Isn’t the Whale Transitional Series a Perfect Example of Evolution?

Introduction

The images of hyena-like terrestrial animals, whose feet morph into
webbed feet and then flippers, who gradually lose their hind limbs, grow
larger, develop fins and flukes, and whose nostrils shift from the front of
their heads onto the top of their heads can readily spring to mind. Even
those who have long forgotten their biology classes can recall seeing these
representations in museums, zoos, or aquariums.

How watertight is this transitional series? And what of new genetic
claims that hippos share more common DNA with whales?

But how watertight is this transitional series? And what of new genetic
claims that hippos share more common DNA with whales? Is this a slam
dunk for evolution, proving that one kind of animal can change into another
via natural selection and mutations? It sure is presented that way! But let’s
take a closer look at the “steps” in this transitional series. Let’s examine some
of the problems which are glossed over and the select anatomy which is
touted as being proof of common ancestry.

Pakicetus

One of the first animals encountered in this series is Pakicetus. Initially it was
presumed to be a semi-aquatic mammal based on having triangular teeth
and a bony wall around its ears (which is unlike other terrestrial mammals).
In 2001, an almost complete skeleton was discovered, and it was an entirely
terrestrial animal. But it is still listed as the first whale in most textbooks.

One of the characteristics which is listed as being whale-like (its triangular teeth) has been found in other terrestrial mammals not considered ancestral to whales, like Zhangheotherium quinquecuspidens1 an extinct
symmetrodont2
and Cynogale bennettii,3
a living type of civet. Additionally,
further studies of Pakicetus’ ear (even while proclaiming it a transitional
form) have shown that it was more suited for hearing sounds in the air
rather than in water.4

Ambulocetus

The next animal usually shown in the whale evolution series is Ambulocetus.
Even though it is a quadruped, it is often depicted as semi-aquatic and often
(like a crocodilian) as an ambush predator grabbing animals which venture
near the water for a drink. But even sites promoting Ambulocetus as semiaquatic admit that it could walk on land and are unsure of its aquatic mode
of locomotion:

Ambulocetus also had front limbs ending with flexible wrists
and fingers, and its strong hind limbs had even bigger feet. In
water it may have swum like an otter, or like a dog. Or it may have
walked like modern hippos along the bottom. Its legs could have
supported its full weight, but on land Ambulocetus was probably
clumsy and slow.5

Ambulocetus is listed as whale-like due to supposedly having a similar (to
whales) sigmoid process on the auditory bulla and a reduced zygomatic arch
(cheekbone). But both of these characteristics may have been overstated, and
other researchers have questioned whether these characteristics might not be
unique to Ambulocetus and might be characteristic of other mesonychids.6

Protocetids: Maiacetus, Rodhocetus, and Kutchicetus

Another group often portrayed in this series are the protocetids. One of
these protocetids is Maiacetus inuus (mother whale) whose fossil thus was
named because a baby Maiacetus was found inside the mother’s fossilized
ribcage.

Based on the position of the baby, it appeared that it was going to be
delivered head-first (not tail-first as in whales), suggesting that the Maiacetus might have given birth on land (like modern pinnipeds).7
Additionally,
Maiacetus was a quadruped and, in some fossil specimens which were more
complete, still had hips that were attached to its vertebral column.8

Next on the list are Rodhocetus and Kutchicetus, both of which are now
usually depicted as otter-like and semi-aquatic.9 Cetus and Cetids come from
the Latin for whale by the way.

Rodhocetus was touted as having a fluke (whale tail), and yet four legs.
This initially sounds like a great missing link. However, the University of
Michigan’s display of Rodhocetus (one of the only places to see the fossil in
the world) doesn’t have the end of the tail! There is no typical ball vertebra
to be observed, which is necessary for fluke tails.10

The discoverer of Rodhocetus even made a glaring admission. He said, “I
speculated that it might have had a fluke. . . . I now doubt that Rodhocetus
would have had a fluked tail.”11 Furthermore, the hand and feet fossils of
Rodhocetus were also missing, which causes a problem for interpreting them
as flippers.12 So the essential features that most paleontologists tout as being
whale-like on Rodhocetus are interpretive and have no evidence to back them
up. That’s a big problem.

Though rarely mentioned, and rightly so, Kutchicetus was very similar in
size and anatomy to otters. The primary reason that it is sometimes included
in a whale series is to try to provide a transitional series for swimming motion—undulatory movements. So it isn’t the anatomy that transitionalists are
looking at with this creature (as the skeleton appears to show that it was fully
capable of walking on land13) but instead its method of locomotion. But in
this case, apparently the fossils don’t tell the whole tale, and a heavy dose of
evolutionary interpretation must be added.

Basilosaurus and Durodon

Basilosaurus is often depicted next in the whale evolution series along with
Durudon. Unlike all the previous “early whales” on the list, both Basilosaurus
and Durodon were fully aquatic. Creationists and evolutionists totally agree
here.

Evolutionists are divided though on these basilosaurids and their place
in whale evolution. Evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl stated, “The serpentine
form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that
these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the
modern whales.”14

Dr. Lawrence Barnes has said, “Basilosaurus existed at a time when
baleen-bearing mysticetes are known to have existed and echo-locating
odontocetes are presumed to have existed.”15

Creation scientists also are divided on Basilosaurus and Durodon. Some
think it is possible that the extinct basilosaurids were of the same created
kind as today’s toothed whales, or perhaps they were another created kind
that has become extinct.

Both of the above basilosaurids have greatly reduced hind limbs. These
are mentioned as being functionless and used as proof that as whale ancestors became more aquatic, they lost their hind limbs and evolved fins and
flukes. Modern whales are often described in evolutionary textbooks as
having “vestigial hipbones,” which is often touted as proof of the whale evolution series. But a 2014 article in the journal Evolution showed that there is
a perfectly designed function after all.16

Researcher Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research, commenting on this Evolution article, says, “These results show that male whales
use pelvis bones that were well crafted for anchoring reproductive organs —
not for anchoring limbs. Whale hips are not vestigial.”17

Discussion and Conclusion

In light of how much attention evolutionary textbooks pay to whale evolution . . . it seems uncanny that newer college courses on
the subject . . . strip away the notion that there is a linear
progression.

In light of how much attention evolutionary textbooks pay to whale evolution and its iconic status, it seems uncanny that newer college courses on
the subject go to great pains to strip away the notion that there is a linear
progression of transitional whale ancestors in the fossil record. A course at
the University of Indiana has this warning:

CAUTION: Unfortunately, students may come away from
this lesson with the mistaken conclusion that each of the intermediate whale forms were in the direct (lineal) line of descent
between the land-dwelling tetrapods and fully aquatic whales. IN
REALITY, it is most likely that these “transitional forms” were
only “collateral” (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that
were likely found in their “cousins” that did evolve into modern
whales. This subtle distinction may seem unimportant, but to
assume that fossils generally fit into a lineal (direct) line of descent conveys the erroneous impression of the long-outdated “Ladder of
Evolution” concept. Rather, students should recognize that what
we are seeing are the vestiges of many side branches in a diverse
BRANCHING TREE of evolution.

Furthermore, students should focus more on the mosaic accumulation over time of a series of new features modified (derived)
from ancestral features over time, not the species per se. The
fossil remains collected simply reveal that those respective features existed in those related species at that period of time.18

They even offer a provisional phylogeny diagram19 which shows these “relationships.” Likewise, the University of West Virginia includes several “evolutions” of the whale evolution series on their online course page. 20 However, even in these newer branching tree diagrams, they tend to gloss over
how toothed and baleen whales separated, and what they do show seems
contradictory. It also appears from the UI provisional phylogeny diagram
that modern baleen whales gave rise to modern toothed whales, when all
of the older “cousins” on the evolutionary tree were toothed. Even new
research has shown that toothed suction feeders21 and gap-toothed (but
still having plenty of teeth) “filter” feeders22 were (supposedly) the direct
ancestors of modern baleen whales. This is certainly not the smooth and
neat transitional picture which is painted for the average high school and
college student.

As biologist Richard Sternberg has noted, many changes would have
been necessary to convert a land-mammal into a whale, including:

• Emergence of a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control
• Modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision
• Ability to drink seawater
• Forelimbs transformed into flippers
• Modification of skeletal structure
• Ability to nurse young underwater
• Origin of tail flukes and musculature
• Blubber for temperature insulation23

Most of these are multi-step processes, and ones which would need to be
coordinated in order for the organism to survive and reproduce. However,
another drastic change which is completely overlooked in the secular literature is that the newest hypotheses on whale evolution point to an evolutionary lineage with artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates, with hippos being the
closest living relative), the vast majority of which are herbivores. The only
omnivores (pigs and peccaries) are considered the furthest removed from
whale ancestry.

In addition to having to account for drastic morphological differences
between medium-sized land animals to large marine ones, we are left with
the added problem of why a primarily herbivorous group of animals would
venture to the water in order to eat fish (or other aquatic animals), and why
all of the subsequent descendants would be obligate carnivores. Indeed, the
hypothesized closest living relatives after hippos are the ruminants, all of
which have specialized stomachs for digesting plant matter.

Therefore, a complete redesign of the gastrointestinal tract had to have
occurred before these “early whales” took to the water. This extremely drastic
physiological change is either ignored or just acknowledged as occurring in
secular literature. Alternatively, mention of opportunistic carnivory in some
hippopotamuses is viewed as being potentially evolutionary linkage to the
carnivory seen in whales.24 But there is a vast difference between opportunism and obligate carnivory, and there is also a vast difference between the
digestive system of hippos and whales (especially toothed whales). Hippos
utilize fermentation digestion in the first two stomachs,25 whereas whales
utilize muscular contractions in their first stomach to break down food.26

Another such irreducibly complex set of features (in addition to the
ones listed above) was the coordination among:

[T]he comb-like baleen to filter out food, expandable “ventral groove blubber” with cartilaginous support bars that open like
a Chinese fan, a newly discovered sensory organ, a split jaw that is
loosely connected to the skull, and vibrissae (long stiff hairs) along
the chin to sense prey. The whale’s sensory organ detects pressures
that its lower jaws endure when taking on so much water in their
mouths. Without this key sensor, the animal’s jaw could rip apart.

Arctic and Antarctic oceans supply some of the best feeding
areas for rorqual species. How do these enormous sea creatures
keep from freezing as they engulf hundreds of gallons of cold
ocean water? A countercurrent heat exchange arrangement of
blood vessels throughout their enormous tongues protects their
core body temperature.

What if all these whale feeding features were in place, but the
creature had standard nerve packing? If this were the case, then
when the whale’s mouth ballooned and its tongue extended the
nerve would break, severing the vital pressure signal from that special sensory organ.27

It seems like the whale benefitted from some extraordinary “luck” in the
evolutionary paradigm. All of the necessary components (just to feed) came
together by random processes, and they came at just the right time. And all
of this “guided natural selection” came about with no clear direct lineage
pointing to modern whales, just lots of disconnected side branches.

Unlike the current story of whale evolution, which features lots of “cousins” but no “parents,” the biblical picture is clear. Whales, both toothed and
baleen, were created on day 5 of creation week. They did not evolve from
a land ancestor: they actually predated land animals (by a single day). And
while some whales may have grown larger28 since the Ice Age, they are still
whales.

SourceThis article originally appeared on answersingenesis.org

Views: 6