Whale Evolution vs. The Fossil Record: The Video

_{Jonathan McLatchie

October 25, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

wallstreeter43
I wonder how much money it will take to make that newly found 49 million year whale fossil go away. Shhh let’s not tell anyone that this whale was on the earth at the same time as ambulocetus. It will be our little secret.
Psst...here's a few more little secrets: 1. Scientific interpretations are always provisional and subject to the introduction of new evidence. 2. The new 49MYO specimen doesn't affect all the other evidence for the common descent of cetaceans from terrestrial animals even one iota. All it does is add to our knowledge that there were other side branches in the cetacean tree that existed in the same general time frame. I'm sure since your Bible is perfect and infallible you're not familiar with the concept of science being a self-correcting enterprise. Here's an idea! Maybe you could give us the ID explanation for all the fossil and genetic evidence associated with cetaceans. While you're at it you could also give the ID explanation for why whales and dolphins are occasionally found with atavistic hind limbs. Have at it!GinoB_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Let's not forget the money it costs them at the 1980 Chicago conference of introducing punctuated equilibrium because the evolutionary biologists couldn't extrapolate macro evolution from micro evolution, so they substituted one theory with no evidence to back it up with another. It feels like my eyes are opening up in ways I never imagined a few years back.wallstreeter43_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Ginob yes it must have cost alot of time to pay those evolutionary artists and cartoonists to draw those webbings on ambulocetus. I was a hugeeee fan of the walking with DVD series because I truely believed neo-Darwinian theory to be true to the point that I thought what these biologists were saying was true. I still remember watching in awe as I viewed ambulocetus swimming like a pro with his webbed feet on walking with mammals. I wonder how much money it will take to make that newly found 49 million year whale fossil go away. Shhh let's not tell anyone that this whale was on the earth at the same time as ambulocetus. It will be our little secret . It is deceptions like the example above and others that that drew me away from my theistic evolutionary leanings and lead me to intelligent design. My other fellow Catholics are still stuck there but it's just a matter of time before they switch over also. I hate to be deceived and when I find out about the deception I'll never trust that source again.wallstreeter43_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Nick you meant this Ambulocetus mentioned by Wallstreet in post #2 ???
“”Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists.”" http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm
As well Nick it is funny that you focused on Duane Gish, solely to belittle him, when, by far, the main dish of the video was when Philip Gingerich, a paleontologist and acknowledged world a leading expert in the evolution of whales, who indeed discovered Rodhocetus itself, admitted that the tail and flippers, which were, and are, displayed in textbook and museum drawings all over the country, are completely non-existent http://darwiniana.org/whale1.gif .,, Now Nick, when I see such unrepentant dogmatism from you for promoting whale evolution, with no real evidence to do it with, in the face of such clear evidence that neo-Darwinists are, and have been, severely misleading the public, it makes me think that a particular mammal, named Nick Matzke, severely needs to make his own journey to the water to have his own personal 'life transforming experience' within that water;
Alison Krauss - Down in the River to Pray http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgVL-rBq9Fw
bornagain77_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

bbigej
If the truth is so clearly on your side, why the fierce rhetoric?
Because the non-stop willful dishonesty of the Creationist leadership rubs many in the scientific community the wrong way. It costs real time and real money to respond to this sort of trash-science propaganda, resources that could be much better spent on productive areas like research.GinoB_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

If the truth is so clearly on your side, why the fierce rhetoric? This is why I'm skeptical of the claims of evangelical Darwinists--they obviously are emotionally invested in a scientific theory, and that leads me to question their objectivity. (Of course the same can be said for creationists/ID proponents).bbigej_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

BTW - is the reply I gave to DrBot what you thought I would say?JDH_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Really? A young-earth creationist video from, I suspect, the 1990s, featuring Duane Gish? A video which can't be bothered to point out that Darwin removed his bear/whale hypothesis from the Origin, that can't be bothered to note that the mesonychid hypothesis (that's what the hyena & carnivore-type "ancestors" were about) is decades old and Ambulocetus (and the modern hippo) are universally acknowledged to be closer relatives of the ancestor of whales, although mesonychids are still relatively close? A video that ignores natural selection and pretends that evolution says that the whole thing happened by chance (and, I'm quite sure, is quote-mining Bill Clemmons, a guy in my department, who is very likely talking about the chance process of fossilization, not saying that all of evolution is purely a matter of chance.NickMatzke_UD_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski Exposes a Whale of Tale http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iFnyCjcodY&feature=player_embedded#!buffalo_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

See above reply to DrBotJDH_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

DrBot FOUL!!! You can not say evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. The standard model of evolution demands that evolution be able to account for consciousness. Let's consider the possibilities. 1. Evolution of man occurred with no divine intent, but divine intervention created consciousness. 2. Evolution of man occurred with no divine intent, and the consciousness evolved. I don't think you are saying that number 1 is an acceptable solution to you. I have never read any article by any evolutionist that says so. Show me the article that says - "We believe evolution created animals by random chance - but we admit the evolution of human consciousness shows the unmistakable fingerprints of divine intervention." It does not exist. They all hope that someday, some theory will be able to account for consciousness. They don't realize that a simple look at probability space for the simplest of activities ( such as typing this response ) combined with the finite time of the universe, precludes evolution being able to account for conscious activity. Sorry, evolution as proposed is an all or nothing theory. Either... 1. Everything emerged by chance. Self-Replicating Molecule -> DNA or DNA precursor -> Living Cell -> Multicellular Creatures -> Man and Consciouness -> Man-made structures including buildings, bridges, computers, rockets, and the internet. 2. Or Divine intervention entered in somewhere. The problem for evolutionists is if Divine Intervention entered the process anywhere, it is the most reasonable that Divine intervention was prevalent throughout the whole process. So your statement that evolution is different from consciousness although technically correct is not true in this context. The existence of consciousness falsifies the theory of evolution as an undirected process. IF you really applied some basic thinking and mathematics to the situation, you would realize this is true. But you can't admit that. So you make assertions like the above so you don't have to answer to the obvious.JDH_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

further notes: We now have conclusive evidence that a non-local, beyond space-time mass-energy, cause had a direct hand in 'designing life':
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Moreover, we now have evidence that a non-local, beyond space-time mass-energy, cause is responsible for 'feeding' all life on earth, since Photosynthesis is found to be achieved through 'non-local', beyond space-time mass-energy, quantum entanglement, and since all higher lifeforms on earth are eventually dependent on that photosynthesis to give them energy from their food for survival i.e. Higher life on earth is completely dependent on a 'non-local' cause for the 'energy' in which to life life on this earth:
Non-Local Quantum Entanglement In Photosynthesis - video with notes in description http://vimeo.com/30235178
Verse and music:
Matthew 6:28 "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. Heather Williams – Hallelujah – Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2uM0L3Y1A
bornagain77_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Good job they got noted palaeontologist Duane Gish in to add some much needed gravitas.
I have never seen a walking whale and I have never seen a pig that flies.
That's that then. Evolution binned by logic straight outta DumboChas D_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

You can deceive yourself and hold onto your evolutionary perspective by calling consciousness an “emergent” property.
Evolution is not the same as consciousness. They are two completely different things. We know what evolution is, we don't know what consciousness is.DrBot_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

JDH,
The modern theory of evolution is that life evolved by only “natural” causes. i.e. things which follow directly by necessity from physical law or occur randomly by “stochastic” processes.
Inbetween that statement and your next one:
There exists currently no way to account for a conscious act. You can deceive yourself and hold onto your evolutionary perspective by calling consciousness an “emergent” property.
I think you forgot to put in how those two points are linked.
This is not science, this is just hiding a problem by inventing a new term.
Like FCSI? or CSI? Or SCI? or dFSCI? or dFCSI perhaps?
I wish all people who believe life originated by chance would admit this contradiction, and drop their silly beliefs, but the power of self-deception is very strong.
There's no need to explain the link between the two, unless you really want to. I already know what you are going to say! And the funny thing is that I'm supposed to be the predictable one here, as you have your designer gifted free will.
the power of self-deception is very strong.
Indeed it is, indeed it is.kellyhomes_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

No, rather there is no conscious intent behind it.
This is a really interesting statement Kelly. I wonder, was there a conscious intent behind you writing this. If so, please account for the evolution of your ability to have a conscious intent. Or is that just an illusion. See you have a big problem there. The modern theory of evolution is that life evolved by only "natural" causes. i.e. things which follow directly by necessity from physical law or occur randomly by "stochastic" processes. There exists currently no way to account for a conscious act. You can deceive yourself and hold onto your evolutionary perspective by calling consciousness an "emergent" property. This is not science, this is just hiding a problem by inventing a new term. I wish all people who believe life originated by chance would admit this contradiction, and drop their silly beliefs, but the power of self-deception is very strong.JDH_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

markf you ask;
do you think they appeared fully formed in the ocean one day?
markf, Since it is now completely accepted science that the entire universe suddenly appeared 'out of nowhere' in the Big Bang, then why should it be considered incredible by you that anything within the universe should originate suddenly?. To clearly illustrate this point, let's remember Boltzmann's Brain;
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
markf, before you say that is just Physicists and Mathematicians arguing hypotheticals, and no 'serious' Darwinian scientist believes in such things, Eugene Koonin himself has postulated such 'sudden appearance' of life;
The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life - Eugene V Koonin Conclusion The plausibility of different models for the origin of life on earth directly depends on the adopted cosmological scenario. In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable. Therefore, under this cosmology, an entity as complex as a coupled translation-replication system should be considered a viable breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892545/
Besides it not being scientifically 'impossible' for such sudden appearance of life to happen on earth, the fossil record certainly gives very strong impression that this is exactly what has happened on earth, numerous times: First life:
Life - Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4287513
Cambrian Explosion:
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263 "We do not know why the “Cambrian explosion” occurred when it did, but we have no reason to think that it had to happen then or had to happen at all." - Stephen Jay Gould - More Reflections in Natural History, p. 139 Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness Excerpt: Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx
subsequent life:
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record - Casey Luskin Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution." http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232 Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg
Here are some quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:
"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." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts - Paleontologist "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." - Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." Robert L Carroll - Paleontologist
Music and Verse
Alison Krauss - There Is A Reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs Genesis 1:21 & 25 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.,,,,, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
bornagain77_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

bbigej,
But it is by accident.
No, rather there is no conscious intent behind it.kellyhomes_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

And whales may have not descended from anything modern, but they would have had to come from something similar to modern land mammals.bbigej_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

But it is by accident. Natural selection can only act on whatever random mutations (or whatever) produce.bbigej_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Wow, that was one of the funniest pieces of Creationist propaganda I've seen in some time. Not quite in the same category as Ray Comfort's "Bananas are the Atheist's Worse Nightmare", but close. I particularly liked the part about how modern scientists can't decide which modern animal whales descended from, and the part where the moderator drones on about "the fins and tail had to arise by accident, the blowhole had to move by chance, etc. Keep that positive evidence for ID coming!GinoB_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

kelly did you even watch the video to see what dim dare experts said???bornagain77_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Note that this is all about what descended from what - it is not about ID. So, JonathanM/BA77/wallstreeter43, if you don't think whales were descended from land animals what do you think they were descended from? Or do you think they appeared fully formed in the ocean one day?markf_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

WS43,
Now that we have a whale fossil at 49 million years ago, this kind of puts a cramp on things for evolutionists as far as ambulocetus being a transitional whale .
Well, and? Does not really support ID in any conceivable way shape or form wherever it ends up being placed. BA77
It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of ‘bone homology’, or bone similarity, between different species.
So write a paper! Prove them thair experts to be wrong-uns.kellyhomes_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Dont forget the supposed webbing that darwinist cartoonists drew on ambulocetus to help it look like a champion swimmer. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm ""Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify. The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form. Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists."" Now that we have a whale fossil at 49 million years ago, this kind of puts a cramp on things for evolutionists as far as ambulocetus being a transitional whale . Whats incredible is that we are not being taught this in schools. Is this science?wallstreeter43_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

notes:
Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html
As for 'vestigial legs'; It turns out the leftover 'vestigial legs' are really very functional pelvic bones instead:
An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known. In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus. The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion. http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm
The time for the supposed transition of whales, from some four legged creature, has now been dramatically shortened;
A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011 Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/
It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out:
Investigating Evolution: Homology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18 “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils
Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using 'designed' echolocation to hunt a giant squid:
Sperm whale Vs giant squid - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710
Moreover, identical forms of echolocation show up in widely divergent species from whales. This finding is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective, yet this finding is exactly what we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse optimal designs:
Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010 Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator. http://www.reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011 Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html
This following videos and articles take a honest look at just what Darwinian evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain supposed whale evolution from a scientific point of view:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned: Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive."
bornagain77_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply