The Impossible Saga: Problems of Inferring from the Fossil Record on Evolution

The Impossible Saga: Problems of Inferring from the Fossil Record on Evolution Introduction Once again, we return to share with evolutionists their arduous journey in search of missing links, and follow one of the most famous and strange evolution stories, which is one of the major events in the history of evolution, we return to take a brief look at one of the most important chapters of this story. Through this presentation we observe the history of the fossil record of that epic event that tells us how the land monsters, which were walking on four, evolved into the dominant sea monsters (whales). The evolution of the whale. Cetaceans – whales and dolphins – are one of the largest mammals, but unlike most of them – which live on land – they live their entire lives in water, yet they are not fish. Evolutionists were bound to solve this dilemma, and to make the scenario of how these mammals evolved and moved back to the sea, having left it in the past. So the evolutionary hypothesis was that whales, like all mammals, evolved from reptiles, which in turn evolved from amphibians, who also left the oceans after they evolved from fish, from earlier time periods, where reptiles, the ancestors of mammals, left the sea long ago in the history of evolution. What is remarkable here is her insistence once again on returning to the sea, in an extraordinary epic event, to lose her legs and fur, and to preserve her lungs and reproductive system despite these radical transformations. To support this proposition, evolutionists had to provide evidence and excavate ancient layers of land in search of a time-transition sequence with a fossil record of extinct ancestors walking on legs, showing gradients and intermediate forms between land mammals and sea mammals, but the features of that ancient land ancestor of whales remained ghostly despite Darwin's earlier assumption in his works that he was a bear. The story of the evolution of the whale was not revealed until 1966, when during his time at the New York Museum of Natural History, paleontologist Van Valen observed some similarities between the bones of a group of extinct carnivores called mesonychids with the fossils and bones of cetacea whales. These extinct wolves-like animals, called mesonychids, had triangular teeth similar to those of contemporary whales, and Fallin deduced from this observation that the whales descended from them. Since then, the compass of evolutionists and paleontologists has been searching in that direction proposed by Fallin for the bones of the whale ancestors, which have morphological (structural-anatomical) characteristics associated with the mesonychids, and the pioneer of research in this direction was the paleontologist Gingerich, who specialized in the search for the ancestors of the whale, and began his search during the decade of the last century, and continued for more than two decades. Wild mammals and fully aquatic mammals in some way, as shown by the following chart: 50 million years ago. Pakicetus The whole floor. 49 million years ago. Ambulocetus Semi-aquatic 46 million years ago. Rodhocetus Semi-aquatic 37 million years ago. Basilosaurus Fully Aquatic This is how evolution tells the story of the whale's transformation with wonderful schemes and an exciting story, and this kind of story appeals to all of us. But let's go deeper with that story at a greater dose of excitement, and try to take a closer look at this proposal, which the fossil record records as the only element of subtraction, and there is no harm in opening more than a window into the depths of that story, through which we see inherent and general fallacies in the origin of the evolutionary method, and before we begin our presentation, prepare yourself a cup of coffee and refresh your memory with some focus to follow the sequence of events. Problem 1: Is the fossil record evidence of evolution? The title of the previous problem raises an obvious question related to the review of the efficiency of the fossils as evidence of the common ancestor, and therefore the validity of the belief in Darwinian evolution as a whole, and the answer alone can determine the fate of the reliance on that indication. The answer to this question can be illustrated by a very simple example; suppose we find a fossil of an organism, the only fact we can confirm with certainty by observing this fossil is that it was a living organism – dead and buried – in this place, otherwise there is no way for any scientist to confirm with certainty that these bones found buried represent the ancestor of any other organism by simply observing some similarity between them. But the truth is that the gray wolf is closer to the evolution of elephants, rabbits, and humans than this cub wolf, which is also more closely related to kangaroos, koalas, and Australian flying squirrels, than it is to the anatomical twin gray wolf. According to the evolutionary tree,3 it assumed an evolutionary separation between the ancestors of both marsupials and placentas at the dawn of mammalian evolution, about 160 million years ago, and repeated observations of such morphological twins. These identical twins, which could not be linked to a common ancestor by evolutionary criteria, were not only found in the marsupial and placental categories, but were also observed at all taxonomic levels within the biological kingdoms, as well as extremely complex molecular-scale and morphologically-scale similarities. In a previous presentation, I dealt with a small part of them, related to the twins of marsupials and placentas, which we will follow later, God willing, with other publications, in which we present many amazing and varied examples of similarity opposed to the tree of evolution, including all levels of taxonomic, morphological and molecular, and how the reaction of evolutionists against this problem, and the recognition of some of them who have been bold to contradict the usual framework of evolution. To get out of trouble. The above problem posed a challenge to evolutionists that they could not overcome; because it directly challenged the origin of the inference of the similarity between species on a common ancestor, because that similarity (morphological and molecular) that is the only evidence for evolution gives a completely opposite indication, as the other examples above showed similarities outside the framework of the common ancestor, so evolutionists have resorted to indirect circumvention of both approaches to this problem by the behavior of circular logic, and the claim that those similarities are opposite in the common ancestor. What has been done here is in fact a re-description of a view that challenges the origin of the evolutionary hypothesis, has the neck of the rule – which they have set for themselves – and even breaks the compatibility of the Paradigm or the evolutionary framework that should not be broken. But the methodological error in this hypothesis is to resort to a logical fallacy clear; the confiscation of what is required, by making the desired proof - or the desired result (evolution) - and its introductions or one of them - which must be inferred (similarity) - one thing. The logical fallacy occurs here when the validity of the result to be proved in the introductions is assumed either explicitly or implicitly, and when the desired result is inferred preliminary to this assumption as a fact. Instead of repeating this incomplete extrapolation based on the signification of similarity between objects as an inevitable proof of a common ancestor, because of the existence of different data that do not support this extrapolation, they went directly to build the hypothesis of variable evolution based on the fact that evolution is a fact, and we have known that fact of similarity between objects! We have clearly observed the unfolding of circular reasoning, which has no head, and in which we cannot distinguish between introductions and results. When similarities are supposed to be at the forefront of the methods of inferring the validity of evolution and the sharing of a common ancestor, and presented as one of the most evidences supporting evolution, it becomes very sufficient to drop this indication, observing a conflict that contradicts it, and asserting that the similarity does not indicate a common ancestor. Ronald R. West, the famous evolutionary geologist, surprises us and dares to admit these crude logical errors directly in the fossil record: "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution because it is this theory (in its various versions) that we use to interpret fossil records. We are therefore condemned for falling into a circular inference when we say that the fossil record supports this theory."6 And dear reader, you can summarize the previous scene in very simple words: Evolution is reality, because evolution is reality! This is what the evolutionists say in their own language, and some may even admit it in a more gimmick when faced with such methodological problems: Evolution is a proven fact taken for granted, but research into its mechanisms and methods is still ongoing and open. But the problem here is: How does evolution prove in the first place without proving the hypothesis of a common ancestor? With that meager circular logic, evolutionists can overcome any conflict that presents itself to them, using the connotations of evolution as needed, and also disrupting as needed, to remind us of that old tale of the ignorant covenants of the Arabs, when a man makes idols and figurines of the Ajwa of his gods that he worships, and keeps on praying, even if he eats them. From the foregoing detail we can conclude that the general framework for dealing with all the examples in which the fossil record is used as evidence for evolution, that the structural morphological similarity shown by some fossil bones to the bones of other organisms, whether living or extinct, cannot be exported as evidence of an inevitable affinity or any alleged evolution of an ancient ancestor, the same similarity we find between the bones of living organisms cannot be included within the framework of a common genealogical tree as mentioned in the previous example. Beyond the inability of the fossil record to provide real support for the similarity hypothesis at all, the sharp poverty of those records makes it extremely difficult to provide the data needed for the morphological approach required, we do not have soft tissue, nor most parts of the body, and we can simply illustrate this with a practical example: Suppose the scabby tortoise wolf and the placental gray wolf are long extinct, before we can see them alive, and bone fossils of their own have been discovered, there is no doubt that the definition of evolution will confirm a close relationship between them in the tree of evolution, because of this amazing congruence in the structure of skeletons, but the other skeleton, although complete, does not give any real perception of the reproduction system, whether follicular or placenta. The problem does not end when the significance of the similarity between fossils as a support for evolution is dropped because of the existence of inverse indications not only - as we have shown by examples of similarity or what has been called convergent evolution as a misleading and delusional definition - but also to severe poverty in support of fossils to provide data that can be relied upon to hold this required approach in the first place. Let’s get past this problem, which we consider an icon in the critique of many of the implications of evolution, and get straight to the presentation of our evolution thesis on the story of the whale’s ancestors. Summary of the above 1) Circular induction and contrasting semantics of morphological similarity project the fossil's authority on evolution and common ancestor. 2) Severe poverty in the data that fossils can provide in comparing soft cells that cannot be fossilized. The second problem: do the transitional models shown and drawings seem to be real representations of the fossils found? The first step after finding the bones of a fossil is to accurately characterize these bones by a competent team, and work on the restoration and construction of a final form that represents the whole animal, if enough bones are available to draw an image that is thought to be the closest to reality. Is this really what has been done? To answer this problem, see how evolutionists dealt with the fossils found and how to restore them, and we will start from the beginning of the sequence of transitional episodes as planned evolution from the first grandfather, until the arrival of the ancestors of the whale to full aquatic life. First, the Pakicetus. In 1983, Philip Gingrich caused a media uproar by claiming to have discovered an early ancestor of the whale, known as the Pakistani whale (Pakicetus). Gingrich claimed to have been an intermediate animal between land animals and whales, and to be the first transitional link to this transition. The prestigious scientific journal Science celebrated this discovery, and its covers topped the entire drawings of that animal, as it has legs with membranes such as fins, and hunts fish as a fishing marine animal. All we can say is that the fossil evidence available to him at this time consisted only of some fragments of the skull; (a small part of the skull, a few teeth, and a small part of the jaw), these are the fossil data through which evolutionists claimed to have represented the ancestor of whales early in the Eocene, based on the observation of some similarities at the top of the teeth similar to the extinct meicheids. But after careful examination of the data, we still wonder why this specimen was proposed to be anything. This prevailing idea of the shape of Baccetus remained for a time; it celebrates its complete scheme as Gingrich had drawn without any evolutionist having made the previous intuitive objection. With a more plausible restoration done on those bones and after finding new fossils of him, the surprise was that the new scheme was for an entire wild animal that looked nothing like the first. In the same paper, Theocene asserts that these bones clearly indicate fully terrestrial mammals, and even the anatomical features of subcranial bones show that the animal was a runner, with only its feet touching land. Gingrich may be excused for having resorted to these misleading drawings in 1983, because of his frustration and boredom in searching for something of value for many years, some fragments of the skull that show some resemblance to the whale bones were able to make the legend of the first whale hunter, so he resorted to imagination, and did not hesitate to do so; because it was a feature in the evolutionists' analysis of fossil bones, but such incidents are repeated in many other schemes. Where we find in the scheme a kind of suggestion and illusion intended to pass the idea of the ancestor of the whale, the publisher resorted to dubbing the artist using a picture of Baccetus in the swimming position, with a flowing chunky tail like a fish's tail, and relatively short legs, although it is a complete wild animal, and also notes that the drawings show the back legs stretched backwards; to give the impression that they work like fins. Second: Ambulocetus The second fossil is called Ambulocetus, found in 1993 in Pakistan, and its discoverer Theocene et al. claimed that these bones were an ancestor of the whale, the size of a male sea lion, who was walking on legs, and his hind legs acted as legs on the ground, and oarsmen on the water, suggesting that this creature was able to walk on the ground, as well as swim. Let's test the truth of the story! Looking at the bones found for this extinct organism, the first observation that can be observed directly in the preliminary disclosures is that the skeleton is also incomplete, and misses the important and essential parts on which this diagram of the amphibian was built, without which no scheme can be designed, because it is necessary to create and restore the function of the posterior leg and the presence of bones of the pelvic girdle, but they are completely missing in the bones found. These imaginary drawings were also promoted in high-profile textbooks, by the National Academy of Sciences.[citation needed] Note the imagination used in the drawing, including the membranes and meshes between the feet.[citation needed] Even Kenneth Miller had a direct hand in spreading this falsification, when he used this fossil as an important icon of evolution in his book Finding Darwin's God, where he claimed that this animal could move easily both on land and in water. As usual, National Geographic has had its share of optical manipulation and deception in the design of the fossil chart, with carefully employed visual cues; to turn wild ampelocytus into a swimming animal, it has shown imaginary networks between the animal's claws, just as the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences and Kenneth Miller did in his book, and made the hind legs look like crippled legs on the ground that couldn't help him walk. Despite Carroll's more plausible assertion that he was an animal with strong walking legs, evolutionists seem to be looking for any way to confirm the idea of intermediate rings, even by optical trickery. Third: Rodhocetus The third candidate in chronological order for intermediate rings between land mammals and the whale is Rodhocetus, depicted in museums and textbooks as a creature with intrinsic features of transformation from a land animal to a marine animal; the formation of legs to a fin-like, whale-like tail growth has been observed. Chart: National Academy of Sciences NAS Illustrations. During the filming of the documentary on evolution (Great Experiment), Dr. Carl Werner, who is based on documentation, observed the contrast of the fossil presentation of the animal at the University of Michigan and the actual fossils, especially with no fossils showing the tail or fins, the very things that are used as evidence that this creature is the missing link in the evolution of whales. To discuss this problem, Werner interviewed Gingrich, the scientist responsible for the discovery and reconstruction of Rodhokitos. Dr. Gingrich had promoted the idea that Rodhokitos had a primitive tail for the whale. In the 7:40th minute of the video, Gingrich admits that images related to Broadhuketus, such as the tail, are imaginary. In fact, these are the bones that have been found, as the famous authority Campbell shows. More misleading offers One of the misleading representations of the whale's alleged ancestors, too, is the publication by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of a diagram showing the sequence of evolution of whales, which includes: Mesonychid living in the earth, followed by Ampelocetus, Rodocetus and Basilosaurus, although scientific literature estimates that all four ampelocetus and Rodocetus are about seven to nine feet long, compared to about 70 feet long. Follow Dr. Terry Mortensen’s video, which shows some of the past fossil restoration problems and offers surprises amid the astonishment of the audience. Summary of the above: Evolutionists have resorted to a kind of misinformation in constructing complete blueprints for extinct species, based on what has been found from some of their bones, to look more like an intermediate link between different species to support their ideas. As is customary, the imagination of the guiding artist is the main player in the restoration and drawing of the complete plans of most fossils, to appear to the viewer as a real intermediate ring, and without the adoption of any real scientific data in support of these published drawings, and once we look carefully in the record of whale fossils will realize this fact unfortunately, as it is OK for them to put dozens of visual effects to consolidate the idea; here is an aspect of hunting adventures: Here's a little bit of maternal tenderness: So, until we accept the illusion and believe it! But let's get past that, and suppose that those fossils were really intact and complete, could they indicate an actual evolutionary relationship? Problem 3: The Fossil Record and Labyrinth (Lego Cubes) In the graph corresponding to the record of the evolution of whales: hold a pen, follow with me from the starting point at any existing species, and move from it on the ancestor line down in time, until you reach the origin of this species and the end of the branching back to the past. Did you notice anything? Yes, you did not meet during the extension of the line and in your time journey towards the past any direct ancestor or grandfather of this type. Try something else, it’s the same problem. Try with all kinds; the same problem! So, where are the intermediate rings and where are the whale's ancestors? Before we delve into anything about this problem, we must first understand that evolution is simply the gradual change from one type to another over a certain period of time as Darwinism offers us. The neo-Darwinian model predicts the presence of many transitional organisms that represent the small gradual changes caused by random gene mutations acted on by natural selection. By this definition, the fossil record is meant to document the evolutionary relationship between a contemporary species and its supposed ancestor or ancestor by intermediate rings of transitional forms, which can be directly linked as a theoretical proof of the validity of this hypothesis. That is, this time line between the two species must be interspersed with thousands of gradual morphological transitional forms, and it is through this gradual and uninterrupted flow that we can establish what is called a fossil record for a hypothetical transformation to begin. But in the fossil record of the whale, like other fossil records, we observe that transitional forms that can gradually draw any evolutionary relationship are not available to provide any reliable information for drawing a certain coordination and a steady upward transition line, moving across geological layers and time, and referring to this alleged evolutionary relationship between those fossils. The most important problem is that the entire fossil record is very sporadic, with an overwhelming absence of transitional forms among all major species. It is quite clear that the historical record of life does not provide the evidence for gradual evolutionary change. The previous fact about the extreme poverty of the fossil record is not disputed by any competent researcher, and most evolutionary scientists have pointed out this problem, starting from Darwin itself to the present day, although we now have more than a hundred million fossils in different museums, in addition to those in universities and research destinations, all of which represent more than 250 thousand different species. With an initial look at the whale fossil record, we can observe the complete absence of any fossil that represents the middle ring or common ancestor of any of the alleged ancestors, but clearly shows a time range over which a collection of fossils of certain species has not changed or evolved during it. That is, all fossils were species that appeared suddenly in the geological record, and lived in periods of unchanged time, until they became extinct or continued as they are until now, as in the case of modern modern cetaceans. The next chart of a fossil record, as it must be observed (modern Darwinism), is supported by thousands or millions of rings whose sequences can draw a gradual curve with smooth flow change, to move between species with a known tree branch. See the actual graph of the observed fossil record. It shows vertical lines of temporal transmission of the species without any curvature, indicating absolute morphological and qualitative change abstinence, and indicates the sudden appearance of the species within the geological record, and its constant until its extinction. See the horizontal direct link between the species, to suggest the similarity of the two species within the observed fossil record, but the perfectly horizontal line between the two species supports the fact that the independent appearance of the two species is inferior. These observations are not limited to the record of whale fossils, but are problematic at all taxonomic levels in the tree of evolution, and all its branches drawn, as recognized by evolutionists in many places.(24)(25)(26)(27)(28) This fact could not be concealed by the proponents of evolution, but they were able to circumvent it by misleading and circular hypotheses, as these fossils are cousins and not direct ancestors of some, and were housed within the evolutionary branches of the side, without employing them as a real ancestor of the current species, that is, they considered that these fossils also evolved from the common ancestor that is still missing, and is not the real ancestor, so they have taken an independent evolutionary branch. Evolutionists can thus intelligently escape any real scientific questions or imperatives about the fossil record's impoverishment and its lack of thousands of transitional rings, so that we can make genealogical tree branches, which can only be theoretically adopted by the presence of these thousands or millions of rings, represented by morphologically graded fossils, and inhabit them according to a strict methodology; to walk in a gradual evolutionary line towards the evolution of the new species, and their sequences are consistent, creating a clear chronological curve. But, as most scientists assert, the chances of success in the search for these so-called ancestral transitional forms are like the chances of searching for a mirage, because their loss is not related to the search potential or the small number of fossils found so far, but rather to the fact that the fossil record actually represents the true events of life. The sudden appearance of fossils, as shown by the fossil record, means that the transition does not progress smoothly, but the most challenging feature of the evolutionary model is persistence, where the fossils of different species remain morphologically constant, without the slightest evolution shown by successive geological layers, which is expressed in the graph of the fossil record by vertical transition through time, as mentioned above, and what can be seen through the fossil record as defined (32). To get out of trouble. The lack of support from the fossil record, and the dearth of transitional forms that can make up the absolute minimum to draw a continuum of evolutionary changes, suggests that evolution is very critical, leading them to resort to a new circular trick to escape the dilemma, which they rely on to patch the evolutionary hypothesis, quite similar to the Convergent Evolution trick in terms of adopting circular logic by twisting and confiscating the required, where instead of inferring the opposite gradient Small, it happens in short jumps of time, before stability and stagnation are reached. This means that transitional forms will be few in number, as they exist only in small groups for small periods of time, so there was little chance of leaving the fossils, so we do not expect to find transitional forms or missing links. This hypothesis faces many real methodological problems that are still controversial, including its conflict with the data of the fossil record, although it acknowledged part of the fossil record's problems from the discontinuity of the sudden appearance of the species, and the unchanged, and turned around with a circular logic, but remains an appearance under the main kingdoms of the whole organism Phyla explosion, a huge qualitative, preventing acceptance. But here we merely reject it logically, because it has used evolution as the initial precursor and giver of construction, whereas evolution must be a result and an extrapolation, as evidenced by the fossil record, to which the objection of Ronald R. West is well-deservedly applicable. In terms of evolutionary methodology, it is a fair enough hypothesis for evolutionists to gain psychological peace from the painstaking search for those intermediate forms, the absence of which has given them an unceasing headache, but in contrast, the whole error is for others to dare to claim that the fossil record by which species suddenly emerge and persist until extinction is direct evidence of the independent creation of species, or else be accused and prosecuted as heresy. But it is fair not to generalize, there are always the proponents of evolution dare to challenge this dogma explicitly or obligingly, Mark Bridley, who is currently Professor of Zoology at the University of Oxford, admits such a logical error, and the invalidity of inference with the fossil record, whether represented by the model of neodarwinism Gradualist, or by the model of sudden equilibrium on evolution versus special creationism, because he recognizes the preponderance of this direct creationism. Labyrinth of Lego Back to the childhood games, and to the famous LEGO Cubes, which always sparked our passion when we were young. The excitement in this game is that there are vast spaces of choice in the installation and making of dozens of different models of the same set of LEGO pieces. Imagine that you have two pieces of the game at a distance, we want to fill the space between them with other pieces, it is obvious to us that the space of choice narrows by narrowing this empty space between these two pieces; the narrower the distance is the number of LEGO pieces we need to fill the space less, and the chance of choice in the way of filling this space also less, and the space of imagination that we can use to invent certain shapes within distances is also necessarily less, and less. This is what we mean by the labyrinth of the fossil record similar to the Lego cubes, where we observe that the greatest area of them is free of fossils, which makes it just another mirage, we can not reach a valuable conclusion through it, where there is no restriction that can be tested to choose the location of the fossils inside, and to determine the path of the transition of fossils was a huge amount of fossil shapes gradient morphology, to reduce these distances, We now sense that we are already in a real labyrinth called the fossil record, because of the enormity of the intervals between fossils, where we cannot assume any relationship between them; there are vast differences of millions of generations over millions of years between fossils that claim to be the ancestors of whales, for example, so the claim that these fossils represent “transitional forms” is just an unstructured hypothesis in the absence of a direct linear link between them, represented by thousands of thousands of fossils. What further reinforces this is the fact that the problem goes beyond the fossil record's poverty in fossil numbers, to its inability to provide any behavioral or molecular data, or data on soft tissues that contribute to the required approaches, which O'Leary studied and documented in the certified fossil record of whales, where he brought the idea to us with a graph that determines the size of the data that can be collected by the whale fossil record, and like the data that can be collected. The above leads us to the conclusion that we can comfortably mess around within these morphological intervals and the vast time spaces of the fossil record, and we can make any evolutionary tree that we like according to the dozens of combinations already available, and we can also make the evolutionary branches that we like, and there is no logical or scientific objection to this as long as evolutionists do it with some imagination, and I will now start to make a tree that we like. You can try the game, it's easy, you can invent hundreds of evolutionary trees in the free space, and there's no logic that can hold you back. You just need some imagination or a lot of it, and the fossils remain like LEGO pieces that you can install and employ as you want to make the model you want, with the same pieces you can make a car or a house or a ship, and the imagination remains the main player as long as we face that void and lack of connection between any group of animals in this record with an ancestor that can be supported by a thousand arbitrary scenarios, but you have to enjoy one thing as we said before; imagination. And more imagination. This discontinuity and disorientation in the fossil record, and its inconsistency with the evolutionary scenario of the whale, is acknowledged by the Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze when he expressed serious doubts about whether fossils such as Baccetus, Ampelocetus, and others in the evolutionary records could be considered the ancestors of modern whales, and argues that even if they were accepted as aquatic mammals, they could only be represented as a group completely isolated from modern whales.39 But this actual model of the fossil record that we're building imaginations on, if we leave it as it is without any additions or imaginations or futility, what can we extrapolate from it? Check out the following picture... Sudden emergence is evidence of direct creation, and the stability of species without change negates any accidental evolution. So we advised from the beginning not to infer the fossil record; because it is direct evidence of creation. Summary of the above: The fossil record does not show any direct ancestors of the current whales, but the most he can predict is the existence of species of animals that show some similarities in varying qualities, these species suddenly appeared within the fossil record during ancient times, and lived for generations as they are without showing any tendency towards gradual change and evolution of another species. Direct observation of the fossil record shows that different species did not arise through evolution from each other, but arose independently and suddenly, with all their own combinations. In other words, creation varies from species to species. This observation we can clearly observe along the length of fossil records available to all living beings without exception, and if we can extrapolate anything of value from these available records, the only direct logical conclusion we can extrapolate from those data is the direct creation of species, and their unevolveability. Let’s learn the pieces of LEGO scattered on the ground quickly before we are punished by the angry mother, and move on to another confusing game to help the whale find his mother, the game of searching for the lineage of the whale. Problem 4: Fossil Record Data Contradicts Molecular Data, Unknown Descent Problem For more than three decades, evolutionists have built a fortress of claim to the evolution model of the whale from the mid-sand group of mammals, while the mesonychians rose on the shore to draw a fossil record, based on similarities in the shape of the teeth and some parts of the skull, and all the search energies were focused in this direction, so I made approaches and drew many schemes to confirm such a path, and evolutionary doctrine continued to rely on some of these morphological indicators to draw a fossil record, but In the late 1990s, some evidence came out of studies that used molecular techniques to explore relationships between groups of animals, which gave a completely different result to previous talk, and claimed that whales were closest to another class of mammals, including goats, pigs, cows, deer, camels, and hippos, called artiodactyls. This was done by studying comparisons of some noncoding DNA regions that showed similarities between the whale and hippopotamuses. Molecular data directly contradicted those of the fossil record, as it made the approaches between fossils and their attribution to the mesonychians precedented to be the ancestor of the tooth-shaped whales and some features of the skull play no role in evolution, and several scientific journals have written about the paradox's predicament. The expected reaction of paleontologists specializing in the study of the evolution of the whale at first was shock, and questioned the seriousness of these molecular results and met with rejection, so that Gingrich, one of the most prominent planners of his evolution, accused the owners of this view of being crazy. In the chaos of the discrepancy between the data, which cannot be combined into a single evolutionary scheme, one of the two ways of searching must be completely rejected, which is an embarrassment to the methodology of evolution, because it is assumed, according to Darwinism, that the fossil and molecular connotations are consistent in a single phylogeny. Here, many enthusiastic evolutionists of the previous kinship record – the hoofed medium – were forced to eat the Ajwa idol on which they had been engaged for three decades, and they accepted the molecular evidence of another kinship record, but what are the similarities in the shape of the teeth and fossil skull on which the castle of whale evolution was built? Of course, the solution to this problem is canned and ready for direct consumption, and I think you know it well; it is a convergent evolution, and the clearest records of evolution have simply been retracted, and the similarity between these forms has been traced back to the so-called convergent evolution unrelated to a predecessor, i.e., this similarity in teeth and ear bones adopted for drawing kinship, no longer indicates a common ancestor as the scientific journals have shown. Fossil data is grossly inconsistent with this hypothesis; if the phylogenetic significance of the casein is accurate, large gaps in the fossil record must be recognized, as well as extensive morphological reversals and convergent evolution unrelated to a predecessor. Surprisingly, just two years later, the compass of fossil evidence is changing, and Gingrich and Thuysin are demonstrating a kind of clever equivocation, opening a door of alignment between a molecular relationship diagram and fossil discoveries that support the new idea of near-artiodactyls. But what morphological link did Gingrich and Thuysin use to bind double-fingered whales? It's just one bone! This can be surprising, but what if you knew that this relied upon bone is the astragalus of a foot bone? Wondering how this works, does the whale have a foot? The answer as adopted by paleontologists lies in indirect binding, where they used the result of molecular data that considered whales closer than double-fingered as a prelude to looking for fossils that possess bones similar to those that distinguish double-fingered, and their best option was the stub-like bone that resembles a pulley. Aside from the circular reasoning here, which we're familiar with evolutionists, Gingrich seems to have had a superlative or magical lantern to find the previously legless fossil Rodhocchitos, which he attributed to that species, and he said it had a butt bone similar to that of the double-fingered ones. Coinciding with this magical luck, Thuysin and his colleagues extracted bones from the back of an animal's craniotomy, which they attribute to Pacycetus, and they also extracted a skeleton of a smaller member of the family Pacycetides, called Ichthyolestes, both of which had a butt that bore the characteristic characteristics of even-fingered fossils. But the debate in the development circles about the labyrinth of the fingers, made both Gingrich and Thuysin ytrithan in confirming the idea of the new lineage, leaving the door open by admitting that these disclosures do not indicate the idea of the lineage of the new double-fingered whale artiodactyls, where Gingrich has shown that the fossil Rodhocetus has features in its hands and wrists that do not even resemble the next double-fines. A simple reflection of that event of the sudden discovery of separate parts of fossils (legs), previously attributed to the fossils of the Mesonychians, or new fossils after the prior idea of whale lineage has changed, can lead to the idea that fossils are employed to support that preconception, not to imply a truth that is extrapolated impartially, and that they can be easily manipulated because they are based on a comparison of selected parts, and often overlooked. But the question remains with no real answer; who is the proximal ancestor of whales, artiodactyls, or mesonychians? The available evidence puts the hypothesis of whale evolution in an unenviable position, especially since the data do not show a clear preference for either. A large team of evolutionists still supports the idea of building a kinship between whales and mesonychians, based on the shape of teeth that exhibit similarity. They considered the advantage of the similarity of the butt bone, characteristic of the group of double-fingered Artiodactyls, does not indicate a common ancestor, but arose independently. This is how we find ourselves faced with two options in fossil observations that cannot be preferred; the first is that whales are considered the closest relatives of artiodactyls, ignoring the similarities between teeth and skull shape, and considering them as mere convergences. Second, whales are considered to be the closest relatives to the mesonychians, ignoring similarities between the butt bone, and considering it merely a convergence of the hooves. In light of this inconsistency and futility, we can safely stand in favor of each team in half of its position, which is to reject the other scenario, and consider that the whale does not belong to this or that, and generally say that convergences are an intelligent inferential icon against evolution demolishing it from within, denying the significance of the similarity of fossils as a whole, and also denying the significance of molecular similarity supportive of evolution from common ancestors. Even molecular data that can be invoked by some is unreliable, as evolutionist and the world's most fanatical anti-creationist, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges, given the blurring and reversal of the evolutionary tree, due to convergence, and that morphological and molecular data are vulnerable to both homoplasies. In a more explicit study on the supposed relationship between terrestrial and aquatic mammals in the journal Genetics, a significant disagreement between morphological and molecular measures was revealed, recognizing that molecular sequences do not necessarily give us an accurate picture of descent. Summary of the above: It reveals a systematic manipulation of the way in which some inadequate, fictitious, and even conflicting data are used by evolutionists to make a poor story of the plot, to say the least, to tamper with and mock the mind. A clear opportunism in the evolutionary proposition, aimed at achieving the dogma by any means, when the data contradicts is dispensed with part of it simply, without linking to any general methodology governing the framework of inference, and without taking into account the contradictions observed in the same issue of research, and resort to some of the worst types of scientific fraud, which is selection as needed and ignoring the problems. In this chaos and the synthesis of arguments by domestic consumption without any systematic constraint, it is clear that we are already in front of a dominant intellectual praxis. The Fifth Problem: The Time Frame Dilemma of Whale Evolution Evolutionists believe that whales have shifted from the first complete terrestrial ancestor of Bacillus, which lived 50 million years ago, to the complete aquatic living cetacean Basilosauridae, which lived 40 million years ago, as fossil records show. Beyond the unknown labyrinth of ancestry, any evolutionary proposal to enable a wild animal to represent a whale's ancestor requires enormous morphological differences, and the costs of turning into whales are prohibitive, as the alleged evolution must occur at the rate of an incredible number of (useful) mutations and adaptations. This short time span, of no more than 10 million years, which is the time frame observed in the fossil record of the transition from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales, can challenge For example, early ampelocytus was supposed to drink fresh water all its life, 49 million years ago, and Protocetid was drinking salt water, 47 million years ago, which means that an extreme change in organ function would have to occur in no more than 3 million years. Protocetid would have had to mutate in a useful way to produce the physiological adaptations above during this very short period. In addition, it is assumed that it has developed various physiological mechanisms for oxygen exchange, long-distance diving and lactic acid accumulation, as well as the development of a comprehensive system of fat storage and temperature regulation in a very short time. Another problem is the different types of feeding and food-seeking methods for whales and wild animals. One of the deep problems is that warm-blooded mammals, created by God at a constant body temperature higher than fish, reptiles, and amphibians, maintain the basic body temperature of a mammal living in an ocean of cold water is a real problem. Whales overcome this problem by having fascinating and complex biological structures called countercurrent heat exchangers to maintain constant body temperature.[54] A more complex problem for the evolution model is the possibility of sonar and echolocation as a means of underwater communication through sound waves. Surprisingly, many cetaceans have this precise system envied by the most advanced submarines, as they can detect a fish the size of a golf ball at a distance of 70 meters. This ingenious mechanism attracted an expert in chaos theory, Rory Howlett, to study it in dolphins, and he came to the conclusion that these patterns had to be mathematically designed to work. This amazing feature of the sonar system, represented by a fat protrusion on the brow of whales and dolphins called melon, is a sophisticated lens, designed to focus sound waves emitted in a beam that the whale can direct wherever it wants, this sound lens are different fat populations, must be arranged in the right shape and the right sequence, in order to concentrate the sound echoes returned, and each type of fat is unique and different from the natural fat, it requires a number of process In order for such a device to develop, random mutations must form the right enzymes to form the right fats, and other mutations must put these fats in the right place and order. Step by step evolution of such a device is not possible; because either it has been fully formed in the right place and order, or it will be useless, and natural selection does not favor incomplete intermediate forms, because they represent a burden on it. We can therefore consider such physiological complexities to challenge the mechanisms of evolution, which are neither scalable nor reducible. In order not to dwell on hundreds of details, what is supposed to happen is a near-complete transformation of organ functions and anatomical features and the regeneration of genetic electrical wiring needed for this transformation. Eyes designed to be able to see properly underwater with refractive factors, and withstand high pressure. Ears designed differently than those of land mammals, which pick up airborne sound waves, with an eardrum protected from high pressure. - The skin lacks hair, sweat glands, and a fat layer for thermal insulation. - The gills on the top of the head (blowholes). - Whale tail and muscular system. - The baby's in a wheelchair. - Breast modification. - Loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae. - Reorganization of the muscular system. Now, back to the title of the problem, is the time frame for the evolution of the whale and the emergence of these amazing transformations enough? Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg has used some evolutionary mechanisms to test this event, and according to Sternberg's calculations based on population genetics equations applied in a paper by scientists Deena Schmidt and Rick Durrett in the Journal of Genetics, he expects two mutations to be confirmed within a time frame of about forty-three million years. Compared to the magnitude of this observed shift in the evolution of a small wild mammal – similar to a deer or a wolf, whatever the evolutionary imagination – into a giant whale, the application of population genetic mechanisms and the stabilization of mutations is insane, and cannot happen in a period of no more than 10 million years. But how about we increase the dose of complexity, and go from insanity to complete mental suicide; more recently, the jawbone of one of the oldest whales in Antarctica has been reported to have been discovered by an Argentine research team, and they say it is the oldest whale that lived full aquatic life forty-nine million years ago. This discovery completely destroys the previous fossil scheme and shortens the alleged time period for the evolution of the whale from 10 million years to less than three million years or less. Conclusion: Let us speak in a firmer way before the fascism of Darwinism, which falsely claims to pursue the path of science, and summarize the story of the evolution of the whale in the following example: The fruit of tomatoes certainly evolved from the red fire truck, but lost its wheels that were once on it, and the proof of this is that both are red and filled with water! Do not laugh at the logic and say what the wheels are in color, and is this enough to decide this strange extrapolation? My answer will simply be to refer you to our friends from the proponents of evolution, because only they can answer this problem, and they alone can put the full scenario of the radical transformation of the fruit of tomatoes until lost wheels of its predecessor fire truck. As we said before, it only takes plot and effects, and some imagination... a lot of imagination. References: (1) Van Valen, “Deltatheridia, A New Order of Mammals,” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 132 (1966): 92. digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/1126 Van Valen, "The Deltatheridia, a new order of mammals." Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist, 1321-126. L. 1966. icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/3/487.full#ref-36 (2) J. G. M. Thewissen and E. M.Williams, "The Early Radiations Of Cetacea (MAMMALIA): Evolutionary Pattern and Developmental Correlations", Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2002. 33:73–90. www3.neomed.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/pdf/2002ThewWillAnnRev.pdf (3) Rebecca Boyle," Jurassic Mammal Fossil Hints At Earlier Split Between Placental Mammals and Marsupials", 08.26.2011 Popsci site. www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/jurassic-mammal-fossil-hints-earlier-mammal-marsupial-split Zhe-Xi Luo et al, "A Jurassic eutherian mammal and divergence of marsupials and placentals", Nature 476, 442–445 (25 August 2011(. www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10291.html 4 Ahmed Yahya, Grape Monsters Destroy Morphological Evolutionary Evidence. (5) Confiscation on Demand, Arabic Wikipedia. (6) Ronald R. West , "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism ," in Compass , May 1968, p. 216. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory". (7) Gingerich PD, et al. "Origin of Whales in Epicontinental Remnant Seas: New Evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan" Science 22 April 1983: Vol. 220. (8) J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe2 & S. T. Hussain "Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls", Nature 413, 277-281, (20 September 2001). www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413277a0.html See Also: Christian de Muizon, "Walking with whales", Nature 413, 259-260 (20 September 2001). www.usca.edu/biogeo/studentinfo/Muizon2001.pdf "All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammal... The relatively rigid articulations of the lumbar vertebrae, and the long, slender limb bones— indicate that the animals were runners, moving with only their digits touching the ground". (9) Douglas H. Chadwick, "Earth’s largest animals are sometimes born with a leg or two, a startling genetic reminder of the time, 50 million years ago, when their ancestors walked on dry land." Nationalgeographic.com. ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html (10) G. M. Thewissen, et al, "Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales," Science, 1994, Vol 263, p. 210–212. www.sciencemag.org/content/263/5144/210 (11) Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences", National Academy of Sciences 1999. p.20. www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=20 (12) op. cit (9). (13) Carroll, "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution", Cambridge University Press, p. 335. (14) Working Group on Teaching Evolution, "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science", National Academy of Sciences 1998, p.18. www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=18 “"I speculated that it might have had a fluke; I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail.” (15) Carl Werner, "Evolution: the Grand Experiment" Vol. 1, p.143. www.thegrandexperiment.com “Since then 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 spread out like flippers on a whale.” (16) Whale evolution - why the deception? – Youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G5vAc5_VJo (17) Gingrich and others (1994) published this reconstruction of the skeleton of Rodhocetus kasrani. taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rdmp1c/teaching/l1/evolution/l1/geology.html (18) op. cit (14). (19) Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception In The Fossil Record - Dr. Terry Mortenson – Metacafe. www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568/whale_evolution_exposing_the_deception_in_the_fossil_record_dr_terry_mortenson/ (20) Darwin "The Origin of Species", Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292 "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory". (21) David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology , Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin" , Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979 , p. 22 "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information". (22) Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals in Creation: The Cutting Edge" (1982) , p. 76 "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossil species have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth's history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution". (23) Phyletic gradualism, The Veritas Forum. www.veritasucsb.org/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGE.html (24) Eldredge, N., "Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics : Species , Niches, and Adaptive Peaks", McGraw-Hill Publishing Company 1989 , New York , p. 22 "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors". (25) G.G. Simpson, "in The Evolution of Life", p. 149. "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution". (26) A.H. Clark, "The New Evolution: Zoogenesis" , p. 114. "All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint". (27) James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record , " American Scientist , Vol. 63 , November , 1975, p. 673 "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates". (28) Kemp, Tom "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record" , New Scientist, Vol. 108, No. 1485, December 5, 1985) , p. 66 "As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record". (29) Eldredge, N. et al "The Myths of Human Evolution" Columbia University Press; 1982, p. 59. "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record". (30) Stanley, S. M., 1981 "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species" Basic Books Inc. Publishers N.Y., p.3. "For more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding ... Today the fossil record ... is forcing us to revise this conventional view". (31) opt cit (29) p. 163. "The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change". (32) Gould , S.J. "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977. "The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'". (33) opt cit (23). (34) Ibid. (35) Ricklefs, Robert E., “Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution,” Science, vol. 199, 1978, p.59. "The Eldredge–Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well–differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. …The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground". (36) Ronald R. West , "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism" Compass , May 1968, p. 216. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory". (37) Mark Ridley , "Who doubts evolution?", New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981 , p. 831 "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation". (38) The Phylogenetic Position of Cetaceans: Further Combined Data Analyses, Comparisons with the Stratigraphic Record and a Discussion of Character Optimization - Oxford Journals. icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/3/487/F9.expansion.html (39) G. A. Mchedlidze, "General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea" A. A. Balkema 1984. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iroh.19860710425/abstract (40) Fig: Ectotympanic bones of Pakicetus and the modern dolphin Lagenorhynchus. This bone surrounds the middle ear cavity like a bowl. In all cetaceans, the medial wall of the ectotympanic is very thick, as indicated by the white line, and is called the involucrum. www.springerimages.com/Images/LifeSciences/1-10.1007_s12052-009-0135-2-11 (41) Mitsuru Shimamura. et al, " Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates", Nature 388, 666-670 (14 August 1997). www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6643/full/388666a0.html (42) Fig: Cladograms depicting competing phylogenetic hypotheses for the position of cetaceans among ungulates. (A) traditional hypothesis of relationships with a monophyletic Artiodactyla containing two major clades and the extinct (†) clade Mesonychia is the sister taxon of cetaceans; also the hypothesis supported by data that fossilize (i.e., osteological and dental data, see O'Leary, 1999); and (B) the cladogram supported by molecular data (e.g., Gatesy et al., 1999a), “Artiodactyla” is paraphyletic. Molecular sequence data alone cannot inform on the position of the wholly extinct clade Mesonychia. icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/3/487/F1.expansion.html Kate Wong, "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas: New fossils and DNA analyses elucidate the remarkable evolutionary history of whales", SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAY 2002. www.miracosta.edu/home/kmeldahl/articles/whaleevol.pdf Maureen A. O'Leary, "The Phylogenetic Position of Cetaceans: Further Combined Data Analyses, Comparisons with the Stratigraphic Record and a Discussion of Character Optimization", Amer. Zool. (2001) 41 (3): 487-506. icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/3/487.full Gavin J. P. Naylor, "Are The Fossil Data Really At Odds With The Molecular Data? Morphological Evidence For Cetartiodactyla Phylogeny Reexamined", Syst. Biol. 50(3):444 – 453, 2001. Abstract: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668123 Full Article: www.naylorlab.scs.fsu.edu/Publications/Cetartiodactyla.pdf Full Article(alt): sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/3/444.full.pdf University Of Michigan. "New Fossils Suggest Whales And Hippos Are Close Kin". ScienceDaily, 20 September 2001. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010920072245.htm Jean-Renaud Boisseri et al, "The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla", PNAS vol. 102 no. 5 www.pnas.org/content/102/5/1537 (43) Ibid p.78. "The whale-hippo connection did not sit well with paleontologists. “I thought they were nuts,” Gingerich recollects. “Everything we’d found was consistent with a mesonychid origin. I was happy with that and happy with a connection through mesonychids to artiodactyls.” Whereas mesonychids appeared at the right time, in the right place and in the right form to be considered whale progenitors, the fossil record did not seem to contain a temporally, geographically and morphologically plausible artiodactyl ancestor for whales, never mind one linking whales and hippos specifically.." (44) J Gatesy. et al, "Evidence from milk casein genes that cetaceans are close relatives of hippopotamid artiodactyls." Mol Biol Evol (1996) 13 (7): 954-963. mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/7/954 (45) Ibid. "Paleontological information is grossly inconsistent with this hypothesis. If the casein phylogeny is accurate, large gaps in the fossil record as well as extensive morphological reversals and convergences must be acknowledged". (46) Gavin J. P. Naylor, "Are The Fossil Data Really At Odds With The Molecular Data? Morphological Evidence For Cetartiodactyla Phylogeny Reexamined", Syst. Biol. 50(3):444 – 453, 2001. "The second more speculative hypothesis is that mammalian teeth are more evolutionarily plastic than was originally believed, an that any phylogenetic signal initially present in the dental data has been eroded because of convergent evolution". (47) obt cit (8). "Cetaceans and some Mesonychians have dental similarities and an elongated skull, but these features are probably the result of convergent evolution". (48) Kate Wong, "The Mammals That Conquered The Seas: New Fossils And Dna Analyses Elucidate The Remarkable Evolutionary History Of Whales", Scientific American May 2002. "Gingerich notes that Rodhocetus and anthracotheres share features in their hands and wrists not seen in any other later artiodactyls. Thewissen agrees that the hippo hypothesis holds much more appeal than it once did. But he cautions that the morphological data do not yet point to a particular artiodactyl, such as the hippo, being the whale’s closest relative, or sister group. “We don’t have the resolution yet to get them there,” he remarks, “but I think that will come". (49) Milankovitch , et al, "Even-toed fingerprints on whale ancestry", Nature 388:623, 1997. faculty.virginia.edu/bio202/202-2002/Lectures%2020202/thewissen%20et%20al%201997.pdf "then either Mesonychians are not closely related to cetaceans (and many dental characters are convergent), or the specialized heel morphology is not the exclusive character that many morphologists take it to be. It may have evolved several times independently in artiodactyls, or have been lost in the Mesonychians/Cetacean clade. The complete astragalus of an early cetacean would probably shed light on this issue". (50) Naylor, G.J.P. and Adams, D.C. "Are the fossil data really at odds with the molecular data? Morphological evidence for cetartiodactyla phylogeny reexamined", Systematic Biology 50(3):444–453, 2001 sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/3/367.full.pdf Matthee et al., "Mining the mammalian genome for artiodactyl systematics", Systematic Biology 50 (3 ): 388, 2001. Milankovitch et al. , "Cetaceans are highly derived artiodactyls", Thewissen, Ref. 35, p. 127 (51) Zhexi Luo, "Evolution: In search of the whales' sisters", Nature, Vol. 404, No. 6775, p. 235-239 (1998). www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file017.html "Both morphological and molecular data are vulnerable to the problem of homoplasies — reversals to ancestral conditions or parallel changes in different lineages that can camouflage the true phylogeny. In this sense, neither approach is better than the other. For instance, the ear region of the skull, traditionally considered to be a good source of highly stable characters, shows some glaring homoplasies among the ungulates and cetaceans 4, 5. Moreover, the fossil record of many early divergent fossil taxa is incomplete, resulting in ambiguities in morphological estimates". (52) Janke A, et al, "The marsupial mitochondrial genome and the evolution of placental mammals." Genetics 137:243-256. Abstract : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8056314 Full Pdf : www.genetics.org/content/137/1/243.full.pdf "The entire mitochondrial genome of the American opossum has been sequenced. Two major differences with placental genomes are noted. First, the sequence of five tRNA genes is different. Second, the aspartic acid tRNA has an anticodon not normally found in the mitochondrion. Eight of thirteen mitochondrial genes are said to exhibit clocklike divergence rates. Lineage divergences based on these genes and calibrated against the geologic time–scale indicate a date of 35 Ma for the divergence of the closely related rat and mouse, compared with 41 Ma for divergence of cow and whale. These results reveal a large discordance between morphological and molecular measures of similarity. Rats and mice are classified in the same Family, while cows and whales are classified in different Orders. Perhaps molecular sequences are not necessarily giving us an accurate picture of ancestry". (53) J. G. M. Thewissen, "Evolution of cetacean osmoregulation", Nature 381, 379 - 380 (30 May 1996). www.nature.com/nature/journal/v381/n6581/abs/381379b0.html (54) P. F. Scholander et al, "Countercurrent Heat Exchange and Vascular Bundles in Sloths", Journal of Applied Physiology May 1, 1957 vol. 10 no. 3 405 - 411. jap.physiology.org/content/10/3/405.short Fig: Aquatic birds and mammals, such as penguins, seals, and whales, can be endothermic in an aquatic environment for two major reasons: First, they are all air breathers and do not expose a large respiratory surface to the surrounding water. Second, many endothermic aquatic animals, including penguins, seals, and whales, are well insulated from the heat-sapping external environment by a thick layer of fat, while others, such as the sea otter, are insulated by a layer of fur that traps air. The parts of these animals that are not well insulated, principally appendages, are outfitted with countercurrent heat exchangers, vascular structures that reduce the rate of heat loss to the surrounding aquatic environment. biology-forums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=1642 Heyning JE, Mead JG., "Thermoregulation in the mouths of feeding gray whales.", Science. 1997 Nov 7;278(5340):1138-9. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9353198 (55) Rory Howlett, "Flipper's secret.", NewScientist (28 June 1997). www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420884.700-flippers-secret.html (56) Usha Varanasi. et al, "Molecular basis for formation of lipid sound lens in echolocating cetaceans", Nature 255, 340 - 343 (22 May 1975). www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5506/abs/255340a0.html Capt. David Williams, "Loss Of Navigation In Beached Whales And Dolphins", Deafwhale site. deafwhale.com/why_whales_beach/navigation_failure.htm (57) Durrett R, Schmidt D."Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution", Genetics, 2008 Nov;180(3):1501-9. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18791261 Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – Metacafe. www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203/whale_evolution_vs_population_genetics_richard_sternberg_phd_in_evolutionary_biology/ (58) Michael Warren, "Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica", NBC News 10/11/2011. www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/ Ahmed Yahia — Source: Brahin Center website - Posted on 2014-02-05 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/الملحمة-المستحيلة-إشكاليات-الاستدلال-بسجل-الحفريات-على-التطور