The Walking Whale
In the first edition of "The Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open. He said:
'"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,"
This idea didn't go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.
The 19th century ridicule to an absurd idea has not been replicated in our time. We are invited to accept the following from Live Science, which is just as absurd an idea as anything proposed by Darwin with relation to bears.
Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.'
Incredibly this updated story is swallowed hook line and sinker. Why and How? Well, indoctrination helps, as does a pliant media who feed off every announcement made by savvy popularist scientists and educators like Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough and Brian Cox, plus a host of others. A lucrative industry has formed around Evolutionary Theory, and where an industry arises money, reputations and media interest follow. Gravy trains cannot be allowed to go off the rails.
Whale evolution is a story that beggars the imagination. Evolution from fish to amphibian to land based mammal then back to the depths of the sea. It requires a series of transitionals involving a root and branch alteration to almost every part of the original body plans of types of fish and mammals. The once organised and perfectly functional written genetic information of these chosen few had to undergo a near total rewrite. Even Rudyard Kipling never got close to this storyline. The Just So Stories for Little Children are a collection of highly fanciful origin stories. They suggest how and why the differences in appearance among animals occurred. Put Darwin's theory in simple language and it gets uncannily close to Kipling's fictitious inventions. Bears opening their mouths wider and wider in order to catch flies until they become whales for instance.
You just tell a story and illustrate it. Or in the case of Darwinism, find a partial fossil and weave a possible history around it and finally get an artist to make it look convincing.
Wikipedia Commons
Look up whale evolution and you will find Pakicetus (seen above) at the start of the whale’s evolutionary journey. If you think it looks like something from the wolf family you could be forgiven. In fact it is the creature tagged as the one which began the evolutionary journey back to the depths of the sea. Because it was discovered in Pakistan is called pakicetus: which means Pakistan whale. To the average person this is just make believe stuff. How can any paleontologist, unless he or she is a practical joker, designate a fossil of a fully functional mammal as that of a proto whale?
The next in line for this treatment is ambulocetus, the Walking Whale seen below, the larger of the two images in the foreground, the smaller is pakicetus.
The completed skeleton of ambulocetus on display is to a degree just guesswork. Only part of the skeleton was found and some of the bones attributed to it were five metres away from the parts which formed the major chunk of the fossil; portions of the skull, the rib cage and forelimbs. You will discover that much worse than this is to follow. The world of make believe really does exist in science, and so does deliberate deception.
The video at the close of this article features a full confession from the discoverer and populariser of arguably the most important of all the proposed fossil intermediaries between land mammals and whales.
Please note that the ambulocetus fossil is near identical to pakithetus, the major difference being how it is depicted. Ambulocetus has had the full marine makeover. Rear legs that could support its body weight comfortably when standing are illustrated as thrown back in the full swimming stroke position. This arrangement of skeletal bones proves nothing other than a desire to illustrate a point: which is that this creature was aquatic.
You could arrange a horse or dog skeleton, or cow or hippo or in the same way and claim them as ancestral to whales. Apart from the fact that these are all living animals and therefore unavailable as missing links. Missing links are more imaginary than real, and the one below is one of the most well established. But to be honest, would you trust any person with a story to tell, whether scientific or not, prepared to use artistic invention in the way it is used here?
Ambulocetus, the illustration.
The actual fossil never had the marine features shown above, fossils only rarely show soft tissue and in this case there were none. The fin like rear legs and the webbing between the claws are sheer inventions. This piece of deceit should be removed from every publication, the error confessed and a promise made that nothing like it will ever be repeated. But that will never happen because without these partial frauds the evolutionary story could not be illustrated. This kind of behaviour which began early on with Piltdown Man has never really ceased. Where evidence is lacking evolutionists are quite prepared to invent it and present it to the public as factual. This is no different to an accountant fixing the books. This need only arises because the actual evidence does not support the theory. There could be a simple reason for this: the theory is false.
Whale evolution is based on a mix of myth, fraud and evidence, but evidence so thin that it is undeserving of the word. The intermediate creatures proposed are drawn from a collection of bones that could be put together to prove almost anything. And this transitional (missing link) ambulocetus is one the best evolutionists have and is promoted with all the assurance of absolute certainty. No argument will ever convince, so I ask that you just look at it the photographic evidence and make your own judgement. All these images are used by evolutionists, they are not creationist inventions.
Evolutionists will state that none of the above are necessarily direct ancestors of the whale, but they are of the types or of the ancestral line that would have provided the necessary intermediates. It is easy to get tired of this constant evasion of the let me show you, here it is, but not really type. They have nothing for sure to show us but are always adamant of the fact of whale evolution.
From PBS / Whale Evolution.
“Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades.”
Stating something as fact proves nothing and some of the “profusion of intermediate fossils” have been shown and they demonstrate nothing but scams and speculation. Evidence proves everything, but as you can see, the evidence is somewhere between “fuzzy” and vanishingly small.
