Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts with label Whale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whale. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

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
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:

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Whale Genetics Refutes Phylogeny

When Darwinists tell the tale of whale evolution, people should be able to liken it to a just-so story without much effort. But no, naturalism demands stories that resemble, "Life evolved in the sea, some went on land and evolved further, others went back into the sea and became whales". Because evolution.

The fake science used to support whale evolution continues with the circular reasoning of phylogeny and misuse of genetics. Real science refutes these.
The Whale Beached by Esaias van de Velde, 1617
Since they have no actual science to back up their story, evolutionists began blubbering until they came up with the idea of using phylogenetics. However, we already saw that this is based on personal preferences, omitting important information, and circular reasoning (see "Phylogenetics — Based on Worldviews"). Piling up speculations and fake science has become far too common in evolutionism, but hey, give the people what they want, right?

Although phylogeny is easy to dismantle by knowledgeable people, Darwin's cheerleaders attempted to use genetics. It's interesting. Some genes are not the same in genes and cows. Because evolution. Papers were written to solve problems, and may seem to do so on the surface, but still left out information, indicating ignorance of whale physiology. All this wasted effort to deny the truth that whales were created to be whales despite Darwinism.
Whales are claimed to have proved one of the most popular so-called evidences for evolution. Whale evolution is presented in most biology textbooks as absolute fact, often with inaccurate depictions of the supposed transitional forms.
In the secular worldview, the currently accepted whale evolution model is that the hippopotamus is the closest living relatives of whales. But supposed “early” whales have little in common with hippos or living whales.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Whale Genetics and Evolution". You may also be interested in a previous post, "Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales".

Friday, January 17, 2020

Whale of a Miracle or Miracles of Whales?

Naturalists reject the biblical account of Jonah and the great fish out of hand. After all, that is a miracle and there are no miracles because naturalism. Such a view is arbitrary, not logical, and only justifies rebellion against the Creator instead of digging deeper.

While Jonah and the great fish, possibly a whale, is a miraculous event, whales themselves are miracles of creation.
Humpback whale image credit: NOAA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you stop and think about it, there are many "miracles" that apply to whales. (Of course, miracle is used loosely in this context, except for the many miracles involved in the creation itself.) Whales are not the product of evolution, but instead show the intricate work of the Master Engineer.
A skeptic once opined about the so-called problem of miracles, saying that “enlightened” thinkers doubt the Bible’s supernatural events such as “the whale miracle.” But which whale miracle did he reject? Was he thinking of Jonah being swallowed at sea yet living to tell the tale of the “great fish”?1 Some assumptions need examination because there’s more than one whale miracle to consider.
To read the rest, click on "Jonah's Whale Adventure and Everyday Miracles".

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Whale Fossil Frustrates Evolutionists

One of the main ways of classifying whales is by their mouth gear. Toothed whales (porpoises and dolphins are classified with them), and baleen whales. Most of us know what teeth are, but baleen is not a word you hear overmuch when riding the trail. A baleen is a...well, how about if I have NOAA tell you:
Baleen whales were named for the long plates of baleen which hang in a row (like the teeth of a comb) from their upper jaws.  Baleen plates are strong and flexible; they are made of a protein similar to human fingernails.  Baleen plates are broad at the base (gumline) and taper into a fringe which forms a curtain or mat inside the whale's mouth.  Baleen whales strain huge volumes of ocean water through their baleen plates to capture food: tons of krill, other zooplankton, crustaceans, and small fish.
I think they explained it nicely, don't you? Let me add that toothed whales are hunters, baleen whales are filter feeders.

A whale fossil was discovered that disrupts the evolutionary timeline again.
Humpback whale breaching...the big splash is a-coming!
Image credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Advocates of universal common ancestor evolution spin yarns quite frequently, and they have quite a tale about whales. Short form: life supposedly evolved in the sea, a fish flopped up on land and evolved into everything else, but something did an about face back to the sea and evolved into whales. We're supposed to believe this because people in lab coats said so, even though the passel of expected transitional fossils to justify the story are nonexistent.

A whale fossil was found that is out of place according to evolutionary reckoning. (Out-of-places fossils happen quite frequently. Here, they attempt to say it is a baleen with teeth, but different as well.) The fossil doesn't fit the timeline, so evolutionists use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ since there is no evidence to support their story. That happens most of the time. Whales and everything else were created recently, which is an excellent explanation as to why evolutionists are continually frustrated.
According to the evolutionary mantra, whales evolved from a dog-like land creature. And as the whale of a tale goes, over millions of years the size of the evolving creatures grew and finally resulted in the largest animals ever seen on Earth—the baleen whales. At least that’s the way the myth went until a recent toothed (non-filter feeding) whale fossil was found. The creature’s immense size and alleged early evolutionary appearance befuddled the whole story.
Two evolutionists recently stated that Llanocetus denticrenatus, supposedly the second-oldest mysticete (baleen whale) known, lived around 34 million years ago.
To read the rest of the article and see why evolutionists are blubbering, click on "New Whale Fossil Harpoons Evolution". Tomorrow, we'll take a gander at how a modern whale troubles the standard fossilization tale.

Monday, January 8, 2018

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.

Secularists cannot provide a plausible scientific model for whale evolution
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!
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".

Friday, August 4, 2017

The Blue Whale and Evolution

Kind of hard to believe that such a huge critter like the blue whale eats little shrimp-like creatures called krill, and they eat a lot of them every day. The whale does this like a giant scoop, swallowing enough water to fill a swimming pool, then closing their mouths under all that pressure. It blasts out the water through blowholes. Whales are mammals that breathe air, so they come up to the surface for that as well as blowing out the sea water. This made them targets for whalers, who brought them to the brink of extinction in days gone by.

Blue whale puzzles evolutionists, testifies of Creator's work
Credit: NOAA Fisheries / Southwest Fisheries Science Center
James W. Gilpatrick, Jr. and Morgan S. Lynn
Usage does not imply endorsement
According to evolutionary mythology, life went from the sea to land, and mammals like this went back to the sea. The Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ inadvertently reveals that this is strictly guesswork based on evolutionary presuppositions; they do not have evidence for this process. They also have a very loud sound that puzzles scientists, since they can't find the mechanism for vocalization. Don't be expecting to hear it, because it's usually below human range. Going further, there are many specialized mechanisms for the whale's survival (including the one to close its mouth while scooping a watery lunch) that defy explanation through mutations, time, chance, natural selection, and so forth. No, this is yet another example of the Creator's design in action.
What is the largest animal of all time—even larger than the most massive dinosaurs? The answer is the blue whale. These giants average about 70 feet in length, although some were reportedly more than 100 feet long during the whaling era. That’s about the length of three school buses! While some dinosaurs were longer from nose to tail, the blue whale still tops them in sheer bulk. Blues weigh around 200,000 pounds (100 tons), while the largest land mammal today is the African bull elephant, which may weigh eight tons. If the blue whale lived on land, its skeleton would collapse under its weight. But the blue whale’s home is the vast ocean expanse, where the water’s buoyant force supports its bulk.
To finish reading, click on "Blue Whale: The Mammoth of the Sea". You may also like this article on fanciful stories falsely presented as science, "Whale of a Tail Tale".

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Tales of Whale Evolution

As we have seen many times (and further examples are scheduled here), telling stories about evolution takes a great deal of imagination, but precious little actual evidence. When facts are examined, Darwinistas need to backpedal to change the stories — or ignore the evidence and let people continue to believe outdated material.

Stories of whale evolution remain far-fetched and free of actual evidence. "Vestigial" bones and such are not what evolutionists want to believe.
Humpback whale image credit: NOAA.gov
Tales of whale evolution have changed over the years, but the simplified version: we all evolved from sea creatures, then some mammals commenced to thinking they liked it better in the water, so they evolved into whales.

Even worse, some evolutionary sidewinders are telling distinct untruths based on their "here's evolution because we want to see it" paradigm. Vestigial hind legs and a pelvic girdle? Nope, those are used for making little whales. The same falsehood is said about hip bones. Ethics and integrity in science, indeed! There is nothing "vestigial" in whales because our Creator designed them well, with fully functional materials. Evolutionists are taking the wrong approach and spending too much time proclaiming evolution, so they're slow in finding out what's where for what.
National Geographic has a Little Kids First Big Book of… series on different topics. In its Little Kids First Big Book of Animals, pictures show giraffes, camels, bears, and whales. Young readers can see they all look different. Animals that live on land, like bears, have legs. But no one has seen a whale with legs. However, upon closer look, bears and whales do have some of the same traits. They both give birth to live young and nurse their offspring. Some whales also have hair in particular places on their body. These similar traits mean that both bears and whales are mammals. Some land mammals swim in the water a lot. What would happen if one type started to live more in the water than on land? Would its front legs slowly change to flippers like a whale has? Would its back legs gradually disappear? Is it possible that over a long time one kind of land animal could even become a whale?
To read the rest and learn how bad science and dishonesty are used for propaganda purposes, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Are Whales and Evolution Joined at the Hip?"

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Setting an Evolutionist Straight

One of the more amazing and self-refuting things that Darwin's Cheerleaders will do is engage in prejudicial conjecture. That is, they have biased, uninformed opinions that they are willing to share as if they are imparting wisdom upon the unenlightened. Some even have the gall to tell us falsehoods about what we believe and teach, but never mind about that now.

We see an excellent example of that in the article that follows. Dr. Terry Mortonson was giving lectures in the UK. He received an e-mail about how he was "misrepresenting basic science" and that he was wrong on so many things. Even more amazingly, the writer was complaining that Dr. Mortonson was not qualified to talk about his topic, and the writer was unqualified in the area — but Mortonson was still wrong! He provided links from a highly biased and inaccurate evolution propaganda site (faulty appeal to authority) to prove him wrong. All this from someone who did not bother to attend any of the talks! Still, Terry took the time to use logic and science to give the guy something to think about.
I appreciate that you admit that you are really not qualified academically to comment on the subject of my lecture. But one does not have to be an expert to critically evaluate the arguments, if one reads both pro and con arguments by competent representatives of the positions being discussed. Furthermore, since both creation and evolution accounts of origins touch on many disciplines of science and since scientific information has become so massive and scientists have necessarily become so specialized, there is a sense in which no one is qualified to evaluate any arguments. Everyone (evolutionist or creationist) has to trust experts outside their own narrow field of expertise. 
But let me respond to at least some of your objections since you made an effort to write them up.
To read the article in its full context, go to "Fossil Evidence of Whale Evolution?"

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Audio Saturday: Whale Evolution

Evolutionists are good at Making Things Up™ to try and bolster their evolutionary worldview. Vestigial organs, the idea that something is leftover from a creature's evolutionary past, have been largely abandoned by evolutionary scientists. But enthusiastic supporters still see what is not there: "Look! Whales have bumps. Must be leftover legs that are evolving away". No, not really. Besides, if something is being lost, that's the opposite of evolution.

Dr. Jerry Bergman is interviewed on Bob Enyart's "Real Science Radio" show and discusses the failings of whale evolution and their alleged vestigial organs. You can listen or download, either is free, here.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Whale of a Transition Tale


Big deal.

Although paleontologists expected to find transitional forms (and are looking to hang such a label on one of the creatures), they did not label any of the other oceanic life forms as "transitional". In fact, they found a lot of junk as far as evolutionary theorizing is concerned, since several other things were found that interfere with evolutionary conjectures, and excuses must be made to protect "science".

Of course, creationists do not have this problem.
Several fossil whale parts found in a southern California canyon are being called transitional forms in whale evolution.
. . .
What was actually found tells a more convoluted story.  Some 30 partial whale fossils were found in a Laguna Canyon road cut, including four newly-identified species of “toothed baleen whale—a type of whale that scientists thought had gone extinct 5 million years earlier.”
You can fin your way over to read the rest of "California Whale Fossils: Transitional Forms?", here