The Origin of Flight According to Evolutionists Birds and Dinosaur The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales The Design of Feathers
The Archaeopteryx Misconception The Teeth and Claws of Archaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils Archaeoraptor: The Dino-Bird Hoax
The Origin of Insects The Origin of Mammals The Myth of Horse Evolution

 The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself

We 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:

Evolutionary relationships 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 were created.


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 between them.

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 them.

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 reptile.

The oldest 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 very great.

1. Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird.

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.

The oldest 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.


2.A modern shrew, which closely resembles the ancient insectivores claimed to be the ancestors of bats.

Plesiosaurus, 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


2. 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.

1.A 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 era.

2. Cynodictis 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

2. Hyrax, which is considered to be the nearest terrestrial ancestor of the sirenian aquatic mammals which also include sea cows.

169 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, pp. 328-334.