Is basilosaurus evidence for evolution?
|
If this article was helpful to you, share it with your friends:
|
|
(Image from Carl & Debbie Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, New Leaf Publishing Group, 2007, p. 144, ISBN: 9780892216819)
"According to the previously shown whale evolution diagram, Basilosaurus was the precursor to modern whales, one of the missing links."
-Carl & Debbie Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, New Leaf Publishing Group, 2007, p. 144, ISBN: 9780892216819
Although other so-called "missing links" in the whale evolution model (e.g.
pakicetus,
ambulocetus, etc) were all based on a few bone fragments, complete skeletons of basilosaurus have been discovered many times in the US over the past 100 years. George Goode and Charles Schuchert were the first to assemble a complete skeleton of basilosaurus for display in 1896.
(Image taken at Arts and Industries Building, 1896; Originals from Smithsonian Institution Archives, retrieved Feb 10, 2012, [www.mnh.si.edu])
First of all, before we go any further, we need to clarify that
no fossils can possibly be considered as evidence for evolution. If a scientist finds a bone in the dirt, there is only one thing he knows for certain: It died. He doesn't even know where it died--he only knows where it ended up getting buried. There is no way for a scientist to prove that the bones he found in the dirt had any children that lived, so he can't say that it is the ancestor of anyone.
Understanding that no fossils can be considered evidence for evolution, how are evolutionists coming to the conclusion that basilosaurus is an evolutionary ancestor of modern whales? The Smithsonian Institute tells us:
"The hind limb provides a clue to the evolutionary past of Basilosaurus."
-Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, "Basilosaurus," Celebrating 100 Years: Explore Our Collections, retrieved Feb 10, 2012, [www.mnh.si.edu])
(Image taken by Chip Clark at Sant Ocean Hall, 2010; Originals from Smithsonian Institution Archives, retrieved Feb 10, 2012, [www.mnh.si.edu])
Those little bones are what evolutionists are claiming has led them to believe that land dwelling mammals went into shallow water, lost their legs, evolved flippers, and became whales. What are they basing that on? It's all about the claim that these bones have no function, and therefore, they claim, are vestigial remnents of evolutionary past. That's exactly what the public school textbooks are teaching:
These are claimed to be remnents of evolutionary past, but are done so on no other basis than imaginary thought. These bones were designed and placed with a function, and even evolutionary "experts" understand that function:
"It seems to me that they could only be some kind of sexual or reproductive clasper."
-Phillip Gingerich (discoverer of pakicetus), quoted in The Press-Enterprise, July 1, 1990, p. A-15
Yet, they keep teaching the "no function" lie because there's no evidence of land-mammal to whale evolution. These similar types of bones are found in similar types of sea creatures because
that's what they use to help them in sexual reproduction, which means it's a common reproductive design that works, not remains of legs of evolutionary land-dwelling ancestors.
The textbooks keep teaching students to
IMAGINE that evolution happened. That's my point. It all takes place in the imagination--it does not take place in reality.
"Dr. Lawrence Barnes, a whale evolution expert from the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles, does not believe Basilosaurus was an ancestor to modern whales because this whale lived at the same time as the more modern forms of whales and, therefore, could not be the precursor... Apparently, not all agree on Basilosaurus being the last ancestor prior to the evolution of the modern forms of whales."
-Carl & Debbie Werner, quoted Dr. Lawrence Barnes, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, New Leaf Publishing Group, 2007, p. 144, ISBN: 9780892216819
"The serpentine form of the body [of basilosaurus] and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth made it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."
-Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, 1974, p. 487, ISBN: 9780486648507
Though the evolutionists believe this creature to have gone extinct 35 million years ago, it is possible that the basilosaurus kind of animal is still alive in some parts of the world. I don't know if it is or isn't (nor do I make that claim), but there are some very interesting eye-witness accounts of sightings of a creature fitting the basilosaurus description.
(Watch Seminar #3: Dinosaurs and the Bible here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
