This is a portion of an Origins broadcast, featuring clips from Evolution: The Grand Experiment and an interview with Dr. Carl Werner.
Entire video/book set:
EVOLUTION: THE GRAND EXPERIMENT
thegrandexperiment.com/
Video interview:
Origins - Evolution - The Grand Experiment - Part 1 with Dr. Carl Werner
youtube.com/watch?v=XIqto00mf3w
Origins - Evolution - The Grand Experiment - Part 2 with Dr. Carl Werner
youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9CTrvEeE0
Origins - Evolution - The Grand Experiment - Part 3 with Dr. Carl Werner
youtube.com/watch?v=ZNO3_SorHDM
Not at all like a whale - video
creation.com/creation-magazine-live-episode-57
creation.com/creation-magazine-live-episode-57
Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales.
ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm
Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010
evolutionnews.org/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html
Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify.
The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form.
Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists.
trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm
As for 'vestigial legs'; It turns out the 'vestigial legs' are really very functional pelvic bones instead:
An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin
Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.
The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion.
darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm
The time for the supposed transition of whales, from some four legged creature, has now been dramatically shortened;
A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011
Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,,
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/
Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2011
Excerpt: In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors.
evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html
Whales: New "Icon of Evolution" or a Challenge to Darwinian Theory? - podcast
intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-12-02T13_36_08-08_00
"Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin
evolutionnews.org/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more
Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned:
Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive."
arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have
It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out:
Investigating Evolution: Homology - video
youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils
Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using 'designed' echolocation to hunt a giant squid:
Sperm whale Vs giant squid - video
youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710
Moreover, identical forms of echolocation show up in widely divergent species from whales. This finding is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective, yet this finding is exactly what we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse optimal designs:
Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010
Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator.
reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty
Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011
Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level.
evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html
Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design - February 2011 - Podcast
intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-21T10_59_16-08_00
The bionic antinomy of Darwinism
Excerpt: For example, the bats have an echometer emitting 100 kHz supersonic pulses at a frequency of 30 times per second. These waves are reflected and distorted by the surrounding objects and their echoes are intercepted and elaborated by the bat to catch its prey and also just to get around. The signal processing of these echoes is so accurate to allow bats to fly, twisting, looping and zig-zagging through the air, into a completely dark room intersected by tens pianoforte strings without grazing them. The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers.
uncommondescent.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/
A comparison of signal detection between an echolocating dolphin and an optimal receiver - 1989
Excerpt: The results of experiment II indicated that the dolphin required approximately 7.4 dB higherE e /N than an optimal detector to detect the phantom target.
profiles.wizfolio.com/loisdankiewicz/publications/2260/27414/
A false killer whale adjusts its hearing when it echolocates.- 2008
Excerpt: the animal has an active 'automatic gain control' mechanism in her hearing based on both forward masking that balances outgoing pulse intensity and time between pulse and echo, and active hearing control.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18490386
This following videos and articles take a honest look at just what Darwinian evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain supposed whale evolution from a scientific point of view:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video
metacafe.com/watch/4165203
“That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent."
(Masami Hasegawa, Jun Adachi, Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Novel Phylogeny of Whales Supported by Total Molecular Evidence," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 44, pgs. S117-S120)
What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - video
youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM
How to Become a Whale - David Klinghoffer - August 2011
evolutionnews.org/2011/08/post_28049671.html
"Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin
evolutionnews.org/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more
Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned:
Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive."
arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have
When is a Whale a Whale? by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, while maintaining that Archeoceti occupy an intermediate position between terrestrial mammals and typical Cetacea, states that the problem of the phylogenedc relationship between Archeoceti and modern Cetacea is a highly controversial issue. He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean.[9] If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans).
A search of texts on mammals for fossils of creatures resembling Ambulocetus failed to produce one closely resembling Ambulocetus, although Allodesmus, an extinct aquatic carnivore believed to have preceded walruses, bears some resemblance.[10]
Perhaps we should not be surprised that Thewissen and coworkers would dare to call Ambulocetus a "whale" when we note the fact that Robert Carroll, in his voluminous tome, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, made the incredible statement that "Despite the extreme difference in habitue, it is logical from the standpoint of phylogenetic classification to include the mesonychids among the Cetaceans."[11] Incredible, indeed! The mesonychids were wolf-like, hoofed carnivores that, as far as anyone knows, never went near the water. Carroll states, "Mesonyx was the size and proportions of a wolf and, perhaps, had a similar way of life."[12] Carroll and others believe that the skull shape and the dentition of what they think were early whales resembled mesonychids. They therefore have adopted the mesonychids as the land mammal from which whales evolved. Now Carroll suggests we place the mesonychids in the Cetacea. Presto! These wolf-like animals are now whales! Who says evolutionists have no transitional forms?
Conclusion
What may we conclude from all of this? Most evolutionists, certain that whales and other aquatic mammals must have evolved from land mammals, would stretch their imagination to whatever extent necessary to declare that Ambulocetus, a creature with powerful forelimbs and hind limbs (the latter bearing hooves), unable to dive to any significant depth or to hear directionally under water, was nevertheless, a whale. On the other hand, not biased by any such presupposition, we conclude that, first of all, it is ridiculous to call the creature a whale, and secondly, that it was certainly not an intermediate between a land mammal and a whale, but was more likely a near-shore carnivore whose exact behavior and habitue is as yet a topic only for speculation.
When we consider these profound proclamations by evolutionists we should bear in mind that they were equally convinced when they suggested human evolutionary ancestors, such as Ramapithecus, now recognized to be essentially the same as a modern orangutan; Piltdown Man, a fraud that was nothing more than the jawbone of a modern ape and a human skull; Nebraska Man, that turned out to be a pig's tooth; and Neanderthal Man, a supposed primitive subhuman that is now recognized by most paleoanthropologists as fully human, Homo sapiens, who suffered from pathological conditions, such as arthritis and rickets, a vitamin D deficiency. If evolutionists can get an evolutionary ancestor of man from nothing more than a pig's tooth, it should be no challenge to get a whale from a creature that walked on land.
icr.org/article/when-whale-whale/
Robert Carroll, a highly regarded evolutionist and an expert in vertebrate paleontology, admits as follows: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales." (Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 329.) (OF Note; a few sentences later he directly contradicts this honest statement)
further notes:
Cambrian Explosion thru Refutation Of Human Evolution
lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2010/08/corrected-link.html