19. How the “Raccoon” Became a Whale

 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

Here is a great one! A raccoon-like quadruped, the Indohyus, that evolved into a whale!  Yes, this animal was once a fish that spent millions of years growing fins and gills so it could swim and breathe. Then it realized it would be better if it could crawl out of the ocean, away from those pesky sharks and other predators.  It evolved legs and lungs so it could come out of the water.  It then evolved a furry exterior and became a quadruped, the Indohyus.  The Indohyus then realized what a mistake it had made (tic), so it  re-evolved fins, shrank  its hind legs down to small completely internal bones, disappeared its forelegs, and went back into the water with those pesky sharks, which must not have been so bad after all, to become the largest species ever known: a whale! It’s nasal openings migrated to the top of its head to become single or double blowholes.  This story makes “Little Red Riding Hood” believable.  This is another great fable for evolution, which already has theropod dinosaurs evolving into birds, and crabs crawling 

out of the ocean and growing wings to become dragonflies and fleas.  (You can double-click on the article below left to get a larger readable version.)  This is the perfect example of how evo-illusion is believed and accepted.  Once the barriers and skepticism are removed, anything will be believed.  Like this story. It’s work to get a student-victim to believe a couple of impossible items.  Once one or two impossibilities are believed and accepted by the student-victim, the next steps are much more easily believed.

One of the many questions that this absurd “fish to quadruped to whale” notion brings out is why would whales evolve a blowhole in the first place? Evolutionauts proudly show how nostrils migrated and modified from forward to back on the “nasal” area of their heads. They proudly display this as evidence for evolution, of course, and in doing so, blind themselves to why a hole would evolve on their heads at all.  What environmental pressures stimulated the formation of this unique feature? I certainly can’t think of any. How about: the ones that were the best “squirt gun” fighters won the females? Or, they could blow fish out of the water, and catch them? A remarkable invention, the blowhole. Certainly, a fun one to watch. But why would evolution come up with this? Why didn’t evolution give this unique entity to all fish?  Why not sharks.  I could see sharks blowing water out of a blowhole just as much as whales.  I wonder if Indohyus could blow water out its nose, and that trait became the blowhole for whales. How did the nose become the blowhole?  Which whale began the blowing of water? Which was the first? Did the other whales watch, and think, “That looks cool!  I think I’ll try it!”  

From pandasthumb.com:

whale nasal drift

Nasal Drift in Early Whales

Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a snout above water. The nostrils migrated upward toward the top of their head, as ancient whales spent more time immersed in the water. Blowholes help to distinguish modern forms of whales. While toothed whales generally have one hole, baleens are split into two. Fig 1. Pakicetus Fig 2. Rodhocetus nostrils were higher on the skull, intermediate between its ancestors and modern whales. Fig 3. A modern gray whale can emerge from the water, inhale and resubmerge without stopping or tilting its snout to breathe.

This video will really give you an idea of how far evo-illusionists will go to fool their audience.  It shows how evolution completely and willingly fakes the evidence, in this case, the nasal openings of Ambulocetus, to make them look like they have migrated up its nose so it can turn into a blowhole. This video astounds me because the foolery is so blatant.

 Blowholes are covered by muscular flaps that keep water from entering the opening when the whale is underwater.  In the relaxed state, the flap covers the blowhole.  A blowhole leads to the whale’s trachea directly, not through a series of sinuses like those of land mammals, and then to its lungs.  Unlike Indohyus and all land mammals, whales cannot breathe through their mouths.  They can only breathe through their blowholes.  We can conclude that earlier whales had Indohyus nostrils that made it difficult for them to breathe because they had to stick their nose out of the water. Air sacs just below the blowhole allow whales to produce sounds for communication and (for those species capable of it) echolocation. 

These air sacs are filled with air, which is then released again to produce sound in a similar fashion to releasing air from a balloon.  According to evolution, natural selection improved Indohyus nostrils by turning them into blowholes and moving it (them)  back toward their forehead. With blowholes, they don’t have to stick their noses out of the water. Just think of how incredibly powerful that supposed glitch was, that it forced mutations and natural selection to move and modify Indohyus nasal openings.  I wonder about the intermediate steps involved. The steps from “no flap” to a fully functioning muscular flap.  Were there “half flaps” that allowed water into the proto-whale’s lungs?  Were there partial air sacs?  Is there such a thing as a partial balloon?  Shall we all accept this without thinking about it? Because, if you think about it, you might wonder.  You might question. And that is bad for evolution. And, as is usual with all evolution fables, there are no fossils that show the steps of the modification and movement of Indohyus nostrils which produced whale blowholes. Just as they don’t have fossils that show the growth of giraffe necks, and bird wings. Evolutionauts always brag about how the fossil record proves evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that they have millions if transitional fossils. In fact “every fossil and every species is transitional.” Reality is their “mountains of evidence” disproves their theory.

Astoundingly, evolutionauts can’t see the THOUSANDS of characteristics that are not alike at all. In fact, Indohyus and whales are complete opposites in almost every imaginable trait. Evolutionauts are blind to the immense number of differences. Oh, like size, fur, blowhole, water/land species, diet, habits, eye……..the list of differences is endless. Even the way whales sleep is different.  They can’t fully sleep underwater, or they might drown.  So only half of their brain sleeps at a time.  They are never fully asleep.  How would the different sleep patterns of quadrupeds and whales transition?  The scientists that make up these fables are to be respected and revered; certainly not doubted. Their stuff is forced into our schools and into the brains of the students. Or else!  And there can be no challenges to evolution in the textbooks.  With all of the evidence against this hoax, shouldn’t real scientists demand that there be a chapter on why evolution is not the answer to the Puzzle?  The problem here is that most students bite the bait, become evolution believers, and in doing so forfeit their ability to think, doubt, reason, and be skeptical. They do this with the subject of evolution.  Hopefully, they won’t spread their newly attained gullibility and lack of reason to other fields of endeavor.

Here is a typical article based on a peer-reviewed paper on whale evolution:

From: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm

Researchers Discover Clues to Whale Evolution

Image of 2 inner ears; caption is below
Side view of a dolphin inner ear (left) demonstrating the particularly small semicircular canals (yellow / light grey) of cetaceans compared with land mammals, represented here by a bushbaby (right). Images reconstructed from computed tomography scans, adjusting for body size differences between the two animals. Each inner ear would easily fit on a penny. Image: F. Spoor.

A team of international scientists, including Hans Thewissen, an anatomist and paleontologist at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM), has discovered that the inner ear of whales evolved much more quickly than expected, (another case of quick evolution or punctuated equilibrium) allowing the animals to become fully aquatic early in their evolution. The team’s research, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), (Of course they had to come up with results to continue getting funding. And who is going to challenge this finding?) shows that the semicircular canals, the organ responsible for balance and located in the inner ear, was adapted to aquatic life approximately 45 million years ago. The discovery was published in the May 9 issue of the journal Nature. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have unique semicircular canals that allow them to be highly acrobatic swimmers without becoming dizzy. By investigating this organ in ancient fossils, the researchers found that early whales acquired this special trait quickly and early on in their evolution. This was a defining event that likely resulted in their total independence of life on land.  (My Gawd, how do they know this? Astounding.  Not only do we have quadrupeds that turned into whales, we have ears the evolved for underwater use “quickly”!) “The early evolutionary development of small semicircular canals by cetaceans opened an entirely new mammalian niche for habitation and contributed to the broad diversity of marine living habits that we see in whales today,” said Rich Lane, director of NSF’s paleontology program, which funded the research. “The evolutionary acquisition of such specialized organs or abilities (like the brain and upright walking habit of man) provide mechanisms by which highly evolved organisms dominate in certain environments.” The semicircular canals sense head movements and this vital information is used to coordinate the body during locomotion. This happens subconsciously, and humans only become aware of an organ of balance when things go wrong, such as during seasickness, drunkenness and wild roller coaster rides. The researchers found that in living cetaceans the semicircular canals are much smaller than in any other mammal of the same body size. In fact, the semicircular canals of the huge blue whale are smaller than those of humans. In general, cetaceans are more acrobatic than similarly sized land animals (imagine an elephant making the jumps of a similar-sized whale). This could be the result of the small canals, because the small size makes the canals less sensitive, preventing the animal from becoming dizzy (i.e. experiencing vertigo). (Why didn’t they evolve to the same proportional size as human semi-circular canals? Is it advantageous for humans to be dizzy?) Between 40 and 50 million years ago, early cetaceans evolved from land mammals into swimmers. Over the last decade, many new whale fossils have been found which show how this dramatic change happened. Skeletons of the transitional species (“whales with limbs”) demonstrate that they were adept, otter-like swimmers.  (Whales with legs? Show me. There are none in the clade drawing above. Or is this where evolutionauts call normal quadrupeds “whales with legs” to fool us into believing they have transitional species when they don’t.) Just last year, Thewissen’s discovery of two early whale ancestors showed that the earliest whales were mainly land animals, and resolved a controversy over the relationships of whales, showing that they are most closely related to modern even-toed ungulates (such as pigs, hippos, camels, deer, and sheep) than to an extinct group of meat-eating mammals. (Just imagine: whales walking around on land. That must have been quite a sight!

Those Beautiful Legs:

At left is a museum photo of a whale skeleton showing the spine.  The two “bent L” shaped bones are the bones that evolutionauts say are vestigial hind legs from Pakicitus and Indohyus, supposed whale precursors.  Evo-scientists say these bones correspond exactly to the hind legs of a furry quadruped.  Do they look like former leg bones?  If you have a great evo-imagination, they sure do.  Anything looks like anything if it proves evolution.  Note that these bones are completely internal.    No part of them has an external remnant whatsoever.  So the legs shrank, bent themselves into an “L”, fused the knee joint,  and moved themselves way inside of the body of the whale?  Also, there are several muscles that attach to these bones, hinting that these bones have a designed use in modern whales. They have a purpose and are not remnants of an evolutionary past. They actually are part of whale birthing apparatus. These two bones are a huge part of the “mountains of evidence” cited by evolutionauts for their fake science.  These “legs”, along with chicken teeth, are two of my favorite “whale of a tale” fables that evolutionauts feed young impressionable students.At left is the remains of a Pakicetus fossil.  Can you imagine assigning these bits of bones as the precursor to all whales?  What kind of science is this?  A few bones found in the dirt is for sure an early whale. The more I look at this science, the more amazing it gets.

I received this great comment from one of my readers, 

Giordano Klar

Steve, I wonder if you’ve ever challenged a neo-Darwinian true believer with this question:

Let’s say that one day you decide to take evolution into your own hands. You decide to evolve a pack of dogs into whales through Intelligent Selection instead of Natural Selection. Let’s say that you can live for as long as it takes to accomplish this feat. How many millions of years do you think it would take you to selectively breed a pack of dogs into a whale species? Do you think you could do it faster than it supposedly took Pakicetus to evolve into modern whales? You have the advantage of INTELLIGENT selection, so you should be able to do it faster, right?

What more can be said? I would change the “you” in Giordano’s comment to “you and a team of the greatest scientists in the world of your choice”. Your team could alter the DNA of the dog pack at their whim. They could intelligently save any mutational changes that they would deem to be on the road from dogs to whales. They could alter the nutrition and care of the herd in any way that they choose. They could pull any pups with bad changes out of the herd that they saw as a detriment.  The result? You and the hyper-intelligent team would have absolutely zero chance of evolving dogs into a single species of whales of any kind. And 90 species of whales? Not in trillions of years. Not in infinity. 

The following video was posted on YouTube by a favorite YouTube contributor, aaugoaa.  It pretty clearly discusses how evolution turns very incomplete fossils and segments of bones into an entire “science”, the “science” of the evolution of whales. At rationalskepticism.org I got into a discussion on “wolf” to whale evolution.  I gave him a pathway, a scenario for the evolution of whales from a unicellular organism to show him how absurd his belief system is.  It just didn’t faze him in the least. He will believe no matter how absurd the evo-fantasy.  Here is how the discussion went: Re: Why stevebee is wrong

stevebee92653 wrote: Nothing will change your mind lucek. You have been brainlocked. If evolution from a bacteria to a single cell to a fish to a 30 lb furred wolf-like land animal to a 200,000 lb water-equipped whale species doesn’t do it, nothing will. If I could cite a shrimp to a .04 gram ant to a giraffe, you would still believe. So why ask me when you know nothing will change you mind?

Postby lucek » Jul 22, 2011 Actually no my mind has often been changed. An example is the Monty Hall problem, or sailing downwind faster than the wind. My mind is open to new evidence, you’ve still not given any. There are limits to the variation in size between generations. Metabolism, birth weight, etc. However What we see in the fossil record is slowly increasing size over time. If someone claimed that an ant gave birth to a giraffe as you straw manned I would be highly skeptical of that claim. However, an animal giving birth to something that grows to be larger then its parents at adulthood, I only need to look at my mother and Father for evidence of that. I can only assume your newest canard is that size is a bio-system. That somehow an animal that is larger then it’s parents can’t have offspring larger than it. This is just pathetic. Further, you’ve contradicted your self again. Let me remind you, One of your previous claims was that Raptorex and T-Rex were the same and size didn’t matter. In your posts, you claimed a 65 kg animal didn’t evolve in becoming a 6.8 metric ton animal. Is there a reason that wales can’t balloon in size but Archosaurs can. stevebee92653 wrote: Realizing that you can sail faster than you thought you could upwind? That’s really quite an open mind! So let me get this straight. You believe: (1) Uni-celled organism formed (2) Uni-celled organism go multi, evolved into “marine organism of some type” (3) “Marine organism of some type” evolved a spinal cord (4) Fish with spinal cord evolved legs began crawling out of the water (5) Eyes migrated from side of head to front of head, ears evolve, fur evolved, legs extended. Result: evolution forms a wolf-like animal predator that weighs about 30 to 50 lbs. and who kills and eats other animals. (6) A furred wolf-like creature goes back in water (7) Legs shrink to tiny bones (8) Fins evolve to aid whale-wolf swimming (9) Two nostrils migrate to top of the head, become single opening blowhole. Flap/door evolves over blowhole to keep water out. (10) Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away, become internal. (11) Fur that previously evolved, evolves away. (12) Eyes that originally migrated to the front migrate back to the side of the head from the front. (13) Ex-wolf evolves in size from 30 to 50 lbs. to 200,000 lb., becomes a blue whale, the largest organism ever on earth (I know, and all other whales) (14) Blue whale diet changes from killer/predator to filterer of krill and plankton That is the story as I understand it. I am sure I got something wrong somewhere and I will be duly scolded for doing so, but it truly is amazing. What is amazing is that anyone believes it. Do you? It would be fun to do the same with theropods and hummingbirds, but why waste more time. Maybe you could school me on that one. If you believe this, why not ants to giraffes? If Dawkins told you that ants evolved to become giraffes, I am certain you would believe. Coming from a horrible person like me, not a chance. lucek replied: Steve you’re not showing how any of what you just listed is impossible as you claimed. You aren’t even showing how it unlikely actually.  No if Dawkins or anyone said that without evidence I would be very skeptical. There are no intermediates between ants and giraffes, there is hardly any morphological similarities, they differ vastly in their genetics, and we can see their individual lineages in the fossil record. This is in no way similar to a land-dwelling mammal with ear bones for hearing underwater to an amphibious mammal with webbed feet and a strong back for swimming, to freshwater living mammal with legs like 4 flippers and migrating nostrils, to sea mammal with enlarged front flippers and greatly reduced back flippers, to whales.  Basically, all you’ve shown this post is another argument from personal incredulity. Don’t you get it yet pointing to 1 and 100 won’t make me forget about 2-99.  Oh and again I’ve given examples of how I am open-minded. Further, I’ve given you a chance to convince me. You still have it. I’m just not convinced by your personal incredulity.




  1. Matt said,

    You are aware that all whales do infact have lungs, and whales are mammals and not fish? They use oxygen in the atmosphere and not the oxygen disolved in the water for respiration. They are warn blooded, give birth to live young, and they actually feed their young milk via mammary glands.

    While they do mention whales, what the article actually says is that cetaceans (the group of mammals that includes whales but also the porpoise and dolphins) are descended from them.

    Isn’t this a newspaper article anyway? Not exactly targeted at people who understand a lot of science really. Go and find the journal article that was published about this, then debunk it, and then it wont be such a shameful display of you making a stawman argument and tearing THAT down.

  2. hooseyadaddy said,

    What did u just say. Yeah thanks for the 1st grade education of what a mammal is. Darwinists believe mammals came from reptiles which came from fish. It just so happens that now these highly evolved land mammals just decided to revert back to the water is just idiocy. Thats his point.

  3. snakeguy said,

    Yes the article about indohyus a small carnivore that feeds in aquatic habitats. What both you ididots are saying that the animal “decided” to revert back or realized it made a “mistake”? Ummm.. in case you didn’t know that animal has no idea what its ancestors were. The diversification of mammals after the mesozoic is well studied and yes some mammals did take advatage of feeding on fish and other marine life. Seals also spend a lot of time in water feeding. Though they are not an intermediate between indohyus and whales you can see how “half a whale” can certainly survive.

  4. stevebee92653 said,

    Hey idiot. Get a brain before calling someone else stupid names. Then get a sense of humor, and realize when satire is being used. That part makes you look even dumber.

  5. snakeguy said,

    Oh did I hurt your feelings? You’ll get over it. This mammal has skull feature also found in whales and other younger mammals have the same skull features but are more aquatic. Accept the evidence or don’t accept it. Its as simple as that. This is not about belief, but whether you accept the evidence. If you have a sound argument about the evidence make it. If you don’t understand ask someone. Until then yes, you are an idiot.

  6. stevbebee92653 said,

    Hurt my feelings? Are you kidding? I have had idiots like you making stupid comments like you do for years. So, similar skull features PROVE a four legged quadruped that had spent millions of years evolving legs to get out of the water, dis-evolved those legs to go back in the water and become a whale? HAR HAR HAR HAR I never cease to be amazed at what you gullible bone heads will believe. Tell me, what’s it like to be that gullible? Just curious.

  7. snakeguy said,

    I never ceased to be amazed by your stupidity. Find the journal article and read it – not the newspaper article. All pakecetids have the same ear bone structure which has linked them to whales because the structure is found nowhere else. All Pakecetids lived near the water. Later the more aquatic Ambulocetus, Protocetus, and Rhodocetus appears in the fossil record. Same skull features same ear structure. At the same time we see the same ear structure we see different location of the nostrils and eyes and a reduction of the hind limbs.

    Scientists have looked at these fossils as representing a situation where mammals living around water evolved to take advantage of water. If you think that the similarities are purely a coincidense then you can do that.

    What can your genius mind and all your patents make of all these observations? Enlighten my gullible bonehead.

  8. stevebee92653 said,

    Similarities in bone structure certainly proves without a shadow of a doubt that indohyus evolved into a whale. And that multi-ton dinosuars evolved into hummingbirds. What a fool all of you believers are. The gullible gene must have overwhelmed your common ancestors. Congrats. “Mammals wanted to take advantage of water?” So they turned into whales? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Oh,excuse me. I forgot. You are an evolutionaut. Anything sounds plausible to you.

    • Al said,


      I find your comments amusing (almost as much as I found the, er, debunking amusing). So you think that people who agree (not “believe in”) with evolution to be absurd. Okay. Then, what do you think about a person who believes that snakes talk, donkeys fly, a man-god was born to a woman who no one had sex with, there are two special trees and if you eat the fruit of one of them, you get eternal life and if you eat the fruit of the other, you are damned to die? What about people who believe that some guy with a plan created mosquitoes because they might make a pretty good companion for man to play with in the garden-paradise he set the young fella up in? How about people who believe such things as a world flood, that a few people have had super human strength one because he didn’t cut his hair, that it’s noble for someone to be willing to kill his child because a voice in his head told him to, that you can build a tower that reaches all the way to heaven, that angels have sex with people, that it’s kosher to give away your daughters to protect your guests, that people can survive being burned alive in a furnace, that you can get two of every species that ever existed on a boat as well as feed them and remove their excrement at regular intervals…

      I mean really! This is what you guys defend rather than simply looking at the evidence, realizing you have been wrong and moving on? Let me ask you another more serious question as I know that you’ve already brow beat yourself into justifying a belief for all the above questions I’ve asked and a thousand more that I could ask. Scientists who discover these truths are people too. They have families, dreams, hopes, make love, live life and enjoy their time here. Given that, why would anyone possibly want to come up with evidence to refute your idea of god? I mean, after all, your religion promises eternal life, the chance to see your family again, untold joys and happiness. Who does not want that? What motivation does science have to (and not purposely I am sure) debunk the very ideals of your religion? Could it have anything to do with wanting to discover the truth?


      • stevebee92653 said,

        Hi Al. This is such a great comment, I just had to post it. You see here, on this blog, I expect the people who want to comment to at least have the intelligence to read just a bit of it before commenting, so they (you, in this case) can know what this blog and I am about. Then you won’t look dumb. I am trying to help you here. Obviously you didn’t spend even a minute reading page one. Astounding. That is why your amusing comment got posted. So if you want to post again, please read page 1 so you look at least a bit intelligent, and not like a troll who goes around posting on anti-evo sites without the slightest notion of what the site owner’s position is. Also, check 1a, b, and c for a little help with your comment.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Al: I couldn’t give a shit what you think I believe. I state my case pretty clearly on this site. And if you want to delude yourself about what I think about origins, have at it. It only makes me more important in your mind than I really am, as I couldn’t care less nor do I give a moments thought about what you believe.
        Except for this: So you believe that a little raccoon-like quad evolved into whales? That is the biggest laugh of all. Maybe not. Threropods into birds is pretty big as well. And you can’t even question the absurdity. You believe like a little school child believes fairy tales. And I am an idiot for not going for that fable? Well, carry on. Cheers as well.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Al: Not arguing is a good choice for you. Why look foolish with no rewards?

  9. snakeguy said,

    Well I was hoping you would reveal your genius and all I got was more stupidity. You seem to have a warped understanding of evolution and natural selection. You also seem to argue your point by changing what I say.

    I did not say it PROVES without a shadow of a doubt and I also listed a few other fossils that fit this picture. If the other fossils did not exist then yes, it would be a stretch. But the collection of all whale fossils does SUPPORT the hypthesis that whales evolved from a terrestrial ancestor.

    Nor did I say it “wanted” to evolve. They just want to survive and make babies. Nothing wants to form any structure to evolve; the variations have to exist first in order for the SPECIES to evolve. There is no goal. Each individual is born to do whatever they do. Any variation that allows them to do it better will increase in frequency. Otters hunt in water but are not fully aquatic. If any variation that allowed them to do it better (lets say diving ability) would it not give those individuals an advantage? Would they not reproduce more making their variation more common? Darwin did not have all the answers and our understanding of how descent with modification works is not exactly the same as he described it. yes – evolutionary theory is “evolving”

    And nowhere do I see written that a multiton dinosaur turns into a hummingbird. But I do not have the time to argue that.

    Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your arrogance. The goal of science is to explain nature. It doesn’t have to cure cancer (although it would be nice). Through many observations and experiments scientists do their best to come up with the best explaination. For hundereds of years people have found many fossils and biologists and paleontologists have tried to explain the history of life and diversity of life on earth based on these fossils. When I explain this to my students I use the terms “hypothesis”, “support” and “evidence” and they fully understand these ideas. They are also taught that many things in science are not set in stone and new discoveries can lead to new hypotheses. It is the goals of scientists to continue to study nature.

    You are only able to sit at your computer and poke fun and insult these scientists. You bring nothing to the table but words like “gullible” and “stupid” and “I can’t imagine how…” That is why I posted my first comment here. Whether these scientists are right or not does not change the fact that you are a sad pathetic man. I do not have the time or the interest to argue this any further you.

  10. stevebee92653 said,

    Why is it that whenever this simplistic theory is challenged, evolutionauts like you go into their full-dogma mode and explain it over and over like it is some real complicated thing. “Any variation that allows them to do it better will increase in frequency Blah blah.’ How many times have I heard that…….barf. I am sorry that a very gullible you are indoctrinating kids with this bullshit. That is the really sad part. Which makes you the snake that you call yourself.

  11. snakeguy said,

    Again “bullshit”, “gullible” Blah blah blah. Nothing with substance. You don’t address the points because you are ignorant of the research. You are a joke. And my explanation of this simple theory is not at all complicated. 15 years olds can understand it. You unfortunatly lack this mental ability. I would have to refer you to the special education class where you will take remedial courses.

    If you don’t accept the observations as evidence of evolution; if you think there is a better explanation then state it. Otherwise insulting me and my profession (as well as everyone else) is not productive. GoodBye


  12. Latimeria said,

    Good job debunking Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Too bad that was done before you were born. Now how about taking a realistic scientific look at what science currently says about whale evolution and debunking THAT.

    You wrote: “The indohyus then realized what a mistake it had made, so it then re-evolved fins from its legs, and went back into the water to become the largest specie ever known: a whale! This story makes “Little Red Riding Hood” believable. ”


  13. jan said,

    Snakeguy…. do you realize how stupid you are???????? Apparenly you have really bought into the last several decades of speculation presented as science in (what seems to be) an attempt to justify your philosophical preferences and wishes….. and replaced (if you really had one in the first place) a scientific disposition for some sort of personal vendeta against some other philosophical belief system……. Go home and retire you (old age or not) worn out bastard. Let REAL SCIENCE MOVE FORWARD………..

  14. jan said,

    “15 years olds can understand it.”

    The assertion that “15 year olds can understand it” possibly could give you some sort of clue you moron……that the theory is stupidly under substantiated by real scientific evidence…. you must be one of those indoctrinated teachers ( and if not, it is irrelevant anyway) who continue to “rape the minds” of the innocent you are funded to be in charge of………

  15. jan said,

    The last post was addressed to “snake guy” what the ???????

  16. jan said,

    19. How the Raccoon Became a Whale

    Gosh, the nostrils and ear components seem to have phylogenetic similarities to what is claimed to be an intermediary stage becoming a whale……THAT’S NO DOUBT PROOF OF THE ASSERTION………(WE WANT IT ALL NOW BABY……MEDIA BLASTED ASSHOLES….)
    But then again, it’s what you have devoted your life to….and, sadly, it probably is the only way, at this point, you think you can make a living………BLOODSUCKERS!!!!!!!

  17. jan said,

    Snake guy, are you there? You uneducated chicken shit….come out of your pathetic shell and describe how the hell i am wrong in my above descriptions.

  18. jan said,

    Snake guy…..where are you????? I keep waiting…….You just keep wanting to avoid an ASS-KICKING……But, really,///////////

  19. jan said,

    Snake guy…..where are you????? I keep waiting…….You just keep wanting to avoid an ASS-KICKING……But, really,///////////

    Snake guy, come out from hiding. I promise to be gentle and politically correct etc. If you promise to give adequate evidences to the above questions. ON the other hand, you won’t be able to come up with substantially demostrated scientific matter regarding your assertions….. So, never mind. You should keep hiding you ignorant bastard!!!!!!!!!

  20. jan said,

    I have reviewed the whale section you had described recently and am reminded that i have seen and participated in the discussions. See above.

    • snakeguy76 said,

      I’m sorry Jan. If you haven’t noticed my last post on this website was from March. Seeing it had been 7 months maybe you would have gotten the idea that I wasn’t visiting the site. It was only a fluke that I stopped by now and got to read your wonderful opinion of me. But what do I know? I’m just an “ignorant bastard”.

  21. Radhacharan Das said,

    Dr Richard Sternberg alongside Stephen Meyer was in a debate with Dr Prothero and Michael Shermer recently. Sternberg made an impressive presentation on whale evolution and the difficulties with it. You may listen to what Sternberg said here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCsmeSL-9RY&feature=related

    Or alternatively hear the full debate here:

    [audio src="http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/origins-of-life-debate.mp3" /]
    I’d have to say that the ID proponents did a really good job, it was especially good to hear when Prothero interrupted Meyer attempting to refute him. But then after Prothero finished speaking, Sternberg KO’d him with recent articles on pseudogenes, retroviruses, junk dna and the like. This can be heard beginning from 1hr 24 mins into the debate.

    • snakeguy76 said,

      I think Sternberg’s statement though eloquent did not address the point Prothero was making. Meyers has been discussing the complexity of the genomes and the wealth of “coded” information and that it can best be explained by design. Prothero’s point was that some simple organisms have more DNA , but how can they have more DNA if they surely require less information to function. Protehro was illustrating that there must be a lot of junk DNA in these organisms

      Sternberg’s argument that junk DNA was not junk but really functions was correct or at least partially. It is true that some pseuodgenes and erv’s may provide transcripts which regulate other genes, but there is still functionless psuedogenes and apparently these organisms have more of it than we do.

      Was Sternberg arguing that the “junk DNA” in an ameoba is functional and they have more “information” than humans? Of course not – he heard ‘junk dna has no function and thought he would pounce with a short speach on DNA.

      And contrary to Meyer’s comment – geneticists knew junk dna was not junk long before ID folks supposedly predicted it wasn’t

  22. Bill said,

    Thanks so much for making this site! I can’t tell you how many people piss me off when they say that whales come from an animal like the indohyus. They tell me about how it took millions and years and there were thousands of species that made many small leaps demonstrated in the fossil record and blah blah blah.

    I explain how their theory is like saying that a caterpillar can one day change its mind about crawling everywhere and simply fly away! What a ridiculous idea!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the thanks! I love this “scientific” story. Wolves to whales. What a joke. How can they get so many believers??? One would think a huge number of students would have laughed this off years ago.

      • Al said,

        LOL. They believe it because there is tons of evidence for it. Denying it is like saying the earth is flat. It does not matter though. You can deny it all you like. It’s still a fact supported by plenty of empirical evidence. Sorry. Jesus did not create whales in their current form and sure enough, they are mammals (just classifying animals as such is acknowledging evolution) and were not “intelligently designed” and did in fact once live on land and in varying stages at that. Whales provide a great fossil record to support evolution in that scientist have been able to predict what a transitional species would look like, generally where that species is located in the world and in the world’s crust and to find it! ID can’t do that. Evolution can and does and whale evolutionary finds are a great example of just that kind of predictability.

        But, as Stephen Gould said, ‘Some [idiots] won’t believe anything no matter how much evidence there is for it.’

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Shock of shocks. Another gullible indoctrinate! How long ago did they get you? LOL

  23. notesofarighteousdude said,

    this blog sucks. It says an objective view of evolution but you are clearly biased and havn’t a clue how evolution works. You even call it evil-lution in this post? Objective? Give me a break

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks! No, it’s ev-illusion. As in illusion. But good guess. Evil-evolution would be written ev-olution. Put on your thinking cap!

  24. Madmax85 said,

    Evolution is a joke, with alot of narcissistic followers. Mostly know-it-all college dorks who are trying to look smarter than their parents.

    FACT- If evolution were true, there would be MILLIONS of fossils showing gradual changes! Only Fully formed fossils have been found!

    FACT – Human Speciation has NEVER been observed since the first appearance of Homo Sapiens in the fossil record

    FACT – Ernst Haeckel used FAKE DRAWINGS to justify his “common ancestor” B.S. (These FAKE DRAWINGS are still used as “Evidence” today)

    Happy Sailings ya kooks! Give me a call the next time your dog turns into a whale!

  25. Julian Raven said,

    Great Blog…God bless you.

  26. Michael Jonckheere said,

    Is there any way I can get a poster-sized copy of the image whale_evo showing the family tree of cetacean ansestors? That is a great image.

  27. Tim Smith said,

    This article is pure rhetoric without substance.

    I doubt the writer of this article will change his mind, but for anyone who is still unsure, I’d like to make a few points.

    1. The author repeatedly describes people who believe in evolution as gullible, mostly without reason. A lot of his sentences go along the lines of: “Haha what idiots. Do they seriously expect me to believe that a 15-Stone adult can grow from a 9-pound baby? Grow-uppists are so stupid.”

    2. Point 1 is mostly done by implying that perfectly plausible things are implausible. You can do this with just about anything, as I demostrated above.

    3. The writer doesn’t appear to understand evolution. Rhetorical questions like: “did X suddenly decide to do Y” show this.

    4. The fish – land animal – whale line isn’t remotely odd, since DNA doesn’t encode “We used to be in water, lets not do that again.”

    5. Here’s why I believe in evolution (other than having it forced down my throat by evil government agencies, of course):

    In a world where animals evolved:

    Animals would have many homologous features with other animals, even those in very different environments and different body shapes. Analysis of DNA and physical features would put animals in a nested, heirachical tree. The fossil record would show certain features and groups appearing only after a certain time and then. The fossil record would contain progressions over time for certain animal groups. Creatures would have vestigial parts. Features that would be useful to all groups of animals would in fact only exist in specific groups.

    In a world where God created animals:

    Animals would be separate and distinct, especially when differently shaped and living in different environments. Animals could be grouped according to certain features, but this wouln’t fit very well into a tree. Features would appear and diasappear along with the animals they are designed for. No progressions of any kind would be found, and even if you did they would be in the wrong time order. Vestigial parts would be nonexistant. Useful features would be present in all animal groups.

    Be honest with yourself, which world do we live in?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You prove your #f1 with the rest of your comment. I really don’t have to say a thing. You really think it’s plausible that a 20 lb. fox-like animal went back in the water and evolved into a 300,000 lb. 100 ft. long blue whale? And 85 other whale species? You have fallen for what your trainers have jammed down your throat, you believe the preposterous, without question.
      I don’t argue for religion or religious creationism at all. I argue that we have no idea how life, living organisms, biological/biochemical systems originated. My stance is easily proved. Evolution is a scam believed by many. And if you choose to believe, you are no different than any other believer of dogma.
      We live in a world where we know a lot, but what we don’t know dwarfs what we do by a long shot.

Leave a Reply to snakeguy Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: