News

Making up missing links with plaster and body parts from other creatures

Spread the love

If you can’t find a missing link, just make one up with plaster and body parts and put it in museums. I don’t think the deception was deliberate in as much as it was self-deception and they just added plaster to conform a land fossil to look like a whale.

The two scientists who found the lion’s share of walking whale fossils essentially created the best fossil proof of evolution using plaster models and drawings and supplied these to museums and science magazines. In each case, they started with incomplete fossils of a land mammal. Whenever a fossil part was missing, they substituted a whale body part (blowholes, fins and flukes) on the skeletal model or skull that they distributed to museums. When these same scientists later found fossils negating their original interpretations, they did not recall the plaster models or drawings. Now museums are full of skulls and skeletons of ‘walking whales’ that are simply false.” Dr. Werner went on to say, “I suspect some curators are not aware of the significance of these substitutions nor are they aware of the updated fossils. Museums should now remove all of the altered skeletons, skulls and drawings since the most important parts of these ‘walking whales’ are admittedly made up. Museums will also have to delete these images from their websites as they are misleading the public.” –

The Grand Experiment

Jerry Coyne uses whale evolution as an argument for “Why evolution is true”. Even granting these possibly fabricated missing links were real, Jonathan Wells with help of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg had this to say Whale Evolution

In the case of the Durrett and Schmidt (2008) paper, evolutionary biologist Richard von Sternberg has applied the equations employed in that paper to whale evolution. The evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) may be compressed into a period of less than 15 million years. Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tale has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

See also the whale section of Wells’ essay Why Darwinism is False.

HT JoeCoder
r/creation

27 Replies to “Making up missing links with plaster and body parts from other creatures

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85kThFEDi8o

    Lucy – The Powersaw Incident – a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    better video:

    Lucy she’s no lady – powersaw incident at the 32:08 mark of video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    only lameo’s fake evidence in a museum.
    Still this YEC creationist insists water mammals are land creatures that took to the seas after coming off the ark .
    marine mammals are persuasive as evolved creatures because they did CHANGE indeed.
    They breath air, milk their babes, and are clearly animated like ground creatures.
    Evolutionists wrongly see them as a common thing in nature of important changes.
    They see this truth abd turn it into a proof for evolution by a false line of logic.
    Marine mammals are special cases of change.
    ID /YEC are wrong to say marine mammals did not once walk the land.
    Seals are just bears and whales and manatees this or that.
    creationism must not deny biological change. WE see it in people and so animals.
    the whales didn’t evolve but ther must be innate mechanisms in their bodies that switched over quite quickly. no intermediates but yes to variety’s in different stages.
    One can see this today in seals.

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    What sort of moron crows while suppressing dissent?

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    Argument from Innuendo

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Argument from Innuendo.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    Argument by Innuendo.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    Argument by Innuendo.

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    Argument by Innuendo.

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    Argument by Innuendo

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    Argument by Innuendo.

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    Argument by Innuendo!

  13. 13
    Mung says:

    Argument by Innuendo.

  14. 14
    Mung says:

    Nice job Sal!

    Which of those posts are mine and which are yours pretending to be mine?

  15. 15
    scordova says:

    They’re all yours Mung just like you wrote them. Can’t you recognize you own writing?

    I just held them up in a queue because you were obviously intent on spamming my discussions like you always do.

    There were 42 of your comments held up. You’re getting kind of creepy.

  16. 16
    Barb says:

    Robert writes,

    Still this YEC creationist insists water mammals are land creatures that took to the seas after coming off the ark.

    Okay. How did they get from land (presumably Mount Ararat or thereabouts) to the sea? And when?

    marine mammals are persuasive as evolved creatures because they did CHANGE indeed.

    Change from what? Where are the transitional fossils? In museums?…oh, wait.

    They breath air, milk their babes, and are clearly animated like ground creatures.

    Yes. Does this mean humans also evolved? Why did marine mammals evolve but not humans?

    Evolutionists wrongly see them as a common thing in nature of important changes.

    I have no idea what this sentence means, so have a “LOLWUT?” on the house.

    They see this truth abd turn it into a proof for evolution by a false line of logic.

    Speaking of false lines of logic…

    Marine mammals are special cases of change.

    Prove it.

    ID /YEC are wrong to say marine mammals did not once walk the land.

    Because we have no evidence that they did. Genesis speaks of the creation of “sea monsters.” Could that include whales? Why or why not?

    Seals are just bears and whales and manatees this or that.

    No. NO. NO.
    Seals are seals, bears are bears, whales are whales and manatees are manatees. They cannot and do not interchangeably reproduce. Bears do not live in saltwater, where whales and seals do. Manatees do not live on land where bears do. They are related in that they are all classified as mammals. That’s it.

    creationism must not deny biological change. WE see it in people and so animals.

    So, did we evolve or were we created?

    the whales didn’t evolve but ther must be innate mechanisms in their bodies that switched over quite quickly. no intermediates but yes to variety’s in different stages.

    Give me an example of an intermediate stage of whale evolution.

    One can see this today in seals.

    Seals are seals, NOT whales.

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    Actually, Darwin thought that whales came from bears because bears are big, and whales are big, and some bears swim in the ocean, and their skulls look fairly similar when viewed from at least a mile away. 😉

    -Q

  18. 18
    mahuna says:

    I think in one of his lectures on video Dr. Berlinski says that he stopped when he hit 50,000?! changes needed to turn a bear into a whale. It’s simply unbelievable.

    And then there is the problem that they’ve found the jawbone of a toothed whale (just like the modern ones) in Antarctica. The fossil is dated to 35-40 million BC. So almost immediately after whales first appeared, there were fully modern ones. This is not the gradualism the Darwinians claim as a mechanism. And how exactly do we get baleen whales? If it’s more advantageous to suck krill instead of eating fish and squid, why didn’t all of the whales evolve into krill suckers?

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    If it’s more advantageous to suck krill instead of eating fish and squid, why didn’t all of the whales evolve into krill suckers?

    They just sorta drifted into it.

    -Q

  20. 20
    franklin says:

    If it’s more advantageous to suck krill instead of eating fish and squid, why didn’t all of the whales evolve into krill suckers?

    To answer this question you do need to have some understanding of the ecological concept of ‘niche’ and how it relates to the radiation/adaptation of organisms.

    For example why so some cichlids feed just on the scales of other fish rather than just eating the fish? Why are some fish herbivores and not fish eaters? Why does a species of cichlid eat the eyes of other fish? Why does the cookie cutter shark exist when it seems more advantageous to eat pinnipeds?

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, comments

    “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”
    Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids
    Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14

    also of note:

    African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
    “The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).—-(surprising implication of the study?)—- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages”
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=16846905

    Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision – Oct. 2005
    Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....072648.htm

  22. 22
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    How shall we determine the origin of marine mammals.
    They breath, milk, and play like land creatures. they are not like all the other creatures of the sea.
    I say this is because they cam from the land.
    They adapted to the empty seas after the flood. Lots of room.
    Mechanisms are there for people as we look so different though from Noah and his ife so there can be room to have massive adaptation.
    It all fits. No evolution by selection on mutation and so no internedyates thereby.
    yet there must be variety’s in whales now extinct .
    seal legs are a example of diversity from a original kind.
    big subject.

  23. 23
    Barb says:

    Robert responds,

    How shall we determine the origin of marine mammals.

    We could read books.

    They breath, milk, and play like land creatures. they are not like all the other creatures of the sea.

    That is because they are mammals. Mammals can live either in the sea or on land. Why is this hard to understand?

    I say this is because they cam from the land.

    I don’t care what you say. PROVE IT. Use evidence, facts, logic.

    They adapted to the empty seas after the flood. Lots of room.

    Adapted how? How did a bear or manatee get to be a whale? Show your work.

    Mechanisms are there for people as we look so different though from Noah and his ife so there can be room to have massive adaptation.

    What mechanisms? Just because there can be room for massive adaptation does not mean that there was massive adaptation. You’re speculating without any facts to back you up. Which is pointless.

    It all fits. No evolution by selection on mutation and so no internedyates thereby.

    No intermediates? So the bears just waded into the ocean, claws and feet became flippers, and they began swimming?
    SERIOUSLY??

    yet there must be variety’s in whales now extinct .

    There are a variety of whales today: humpbacks, sperm, orcas, right whales, beluga whales, blue whales, etc. This does not mean—nor does it prove—they they ever were anything else but whales.

    seal legs are a example of diversity from a original kind.
    big subject.

    Seals don’t have legs, they have flippers.

  24. 24
    johnp says:

    Barb, it’s no use trying to reason with Mr. Byers using logic and common sense. He refuses to trade in that economy. With him bats are rats, people are apes, and whales are bears, and that’s the way it is because “This YEc think it hapend that wae.” Find a better hill to die on. Take it from someone with personal experience 🙂

  25. 25
    Robert Byers says:

    This thread will be leaving the room soon but the evidence for marine mammals being land creatures is the reason one calls them mammals.
    They were like the rest walking on land and then adapted to the seas.
    My example of people proves there are such mechanisms. So its proved there could be, and was, a mechanism for changing these critters into sea dwellers.
    This is good investigation with the data.

  26. 26
    johnp says:

    Thanks Robert. You made my point much better than I did.

  27. 27
    Mung says:

    Lest I be accused of “spamming” Salvador’s thread, I acknowledge that this is a re-post of earlier posted material which has “mysteriously” disappeared from the thread:

    Salvador:

    I just held them up in a queue because you were obviously intent on spamming my discussions like you always do.

    You see Salvador, this is another example on your part of why I assert you are dishonest.

    You didn’t “hold them up in a queue because” I was “intent on spamming your discussions like I always do.”

    The fact of the matter is that I posted, and you deleted my post. So I posted again. And you deleted it again. etc. And then you took the posts that you had deleted and posted them all at once.

    Each and every time I posted the “Argument by Innuendo” accusation it was the sole instance in the thread of that text at that time.

    And I don’t spam your threads, much less ALWAYS spam them.

    You also make it appear as if my post @4 was my first post in the thread, when in fact it was a reference to your earlier deletions.

    If you had left my original post alone, which merely asserted that you were engaged in Argument by Innuendo, I would have posted a single time. I have no reason nor desire to SPAM your threads.

    ADDED MATERIAL:

    Salvador, did you delete my response to your claim @15, and if so, why? If you didn’t delete it, who did?

Leave a Reply