
diagram has been drawn in such a way as to give the reader the impression
that hearing organs evolved in stages. However, there is no evolution by
stages here. A look at the text used by National Geographic will suffice to
make this clear:
Pakicetus... This walking whale lacked the fat pad extending to the middle
ear that modern ceteans have, a clue that it had kept terresterial
attributes. In later whales, the jawbone, with the fat pad, adapted to
receive sounds.
We have already seen that Pakicetus was a typical land mammal, and that it
is ridiculous to call it a 'walking whale.' The logic employed by National
Geographic is no less ridiculous: It first describes the land-dwelling
Pakicetus as a 'walking whale' and then says that the animal kept
terresterial attributes. That is like calling the cow a 'walking bat' and
then saying, 'It has no wings, it keeps its terresterial attributes.'
That is one aspect of the matter. The aspect that concerns us here is the
clear difference between Pakicetus and whale ears. After the National
Geographic extract above, we must naturally look to see if there is a
transitional form between the two. After Pakicetus in the family tree comes
Ambulocetus, which evolutionists call a 'walking-swimming whale' but which
was actually a land mammal. National Geographic uses the following words
about Ambulocetus: "Though more aquatic than Pakicetus, Ambulocetus still
heard directly through its ear."
In other words, there is no evolution towards a whale ear in Ambulocetus.
When we come to the third animal in the National Geographic list, we
suddenly meet an enormous change. The above extract continues: Sounds were
transmitted to the middle ears of Basilosaurus as vibrations from the lower
jaw.
In other words, Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a
creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by
vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no transitional form between
Basilosaurus' ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which National
Geographic put before it in its scheme.
When the subject is examined theoretically, it can be seen that in any case
such a transitional form would have no chance of surviving. Any evolution by
stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is
impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantegeous. An animal
that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not
developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage.
The question of how such a 'development' could come about is an insoluble
dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are
mutations and these have never been seen to add to animals' genetic
information. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system
in sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations.
A similar situation applies to National Geographic's account of the 'sliding
nose.' The magazine set out three skulls from Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and a
Grey Whale from our own time above one another and claimed that these
represented an evolutionary process. Whereas the three fossils' nasal
structures, especially those of Rhodocetus and the Grey Whale are so
different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms in the
same series.
Furthermore, the movement of the nostrils to the forehead would require a
'new design' in the anatomy of the animals in question, and believing that
this could happen as the result of mutations is nothing but fantasy.
National Geographic's Lamarckian Tales
Actually, National Geographic's writers and most of the evolutionist
community share a basic superstition about the origin of living things, and
that is the real problem. This superstition is the magical 'natural force'
that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes or
anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting
passages from National Geographic's article 'Evolution of Whales:'
I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been
found here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones
that supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to power the
developing tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the
body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum
drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer
ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly
through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via
special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined
than earlier models and roamed farther from shore. (10)
On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentality says
that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment
they live in, and this need is perceived as an 'evolutionary mechanism.'
According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and needed organs
appear of their own accord!
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do
not shape our organs. Ever since Lamarck's theory of the transfer of
acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other
words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at
evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian
lines. If you object, they will say: 'No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What
we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living
things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and
in this way species evolve.' Yet here lies the critical point: What
evolutionists call 'evolutionary pressure' cannot lead to living things
acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the
two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this
pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for
animals:
Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it
cannot create new ones.
Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the
existing one. No mutation that adds to the genome (and which thus forms a
new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.
If we look at the myth of National Geographic's awkwardly moving whales one
more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging
in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic
writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "Each whale in the sequence was
a little more streamlined than earlier models." How could a morphological
change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In
order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every
"sequence" would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that
mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, those thus mutants would
have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a
great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point
in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations,
and all of the above would have to happen by coincidence and quite
flawlessly.
If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe
someone who says: 'My family enjoy flying. My son underwent a mutation and a
few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will
undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on
for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able
to fly.' Both stories are equally ridiculous.
As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition
that living things' needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing
consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is
interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a
'scientific' cloak. The well-known French biologist Paul Pierre Grassé, the
former president of the French Academy of Sciences and a foremost critic of
Darwinism, has once made it clear that this faith is just daydreaming:
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet
their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more
demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and
thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the
rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.
(11)
Another scenario which the National Geographic is trying to impose, without
too much discussion, concerns the body surface of the animals in question.
Like other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which are accepted as land
mammals, are generally agreed to have had fur-covered bodies. And they are
both shown as covered in thick fur in National Geographic. Yet when we move
on to later animals (true marine mammals), all the fur disappears. The
evolutionist explanation of this is no different from the fantastical
Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above. The truth of the matter is
that all the animals in question were designed in the most appropriate
manner for their environments. It is irrational to try to account for this
design by means of mutation or facile Lamarck-type stories. Like all design
in life, the design in these creatures is evidence for creation.
The Scenario About The Marine Mammals Themselves
We have so far examined the evolutionist scenario that marine mammals
evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence show no relationship
between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that
National Geographic put at the beginning of the story. So what about the
rest of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty
here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic link between Archaeocetea
(archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and
dolphins. National Geographic set the claim out in a very simplified form.
(Pages 156-159) However, many experts think rather differently. The
evolutionary palaeontologist Barbara J. Stahl writes: "The serpentine form
of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these
archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern
whales." (12)
The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge
impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The
classical evolutionist scenario assumes that they two major whale groups,
the toothed whale (Odontoceti) and the baleen whale (Mysticeti), evolved
from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of the University of
Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. He stresses that this
assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular
discoveries:
Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more
problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different
conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the
morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales
(about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are
considered as two distinct monophyletic groups. ...On the other hand,
phylogenetic analysis of DNA ... and amino acid ... sequences contradict
this long-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the
sperm whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically
highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes. (13)
In short, marine mammals defy the evolutionary scenarios which they are
being forced to be a subject for.
Conclusion
Quite contrary to the claims of the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, who
assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the subject of the origin
of marine mammals and is one of National Geographic's most important sources
of information regarding it, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process
backed up by real evidence, but by evidence that they try to make fit in
with the family tree as produced by the theory of evolution, but which do
not actually conform to that tree at all.
What emerges if the evidence is looked at dispassionately is that different
living groups emerged independently of each other at different times in
history. This is scientific proof of the fact that God created all of these
creatures.
Loud evolutionist propaganda about marine mammals, however, resembles the
'horse series' that was once put forward in the same way, but which
evolutionists then admitted was invalid. A number of extinct mammals that
lived at different times were lined up behind one another, and the
evolutionists of the time tried to impose this as 'firm evidence.' Yet the
truth emerged over time, and it was realized that these animals could not be
each others' ancestors, that they had emerged in different periods, and that
they were actually independent extinct species. Niles Eldredge, the
well-known paleontologist at American National History Museum, where the
schemes of horse evolution were exhibited and where they are still kept in a
basement, has this to say about them:
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others,
about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous
example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution
prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal
truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable,
particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may
themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff. (14)
The evolution of whales fairy story, so fiercely defended by National
Geographic, is another of these fantasies of natural history. And like its
predecessors, it too will soon find itself in the waste bin of science."
____________________________________________
(1) Open Letter to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds,
National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution
(2)National Geographic, "Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 68
(3 )Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution,
Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329
(4) Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution", Creation Matters, a
newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998
(5) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution,
Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.333
(6) National Geographic, "Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 73
(7) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution,
Cambridge University Press, 1998, 329
(8) G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of
Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), 91.
(9) Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution", Creation Matters, a
newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998
(10) National Geographic, "Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 69
(11) Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic
Press, 1977, p. 103
(12) B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover
Publications, Inc., 1985, p. 489.
(13) Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans prompts
revision of morphological transformations," Trends in Ecology and Evolution
10 (August 1995): 328-334.
(14) Niles Eldredge, Harper's, February 1984, p. 60
Bobby D. Bryant
<mo...@anet.net.tr> wrote:
> The ideology in question in National Geographic is Darwinism. In the
> name of defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views
> of discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For
> example, there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which
> was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence
> that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been
> 'hand made.'
If you would be so kind as to tell us what page the word "infallible"
appears on, I'll undertake to look it up.
Also, you forgot to mention that it was the wicked, evil, secular,
humanistic, atheistic, liberal, naturalistic *scientists* who detected
the fraud.
(Creationists might get to help detect a fraud now and then, if only they
had any interest in evidence.)
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
p.s. - Somebody let me know, if there's anything in the 500+ lines of
snippage that I should bother reading.
Neogrim
. But it cant be a whale - it does not have ALL the features of whales
- like I said an Early Whale - with transitional features between whales
ancestors and more moden types
. but thats NOT a whale - so your proposition is invalid
- Its a transitional form...
. It CANT be - its NOT A WHALE!
- I'm off to get a steel plate put in my forehead - this brick wall is
starting to hurt....
--
Grim Styles - UK Palaeosomethingorother.
gr...@c4.com and its...@upnorth3.fsnet.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/grim_styles/index.html
------ PalaeoWeb - The Palaeontological Resource Directory -----
--------- http://www.geocities.com/palaeoweb/index.html ---------
--------------------- pala...@yahoo.com ---------------------
Dunk
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <569410ba.01111...@posting.google.com>, "moby"
><mo...@anet.net.tr> wrote:
>
>
>> The ideology in question in National Geographic is Darwinism. In the
>> name of defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views
>> of discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For
>> example, there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which
>> was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence
>> that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been
>> 'hand made.'
>
>If you would be so kind as to tell us what page the word "infallible"
>appears on, I'll undertake to look it up.
>
>Also, you forgot to mention that it was the wicked, evil, secular,
>humanistic, atheistic, liberal, naturalistic *scientists* who detected
>the fraud.
Page number? He doesn't have the right year. Try November 1999 for
the original article, then there were various press releases about the
problem, then in the October 2000 issue there is an article with all
the details on how the mistake occured, and how another trip back to
Liaoning was made, and the local fossil dealer was found, but not the
exact farmer who had started it.
Dunk
cats...@yahoo.com
<its...@upnorth3.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> - Here's an Early Whale.
>
>. But it cant be a whale - it does not have ALL the features of whales
>
>- like I said an Early Whale - with transitional features between whales
>ancestors and more moden types
>
>. but thats NOT a whale - so your proposition is invalid
>
>- Its a transitional form...
>
>. It CANT be - its NOT A WHALE!
>
>- I'm off to get a steel plate put in my forehead - this brick wall is
>starting to hurt....
>
Haven't been around here long, eh? We can get you a discount on one
of those, you know.
---------
J. Pieret
---------
There is no greater hatred in the world
than the hatred of ignorance for knowledge.
- Galileo Galilei -
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
American Liberal
>On 17 Nov 2001 07:59:45 -0500, "Neogrim"
><its...@upnorth3.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> - Here's an Early Whale.
>>
>>. But it cant be a whale - it does not have ALL the features of whales
>>
>>- like I said an Early Whale - with transitional features between whales
>>ancestors and more moden types
>>
>>. but thats NOT a whale - so your proposition is invalid
>>
Discount?
They come free with the deluxe irony meter!
Raymond P. Freeman-Lynde
[snip]
I presume you are an expert anatomist. Otherwise what qualifies YOU to dismiss
out of hand detailed anatomical characteristics that someone who has actually
studied whale and Pakicetus skulls argues does in fact link them.
> First of all, as National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing
> "subtle clues in combination", some of these features are actually found in
> other terresterial animals as well.
>
> Furthermore, none of the features in question are any evidence of an
> evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the
> theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities
> between animals are completely untrustworthy.
Really. Please give us some references illustrating such an absurd statement.
Paleontologists have only anatomy to work with.
> If the platypus, beaked mammals living in Australia, and ducks were extinct,
> then evolutionists
> would happily say that one was the ancestor of the other using the same
> logic (starting from the fact that both had beaks).
Assuming that they ignored all the other skeletal characteristics that
differentiate birds and mammals.
> Whereas the platypus is
> a mammal, and the duck is a bird, and according to the theory of evolution,
> no relationship can be established between them. Pakicetus, which National
> Geographic declared to be a 'walking whale,' was a unique species harboring
> different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate
> paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be
> a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters".(3) Such
> prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that 'mosaic creatures' of this type
> cannot be considered as transitional forms.
References to Mesonychids are moot - new fossils show that Pakicetids are
artiodactyls.
[snip]
Quoting out of context. Eldredge was of course talking about the notion of
horse evolution as a linear series from "Eohippus" to Equus. Horse evolution is
not a ladder, but a bush. And to argue that Eldredge might think that horse
"groups emerged independently of each other at different times in
history. This is scientific proof of the fact that God created all of
these
creatures."
is absurd.
What no references to the most recent papers on whale evolution [Skeletons of
terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, J. G. M.
THEWISSEN, E. M. WILLIAMS, L. J. ROE & S. T. HUSSAIN, Nature 413, 277?281 (20
September 2001); Gingerich et al., 2001 Sep 21. Origin of Whales from Early
Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science
293:2239-2242]? Did you actually read these papers? What qualifies YOU to
disparage the work of Thewissen and Gingerich. Your arrogance astounds me.
Raymond Freeman-Lynde
Associate Professor of Geology
Univeristy of Georgia.
Paul Ruggeri
moby <mo...@anet.net.tr> wrote in message
news:569410ba.01111...@posting.google.com...
> yet it passes this information through an
> ideological 'filter' when handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even
> twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up
> completely imaginary stories.
> it generally presents prejudiced views of
> discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods.
> One instance of National Geographic's 'sensational, unsubstantiated and
> tabloid' evolutionist propaganda was ....
[blather snipped]
I once worked with a guy who also called National Geographic a 'Liberal
Propagandist Rag'.
He was an idiot, too.
mvp54609
> Let us first consider Pakicetus.
> Pakicetus inachus: A Quadrupedal Forced to be the 'Ancestor of the Whale'
>
> Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its
> proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his
> assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming
> that it was a 'primitive whale,' even though they actually only found a
> skull.
>
> Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton
> turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves.
> It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such
> terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles. In other words, it
> was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
>
> So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a 'primitive whale'
> and why is it still presented as such by National Geographic? The magazine
> gives the following reply:
>
> What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in
> combination-the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone
> of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull-are
> absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales. (2)
>
> In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, National
> Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as
> a 'walking whale.' Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the
> evolutionist illustrator Carl Buell will reveal the absurdity in terming it
> a 'walking whale.'
"Even though the animals were land-based, they had extremely large
bones into their ears that are unique to cetaceans, as the family of
whales, dolphins and porpoises are called.""Early Eocene Archaeoceti
of the family Pakicetidae are poorly known postcranially. Pakicetus
has a dense tympanic bulla with a characteristically cetacean sigmoid
process (Gingerich and Russell 1981), but the periotic was firmly
integrated in the basicranium, making directional hearing questionable
(Gingerich et al. 1983). Pakicetus had no enlargement of the
mandibular canal and the incus was intermediate in morphology between
those of modern artiodactyls and cetaceans, suggesting not only that
it could not hear directionally but it could not hear well in water
(Thewissen and Hussain 1993). Pakicetus had cheek teeth retaining
complex morphology and functional occlusion, with larger protocones
but otherwise the same general pattern of cusps and crests as later
protocetids and basilosaurids. Early Eocene pakicetid archaeocetes are
found in river and estuarine deposits in association with land
mammals, but these deposits are peripheral to the Tethys Sea and
pakicetid-bearing deposits are overlain by protocetid-bearing marine
strata. Pakicetids have some, but not all, characteristics of later
protocetid and basilosaurid archaeocetes and they have but few
characteristics of later whales. Relative continuity in time, form,
and place indicates early Eocene pakicetids are
closely related to middle Eocene protocetids, and the derived aquatic
characteristics of pakicetids affirm inclusion in Cetacea (Gingerich
et al. 1983, Thewissen and Hussain 1993, Thewissen 1994). Pakicetus,
the emingtonocetid Remingtonocetus (Kumar and Sahni 1986; Gingerich
et al. 1995a), and ambulocetid Ambulocetus (Thewissen et al. 1994),
all discovered in recent years, have such important primitive and
nonaquatic characteristics that all have forced us to expand our
concept of Cetacea."
http://palaeo-electronica.org/1998_2/ging_uhen/what.htm
See also
http://palaeo-electronica.org/1998_2/ging_uhen/text.pdf
Michael G.
[...]
>Furthermore, none of the features in question are any evidence of an
>evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the
>theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities
>between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the platypus, beaked
>mammals living in Australia, and ducks were extinct, then evolutionists
>would happily say that one was the ancestor of the other using the same
>logic (starting from the fact that both had beaks). Whereas the platypus is
>a mammal, and the duck is a bird, and according to the theory of evolution,
>no relationship can be established between them. Pakicetus, which National
>Geographic declared to be a 'walking whale,' was a unique species harboring
>different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate
>paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be
>a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters".(3) Such
>prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that 'mosaic creatures' of this type
>cannot be considered as transitional forms.
[...]
While I don't have the time to reply to this post in detail, I
couldn't let this go. One of the other reasons that mainstream
scientists think that "no relationship can be established" between the
platypus and the bird is that the platypus' bill is only superficially
similar to the beak of a bird. Unlike a bird's beak or a duck's bill,
the bill of platypus is soft or rubbery. The platypus can also use its
bill to detect electrical currents. The shape appears to be the only
thing they have in common.
In any event, I have never seen a creationist explanation for why
whales would be found with legs at all; modern whales certainly don't
need them.
The other point that I should mention is that Gould specifically
points to these whale fossils as excellent examples of transitional
fossils.
--Michael