of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper
name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich
and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation
in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," even
though they actually only found a skull.
Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with
the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure,
similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region
full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial
creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words,
it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced
to be a "primitive whale" and why is it still presented as
such by evolutionist sources like National Geographic?
The magazine gives the following reply:
What causes scientists
to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination-the
arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a
bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones
within the skull-are absent in other land mammals but a
signature of later Eocene whales.160
In other words, based on some details in its
teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able
to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a
"walking whale." These features, however, are not compelling
evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the
- As National Geographic also indirectly
stated while writing "subtle clues in combination," some of
these features are actually found in terrestrial animals as
in the Reconstructions of National Geographic
believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal.
The skeletal structure on the left, published
in the Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this.
Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (
left) by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure,
however, opted to use a picture of a "swimming"
Pakicetus (left) in order to portray
the animal as a "walking whale" and to impose
that image on its readers. The inconsistencies
in the picture, intended to make Pakicetus
seem more "whale-like," are immediately obvious:
The animal has been portrayed in a "swimming"
position. Its hind legs are shown stretching out
backwards, and an impression of "fins" has been
|| Pakicetus reconstruction
by National Geographic.
Ambulocetus: The animal's rear legs are shown
not with feet that would help it to walk, but
as fins that would assist it to swim. However,
Carroll, who examines the animal's leg bones,
says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully
||The real Ambulocetus
: The legs are real legs, not "fins," and there
are no imaginary webs between its toes such as
National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll,
Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution,
- None of the features in
question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship.
Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships
built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals
are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf
and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a
long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would
picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close
relatives. However, we know that these two different animals,
although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far
from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life.
(In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common
descent.) Pakicetus, which evolutionists declare
to be a "walking whale," was a unique species harboring different
features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate
paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus
should be a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters."161
In his article "The Overselling of Whale Evolution,"
the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity
of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include
land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the
ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:
The reason evolutionists
are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes,
despite the inability to identify any species in the actual
lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have
some similarities. These similarities, however, are not
sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in
light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of
such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups
of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral
The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in
the scenario on whale origins is Ambulocetus natans. It is
actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted
on turning into a whale.
The name Ambulocetus natans comes from
the Latin words ambulare (to walk), cetus
(whale) and natans (swimming), and means "a walking
and swimming whale." It is obvious the animal used to walk
because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even
wide claws on its feet and paws on its hind legs. Apart from
evolutionists' prejudice, however, there is absolutely no
basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived
on land and in water (like an amphibian).
After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus,
the evolutionist plan moves on to so-called sea mammals and
sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus, Rodhocetus,
and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals
that lived in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall
be touching on this matter later.) However, there are considerable
anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus
and Ambulocetus. When we look at the fossils, it
is clear they are not "transitional forms" linking each other:
- The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus
ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from
it. This is typical land-mammal anatomy. In whales, however,
the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no
pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed
to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus,
possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical
whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus,
a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical
- Under the backbone of Basilosaurus
and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of
it. National Geographic claims these to be vestigial
legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones actually
had another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones
functioned as copulary guides and in sperm whales "[act] as
an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia."163
To describe these bones, which actually carry out important
functions, as "vestigial organs" is nothing but Darwinistic
In conclusion, despite evolutionist
propaganda, the fact that there were no transitional forms
between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with
their own particular features has not changed. There is no
evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly
and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify
a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales."164
Although he is an evolutionist,
the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does
not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus
natans, and similar four-legged creatures as "possible
ancestors of the whale," and describes them instead as a completely
Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic,
November 2001, p. 68.
161 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and
Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University
Press, 1998, p.329.
162 Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale
Evolution," Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the
Creation Research Society, May/June 1998.
163 Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales,"
National Geographic, November 2001, p. 73.
164 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and
Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University
Press, 1998, p. 329.
165 G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features
of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from
Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), p. 91.