Aside from the problems which have already been highlighted on this forum about
-
heterosexuality and homosexuality being at odds with the evolutionary timeline (ie homoesexuality is on the rise whichI would argue is contrary to natural selection) and
-
explaining rape…this also is opposed to the evolutionary timeline and is an exhibit of a more primitive behaviour in humans rather than where we are at present.
both of the above examples I believe very accurately support the biblical narrative
Here are some published issues concerning whale evolution and these arguments are on the rise not the decline…so i would have to assert that the apparent rebuttals to them from evolutionary science is severely lacking in strength.
BTW, I post existing published works here because these are not my own interpretation…I am not trying to put my own spin on things…the claimed errors from the creationist scientific view are views OTHER people who spend a great deal of time immersing themselves in these areas of science
The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus , and Basilosaurus . One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain.
In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian [Ypresian is 50 to 55 million years ago], but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian [Lutetian is 42 to 50 MYA]. 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 .
In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian. If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus . In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.
“Zimmer acknowledges”, is that there aren’t very many early whale fossils. Does that surprise you? Evolutionists have probably led you to believe that the fossil evidence for whale evolution is, pardon the expression, rock-solid. But there isn’t really that much “hard” evidence. Whale evolution is mostly imaginary, or speculative at best. all they have found is a skull. They don’t have a single Pakicetus rib. They don’t have any Pakicetus vertebrae. No other bones of any kind. Just a skull–and a fragmentary one at that. Why do they think it came from a whale ancestor? Because its teeth look like whale teeth.
the group of fossils from Pakicetus to Protocetus, and then a 4 million year gap in time before Basilosaurus. The time gap isn’t the problem. It’s the geographical gap that makes the “transitional form” argument even less convincing.
Pakicetus gets its name from its discovery in Pakistan. Except for Basilosaurus, all the other supposed links in this evolutionary chain are found in that part of the world. But then, out of the blue, Basilosaurus appears in Louisiana!
Modern whales have different shaped teeth than Basilosaurus. Baleen whales don’t even have teeth at all. And that’s supposed to be proof that both kinds of modern whales evolved from Basilosaurus
Evolutionists have told us that Pakicetus couldn’t even hear under water. But toothed whales (and dolphins, etc. ) have ultrasonic sonar just like another mammal–the bat. Why don’t evolutionists claim that whales evolved from bats? Is it because bat teeth don’t look like whale teeth? Is it any more ridiculous to think that a bat could evolve into a whale than to think that a wolf could? What makes teeth so much more important than ears when trying to figure out which animals had common ancestors?
The answer is that evolutionists just pick whatever characteristic tends to support their case and use it. If the number of vertebrae supports their supposed evolutionary story, then the number of vertebrae is important. If the number of vertebrae doesn’t–then vertebrae aren’t important. It is entirely subjective. That’s why DNA analysis is so appealing. DNA analysis is quantitative. You can count the number of differences in DNA. The problem is, DNA doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. A case in point is the whale, but we will get to that a little later.
Right now we want to emphasize the problem that plagues evolutionists, which is that there isn’t a clue as to how and when toothed whales developed echolocation. Presumably it must have happened very recently, after toothed and toothless whales diverged, which must have been less than 35 million years ago if both evolved from Basilosaurus. Echolocation seems like a very sophisticated adaptation to have evolved in such a short time.
Scientists believe that early whales actually walked the earth. The theory, supported by recent fossil finds in the foothills of the Himalayas, is that about 53.5 million years ago, whales were amphibious. They originated as land mammals, and gradually ventured into the water in search of food. They fed on fresh and saltwater fish. Eventually, they lost their legs and nostrils, and became the creatures we know today.
If true, Himalayacetus completely throws out the evolutionists’ claimed sequence of transitional fossils that show how a land-dwelling mammal (Pakicetus) that occasionally ventured into fresh water turned into a mammal that swims in salt water all the time. If Himalayacetus was swimming in salt water 1 million years before Pakicetus, then Pakicetus and the supposed transitional forms have nothing at all to do with whale evolution. Himalayacetus would be a fully formed, abrupt appearance of a salt water whale, throwing cold (salt) water on the theory of whale evolution.
We should also point out that the fossil is only a lower jaw. It isn’t even a complete skull
For years, evolutionists have claimed that whales evolved from something like a wolf. But when they analyzed the DNA, whale DNA was closer to hippo DNA than wolf DNA
In the October 1, 1998, issue of Nature , J.G.M. Thewissen, a paleontologist at the Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine, and his colleagues announced their discovery of two ancient whale astragali [ankle bones] … “Our whale astragalus doesn’t look like an artiodactyl,” Thewissen observes. “Unfortunately, it also doesn’t look like a mesonychian.”
In an attempt to settle the discrepancy between the traditional view and the DNA data, a study was made of ankle bones of camels, hippos, and whales. (The fact that whales don’t even have feet should not concern you. They have bones that look like ankle bones. If they look like ankle bones, an evolutionist will believe they must be ankle bones. Some “mammal-like reptiles” have jaw bones that look like ear bones, and evolutionists try to use them to figure out how the ear evolved.