Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales

One of the strangest Just-So Stories told by Darwin's true believers is that of whale evolution. It was bad enough telling us that rain washed minerals from primordial rocks, life originated, then evolved in the sea, moved to land, and here we are. It becomes more absurd when some critter took the notion that life on land isn't such fun after all and went back to evolving for sea life. That is where whales and their relatives came from. Not hardly! You get tales of whale evolution, but they have no actual scientific or logical basis.

Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry

I'll allow that I oversimplified the evolution story, but we've got things to do, and you get their version of it easily enough. For example, you can go to the museum of Darwinist indoctrination — I mean, natural history — and see the exhibits. Of course, they won't tell you about fraudulent exhibits (see "Faking the Fossil Whales"), nor the duplicity of atheopaths in protecting evolutionism from scrutiny and their admirers (see "Faking the Fossil Whales — Revisited"). The airbrushed version of whale evolution leaves out a prairie schooner full of very important considerations, which if included, might cause people to question evolution and realize that life was created by the Master Engineer. Secularists can't allow that, no siree!


  via GIPHY
I have a couple of items by Brett Miller for your consideration. First:

How would you identify a whale as a whale? Evolutionists think that a small land dwelling creature called pakicetus was a whale. The question is, what is it about the pakicetus that makes them call it a whale? If you saw a pakicetus in a line up with a blue whale, a humpback whale and a dolphin you’d laugh at how simple it was to dismiss it from the group. But Evolutionists insist that it’s a whale.

To read the rest (be sure to come back for the next item), click on "Walking the Whale".

Second, and even more startling:

While studying whale evolution and looking at what type of evidence is presented, I found that no macro evolutionary evidence was presented from a biological process for several critical integrated biological systems. The evidence was mainly from homology and fossil placement and it assumed undocumented and unexamined biological changes throughout millions of years. Evolution was given credit, without scientific analysis of biological processes. Of course, this is typical of evolutionary science.

No mutational evidence was presented, but many things could be attributed to genetic malfunction rather than genetic innovation. For instance: hind legs and pelvis withering away or the esophagus and trachea failing to join together in the embryo stage, or in skull development, or fin development being a mutated outgrowth of blood vessels. The critical timing of these changes to make them work together was not addressed. Most evolutionists must therefore believe by faith, that through fortunate mutations, they arose when they were needed. But whales are not malfunctioning land mammals. How could the biological process of mutation account for the innovative features in whales?

I hope you take the time to read the rest of this thought-provoking article. Just click on "Whales Evolved Not". 



 
>

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!