DARWINISM IS NOT SCIENCE: IT IS A SHAMANISTIC RELIGION THAT HAS ADOPTED NATURE AS A DEITY!

• Darwinism is an ancient shamanistic religion built on superstitions of all kinds. The origins of shamanism go back some 50,000 years.   • Shamanism is a belief system based on the worship of forces such as rain, snow, lightning, storms, wind, and the Sun. Darwinism is also a religion of nature-worship; it describes nature as an entity with “mythical and mysterious powers.” It anticipates the belief that stone, earth, the Sun, lightning and wind combined to give rise to life.   • Shamans claim to be the physicians, sages, leaders and administrators of their tribes and societies. Darwinists describe themselves in the same way. Shamans maintain that they understand the secrets of nature and can foretell the future. Similarly, Darwinists maintain that they know the secrets of matter, the atom and the Earth, and seek to describe imaginary changes that human beings and nature will be subject to in the future.   • Astronomy, biology, paleontology, physics, geology, chemistry, geophysics, embryology are all sciences. Darwinism, however, is not a science, but a primitive shamanistic religion. Darwinists’ present-day beliefs are just as odd and irrational as those of people who once worshipped crocodiles. Darwinists regard chance and inanimate, unconscious atoms as a creative force, and are as devoted to that belief as if to a religion.   - Since the theory of evolution was first put forward, advances in a great many branches of science, have demolished the theory’s claims, one by one. Nonetheless, Darwinism still has its adherents. Typically, when a scientific theory is disproved, it is shelved, and all debate and discussion comes to an end. But not so with Darwinism. No matter how powerful and indisputable the evidence against their theory may be, evolutionists ignore it and continue to defend their beliefs in a fervent manner.   - Worshipping fire, the stars or the Sun, believing that the Pyramids were built by aliens, or venerating certain animals as sacred is not scientific. In the same way, neither is Darwinism–because just like other superstitious beliefs, Darwinism is also a religion of idols and false deities. Members of the shamanistic religion of Darwinism spread fictitious reports about the future and try to bring new converts under their spell.   - Darwinism’s foremost idol is the “idol of chance.” Whatever Darwinist text you read, you will see claims about the power and limitless abilities of “natural selection,” the lifeblood and essence of Darwinism.   - Evolutionists claim that everything performed by the “idol of chance” is actually based on pragmatic calculations. In their view, this idol is able to consider everything and calculate in advance every step it will take.   - Evolutionists believe in one very strange force. They ascribe divine status to matter. They have belief that matter once assembled itself into a living cell and that one organism can give rise to another, entirely different one. Science has refuted these ideas. But for Darwinists, they are irrefutable facts that everyone must believe.   - Darwinism is an ancient shamanistic religion, built on insane and irrational superstitions and falsehoods. This idolatrous religion has been invented to confront Islam.   - According to the shamanistic religion of Darwinism, earth, water, rock and stone can feel, smell, hear and perceive colors. Pagan societies have existed on Earth since the very earliest times. People at all times and all societies have fashioned different idols for themselves. In the same way that Darwinists adopt chance and inanimate matter as creative entities, similar imaginings were once adopted as idols by societies with warped beliefs. Above: Images depicting the Sumerian water idols.   - The essence of the religion of Darwinists is their nonsensical belief in chance that violates both science and reason. In fact, any rational mind is quite able to conceive that no complex entity can come into being spontaneously, by chance, but absolutely must be the product of a conscious plan. However, just like pagans who worship the idols they have crafted with their own hands, Darwinists believe in false deities.   - The nonsensical belief that Darwinists have adopted bears a very close resemblance to the beliefs of ancient pagan cultures. In the much same way that pagans believe that inanimate idols created all things, so evolutionists and materialists believe that inanimate matter created all living things. (God is surely beyond these.) They claim that even their own human bodies are the sum total of various coincidences.   - It is unacceptable for students to be taught Darwinist shamanistic religion under the name of science. What they need are courses in biology that have been purged of this shamanistic religion.   - The Turkish public laughs at the ruses resorted to by local evolutionists, because they cannot prove evolution by way of slander and aggression. Any evidence they have, they should put forward, whereupon everyone can easily distinguish between truth and error. For months now, the exhibitions of fossils taking place all over the country have helped the Turkish public realize that living things never underwent evolution.   - It is expected that evolutionists exhibit fossils if they have any. At the very least, they should display a few of them in the central headquarters or gardens of Turkish daily newspapers such as Cumhuriyet, Vatan and Hurriyet, or in such heavily frequented public spaces such as Istanbul’s Taksim Square or Ulus in Ankara. If they cannot do that, then they should cease their defense of evolution. They have no intermediate-form fossils to show, because such things never existed.   - Each fossil that evolutionists have put forward as a proof of evolution has turned out to be a fake or else misinterpreted. “Piltdown Man,” for example, turned out to be a hoax. The tooth of Nebraska “Man” turned out to be from a fossil boar. The coelacanth has been caught alive—and unchanged—since 1938. All the skull and bone fragments that allegedly show the human evolution tale have been proven to be either those of present-day human beings or else of species of ape that have become extinct. Evolutionists conjure up creatures that never actually existed and hire skilled artists to produce “reconstructed” models and illustrations—which they use to try and convince people that evolution is a scientific fact. This false evidence is displayed in newspapers, magazines and museums. But these depictions reflect nothing beyond their makers’ imaginations. No such entities exist in the fossil record. Yet evolutionists themselves finally fall under the spell of this false evidence they have created with their own hands and start to believe in the religion of Darwinism.   SCIENTIFIC FACTS REFUTE THE CLAIMS OF THE  “SHAMANISTIC RELIGION OF DARWINISM”   According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: the first living organism formed spontaneously.   According to modern science, life cannot come into being by chance. Not one single protein or even a single cell, let alone a whole organism, can emerge by chance. The likelihood of any protein emerging by chance is only 1 in 10950. In practical terms, this equates to zero probability.   According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: living species descended from earlier, more primitive ones.   According to modern science, species cannot descend from one another. Every life form has its own unique characteristics. It is impossible for them to develop through another species’ gradual changes.   According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: fossils confirm the theory of evolution.   According to modern science, fossils are evidence of creation, not evolution. Some 100 million fossils have so far been discovered, and all of them represent complete, fully formed organisms. Not a single fossil indicates that it was undergoing any transitional “evolution.”   According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: species diversified through mutations.   According to modern science, mutations damage organisms, and do not improve them. They cannot cause a species to diversify: they either kill or cripple the mutated individual.   According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: humans are descended from ape-like creatures.   According to modern science, apes and humans are totally separate species. There is no family relationship between them. Despite their physical similarities, they have enormous differences that cannot be explained by claims of evolution.   According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: natural selection present in nature is proof of evolution.   According to modern science, natural selection cannot cause one living thing to evolve or give rise to new life forms.   TWO NEW DECEPTIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS: TIKTAALIK ROSEAE AND GOGONASUS   The fossil discovered in Canada a few months ago and given the name of Tiktaalik roseae was portrayed as major evidence for evolution. In fact, however, this creature is obviously a “mosaic” combining a great many features. Nonetheless, evolutionists depict this creature as an intermediate species and claim, using fictitious illustrations, that it represents proof of a transition from water to land. The platypus found in modern-day Australia is also a mosaic creature that shares mammalian, reptilian and bird characteristics at one and the same time. Yet nothing about it can be depicted as proof of evolution.   In recent days, evolutionists have brought up yet another fossil found in Australia, repeating their tales that have persisted for so many years of a “completed missing link.” This new fossil, known as Gogonasus and evidently an extinct species of fish, has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolutionists seek to use it as an evidence for their myth of the transition from water to dry land, particularly on account of its fin bones, but the fossil in question is an obvious species of fish totally unconnected with life on land. The coelacanth, still alive today, also has bones in its fins, but these have been established to be perfectly ordinary structures that the fish uses solely for the purpose of swimming.   In order to substantiate their claims, evolutionists must discover “intermediate forms,” with deficient, half-formed organs that are not fully functional. Yet every one of the organs possessed by these fossil creatures is complete, flawless. There are no semi-developed organs, nor any fossil series that can be presented as evidence for an evolutionary transition from other living species.   Evolutionists must finally accept the facts and stop trying to deceive the public with their fabrications.   MATERIALIST SELF-INTEREST CABALS ARE UP TO NEW CONSPIRACIES   In recent months, both the Turkish and the world media have been issuing panicked reports about the global defeat of Darwinism. The routing of Darwinism has had a deep impact on European Freemasonry and certain other secret forces, and these have resorted to a plan produced out of terror of the threat of the elimination of atheism and materialism. British and French lodges have issued directives. Sabbatean families are also becoming involved, out of a thirst for vengeance. In order that the matter should be definitively resolved, various writers are being hired out, and a plot is being prepared against all patriotic individuals. The principal target is the Science Research Foundation.   In the future, however, just as in the past, it will be impossible for these endeavors to bear any fruit. Millions are aware of just what is going on. A new Sun has risen, and its light has illuminated all parts. The next thing for evolutionists to do is submit in the face of the facts.   ISLAM CONFLICTS WITH PAGAN RELIGIONS, NOT WITH SCIENCE   Islam commands people to research and investigate all branches of science and knowledge:   . . . Reflect on the creation of the heavens and the Earth . . . (Surah Al Imran, 191)   Have they not looked at the sky above them: how We structured it . . . (Surah Qaf, 6)   . . . You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again . . . (Surat al-Mulk, 3)   Man has only to look at what he was created from. (Surat at-Tariq, 5)   Have they not looked at the camel—how it was created, and at the sky—how it was raised up, and at the mountains—how they were embedded, and at the Earth—how it was smoothed out? (Surat al-Ghashiyya, 17-20)   In the heavens and Earth there are certainly signs for the believers. And in your creation and all the creatures He has spread about there are signs for people with certainty. (Surat al-Jathiyya, 3-4)   It is therefore impossible to claim any divergence between science and Islam.   However, Islam does oppose all false religions. It is opposed to the worship of fire, of the devil, animals or idols—in short, to all forms of pagan belief. Shamanism is a religion that also worships chance and nature (animals, plants, stones, earth and matter). As a shamanistic creed, Darwinism is therefore in conflict with Islam.

A HISTORICAL LIE: THE STONE AGE – II

What Will Remain from Our Own Civilization? Imagine what will be left of today’s great civilizations in hundreds of thousands of years. All our cultural accumulation—paintings, statues and palaces—will all disappear, and barely a trace of our present technology will remain. Many materials designed to resist wear and tear will gradually, under natural conditions, finally begin to succumb. Steel rusts. Concrete decays. Underground facilities collapse, and all materials require maintenance. Now imagine that tens of thousands of years have passed, and they have been subjected to thousands of gallons of rain, centuries of fierce winds, repeated floods and earthquakes. Perhaps all that will remain will be a few giant pieces of carved stone, just like what has come down to us from the past. Or maybe not a trace of our advanced civilizations will be left at all, only from tribes living in Africa, Australia or some other place in the world. If future scientists look at these scattered remains and describe all societies of the period we are living in as “culturally backward,” will they not have departed from the truth? Or, if someone discovers a work written in Mandarin and concludes, solely on the basis of this text, that the Chinese were a backward race communicating by means of strange signs, will this be any reflection of the true facts? Consider the example of Auguste Rodin’s statue “The Thinker,” which is familiar to the whole world. Imagine that this statue is re-discovered by archaeologists tens of thousands from now. If those researchers hold their own preconceptions about the beliefs and lifestyle of our society, and lack sufficient historical documentation, they may well interpret this statue in different ways. They may imagine that the members of our civilization worshipped a thinking man, or may claim that the statue represents some mythological deity. Today, of course, we know that “The Thinker” was a work produced for aesthetic, artistic reasons alone. In other words, if a researcher in tens of thousands of years lacks enough information and holds his own preconceived ideas about the past, it’s impossible for him to arrive at the truth, because he will interpret “The Thinker” in the light of his preconceptions and form an appropriate scenario. Therefore, evaluating the information at hand without prejudice or bias, avoiding all forms of preconception, and thinking in broader terms is of the greatest importance. Never forget, we have no evidence that societies evolve or that societies in the past were primitive. These suggestions consist solely of conjecture and are based solely on analysis by historians and archaeologists who support evolution. For example, drawings of animals on a 30,000-year-old cave wall were immediately described as primitive drawings by cavemen. Yet these pictures may well say volumes about the aesthetic understanding of the humans at that time. An artist wearing the most modern clothing for the time may have produced them solely for artistic reasons alone. Indeed, many scientists now emphasize the impossibility of these same cave drawings as being the work of a primitive mind. Another example is the interpretation of sharp-edged stones as the first tools made by “ape-men.” People at that time may have shaped these stones and used for decorative purposes. There is no proof, only an assumption, that the pieces found were definitely used by these people as tools. Evolutionist scientists have examined the evidence found during excavations from a biased perspective. They have played about with some fossils that, in their own view, prove their theories, and have ignored or even discarded others. Similar games have been played to demonstrate that Mankind’s history evolved as well.i  The American anthropologist Melville Herskovits describes how the “evolution of history” thesis emerged and the way that evolutionists interpret the evidence: Every exponent of cultural evolution provided an hypothetical blueprint of the progression he conceived as having marked the development of mankind, so that many examples of nonlinear sequences have been recorded. Some of these progressions were restricted to a single aspect of culture, as has been indicated. ii One of the most important examples to confirm Herskovits’ view is one study carried out by the evolutionist ethnographer Lewis Henry Morgan, who examined the phases a society undergoes to achieve the patriarchal and monogamous structure that, he claimed, had “evolved” from the primitive to the more developed. But in carrying out this research, he used for his examples different societies from all over the globe, entirely unconnected from one another. He then set them out in accord with the result he wanted to achieve. It’s clear that from the hundreds of thousands of cultures in the world, he selected only those compatible with his preconceived thesis. Then Herskovits illustrates how Morgan re-arranged history to validate his ideas. Starting with the very primitive matrilineal Australians, he drew a line leading to the patrilineal American Indians. He then moved his sequence to Grecian tribes of the proto-historic period, when descent was firmly established in the male line, but with no strict monogamy. The last entry in his ascending scale was represented by modern civilization—with descent in the male line and strict monogamy. Herskovits comments on this imaginary sequence: But this series, from the point of view of a historical approach, is quite fictitious… iii The Advanced Art in Caves Evolutionists maintain that some 30-40,000 years ago in Europe, and in a rather earlier period in Africa, so-called ape-like humans experienced a sudden process of transition, and suddenly acquired the ability to think and produce things, just like modern human beings. This is because archaeological findings from that period offer significant evidence that the theory of evolution cannot explain. According to Darwinist claims, the technology of stone implements, which had remained unchanged for almost 200,000 years, was suddenly replaced by a more advanced and rapidly developing hand-crafted technology. So-called primitive man, who had descended from the trees and begun to modernize only shortly before, suddenly developed artistic talents and began carving or painting pictures of extraordinary beauty and sophistication on cave walls and produced exceedingly beautiful decorative objects such as necklaces and bracelets. Scientists carrying out research in caves evaluate these pictures as some of the most important and valuable works in the history of art. The shading in these pictures, the use of perspective and the fine lines employed, the depth of feeling expertly reflected in the reliefs, and the aesthetic patterns that emerge as the sunlight strikes the carvings—all evidence a development that evolutionists are unable to explain because, according to the Darwinist view, such features should have emerged very much later. The painting techniques employed also show that they did not live under primitive conditions at all. In addition, these paintings on cave walls are no evidence that people of the time lived in those caves. The artists may have lived in elaborate shelters nearby, but chose to create their images on the cave walls. With what emotions and thoughts they selected what to represent is something known only to the artist. Much speculation has been produced regarding these pictures, of which the most unrealistic interpretation is that they were made by beings who were still in a primitive state. Indeed, a report published on the BBC’s Science web page on 22 February, 2000, contained the following lines regarding cave paintings: … we have always marvelled at them, but thought that they were made by primitive people … But according to two scientists working in South Africa, this view of the ancient painters is totally wrong. They believe the paintings are evidence of a complex and modern society. iv If many of our present-day artworks were to be analyzed with the same logic in thousands of years’ time, a number of debates might arise over whether 21st-century society was a primitive tribal one or an advanced civilization. If undamaged pictures by modern artists were discovered, 5,000 years on, and if no written documentation regarding the present day had survived, what would people of the future think about our own age? If people of the future discovered works by Van Gogh or Picasso and judged them from an evolutionist perspective, how would they regard our modern society? Would the landscapes of Claude Monet inspire comments like “Industry had not yet developed, and people led an agricultural way of life,” or comments along the lines of “People still unable to read or write communicated by way of exaggerated blocks of color”? Would the abstract pictures of Wassily Kandinsky lead them to any insights about our present-day society?

By Harun Yahya.com

A HISTORICAL LIE: THE STONE AGE – I

By Harun Yahya.com

Did you know that 700,000 years ago, people were sailing the oceans in very well-constructed ships? Or have you ever heard that the people described as “primitive cavemen” possessed an artistic ability and understanding just as refined as those of modern artists? Did you know that the Neanderthals, who lived 80,000 years ago and whom evolutionists portrayed as “ape-men,” made musical instruments, took pleasure from clothing and accessories, and walked over painfully hot sands with molded sandals? In all probability you may never have heard any of these facts. On the contrary, you may have been handed the mistaken impression that these people were half-ape and half-human, unable to stand fully upright, lacking the ability to speak words and producing only strange grunting noises. That is because this entire falsehood has been imposed on people like yourself for the last 150 years. The motive behind it is to keep alive materialist philosophy, which denies the existence of a Creator. According to this view, which distorts any fact that stands in its way, the universe and matter are eternal. In other words they had no beginning, and thus have no Creator. Then how did life come to be? The supposedly scientific explanation is the theory of evolution. Because since materialists claim that the universe has no Creator, they must provide their own explanation for how the life and myriad species on Earth came into being. The theory of evolution is the scenario they employed for that purpose. According to this theory, all the order and life in the universe came about spontaneously and by chance. Certain inanimate substances in the primeval world combined by accident to give rise to the first living cell. As a result of millions of years of similar coincidences, organisms came into existence. And finally came human beings, as the final stage of this evolutionary chain. The early history of mankind—which is alleged to have come into being as the result of millions of accidental mutations, each more impossible than the last—has been distorted to fit in with this scenario. According to the evolutionists’ account, which is totally lacking in any proof, the history of mankind is as follows: In the same way that life forms progressed from a primitive organism up to man, the most highly developed of all, so mankind’s history must have advanced from the most primitive community to the most advanced urban society. But this assumption is completely devoid of any supporting evidence. It also represents the history of mankind prepared in line with the claims of materialist philosophy and the theory of evolution. Evolutionist scientists—in order to account for the supposed evolutionary process that they claim extends from a single cell to multi-celled organisms, and then from apes to man, —have rewritten the history of mankind. To that end they have invented imaginary eras such as “The Cave-Man Age” and “The Stone Age” to describe the lifestyle of “primitive Man.” Evolutionists, supporting the falsehood that human beings and apes are descended from a common ancestor, have embarked on a new search in order to prove their claims. They now interpret every stone, or arrowhead or bowl unearthed during archaeological excavations in that light. Yet the pictures and dioramas of half-ape, half-man creatures sitting in a dark cave, dressed in furs, and lacking the facility of speech are all fictitious. Primitive man never existed, and there never was a Stone Age. They are nothing more than deceptive scenarios produced by evolutionists with the help of one section of the media. These concepts are all deceptions because recent advances in science—particularly in the fields of biology, paleontology, microbiology and genetics—have totally demolished the claims of evolution. That the idea that living species evolved and transformed into “later” versions of each other has been deemed invalid. In the same way, human beings did not evolve from ape-like creatures. Human beings have been human since the day they came into existence, and have possessed a sophisticated culture from that day to this. Therefore, “the evolution of history” never happened, either. Civilizations Retreat as Well as Advance Darwinism maintains that Man—and thus the culture he possesses—advanced from rudimentary, primitive, tribal stages toward civilization. However, the archaeological findings show that since the very first day of human history, there have been periods with societies that maintained very advanced cultures along with others whose cultures have been more backward. Indeed, most of the time, very wealthy civilizations have existed at the same time as backward ones. Throughout the course of history, most societies of the same period had very different levels of technology and civilization, with very great sociological and cultural differences—just as is the case today. For example, though the North American continent is very advanced today in terms of medicine, science, architecture and technology, some communities in South America are rather backward technologically, with no links to the outside world. Diseases in many parts of the world are identified using the most advanced imaging techniques and analysis, and are treated in very modern hospitals. Yet in other parts of the world, diseases are thought to develop under the influence of so-called evil spirits, and attempts to heal the sick involve ceremonies to banish such spirits. Such societies as the people of the Indus, the Ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians, who all lived around 3,000 BC, possessed cultures incomparably richer in all respects than that of these present-day tribes, and even than that of societies more advanced. This means that in all periods of history, societies with highly advanced civilizations have been able to survive together with more backward ones. A society that existed thousands of years ago may actually have advanced much further than one in the 20th century. This demonstrates that there has been no development within an evolutionary process—in other words, from the primitive to the civilized. Over the course of history, of course, major advances have been made in all fields, with great strides and constant development in science and technology, thanks to the accumulation of culture and experience. However, it is neither rational nor scientific to describe these changes as an “evolutionary” process in the way that evolutionists and materialists do. Just as there are no differences in physical characteristics between a modern human and someone who lived thousands of years ago, so there are no differences in regard to intelligence and capabilities. The idea that our civilization is more advanced because 21st century man’s brain capacity and intelligence are more highly developed is a faulty perspective, resulting from evolutionist indoctrination. The fact is people in very different regions today may have different conceptions and cultures. But if a native Australian may not possess the same knowledge as a scientist from the USA, that doesn’t mean his intelligence or brain haven’t developed enough. Many people born into such societies may even be ignorant of the existence of electricity, but who are still highly intelligent. Moreover, different needs have arisen during different centuries. Our standards of fashion are not the same as the Ancient Egyptians’, but that doesn’t mean that our culture is more advanced than theirs. While skyscrapers are symbols of civilization in the 21st century, the evidence of civilization in the Egyptian period was pyramids and sphinxes. What matters is the perspective from which facts are interpreted. Someone starting with the preconceived idea that the facts support a so-called evolutionary development will evaluate all the information he obtains in light of that prejudice. Thus he will try to support his assertions with imaginary tales. Based on fragments of fossil bone, he will conjecture a great many details, such as how people living in that region spent their daily lives, their family structures and their social relations, in a way adapted to that preconception. He’ll conclude, based on those fragments of bone, that the living people they belonged to were only semi-upright and grunting, covered in hair and using crude stone tools—not because that is what scientific evidence suggests, but because his ideology requires it. Actually, the facts obtained do not imply such a scenario at all. This illusory picture comes about through interpretations by a Darwinist mentality. Many evolutionists seek to prove their claims by producing scenarios, even in the absence of any supporting evidence. Yet every new finding, when interpreted in an biased manner, very clearly reveals to them certain facts, one of which is this: Man has been Man since the day he came into existence. Such attributes as intelligence and artistic ability have been the same in all periods of history. Peoples who lived in the past were not primitive, half-human; half-animal creatures, as evolutionists would have us believe. They were thinking, speaking human beings, just like us, who produced works of art and developed cultural and ethical structures.

A WHALE FANTASY FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

By Harun Yahya.com

National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological ‘filter’ before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories. The ideology in question in National Geographic is a blend of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as Neo-Darwinism. In the name of defending that theory, it generally presents prejudiced views of discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example, there was the falsehood of the Archaeoraptor fossil, which was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been ‘hand made.’ Even scientists who support the theory criticize the magazine for the blind propaganda it carries. According Dr. Storrs Olson, the Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” (1) One instance of National Geographic’s ’sensational, unsubstantiated and tabloid’ evolutionist propaganda was its ‘Evolution of Whales’ article carried in the issue of November, 2001. The article maintained that a string of fossil discoveries had proved the evolution of whales thesis, and even quoted paleontologist Hans Thewissen as arguing that whales were one of the best examples of evolution. The pictures, reconstructions and diagrams plastered all over the 14-page article were intended to visually reinforce the same claim in readers’ minds. However, the ‘evolution of whales’ scenario, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, was-and is-nothing but a fairy tale, devoid of any scientific evidence. The parade of reconstructions on pages 66-69 in National Geographic’s November 2001 issue were meant to sum up the magazine’s claim regarding the origin of whales. A whole string of creatures were lined up one after the other and described as transitional forms in the evolution of the whale. According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to the geological periods they lived in, was as follows: * Pakicetus (50 million years ago) * Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) * Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago) * Procetus (45 million years ago) * Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago) * Durodon (37 million years ago) * Basilosaurus (37 million years ago) * Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago) National Geographic’s list continued, but included known categories of dolphins and whales. There are very misleading features in this list. Let us consider the most fundamental of these. According to National Geographic, the first two creatures in the list, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus , were both ‘walking whales,’ yet the claim that these two terrestrial creatures were ‘whales’ is totally fictitious, even ridiculous. Let us first consider Pakicetus . Pakicetus inachus: A Quadrupedal Forced to be the ‘Ancestor of the Whale’ Fossil remains of the extinct mammal Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came onto the agenda in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a ‘primitive whale,’ even though they actually only found a skull. Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a ‘primitive whale’ and why is it still presented as such by National Geographic? The magazine gives the following reply: What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination-the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull-are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales. (2) In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a ‘walking whale.’ Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the evolutionist illustrator Carl Buell will reveal the absurdity in terming it a ‘walking whale.’ Distortions in The Reconstructions of National Geographic Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal. The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this. Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is realistic. National Geographic, however, opted to use a picture of a ’swimming’ Pakicetus (below) in order to portray the animal as a ‘walking whale’ and to impose that image on its readers. The inconsistencies in the picture, intended to make Pakicetus seem more ‘whale-like,’ are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a ’swimming’ position. Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of ‘fins’ has been given. Pakicetus reconstruction by National Geographic   The features of the details discussed by National Geographic, “the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull” are no compelling evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale: As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing “subtle clues in combination”, some of these features are actually found terrestrial animals as well. None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.) Pakicetus , which National Geographic declared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.” (3) Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms. In short, describing Pakicetus , which is clearly a land dweller, as ‘walking whale’ simply on the structural features in its ear bones and molars, is nothing but another example of National Geographic’s tradition of ’sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.’ In his article ‘The Overselling of Whale Evolution,’ the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus , could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea , or extinct whales, in these words: “The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.” (4)   Ambulocetus natans: A False Whale with ‘Webbed’ Claws The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in National Geographic’s imaginary sequence is Ambulocetus natans. This fossil was first brought to the world’s attention in 1984 in an article in Science magazine. It is actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on ‘turning into a whale.’ The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words ‘ambulare’ (to walk), ‘cetus’ (whale) and ‘natans’ (swimming), and means ‘a walking and swimming whale.’ It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and hooves on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists’ prejudice however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian). In order to see the border between science and wishful imagination on this subject, let us have a look at National Geographic’s reconstruction of Ambulocetus . This is how it is portrayed in the magazine: National Geographic’s little manipulations: Imaginary webs added to claws, and rear legs made to look like fins. If you look at it carefully you can easily see the two little visual manipulations that have been employed to ‘turn the land-dwelling Ambulocetus into a whale: The animal’s rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examines the animal’s leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land. (5) In order to present an impression of adaptation for water, webbing has been drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on features beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. That offers evolutionists a wide-ranging empty space of speculation to use their propaganda tools. With the same kind of evolutionists touching up that has been applied to the Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make any animal look like any other. You could even take a monkey skeleton, draw fins on its back and webbing between its fingers and present it as the ‘primate ancestor of whales.’ The invalidity of the deception carried out on the basis of the Ambulocetus fossil can be seen from the drawing below, based on real paleontological data: The real Ambulocetus : The legs are real legs, not ‘fins,’ and there are no imaginary webs between its toes such as National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335) In publishing the picture of the animal’s skeleton, National Geographic had to take a step back from the retouching it had carried out to the reconstruction picture which made it seem more like a whale. As the skeleton clearly shows, the animal’s feet were designed to carry it on land. There was no sign of the imaginary webs.   The Myth of the Walking Whale In fact, there is no evidence that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors of whales. They are merely described as ‘possible ancestors’ by evolutionists keen to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals in the light of their theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures with the marine mammals that emerge in the fossil record at a very similar geological time. After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus , the National Geographic plan moves on to so-called sea mammals and sets out (extinct whale) species such as Procetus , Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea . The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and which are now extinct. (We shall be touching on this matter later). However, there are considerable anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus . No matter how much National Geographic tried to reduce these to a minimum by slight touches of the brush, when we look at the fossils it is clear they are not ‘transitional forms’ linking each other: The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus , believed to have lived some 10 million years after Ambulocetus , possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus , a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus , a typical whale. Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be vestigial legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones actually had another function. In Basilosaurus , these bones ‘functioned as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales ‘[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia.’ (6) To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice. In conclusion, despite all National Geographic’s best efforts, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: “It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales.” (7) Other scientists accept that the animals that evolutionist publications such as National Geographic try to portray as ‘walking whales’ actually have nothing to do with true whales, but are a separate living group. Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze does not support the description of Pakicetus , Ambulocetus natans and similar four-legged creatures as ‘possible ancestors of the whale,’ and describes them instead as a completely isolated group. (8)   Problems With National Geographic’s Superficial Sequences Visual effects (plans and drawings) play a major role in the imposition of Darwinism on society. Yet these are sometimes completely unscientific, and at other are scientific discoveries interpreted in a biased manner. National Geographic’s time scale diagram (pages 64-77) of mammals that become increasingly more ‘whale-like’ through time is an example of these deceptive tools. We have so far been considering small, but misleading adjustments to the reconstructions of the animals in the diagram. Alongside this, the dates ascribed to them by National Geographic have been selected in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are shown as following each other in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. Ashby L. Camp clarifies the situation, based on paleontological data: “In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus , an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus , which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus . This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.” (9) In brief, there are two different views of when the animals that National Geographic chronologically sets out one after the other really lived. If the second view is accepted, then Pakicetus and Ambulocetus , which National Geographic portrays as ‘the walking whale,’ are of the same age as, or even younger than true whales. In other words, no ‘evolutionary line’ is possible. National Geographic has totally ignored the problem and has only used views that correspond to its own thesis. This is a method of propaganda, not of science.   Tales About Ears and Noses Any evolutionary scenario between land and sea mammals has to explain the different ear and nose structures between the two groups. By means of the showy graphics it used, National Geographic has tried to give the impression that the question has been resolved. Yet that impression is a false one. Let us first consider the ear structure. Like us, land mammals trap sounds in the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws. National Geographic claims that the second system evolved from the first. This is made clear on Page 71 in the diagram headed ‘hearing aids.’ This diagram has been drawn in such a way as to give the reader the impression that hearing organs evolved in stages. However, there is no evolution by stages here. A look at the text used by National Geographic will suffice to make this clear: “ Pakicetus … This walking whale lacked the fat pad extending to the middle ear that modern ceteans have, a clue that it had kept terrestrial attributes. In later whales, the jawbone, with the fat pad, adapted to receive sounds.” We have already seen that Pakicetus was a typical land mammal, and that it is ridiculous to call it a ‘walking whale.’ The logic employed by National Geographic is no less ridiculous: It first describes the land-dwelling Pakicetus as a ‘walking whale’ and then says that the animal kept terrestrial attributes. That is like calling the cow a ‘walking bat’ and then saying, ‘It has no wings, it keeps its terrestrial attributes.’ That is one aspect of the matter. The aspect that concerns us here is the clear difference between Pakicetus and whale ears. After the National Geographic extract above, we must naturally look to see if there is a transitional form between the two. After Pakicetus in the family tree comes Ambulocetus , which evolutionists call a ‘walking-swimming whale’ but which was actually a land mammal. National Geographic uses the following words about Ambulocetus : “Though more aquatic than Pakicetus , Ambulocetus still heard directly through its ear.” In other words, there is no evolution towards a whale ear in Ambulocetus . When we come to the third animal in the National Geographic list, we suddenly meet an enormous change. The above extract continues: Sounds were transmitted to the middle ears of Basilosaurus as vibrations from the lower jaw. In other words, Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching its jaw. And there is no transitional form between Basilosaurus ‘ ear and that of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus , which National Geographic put before it in its scheme. When the subject is examined theoretically, it can be seen that in any case such a transitional form would have no chance of surviving. Any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage. The question of how such a ‘development’ could come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful information to animals’ genetic information. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations. A similar situation applies to National Geographic’s account of the ’sliding nose.’ The magazine set out three skulls from Pakicetus , Rodhocetus and a Grey Whale from our own time above one another and claimed that these represented an evolutionary process. Whereas the three fossils’ nasal structures, especially those of Rodhocetus and the Grey Whale are so different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms in the same series. Furthermore, the movement of the nostrils to the forehead would require a ‘new design’ in the anatomy of the animals in question, and believing that this could happen as the result of mutations is nothing but fantasy.   National Geographic’s Lamarckian Tales Actually, National Geographic’s writers and most of the evolutionist community share a basic superstition about the origin of living things, and that is the real problem. This superstition is the magical ‘natural force’ that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes or anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic’s article ‘Evolution of Whales:’ “I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby… As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones that supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to power the developing tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models and roamed farther from shore.” (10) On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment they live in, and this need is perceived as an ‘evolutionary mechanism.’ According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and needed organs appear of their own accord! Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do not shape our organs. Ever since Lamarck’s theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: ‘No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and in this way species evolve.’ Yet here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call ‘evolutionary pressure’ cannot lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals: Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones. Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed. If we look at the myth of National Geographic’s awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick “visualizes” that “Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models.” How could a morphological change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every “sequence” would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, those thus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have to happen by coincidence and quite flawlessly. If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe someone who says: ‘My family enjoys flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able to fly.’ Both stories are equally ridiculous. As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living things’ needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a ’scientific’ cloak. The well-known French biologist Paul Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and a foremost critic of Darwinism, has once made it clear that this faith is just daydreaming: “The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.” (11) More recently, Henry Gee, the science editor for the Nature magazine and an undisputedly prominent evolutionist, pointed to the same fact and admitted that explaining the origin of an organ by its necessity is like saying; … our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure. (12) Another scenario which National Geographic is trying to impose, without too much discussion, concerns the body surface of the animals in question. Like other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus , which are accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to have had fur-covered bodies. And they are both shown as covered in thick fur in National Geographic. Yet when we move on to later animals (true marine mammals), all the fur disappears. The evolutionist explanation of this is no different from the fantastical Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above. The truth of the matter is that all the animals in question were designed in the most appropriate manner for their environments. It is irrational to try to account for this design by means of mutation or facile Lamarck-type stories. Like all design in life, the design in these creatures is evidence for creation.   The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself We have so far examined the evolutionist scenario that marine mammals evolved from terrestrial ones. Scientific evidence show no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals ( Pakicetus and Ambulocetus ) that National Geographic put at the beginning of the story. So what about the rest of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic link between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins. National Geographic set the claim out in a very simplified form (Pages 156-159). However, many experts think rather differently. The evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl writes: “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.” (13) The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that they two major whale groups, the toothed whale (Odontoceti) and the baleen whale (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. He stresses that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries: “Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups. …On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis of DNA … and amino acid … sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.” (14) In short, marine mammals defy the evolutionary scenarios for which they are being forced to be subjects.   Conclusion Contrary to the claims of the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, who assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the subject of the origin of marine mammals, and is one of National Geographic’s most important sources of information, we are dealing not with an evolutionary process backed up by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two. What emerges, if the evidence is looked at more objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently of each other in the past. This is compelling empirical evidence for accepting that God created all of these creatures. Loud evolutionist propaganda about marine mammals, however, resembles the ‘horse series’ that was once put forward in the same way, but which evolutionists then admitted was invalid. A number of extinct mammals that lived at different times were lined up behind one another, and the evolutionists of the time tried to impose this as ‘firm evidence.’ Yet the truth emerged over time, and it was realized that these animals could not be each others’ ancestors, that they had emerged in different periods, and that they were actually independent extinct species. Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where “evolution of the horse” diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition: “There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.” (15) The evolution of whales fairy story, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, is another of these fantasies of natural history. Like its predecessors, it too will soon find itself in the waste bin of science. ____________________________________________ (1) Open Letter to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution (2) National Geographic, “Evolution of Whales”, November 2001, p. 68 (3) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329 (4) Ashby L. Camp, “The Overselling of Whale Evolution”, Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998 (5) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.333 (6) National Geographic, “Evolution of Whales”, November 2001, p. 73 (7) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 329 (8) G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), 91. (9) Ashby L. Camp, “The Overselling of Whale Evolution”, Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998 (10) National Geographic, “Evolution of Whales”, November 2001, p. 69 (11) Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 103 (12) Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Beyond The Fossil Record To A New Hýstory Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 103 (13) B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., 1985, p. 489. (14) Michel C. Milinkovitch, “Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans prompts revision of morphological transformations,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10 (August 1995): 328-334. (15) Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), page 78.)