Extensive 2008 study and data matrix files

http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/fylsyst/O'Leary2008.pdf

http://www.morphobank.org/index.php?

g=search&s=browse&ss=overview&project_id=108

The fragmentary nature of some "whale" fossils

Attockicetus: 1 species known only from a partial skull

Carolinacetus: 1 species known only from a partial skull and jawbone, 18 teeth,

12 vertebrae, and 15 rib fragments

Crenatocetus: 1 species known only from a partial jawbone

*Gaviacetus: 2 species; 1 known only from skull fragments, a rib and two

vertebrae, and 1 known only from skull fragments and some vertebrae

Himalayacetus: 1 species known only from a partial jawbone and two teeth

Makaracetus: 1 species known only from a skull, 7 partial vertebrae and a

partial pelvic bone

Natchitochia: 1 species known only from 3 partial ribs and 13 vertebrae

Stromerius: 1 species known from two specimens–one consisting of 7 vertebrae,

and one consisting of 19 vertebrae and several rib fragments

*Takracetus: 1 species known only from a partial skull

(See the Paleobiology Database at http://paleodb.org for more information.)

*These "whales" are in the chart on the left!

ANOTHER VIEW

Other fossils in the whale line

Pakicetids were a lot like wolves: J. G. M. Thewissen, et. al., "Skeletons of

terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls," Nature (Vol.

413, 20 September 2001), pp. 277-281

Ambulocetids were a lot like crocodiles: Kate Wong, "The Mammals That

Conquered," Scientific American, Special Edition (Vol. 14, is. 2, March 2004)

Remingtonocetids were a lot like river otters: J. G. M. Thewissen, et. al., "From

Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises," Evolution:

Education and Outreach (Vol. 2, no. 2, 16 April 2009), pp. 272-288

The Protocetid Rodhocetus was like a large desman (a semi-aquatic mole):

Philip D. Gingerich, "Land-to-sea transition in early whales: Evolution of Eocene

Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living

semiaquatic mammals," Paleobiology (Summer 2003)

Durodons "... were full-fledged, fluke-lashing cetaceans that gave birth at sea."

Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic (Vol. 200,

no. 5, November 2001), p. 71

Creationist resources on whale evolution

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v16/n1/chimeras

"Walking Whales, Nested Hierarchies, and Chimeras: Do They Exist?"

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

"A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic"

http://www.icr.org/article/scientific-roadblocks-whale-evolution/

Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution

Patrick H. Young, "Whales Still Have No Ancestor," Creation Research

Society Quarterly (Vol. 39, no. 4, March 2003)

The meandering "path" of whale evolution

Most characteristics of ancient "whales" do not show any kind of path as they progress. These animals supposedly went

from the Pakicetid wolves to the giant streamlined mammals that conquered the seas in less than ten million years

(Thewissen, et. al., "From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises," 2009)–the blink of an eye in

evolutionary terms. Their features should rapidly progress toward those of whales. Instead, it looks like their features are

arranged completely at random. We would get the same results if we arranged vehicles into evolutionary trees. If we

ordered them by increasing engine size, for example, some other features (vehicle weight, engine torque, valve diameter,

etc.) would probably fall in line. But most of their features (tire size, fuel economy, cab space, etc.) would fluctuate

wildly, because there is no real path. And that's exactly what we see with the whales. The charts below are after

Thewissen et. al., 2009; solid black lines show the meandering "path" these features supposedly took.

Evolutionary "trees" and the incredible lack of transitional forms

Evolutionary "trees" typically show dotted lines for the actual evolution from one genus or family to the next. For

example, the trees below of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammal-like reptiles, and mammals were scanned from The

Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals (1988). The caption under the first chart says,

"Solid bars show the known fossil record of a group. Dotted lines denote the possible evolutionary relationship between

groups." (Emphasis is mine.) As you can see, the fossils do NOT show evolution–they show stable creatures! And the

small handful of "transitional fossils" that evolutionists do claim are debated (even among evolutionists).