Whales, Horses and Birds...

I thought I'd tackle a lighthearted simple topic today...LOL!

My fellow respected blogger/aka very smart person, Michael, has kindly responded to my response to his response to my post about creation, in today's post called Some Thoughts on Evolution.

Have I made myself clear as primordial mud? It made perfect sense to me. I can only attempt to make what makes sense to me sound sensible, but...well, in the end, what makes sense to one does not always make sense to another. And that's okay. I have long since abandoned my notions of trying to change people or make them agree with me. Perhaps it's because my own pre-suppositions have been so drastically changed over the years that I can finally stand before God with my hands wide open instead of fists clenched...

Nevertheless, here is my feeble attempt to address a few of the points that Michael has taken the time to put together in his post, and I am using sources that I trust for quotes and things because I am not actually that smart. :) And I see that Michael must be pretty smart, because the creatures he chose belong to three different environments - creatures of the sea, creatures of the land, and creatures of the air...(it's no small matter that world renowned scientists can't figure that out)...

~~~

1) THE SEA - Transitional Whales:

*Pakicetus - built from from a skull and tooth:

"Gingerich discovered in Pakistan a few skull fragments of a wolf-like creature that allegedly had an inner ear like a whale's. But this is far from conclusive. There wasn't any post-cranial skeleton found, so we haven't the faintest idea how it moved. However, this didn't stop Gingerich from writing an article for schoolteachers with an illustration of an animal swimming and catching fish, and looking convincingly like an intermediate between land animals and whales. He also claimed, 'In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales…
(see diagram: Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction
Bottom left: what he had actually found
Top right: more complete skeleton
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction)
...New research since this series was produced has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one's axioms."

Gingerich has since reportedly admitted that he was wrong.
See here (about 1/4 down).

*Ambulocetus - the “earliest whale” that is reported to have supported itself on land, was built from highly fragmented incomplete skeletal remains:

There is a comprehensive short article that explains more HERE.

~~~

2) THE LAND - Horse evolution…is this true?

The Horse Series, a sketch of the evolution of horses in textbooks, has been refuted and abandoned in modern scientific circles. (see here)

Quote:

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ... "
- Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History (see here)

Rather than being an example of evolution, isn't the horse a beautiful example of the wide variation within a created kind?

~~~

3) THE AIR - Archaeopteryx - transitional dinosaur/bird thing said to be a near perfect transitional fossil

Here are some quotes from evolutionists denying that...

‘…we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.’- evolutionist Lecomte du Mouy, ‘Human Destiny’ (N.Y. 1947) (see here)

“I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”- Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History (see here)

~~~

*THOUGHT: In view of this admitted lack of evidence, here is an interesting thought about missing links and assumptions...

Religion vs. Religion

Many are under the mistaken impression that the evolution - creation debate is a battle between science and religion. This is not accurate. The fact is, both worldviews - creation and evolution - are assumptions that are made at the onset of the investigation, not conclusions drawn from the study of the data. This is crucial. When evolutionists assert that certain fossil "missing links" prove evolution, they are really arguing in a circle, because they must begin their investigation already convinced evolution is a fact. It is this belief in evolution that prompts the conclusion that a particular fossil is transitional. When an evolutionist turns around and says that this fossil "missing link" proves evolution he is really making his initial assumption his conclusion. This is the illogical practice of begging the question, or, as I said, arguing in a circle.

The fact is, both evolution and creation are faith-based systems. They are worldviews said to be true, but whose proponents have not been able to "prove" scientifically. Thus, neither worldview can be said to be more "scientific" that the other. What can be said with certainly is that these two faith systems are absolutely incompatible with each other. One of them must be wrong.

-from the Introduction of a Canadian on-line book called 100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution

Okay, so the interpretation of the same data depends on what you believe. But not only is the theory of evolution between species based on one's presuppositions, the entire premise of evolution and how life even began insults one's intelligence. I mean, look at the odds of our wonderful life supporting earth happening by chance...

Force of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, neither Earth nor our Sun would exist—and you would not be here reading this.9

The balance of matter and antimatter. In the formation of the universe, the balance between matter and antimatter, and the excess of matter over antimatter, needed to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to arise.

The mass density of the universe. For physical life to exist, the mass density of the universe must be fine-tuned to better than one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (1060).10 Thus, the mass contained in all dark and visible matter, including stars, is essential for the existence of our universe.

-What Are The Odds? (In Plain Site)

And here are a few more things I'm throwing in for good measure...

Another quote from In Plain Site:

Charles Darwin wrote, in Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-Where Did the First Birds Come From?

And then of course, there are those evolution defying Animals That Prove Creation.

~~~

You know, I can cut and paste quotes and make links to click on and read til my eyes pop out, but I think what this whole thing boils down to is not so much the arguments and defenses, but the heart of the matter. And that is…what do you want to believe? I don't have all the right answers, but I personally believe the Bible is true, and I love my awesome God who created time and a mind bogglingly beautiful universe and a home for us to live so that we can know His glory.

He is the Master Scientist, who created…
(In the beginning) - time
(God created the heaven) - space
(and the earth) - matter

...and all man’s scientific theories and text books and things are kindergarten to Him.

-----
Related reading:
Intelligent design: A Two- edged Sword