have so far examined the evolutionist scenario that marine
mammals evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence
shows no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals
(Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that evolutionists
put at the beginning of the story. So what about the rest
of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a great
difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic
link between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals
known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins. However,
evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that;
"the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated
cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not
possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."169
The evolutionist account of the origin of marine
mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in
the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist
scenario assumes that the two major whale groups, the toothed
whales (Odontoceti) and the baleen whales (Mysticeti),
evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of
the University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new
theory. He stresses that this assumption, based on anatomical
similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries:
among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic
since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different
conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation
of the morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating
toothed whales (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding
baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct
monophyletic groups... On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis
of DNA... and amino acid... sequences contradict this long-accepted
taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the sperm
whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically
highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.170
In short, marine mammals defy the evolutionary
scenarios which they are being forced to fit.
Contrary to the claims of the paleontologist
Hans Thewissen, who assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda
on the origin of marine mammals, we are dealing not with an
evolutionary process backed up by empirical evidence, but
by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed evolutionary family
tree, despite the many contradictions between the two.
What emerges, if the evidence is looked
at more objectively, is that different living groups emerged
independently of each other in the past. This is compelling
empirical evidence for accepting that all of these creatures
MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANIMALS WHICH ARE
CLAIMED TO HAVE DESCENDED FROM ONE ANOTHER
So far, we have seen
that different species emerged on Earth with no evolutionary
"intermediate forms" between them. They appear in
the fossil record with such great differences that
it is impossible to establish any evolutionary connection
When we compare
their skeletal structures, this fact can once again
clearly be seen. Animals which are alleged to be evolutionary
relatives differ enormously. We shall now examine
some examples of these. All the drawings have been
taken from evolutionist sources by experts on vertebrates.
(As also contrasted by Michael Denton in his Evolution:A
Theory in Crisis, 1986)
Two different species of
marine reptiles, and the land animal that
evolutionists claim is their nearest ancestor.
Take note of the great differences between
The marine reptile Mesosaurus, alleged to
have evolved from Hylonomus.
The marine reptile Ichthyosaurus, alleged
to have evolved from Hylonomus.
Hylonomus, the oldest known marine
known bird (Archaeopteryx), a flying
reptile, and a land reptile that evolutionists
claim to have been these creatures' closest
ancestor. The differences between them are
1. Archaeopteryx, the oldest known
2. Dimorphodon, one of the oldest
known flying reptiles, a typical representative
of this group.
3. The land reptile Euparkeria, claimed
by many evolutionist authorities to be the
ancestor of birds and flying reptiles.
known bat, and what evolutionists claim is
its closest ancestor. Note the great difference
between the bat and its so-called ancestor.
1. The skeleton of the oldest known bat (Icaronycteris)
from the Eocene.
shrew, which closely resembles the ancient
insectivores claimed to be the ancestors of
the oldest known marine reptile, and its nearest
terrestrial relative according to evolutionists.
There is no resemblance between the two.
1. The oldest known Plesiosaurus skeleton
of Araeoscelis, a Lower Permian reptile.
An early whale and what
evolutionists claim to be its closest ancestor.
Note that there is no resemblance between
them. Even the best candidate that evolutionists
have found for being the ancestor of whales
has nothing to do with them.
typical example of the oldest known whales,
Zygorhiza kochii, from the Eocene.
2. The ancestors
of the whale are a subject of debate among
evolutionist authorities, but some of them
have decided on Ambulocetus. To the
side is Ambulocetus, a typical tetrapod.
A typical seal skeleton,
and what evolutionists believe to be its nearest
land-dwelling ancestor. Again, there is a
huge difference between the two.
1. Skeleton of modern seal, virtually identical
to the earliest known seals of the Miocene
gregarius, the land-dwelling carnivorous
mammal which evolutionists believe to have
been seals' closest ancestor.
A sea cow, and what evolutionists
call its nearest terrestrial ancestor.
1. Halitherium, an early sea cow
from the Oligocene
which is considered to be the nearest terrestrial
ancestor of the sirenian aquatic mammals which
also include sea cows.
B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution,
Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489.
170 Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecular phylogeny
of cetaceans prompts revision of morphological transformations,"
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10 August 1995,