All you have is a man made chart lining up animals with different traits. Similar charts can be made with extant animals....Why do you keep saying such foolish things? Of course we can trace it back. You are the one that believes a fable. There is no scientific evidence that supports your beliefs. You can't say the same for evolution. There are literally mountains of scientific evidence for evolution and none for creationism. Perhaps you should learn what scientific evidence is.
Here is a pretty picture for you:
Most of what you see in a museum is fossils arranged in an assumed order.
The question becomes, Do fossils really show the transitions between species.
The Wolf like animal evolving to Whale is just one of those exhibits.
The text-books tell us that the Mesonyx is the *PROBABLE* ancestor of all marine mammals. Through the slow gradual process of evolution it become a Cetacean.
The Mesonyx is largely based upon fossils finds that consist mainly of the skull and teeth. From this limited data they determined him to be a wolf like creature.
The theory has it that the Mesonyx hung out by the waters edge perhaps searching for seafood and eventually ended up as a Pakicetus inachuis.
The fossils of the Pakicetus inachuis consist of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw and the isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. Yet he is considered a walking whale! (no limbs were used in this determination just speculative assumption.)
Quite amazingly the scientist, some how, from these few fragments were able to determine that these two creatures were long lost cousins. They determined that the Mesonyx evolved into the sea creature (not yet a whale) named Pakicetus inachuis. By the way, the fossils for Pakicetus were found among land dwelling animals and not sea creatures where they should have been. It appears he was always a land animal and not on his way to whalehood like were being told by the speculative scientist.
Next the text-books tell us a story about about the Ambulocetus natans. Here we have a walking whale. It's all in the name. Ambulo means walking, cetus means whale and natans means swimming. They say he was like a sea lion with features of a seal or otter. The fossils of the legs show that the Ambulocetus natans had a hoof. Now, what is a whale doing with a hoof? Some how a flipper seems more approporiate. Are the scientist applying a biased approach to this species and it's transition? could be,... usually when a hoof is found the animal is considered a land/walking animal.
With respect to Ambulocetus (walking whale) major conclusions have been made about its mode of walking, and about it's tail structure, and yet the inmportant fibula bones, pelvis, and tails bones were not found. (more speculation) Only one tail vertabra was found and it was 5 meters away from the rest of the skeleton. But instead the researchers assumed a long tail for Ambulocetus. Even more disturbing is the fact that fossils of Ambulocetus were found in strata at or above the stratigraphic levels where whale fossils were found.
The Basilosaurus...he's up for interpretation. Evolutionary scientist like to tell us his small hind legs are vestigal. No longer needed, then we learn that they can be used for grasping during mating.
Never the less, basilosaurus was fully aquatic. When you compare the Basilosaurus skeletons with a whale skeleton there is nothing found that qualifies as an intermediate between the basilosaurus and the whale. The only intermediate is the preconceived notion made by evolutionary scientist that basilosaurus was a transitinal.
Other species such as the Prosqualodon and Aetiocetus need a bit more than skulls to qualify them as transitionals. These are just a few examples of scientific illusion given as evidence by evolutionist. There is more to the whale story, but this should be enough to make my point.
Other problems with there wolf to whale theory is in explaining how certain changes took place. Where did their sonar develope from? Where did the huge sperm whale get his oil chamber that keeps him boyant at different depths. The female whale also has muscles in her mammary glands that enable her to squirt the milk into the babies mouth under pressure. The pressure is so high it would squirt milk 6 ft. high if it were out of water. The snout half way evolved to a blow hole would not be very practicle either.
Most of what you see in a museum is fossils arranged in an assumed order.
The question becomes, Do fossils really show the transitions between species.
The Wolf like animal evolving to Whale is just one of those exhibits.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
