Cetaceans (Talk.Origins)

Response to Cetaceans (whales, dolphins)

CreationWiki response:

General
There is insufficient information on Eoconodon and Microclaenodon for an independent analysis.

Dissacus and Microclaenodon are classified as mid-Paleocene, so they would be contemporary and their order in such a list is arbitrary at best.

The skeleton and skull are sufficiently incomplete to make the reconstruction questionable. Dissacus represents #2 on this list and the dark areas in the drawings of the skeleton and skull are the actual bones. The reconstruction looks like a dog.

Dissacus is classified as mid-Paleocene and Hapalodectes is classified as early Eocene. There is no reference to the late-Paleocene leaving a 5 Ma gap.

Hapalodectes and Dissacus are probably the same kind of animal and unrelated. In addition, they know that Hapalodectes is not a whale ancestor, but naturally this ancestor must have existed according to evolution.

Pakicetus is known mainly from its skull and a fragmented skeleton. Talk Origins states: "Same skull features as Hapalodectes", and the skeleton found is also similar to Hapalodectes  so Hapalodectes and Pakicetus seem to be varieties of the same kind of animal.

Ambulocetus natans is based on fragmented evidence. A more complete skeleton has been found, but even it lacks some critical parts, such as the shoulder and upper fore-limb. This makes the whole reconstruction questionable. But as we have seen, evolutionists do not require much in the way of fossil remains to reconstruct an animal favorable to evolution. Since the front legs are incomplete it is likely that Talk Origins' description is more a result of evolutionary assumptions than reality.

The only real similarities that Ambulocetus natans has with whales is nose features that allowed it to swallow underwater, and ear structures that allowed them to hear well underwater. Ambulocetus natans seems to have spent much time both on land and under water. But that does not make it transitional.
 * Reference: Ambulocetus &mdash; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 * Palaeos Vertebrates 520.120 Cetartiodactyla: Cetartiodactyla: Cetacea: Protocetidae

Note this quote from Talk Origins: "Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans." This is an interesting deduction since the fossil found did not have complete hind legs. Yet based on this incomplete skeleton we get a picture of what Rodhocetus looked like. Further, despite claims of evidence of evolution from artioactyls, evolutionists admit "substantial discrepancies remain" such as cranial and dental traits, and a need to find well-preserved early specimens with intact ankles to fit the theory.

It turns out that more recent finds show that Rodhocetus had substantial hind limbs, showing that it walked on land contrary to earlier reconstructions and Talk Origins' claim. This shows that the reconstruction showing a whale-like animal with small limbs was wrong, thereby creating a more substantial gap between Rodhocetus and whales. The idea that the rear appendages are vestigial legs is falsified by the following quote from Talk Origins: "The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position &mdash; probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale." Note that like "modern" whales this feature helps with reproduction and has nothing to do with feet. The designation of the rear appendages as vestigial legs is based purely on the assumption of evolutionary change. Besides, there are no steps between Rodhocetus and these whales, and plenty would be needed to make a case.
 * Reference: Basilosaurus
 * Reference: Cetaceans
 * Reference: Whales in the Making

Once again Prozeuglodon's rear appendages are called vestigial legs. The simple fact is that these structures aid in reproduction; they are not vestigial legs.

Both Eocetus and Prozeuglodon would be contemporaries. The remains of Eocetus do not seem to add up to anywhere near a complete skeleton. Hardly enough to claim as an evolutionary link.
 * Reference: Cetacea.de | Palaeocetologie - Eocetus schweinfurthi
 * Reference: Mark D. Uhen, Cetacean Research

Dorudon were probably a variety of Eocetus.
 * Reference: BBC &mdash; Science and Nature &mdash; Beasts &mdash; Evidence &mdash; Programme 2 &mdash; Dorudon
 * Reference: Mark D. Uhen, Cetacean Research

This is supposed to be evidence for evolution? One of the most critical "links" in this chain&mdash;Ambulocetus&mdash;from land animals to whales are too fragmented to be considered objective evidence. The other&mdash;Rodhocetus&mdash;has been shown to be reconstructed inaccurately in a manner that favors evolution. This is particularly important because the parts that are missing are those most critical to establishing such a link.

1. Toothed whales
There is insufficent information on Agorophius for an independent analysis, but it could be a variety of Dorudon. However, there seems to have been a gap in the Early and mid-Oligocene, since no fossils are mentioned from there, thus there is no link.

Prosqualodon is clearly a variety of dolphin. Since both Prosqualodon and Agorophius are classified as late Oligocene, one cannot objectively be considered ancestral to the other.

Kentriodon is clearly a variety of dolphin. (By the way, where is the early-Miocene?)

2. Baleen (toothless) whales
This is a whale with characteristics of baleen whales but it has teeth. Note that the loose jaw hinge appears suddenly, with no evidence of its gradual development. What we seem to have here is a baleen whale with teeth.

This suggests an interesting possibility. The Bible shows that man lived 10 times as long before the Flood as we do today, and it is likely that this applies to animals as well. Given this, it is possible that originally baleen whales started life with teeth and lost them as they got older but the modern degenerated varieties with their shorter life spans now skip that phase of their life.

Mesocetus was a variety of baleen whale, and it did not have teeth. What we have here is teeth and then no teeth, with no evidence of a gradual loss. This is consistent with the above hypothesis.

Conclusion
As has been typical in this study, the so-called transitions consist of partial skeletons, and types for which there is little information. These are distinct kinds and variations within the created kinds of animals.

Reference: &mdash; Overselling of Whale Evolution