The evidence that is claimed to prove Darwinian evolution is often a misrepresentation based on faulty logic. For example, Darwinists claim that the evolution of the whale from a land mammal is one of the best examples of how Darwinian evolution is proven by the fossil record. However, a new fossil has been discovered which shows whales existed before many of their supposed ancestors. The fact that one of Darwinism's best cases of evidence for evolution is wrong indicates how poorly evolution is supported by the empirical evidence, and how claims made by Darwinists are based on flawed logic. While it isn't fair to expect Darwinists to know what fossils will be found in the future, they should know what the existing fossil record proves an what it doesn't prove, and they should be forthright about it when they talk to the public.
An NPR article gives the usual Darwinist explanation of how the fossil evidence demonstrates that whales evolved from land mammals:
Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades. ...You can read the article for the full explanation.
However, a series of fossils that looks like they might be successive intermediates in the evolution from one animal type to another is not proof that the fossils really are a series of intermediates. The fossils might just be from a number of different species of varying similarity but not ancestral. This is shown by a recent discovery discussed at evolutionnews.org of a whale fossil that is older than many of the whale's supposed ancestors.
In an article titled "Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica," the Associated Press reports that paleontologists have found "the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered," which is about 49 million years old.
...
But this new fossil might imply that the amount of time available [for the evolution of whales] was actually less than 5 million years.
Until now, the whale series went something like this:
- Pakicetids (fully terrestrial): ~50 mya
- Ambulocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
- Remingtonocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
- Rodhocetus (a Protocetid, semi-aquatic): 47 mya
- Basilosaurids (fully aquatic): 40 mya
So under the previous timeline, Darwinian biologists didn't have to worry about accounting for the origin of fully aquatic whales until about 40 mya. This new find pushes fully aquatic whales back to 49 mya. Now the timeline looks something like this:
- Pakicetids (fully terrestrial): ~50 mya
- New Fossil Jawbone (fully aquatic whale): 49 mya
- Ambulocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
- Remingtonocetids (semi-aquatic): 49 mya
- Rodhocetus (a Protocetid, semi-aquatic): 47 mya
- Basilosaurids (fully aquatic): 40 mya
In light of this new find, it appears that fully aquatic whales existed at 49 mya -- around the same time that Ambulocetids appear. The fossil record now might jump from fully terrestrial Pakicetids to fully aquatic whales in just a couple million years -- maybe much less than 5 million years.
It isn't fair to expect Darwinists to know what fossils will be found in the future, but they should know what the existing fossil record proves an what it doesn't prove, and they should be forthright about it when they talk to the public. Furthermore, the impossibly short time span that the Darwinist interpretation of the fossils allowed for the evolution of the whale (even before this new fossil was discovered) should have given them a warning that their interpretation was impossibly wrong.
Copyright © 2014 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.
Posts
