Whale Evolution Refuted by Genetics

Sometimes, I reckon I should quit discussing whale evolution. Not because secularists have finally found evidence for this pillar of their faith, but because they cling to their stories despite reason and science. It takes a great deal of credulity to believe such tales, and science is once again on the side of the creationists.

People such as Dawkins say the whale is one of the best examples of evolution are full of hooey. Reason, science, especially genetics show otherwise.
Humpback whale image credit: NOAA.gov via Wikimedia Commons
Touted by the faithful as one of the "best" evidences for their beliefs, if someone rides up the hill and looks down at the big picture, Darwinists are asking us to believe many things. Without evidence. (One time, I linked to material where someone admitted on camera to faking the fossils for museums, and I was attacked by a liar for Darwin!) Purveyors of evoporn are as civil as a burlap bag full of rattlesnakes when caught lying — or even questioned about their alleged facts.

"But Cowboy Bob! Richard Dawkins says —"

Dawkins says a lot of hooey in his cheerleading for atheism and proselytizing of evolutionism. Also, appealing to his "authority" as well as appealing to majority views is fallacious.

As I have indicated many times, the more science and technology develop, the more blind faith it takes to believe in evolution and deny the Creator. In the big picture view, we can see that the story is ridiculous at first glance: life began in the sea, evolved, moved up on land, evolved, then some critter decided the sea is a better place, so whales and things evolved. A thinking person should be questioning where evolutionists have evidence (not just "maybe", "perhaps", "could be", "scientists think", and that sort of bunkum) for the multitudinous changes necessary.

Coming back down from the hill, we can look at the small picture. Using the science of genetics that was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), we see that real science is hostile to evolution. Before getting the bit between your teeth and running for the link, let me tell you about that and what follows. Well, first is last: There is an excellent video about whale evolution, and below that, several links that show why the whole thing is balderdash. You may want to bookmark this page for future reference. As for the link itself, the article is very long — but made to look mighty huge because it includes a passel of references and then appendices made available for people who want to educate themselves further. Ready?
In recent years evolutionists have increasingly promoted the evolution of whales as one of the most convincing examples of macroevolution. Their alleged evidence is a mounting number of fossils that they claim are of transitional creatures in this process. In the debate about this subject, creationists have generally focused upon these same creatures, particularly specific details of their anatomy. In essence, the debate boils down to evolutionists explaining why they believe these creatures are ancestors of whales and creationists explaining why they can’t be. Although this issue merits discussion, focusing too much attention upon it is somewhat myopic, for there is another area of investigation that deserves considerably more attention, which is the process that supposedly created these transitional creatures in the first place.

To read the rest of this extremely useful paper, take a deep breath and swim on over to "Genetics Proves Absurdity of Whale Evolution". This, and the other material, wrecks the idea of whale evolution. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Links for resources:

Comments