At one point in the Origins debate, evolutionists were fond of using the so-called Horse series as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution. The emerging Creationist classification science of baraminology has displaced the Horse series as largely irrelevant to the debate. Creationist scientists now affirm that all horses [including extinct three-toed varieties] all belong to the same created kind [baramin], with the exception of Hyracotherium [which belongs in a separate baramin]. Now, proposed whale evolution has become the favored evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.
Evolutionists reading this should stop for a moment to comprehend the significance of a Biblical created kind or baramin to the Origins argument. Too often, evolutionists already disagree with non-evolutionary paradigms long before they’ve bothered to comprehend their opponent’s arguments. It’s like they suppose that evolution is true, therefore why should they bother to think, right?
The Biblical created kind is not analogous to a species. It is only generally analogous to the family level of taxonomy. Like the term ‘species,’ there is some difficulty in nailing down an exact definition of a baramin, but we can say that in general baramins will be able to interbreed. For example, we know that all dog breeds came from the wolf. It is generally accepted amongst Creationists that all canines represent a distinct baramin. Cats on the other hand… Most Creationists see two separate baramins for felines [big cats and little cats, basically]. All people groups [generally refered to be the erroneous term 'races'] belong to a single baramin, including Cromagnon and Neadertals. We’ve mention the horse series. The concept of a baramin [which literally means "created kind"] come from the Bible. God commanded all living creatures and man to be fruitful and multiply after their kind. So Creationists affirm what evolutionists term ‘microevolution’ [eg. speciation] because it’s observable and consistent with Biblical revelation. We affirm that horizontal changes within a baramin occur, but a dog is still a dog, be it a wolf, dachsund or an English bulldog and was nor will be anything else. We dispute unobservable vertical [phyletic] microbes-to-man macroevolution where one baramin becomes another [viz. dinobird evolution]. Thus we have a presuppositional objection to the idea of whale evolution, just as the evolutionist has a presuppositional bias for the same idea.
Now evolution enforcement organizations won’t bother making a distinction between micro and macro evolution. They’ll simply cliam that observable horizontal variation within created kinds is evidence for never-yet-observed, unobservable verticle microbes-to-man evolution. Worse, they’ll try to claim that evolution is only “change over time” [a term void for vagueness and PURPOSELY misleading], which could also be used to describe aging, decay and all sorts of other things that are most definitely NOT fish-to-philosopher evolution.
In the 1998 pro-evolution publication from the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] called Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, pages 18-19 describe a proposed series of transitional whale fossils that educators are encouraged to give to students as evidence of verical goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo evolution. Most evolutionists are brave enough to be this specific because their claims tend to fall apart under close scrutiny, but here it is:
The proposed whale ancestor here is a mesonychid, a group of hoofed mammals from which evolutionists believe we because of the similarities in teeth. Mesonychids are a group of carnivorous ungulates. Ungulates are hoofed animals, such as equines [horse, zebra, donkey], cattle/bison, rhinoceros, camel, hippopotamus, tapir, goat, pig, sheep, giraffe, okapi, moose, elk, deer, antelope, and gazelle. The NAS is trying to give educators the [erroneous] idea that scientists agree that the mesonychids are the ancestors of whales; however, as we will see, mesonychids have all but been deposed as probable ancestors.
“When I was very young, Basilosaurus was the fossil whale representative, but being that it was already a whale it didn’t solve the problem of whale origins. Newer discoveries of older cetaceans in Asia like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, and Rodhocetus provided a group of transitional types that stunned vertebrate paleontologists, but a major debate loomed over these fossils. While it first appeared that these”walking whales” were closely related to the carnivorous ungulates called mesonychids, genetic analysis, the presence of a “double-pulley” ankle bone, and the distribution of weight across the toes suggested that whales evolved from artiodactyl ancestors, their closest living relatives being hippos.”
So now the mesonychids are out and another group of ungulates [artiodactyls] are in, partly because Pakicetus is now considered one of the first proto-whales. Mesonychids were mainly on the plate because of semi-homologous teeth; Pakicetus’ bid for whale ancestry is based largely upon the inner ear, which displays characteristics only found elsewhere in cetaceans. It should be noted up front that homologous structures have proven to be an inconsistent indicator of evolutionary ancestry. For example, even animals with nearly identical body plans [e.g. - the placental and marsupial mole] are often not considered to have a common ancestor [viz. convergent evolution]. As a point of irony, the humpback whale [which is placental] is said to be more closely related to the placental mole than the homologous marsupial mole! [My thanks to Dr Carl Werner's wonderful resource, Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol. 1 (pg 71) for pointing out this telling factoid!]
Before we continue with Pakicetus, a word on the hippo connection. The Tokyo Institute of Technology claims that DNA evidence conclusively proves the hippopotamus as the whale’s closest living relative. The “Whippo” is a problem for evolutionists on at least two counts:  hippos are plant eaters, not meat eaters; all cetaceans are carnivores, and , as Dr Daryl Domning of Howard University [who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution], notes:
“To a paleontologist, this is nonsense because whales have been around in the fossil record about five times as long as hippos have.”
By evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record, this would be like claiming one’s great-great-great-great-…etc…-great grandchild was one’s ancestor!
Pakicetus is not listed in the NAS propaganda packet, but has been prominently featured in the news and on the PBS “Evolution” series. Dr Phil Gingerich, its discoverer, originally claimed, “In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land animals and later, full-fledged whales” [as quoted in Refuting Evolution 2 by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, 136]. And they came up with a lovely drawing of a seal-like animal frolicking about [at left]; unfortunately, as is so often the case with evo imagineering, the entire thing was based on a partial skull and nothing more. When a somewhat more complete skeleton was found in 2001, rather than being a perfect transition between full-fledged whales and land animals Pakicetus was revealed to be, well, simply land mammals. Worse still, rather than being semi-aquatic, “all post-cranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land animals, and… indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground” [Thewissen, et al, as quoted in Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 137].
I should also include a word about nested heirarchies. As noted before, evolutionists aren’t consistent in using homologous structures as proof of ancestry [eg. convergent evolution]. Furthermore, as Dr John Woodmorappe succinctly points out, such “evolutionary” transitional series can be made of things which were never ancestral to one another, so that “pakicetids are walking whales in the same way that unicycles are primitive trucks.” These proposed evolutionary cladograms reveal one’s presuppositional fealty to evolution but nothing more.
So mesonychids are out, hippos are anachronostically impossible and pakicetids are full-fledged land animals. Next up is Ambulocetus aka the “walking whale.”
Textbooks are misleading, typically showing the web-footed fellow promoted by National Geographic and the NAS’s propaganda packet. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for webbed feet. Furthermore, while some programs have shown Ambulocetus sprawling like a crocodile, it would’ve actually had erect limbs. The NAS article states, “[Mesonychids] gave rise to a species with front forelimbs and powerful hind legs with large feet that were adapted for paddling. This animal, known as Ambulocetus , could have moved between sea and land. Its fossilized vertebrae also show that this animal could move its back in a strong up and down motion, which is the method modern cetaceans use to swim and dive.” So it could swim and walk on land and it has whale-like teeth, but the only reason one could call it a “walking whale” is if you presuppositionally believed it [or such a creature] eventually evolved into a whale.
Ambulocetus also has a slight eye problem, unless one believes it evolved froma creature with eyes on the sides of its head, then changed into Ambulocetus with eyes atop its head and then evolved into something else with eyes back on the sides of its head again.
Next in line is Rodhocetus. Dr. Phil Gingerich [Director of the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan], one of the leading experts on whale evolution and Rodhocetus‘ discoverer, promoted the idea that Rodhocetus had a whale’s tail and flippers. Unfortunately, if you visit the University of Michigan, you’ll find that the portion of the tail that would allow us to determine whether Rodhocetus had a whale’s fluke [or not] is missing! ”Since then,” Gingerich admits, “we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.” [As quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment - Volume 1 by Dr Carl Werner, pg 143]. In other words, in the name of Darwin “scientists have added a whale’s tail to an animal when none has been found, and they have added flippers to this same land animal when none have been found.” [Werner, pg. 219]
Last in line is Basilosaurus. Basilosaurus is drawn the same size as the other critters of the proposed whale sequence in the NAS packet, but he’s whopping huge compared to any of them. Much ado has been made of Basilosaurus’ small rear limbs. Some evolutionists have alleged that these legs are vestigial; for example, the NAS packets states, “this animal still has hind limbs (thought to have been nonfunctional), which have become further reduced in modern whales.” Most scientists admit that they were likely used copulation guides. Vestigial arguments either presume nonfunctionality from current ignorance or [when a function is later discovered] presume reduced functionality from presumed ancestral forms, thus begging the question of both vestigiality and microbes-to-man evolution.
In any case, Basilosaurus has been displaced as an ancestral form, mostly because by evolutionary estimates of time they were contemporaries of modern whales. Thus, they’ve been relegated to a lesser status of not being in the direct line of ancestry to modern whales, both of which allegedly evolved from some common [but ultimately unknown] ancestral form.
As you can see, the evidence simply isn’t on the side of whale evolution. It takes a good dose of credulity to buy into the NAS’ proposed series once their claims are scrutinized. So mesonychids are out, hippos are anachronostically impossible, pakicetids are full-fledged land animals, ambulocetids are only walking whales if you presume they were ancestral to whales in the first place [begging the question], rodhocetids are land animals without imagineered flukes and flippers and basilosaurus is a contemporary of modern whales. This is why I always ask evos to give me specifics. Once you get beyond the generalities of their Just-So Stories, they simply don’t hold water!
-Rev Tony Breeden