Looking at Fossils of Whales and Other Evidence

Out of millions upon millions of legless fish, the whale was suppose to have legs because it evolved from the mammal species according to evolutionists. In Michigan, there is a huge display that supposedly represents the various transitions of whales.

So let’s take a brief tour of the evidence presented. Pakicetus was discovered in 1983, in Pakistan. It consisted of a few fragments of skull and some jaw bones. In 1983, Science depicted the new discovery as a whale with legs which had web feet, even though the pieces found contained no such additions to their features.

More fragments were found years later, and this time the reconstruction of the animal had no web feet as depicted in the picture above which resembled more like it was part of the possum family than whales.

DNA samples were taken, and the result suggested the hippo (which eats plants) evolved into a meat-eating whale. This presents a problem for evolutionists because their own observational data suggests, the whale came before the hippo in the fossil record. So the DNA evidence and the fossil record do not agree with each other in evolutionary science.

Georgiacetus vogtlensis is another whale which is presumed to have legs, and is considered their best evidence, the latest research states…

“The most complete fossil described in the study is a species called Georgiacetus vogtlensis. Although not new to science, the new fossils provide some very significant new information. In particular, previously unknown bones from the tail show that it lacked a tail fluke. On the other hand, it did have large back feet and Uhen suggests that it used them as hydrofoils. Undulating the body in the hip region was the key factor in the evolution of swimming” Science Daily.

The new information as well as the old information lacks observational evidence.  Originally, the real fossil was found without any appendages such as flippers or legs as one of the display cards at the museum indicates. However when touring Georgia Southern Museum, the guide (which is geared for children) misleads the reader into thinking the original fossil contained the legs like mammals because it withholds that information.

I believe they did that on purpose because it would diminish their hypothesis on how whales evolved. Perhaps use it as just a gap, thinking they will eventually find the evidence needed. Since then they have come up with story telling such as, how this whale evolved in swimming using it’s hips in order to use the special features (legs) that wasn’t found. This is typical evolutionary fraud which is not true science.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Looking at Fossils of Whales and Other Evidence

  1. “In 1983, Science depicted the new discovery as a whale with legs which had web feet, even though the pieces found contained no such additions to their features.”

    You say this as if you are presenting evidence that evolutionists are purposely deceiving the public. It is not uncommon for artists to draw depictions of what they believe certain fossil organisms WOULD HAVE looked like, even if it’s just based on the finding of a skull, an arm bone, etc, and not a complete fossil. Such a drawing does not discount the fact that the shape of its skull was cetacean, and its teeth were between the ancestral and modern states.

    “DNA samples were taken, and the result suggested the hippo (which eats plants) evolved into a meat-eating whale. This presents a problem for evolutionists because their own observational data suggests, the whale came before the hippo in the fossil record. So the DNA evidence and the fossil record do not agree with each other in evolutionary science.”

    I know of no one who claims that whales evolved FROM hippos. Rather, genetic studies have shown that whales and hippos are closely related–the whales evolved from an ancestor to hippos.

    ” Originally, the real fossil was found without any appendages such as flippers or legs as one of the display cards at the museum indicates. However when touring Georgia Southern Museum, the guide (which is geared for children) misleads the reader into thinking the original fossil contained the legs like mammals because it withholds that information.”

    Without seeing it myself, I certainly can’t judge whether it is misleading or not. However, it’s not uncommon for different fossil parts of an organism to be found at different times.

    “This is typical evolutionary fraud which is not true science.”

    I don’t see how you’ve shown that this is fraud or not “true” science. All you’ve done is assume the researchers are lying while almost completely ignoring what the fossils themselves actually say (regardless of when or where they were found). You’ve also neglected to mention other transitional forms in the history of whale evolution.

  2. “I know of no one who claims that whales evolved FROM hippos. Rather, genetic studies have shown that whales and hippos are closely related–the whales evolved from an ancestor to hippos.”

    The research about the link from hippos to whales has been around for awhile…

    I suggest you visit http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E0DC113BF932A0575BC0A96F958260

    Dr. Norihiro Okada, a biologist and Professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology said, “I am 100 percent confident…the most closely related species to whales…is the hippo.” He is the one who conducted the DNA testing and found hippos were the closest match to whales…

  3. Here is a more precise quote for you…

    Dr. Phil Gingerich, Paleontologist, University of Michigan for the video series , Evolution: The Grand Experiment conducted on August 28, 2001.

    “We still have the problem if we are talking about whales evolving from even-toed hoofed mammals (hippos), they are all plant eaters. Whales today are all carnivores.”

  4. Without viewing this myself I don’t know if that is the exact quote, and I can’t find this exact quote online.

    Regardless, look at the University of Nebraska’s website:

    “Digging for fossils in the desert of Pakistan, Philip Gingerich made a series of startling finds. They demonstrate that whales evolved from four-legged mammals much like the ancestor to the modern-day hippo.”

    And from Gingerich’s own web page at the University of Michigan:

    “Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids during our field work in Pakistan in 2000 confirmed their derivation from Artiodactyla (the mammalian order including cows, deer, hippos, etc.), and showed convincingly that whales did not originate from mesonychid condylarths as Van Valen hypothesized (and we had expected).”

    In fact, if you look further at his whale page, you’ll see a constructed phylogeny diagram that clearly shows that he believes whales and hippos are closely related, but NOT that whales evolved FROM hippos.

    It’s actually a really nice, informative site.

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

    Saying that two things are closely related does not imply that one is descended DIRECTLY from the other.

  5. ScienceDaily (Sep. 20, 2001) — ANN ARBOR — Partial skeletons of ancient whales found in Pakistan last year resolve a longstanding controversy over the origin of whales, confirming that the giant sea creatures evolved from early ancestors of sheep, deer and hippopotami and suggesting that hippos may be the closest living relatives of whales.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010920072245.htm

    I believe they are suggesting both…

  6. Also, one more thing, I wrote to Dr. Gingerich personally and asked him…

    Do you still believe that Whales might have evolved from early
    ancestors of hippopotami? And if not, what sort of evidence changed
    your mind? Thanks!

    Remember, the key word here is “evolved”…And he was very kind to reply to my e-mail 3 days ago…

    “Still believe it. More and more skeletons have artiodactyl
    ankles. Philip”

  7. Thebibleistheotherside:

    In your original article, you state: ““DNA samples were taken, and the result suggested the hippo (which eats plants) evolved into a meat-eating whale.”

    This is NOT what the article from Science Daily says nor what Gingerich says in your last comment above. And this is not even what you asked Gingerich in the email. Either you are being deceptive or you truly have no clue what you are talking about.

    I don’t know how many times I can repeat it. Two things can be related through evolution but this does not mean that one is descended directly from the other.

  8. What you asked him is not what you said. You said that whales evolved from hippos. You asked him whether whales evolved from early ancestors of hippos. Two different things, you notice?

    “hippos” not equal to “early ancestors of hippos”.

    Are you not able to see the difference between your two statements?

  9. Evolutionists claim, modern whales descended from either artiodactyls (archaic hippos) or mesonychians (archaic ungulates). Even though I disagree with Dr. Gingerich’s position because whale ankles do not look anything like artiodactyl ankles or mesonychian ankles—or any other known ankles, for that matter.

    So your debating me about the difference between archaic hippos and the modern hippo from data that suggests that don’t know for sure what animal it came from. In other words, they are guessing…

    As I told you before, Biologists in Japan are the main ones who promote the idea of whales evolving from hippos because of the DNA tests they took…They have narrowed it down to the hippo.

  10. “Evolutionists claim, modern whales descended from either artiodactyls (archaic hippos) or mesonychians (archaic ungulates)”

    I’ve spent 3 months researching whale/hippo evolution research articles as a part of an undergraduate project. The evidence that I reviewed had 0% to do with fossils. It had to do with something called “SINEs”. SINEs are a bit similar to the genetic markers used to identify biological parents – except the other way around. While in paternity tests, you use repetetive marks that are unstable to identify a parent, you go the other way around with SINEs. SINE markers cannot be the product of a point-mutation and they’re always ubiquitus to a species…

    Except

    they found 100% identical SINEs both in hippos AND in several species of whales.

    Of course, it COULD be just a coincedence… A coincedence like having endless DNA samples of whale and hippo DNA to be the product of extremely improbable mutative insertions that occurred ONLY in Hippos and Whales but not in any other species (something I can refer you to in Ohno et. al, if you’re interested)
    Of course, all that saying while remembering that SINEs are a few hundred-nucleotide long and are always parts of non-coding DNA which tends to mutate freely because mutations in it don’t produce any change. But, you know how it is. Accidents happen. LOTS of ’em, I guess.

    It’s also possible that hitting someone in the head and him dying are two coincedential events.

  11. Looks like this debate’s been laid to rest…
    Hippos didn’t “become” whales. Much like monkees didn’t become humans.

    We each are related through common ancestors, evolving independently over time.
    Hippos and apes are close LIVING relations to whales and humans, respectively.

    Check out the phylogenic trees…

    Really shouldn’t be that hard to grasp. But, when you’re blinded by confirmation bias, a lot of facts go by the wayside, or get twisted, huh?

  12. Though it may be common for scientists to extrapolate their fossil findings into full body sketches, this is undeniably a misleading tactic to the public. People most often are not made aware about the quantity of the array of bones and fragments from the original discovery, therefore, when viewing the completed art rendering, they assume it is representative of the actual find. Whether this is intentionally misleading or genuine attempts to provide scientifically educated guesses is debatable, however, the former is most likely because there is a concerted effort toward evolution doctrination among the great majority of modern scientists. They refuse to accept the much more probable idea that a divine intelligence was necessary to design all the complex intracacies and functions involved throughout the earth. The following is just one of many related articles on the site ‘The Institute for Creation Research’. View it with an open mind and heart….http://www.icr.org/article/making-whale

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s