Whales are the best evidence? I found this list of problems with that assessment:
* RSR's List of Whale Evolution Problems: In the tradition of the beloved RSR List Shows, we hope the following will be helpful to you as a comprehensive yet succinct resource. (For the documentation, see Dr. Werner's videos and books and please email [email protected] your suggestions for other items to include.):
- Whales and bats share unique DNA sequences in 200 genes yet without a similar common ancestor
- The evolutionary tree based on the gene Prestin shows bats and whales "together rather than with their... evolutionary cousins"
- Ten thousand paleontologists over 150 years failed to discover whale transitions
Two guys in a few decades discovered Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, Sinonyx and more (see below)
- The teacher Dr. Philip Gingerich became famous for discovering Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, and other whale transitions
- The student of Gingerich, Dr. Hans Thewissen, became famous for discovering Ambulocetus
- Without limb or tail bones to justify his imagination, Gingerich drew flippers and a fluked tail onto Rodhocetus
- San Diego State's whale evolution expert Dr. Berta: "Rodhocetus [used] its fluked tail for propulsion through water..."
- Gingerich admits on film to Dr. Carl Werner that additional fossils show Rodhocetus had four legs
- Lacking evidence and left with only contrary evidence, Gingerich now believes that Rodhocetus did not have a fluked tail
- Major museums begin to pull the famed Rodhocetus from their whale evolution displays
- Werner-aware articles like at Wikipedia either omit Rodhocetus or downgrade it to just one of the Protocetids
- Smaller-staffed sites like Francis Collins' BioLogos continue to showcase the completely misconstrued Rodhocetus
- Gingerich reconstructed a Pakicetus skull from fragments but now admits there was no indication of a blowhole
- After more bones were excavated, Pakicetus became a land animal but still kept its place as a whale transitional form
- Listing nine whale features, Thewissen, et al. conclude in Nature, "Pakicetids display none of these [whale] features"
- Since Gingerich and Thewissen, whales are now widely claimed to be the best fossil evidence for Darwinian evolution
- Real Science Radio often hears evolutionists, like AronRa, use Rodhocetus and Pakicetus as evidence for evolution
- Berkeley's Whale Evolution article says: "These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals."
- Leading evolutionists focusing on teeth, ear bones, ankles, mouth, or genes thus argue for a different land ancestor
- Since 1998, leading institutions argue whether whales evolved from animals like hyenas, cats, deer, wolves, or hippos
- Darwin focused on the wide-open mouth and predator behavior to claim that whales evolved from bears
- Dr. Gingerich explains that what "is similar between hoofed hyenas and the archaic whales are the teeth."
- Tokyo Institute of Sciences focused on genome similarity and concludes that whales evolved from a hippo-like species
The whale evolution saga pits geneticists against anatomists against paleontologists
Neo-Darwinism claims that evolution happens in the genes, yet unlike whales, hippos have plant-eating teeth
- Geneticist claims whales evolved from hippos but paleontologists say hippos evolved tens of millions of years too late
- Howard University's whale fossil expert Prof. Daryl Domning: "this is nonsense... Hippos were very late on the scene"
- The hippo/whale jam is one part of a system-wide pattern called Evolution's Big Squeeze
- The water-deposited geologic column's flood-sorted fossils reveal no hippo bones lower than whale bones
- If today's neo-Darwinian paradigm were true, then hippo gene similarity leaves zero fossil evidence for whale evolution
- Gingerich's "problem" with hippos is that "they are all plant eaters; [but] whales today are all carnivores."
- Science: "the teeth of... mesonychids, such resemblance is sometimes overstated and... represents ... convergence"
- Though whales are among the "best" fossil evidence for evolution, experts disagree even on their land ancestor
- Thewissen reconstructed Ambulocetus' skull with a blowhole where no skull fragments existed to justify it
The world's leading museums display a full Ambulocetus skull as though it had been found, including with a blowhole
- Smithsonian and other Darwinist artists added tiny ears reminiscent of whales without fossil evidence to support them
- Whale eyes typically line up with the upper teeth so Gingerich doubts Ambulocetus because its eyes are atop its head
- Thewissen admits in Werner's film that a major claim for Ambulocetus, a "sigmoid process" ear bone, is questionable
- Whale evolution believer and expert Dr. Berta regarding Ambulocetus refers to its "purported whale characters"
- The "sigmoid process" is "questionable" and only "purported" because it doesn't look like that diagnostic whale trait
The other "purported" Ambulocetus "whale" features are consistent with land animals but not with whale features
- Gingerich found Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, Synonyx and also Maiacetus ("mother whale") and Artiocetus!
- So the dynamic duo found Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Synonyx, Maiacetus, Artiocetus, and __________?
- The whale evolution cottage industry is run like a family business with proprietors who cannot be trusted
- The evolutionary lineage of the previously-believed-extinct pygmy whale is whatever researchers want it to be
- Dr. Jerry Bergman presents anatomical evidence against the claimed whale vestiges of leg and pelvic bones
- Timewise, whale "evolution" is being crushed in the industry-wide "big squeeze" as fossil finds continue to compress any time available for evolution. To not violate its own plot, the Darwinist story doesn't start animals evolving back into the sea until the cast includes land animals suitable to undertake the legendary journey. The recent excavation of whale fossils on an island of the Antarctic Peninsula further compresses the already absurdly fast 10 million years to allegedly evolve from the land back to the sea, down to as little as one million years, by this assessment based on various techniques that produced various published dates in 2016.
