Creation Research Society Quarterly 2012. 49:122–134.

122 Creation Research Society Quarterly Whale Evolution: A Whale of a Tale

Jerry Bergman*

Abstract review of the evolution of whales from terrestrial land animals finds Athat the evidence used to support the current theory is either wrong or very questionable. A focus is on the hip bone and fetal teeth evidence because they are commonly used as proof for the land mammal-to-whale evolution theory. The putative fossil evidence for whale evolution from terrestrial animals is also evaluated, concluding that the examples used are likely all extinct mammals and not transitional forms.

Introduction be only about 20 feet long, but baleen A major problem has been deter- The term “whale” is a common noun and blue whales can grow up to 100 feet mining which terrestrial animal whales that can refer to all marine mammals long. Toothed whales are, on average, evolved from. Charles Darwin proposed called cetaceans (members of order smaller then baleen whales, ranging one of the first theories of whale evolu- cetacea), including dolphins and por- from 3 to 32 feet long, although most tion, suggesting they evolved from bears. poises. In this paper the term “whales” are from 10 to 30 feet long. Blue whales He wrote, “I can see no difficulty in a excludes both dolphins and porpoises. can weigh up to 150 tons. race of bears being rendered, by natural Classification of whales divides them selection, more and more aquatic in into two groups; toothed whales and their structure and habits, with larger baleen whales, the latter of which use The Origin of Whales and larger mouths, till a creature was large brush-like structures to filter food The evolution of whales is one of the produced as monstrous as a whale” from the ocean. most difficult evolutionary enigmas, and (Darwin, 1859, p. 184). Other theories Toothed (odontoceti) whales are di- numerous theories have been proposed. include proposals that whales evolved vided into six main families: pilot whales, Historically, whales were classified as from a cow-like animal, a hippopotamus- fin whales, minke whales, blue whales, fish. It was only when Linnaeus changed like animal, a hyena-like animal called humpback whales, narwhal whales, and his original classification and reclassi- a pachyaena, a wolf-like animal called delphinidae, such as dolphins and killer fied them as mammals that their origin pakicetid, a primitive group of hoofed whales (orca). Baleen whales (suborder became an issue (Slijper, 1962). One animals called mesonychids, or even a Mysticeti) are divided into three main current theory is that marine animals catlike animal called a sinonyx. families, right whales, rorqual whales, evolved into terrestrial animals; then The hippo theory, long the leading and gray whales. Of the 76 known whale whales evolved from a terrestrial ungu- candidate because of its DNA similari- species, 66 are toothed whales, and 10 late ancestor (or from some extinct wolf- ties with whales, has recently lost favor are baleen whales. Some species grow to like animal) back into a marine animal. because the proposed hippo precursor lived too recently and in the wrong part of the world to be a whale ances- tor. Since the 1960s, another popular proposal (based on dental similarities * Jerry Bergman PhD, Biology Department, Northwest State College, Archbold, OH and molecular data) has been that Accepted for publication March 3, 2012 whales evolved from hoofed, carnivo- Volume 49, Fall 2012 123

rous mammals called mesonychians, specifically an extinct archaic ungulate (e.g., Thewissen et al., 1998; Harder, 2001). New findings, though, have placed mesonychians in the artiodacty family (even-toed ungulates including camels, hippos, pigs, and ruminants) based on Artiocetus clavis and Rodhoce­ tus balochistanems fossils (Milinkovich and Thewissen, 1997). Others argue that mesonychians cannot be ancestor to whales for several reasons, including all “phylogenetic studies indicate that pakicetids are more closely related to living cetaceans than to artiodactyls and mesonychians” (Thewissen et al., 2001). The latest theory, proposed in 2007 (see Figure 1), is that whales evolved from an Indohyus, a putative 48 million-year- old terrestrial animal the size of a small raccoon that looked like an antler-less Af- rican mouse long-tailed deer (Thewissen, et al., 2007). Some have even described this animal as an overgrown, long-legged rat, looking nothing like a whale. The main evidence it was a whale ancestor is Indohyus’s thickened ear bone, a feature that so far has been seen only in Indohyus and cetaceans (Thewissen, et al., 2007). All of these proposed theories have some support but also problems. For example, whale evolution from artio- dactyls is supported mainly by DNA se- quences yet this is problematic because all artiodactyl teeth have three lobes, a trait lacking in both cetaceans and me- Figure 1. Drawings of the skeletons of one proposal of whale evolution from the sonychians. Thus, this lineage would re- first putative whale to the modern whale. The skeletons are shown on the right. quire a complicated tooth evolution that On the left is the approximate proportions of the animals themselves. The modern “includes reversals, convergences or both” Baleen whale superimposes the skeleton on the size illustration to save space. Note (Milinkovich and Thewissen, 1997, p. the first putative animals in the evolution of whales are extremely small compared 623). Ellis (1987, p. 8) concluded that to modern-day whales, a fact obscured when the fossils are shown as a set. This “all known fossil whales seem to be fully is also a major problem for the theory of whale evolution. The animals, starting developed aquatic mammals; we do not from the bottom, are Indohyus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, know the steps that led to their return to and at the top, the modern whale Balaena. (Illustration courtesy of Richard Geer) the sea.” This conclusion still holds true.

Evolution from Terrestrial Mammals evolutionists typically hypothesize that that transformation of a land tetrapod Evolutionists have always faced the prob- they evolved from some type of terrestrial into a sea mammal requires virtually lem that whales are mammals. Thus, mammal. A problem with this view is all of the tetrapod’s hundreds of major 124 Creation Research Society Quarterly land-adapted traits to be converted 2. Weight-bearing: Land-dwelling ence thirst, a sensory system not needed into sea-adapted designs. Nonetheless, animals consume about 40 percent of by sea-dwelling creatures. In contrast, whale evolution directly from a fish ap- their energy just to move their bodies, marine animals also need to regulate pears even less probable because of the but sea-dwelling creatures use water for body water, but they must do so in very enormous differences between fish and support (Zahn, 1988, p. 28). For this different ways than terrestrial animals. whale anatomy and physiology. As ex- reason the transition from land to water 5. Kidneys: Because water has to be ample, fish use gills for breathing while requires major muscular and skeletal used economically by terrestrial animals, whales use lungs; fish typically lay eggs, system design changes. Whales must they require an efficient kidney system. and whales breastfeed and give birth to not only lose their legs but also evolve The body’s protein metabolism system live young. flippers, pectoral fins, a fluke, and an either excretes or converts wastes. The Other problems with current pro- aerodynamic design, plus a brain and metabolic breakdown of protein pro- posal of whale evolution include the an appropriate nervous system to meet duces ammonia, which is toxic and is radical changes required in the integu- the needs of these many new structures therefore converted into urea, in the end ment system, lactation, breathing, div- and their requirements. reducing the amount of water excreted. ing, feeding methods, nervous system, 3. Heat Retention: Land tempera- In addition, a system of ducts and other eyes (they must be protected in water) tures often change rapidly and can fluc- structures are required for the kidney’s and hearing, and transformation from tuate over a wide range. For this reason, functioning. Sea-dwelling organisms, a walking to a swimming mode of life. land-dwelling organisms must possess a in contrast, discharge waste materials, Some additional examples include loss physical mechanism that can withstand including ammonia, directly into their of body hair, body streamlining, trans- enormous temperature fluctuations. aquatic environment. In short, in order formation of forelimbs into flippers, loss Not only do the temperature changes to evolve from water to land, living of hind limbs, evolution of flukes for in the sea occur very slowly and within things would have had to develop whole swimming, and backward movement a much narrower range, but the water new organ systems to deal with water of nostrils. Thousands of changes are is also much colder, and water has high regulation. Then, to evolve back into required to convert a land tetrapod to thermal conductivity, a major problem aquatic animals, another entirely new a fishlike mammal. All of these systems for warm-blooded mammals (Heyning system must be evolved especially to deal are interrelated and function as a unit, and Mead, 1997, p. 1138). Organisms with salt removal, since whales live in a requiring altering the interrelationships with a body system regulated according toxic saltwater world. of the whole system. Yet other changes to land temperature demands would 6. Breathing Opening: Terrestrial required for a large dog-sized tetrapod need to evolve a whole new protective animals breathe through their nose and animal to evolve into a whale include system to deal with very cold ocean water mouth. In contrast, whales have a the following: temperatures. Whales, as warm-blooded unique nostril called a blowhole com- 1. Body Size: The body size changes animals, have various heat conservation plex (some whales, such as a humpback, required to evolve from a terrestrial structures, such as countercurrent heat have two) on the top of their head in mammal to a whale are enormous— exchangers to minimize heat loss. In order to take in air. Each breath takes from a 100-pound dog-sized animal to contrast to land mammals, whales also in thousands of times as much air as up to a 150-ton sea animal, and from largely lack hair and sweat glands and humans do—enough air to remain sub- a few feet long to up to a 100-foot-long have a thick layer of fibrous fat called merged for as long as an hour. Whales animal. The tongue of a blue whale blubber to insulate them from the icy would have to evolve a hole on top of alone weighs as much as an elephant. cold water, all of which involve major their head that connects directly to the The size changes require evolving a heart marine environment adaptations (Heyn- lungs and a strong muscular flap that from the size of a human fist to one about ing and Mead, 1997, p. 1138). covers their blowhole to prevent seawater the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. The 4. Water: Water, essential to me- from flooding into their lungs when they heart valves would have to evolve from tabolism, must be used economically descend below the saltwater surface. around the size of a dime to the size of an due to its relative scarcity on land. Land 7. Respiratory system: Fish “breathe” automobile tire rim. Each tooth would animals require skin designed to permit by removing the oxygen dissolved in have to evolve from a few ounces to over regulation of water loss while, at the water by means of gills. Consequently, a kilogram (2.2 pounds) in weight. These same time, also prevent excessive evapo- they cannot live for more than a few changes require not only size modifica- ration. Because the skin of land-dwelling minutes out of the water. In order to tions, but also major design changes in animals is not suitable for an aquatic survive on land, they would have to ac- every body organ and structure. habitat, land-dwelling creatures experi- quire a complex lung system. To evolve Volume 49, Fall 2012 125 back into a sea animal, they would need to a system that functions in an aqueous These are just a few of the hundreds to re-evolve a new gill system or evolve environment. of major changes required to evolve a new means of taking in oxygen from 10. Vision: The eyes and lenses not a whale from a small terrestrial mam- the water, as a whale does, via a lung only must evolve to become far larger in mal. The likelihood that all these many system very different from land animals. a whale, but they also must withstand the dramatic physiological and anatomical The orthodox theory teaches that fish enormous pressures of the deep ocean changes could have developed in the evolved a gill system, then a lung system and have a far higher refractive index same organism at the same time when when they evolved to live on land, then for water vision. Whales are one of the evolving from land to water is a serious a whole new lung system design when very few mammals that shed tears, which challenge to any evolutionary scenario. the pre-whale land animal transformed is one of several mechanisms they use back into a marine organism. One of to protect their eyes from the high salt Baleen Whales these major adaptations is the whale’s concentration in seawater. One of the most striking adaptations in enormous lung capacity and a very ef- Other major changes required to the evolution of baleen whales is the ficient oxygen exchanger system that evolve a whale from a terrestrial animal requirement of a major transformation allows the whale to stay under the water would include evolution of a “tail,” actu- in the teeth of a land animal into the for long periods of time. ally a powerful dorsal fin called a “fluke,” hundreds of comb-like baleen structures. 8. Pressure: Terrestrial animals must and its accessory structures. A fluke is a These structures are used to give a whale deal with only about 14.71 PSI on land, very different structure than that used the unique ability to obtain nourish- but deep-diving whales dive as much as by either fish or mammals. Fish tails ment by straining zooplankton from 1,640 feet below the water surface and use bones that move from side-to-side seawater. The two- to seven-feet-long must deal with the enormous pressure by muscles; in contrast, flukes are wide, combs spaced one-quarter of an inch levels existing at this depth. Its enor- cartilaginous structures lacking bones apart overlap and are fringed on one mously thick muscular body and its that are moved by powerful muscles con- side, a design feature that functions to strong frame skeleton are both designed nected to the whale’s spine. The fluke’s effectively catch plankton such as krill, to withstand this pressure level (Zahn, up-and-down movement can push the a shrimp-like animal as large as the hu- 1988, p. 28). Some whales also can re- whale at speeds of over 30 mph. From tip man little finger. main submerged for as long as two hours. to tip, a fluke can be longer than six feet. Baleen whales have two blowholes. This feat is achieved due to its ability to The whale forelimbs, called flippers, are They pull in seawater that contains reduce its lung volume as the pressure also essential for steering and turning. plankton; then their throat contracts, increases, significantly slowing down Whales give birth to one live young forcing the water out and retaining the of the heart rate to reduce oxygen use, calf at a time. The mother has specially plankton on the baleen, which are then and the ability to store large amounts designed nipples that allow her calf to swallowed. Whales filter thousands of of oxygen in the muscle hemoglobin lock onto her with its specially designed gallons of seawater and swallow over two (Ellis, 1987, p. 8). It also shuts down mouth and allow the mother to pressure- tons of krill daily. Gray baleen whales blood circulation to unessential areas. force her milk into it. The calf must swim at the sea bottom and suck up the When on the water surface, the whale drink two to three gallons of milk in just sediment to exploit sediment life. They takes in enormous amounts of air that a few seconds to allow it to surface for then rise to the surface to rinse their is compressed, countering the deep-sea air. A calf may drink up to 100 gallons mouths and swallow their catch. pressure. The blowhole is closed with a of fat-rich milk in a single day. special muscle plug, allowing the animal The blue whale, in contrast to bot- to maintain the internal pressure. tom feeders, swims along the sea surface 9. Hearing: The whale must have a with its mouth open wide. In one gulp The Evolution of Whales very different hearing design than terres- it can suck in as much as 50 tons of Up until 1993 the fossil evidence for trial animals. For evolution from land to water, enough to ingest four tons (about whale evolution consisted of partial marine, the animal’s external ears must 40 million) of krill. Humpbacks send skulls with no postcranial material evolve into an internal hearing system out clouds of bubbles in a circle below (Miller, 2003). The amount of evidence that can function under water with schools of small fish. The bubbles trap for whale evolution is now considered eardrums that can withstand the very the fish, and the whale then lunges by evolutionists one of the best in the high pressure existing in water as deep up with its open mouth and its throat entire fossil record. as 1,640 feet. The ears would have to expands to make room for the food and One of the most remarkable series completely disappear and then re-evolve water that was ingested. of transitional fossils documents the 126 Creation Research Society Quarterly

amazing story of whale evolution. The Whale Fossil Record evidence for its whale ancestry is its ears, From about sixty-five to thirty-seven Over 26 fossil species have been claimed which are dissimilar to the ears of both million years ago in the Paleocene by one or more researchers as whale an- terrestrial and aquatic animals. This and Eocene Periods, there lived a cestors; proving the evolution of whales dissimilarity is cited as evidence of its group of land-dwelling mammals, from a fully terrestrial to a fully aquatic intermediate transitional status. Based which, though they were ungulates life. They have been assigned by some largely on this conclusion, the whole (hoofed animals), were carnivorous researchers to four families: Pakidetide, animal is interpreted as an intermediate and may have behaved like hy- Ambuloceticae, Remingtonocetidae, whale transition. Evidence, though, has enas. Called “mesonychids,” these and Protocetidae. Depending on the au- established that, except for one small creatures would not be anyone’s thority, the major skeletal finds claimed bone, it lacks the sensitive auditory first guess as a likely ancestor of to demonstrate whale evolution include components of marine animals such the sperm whale. Yet in 1979 ... in the Mesonychids, Pakicetus, Ambulo­ as whales. Thewissen, et al. (2001) in a Pakistan ... Phillip Gingerich made cetus, Rodhocetus, Prozeuglodon, and study of the bones and structures, found a remarkable find: an animal that, Protocetids. All of these animals were, the Pakicetidae’s auditory system is well though only coyote-sized, had the judging from their teeth and other developed for airborne sound, but not distinctive anatomical traits of a features, evidently active, hunting car- underwater hearing. whale, and so was named “Pakicetus” nivores. In contrast, all whales consume 2. Ambulocetus nations (walk- (Parsons, 2004, p. 160). krill, small fish, and other small marine ing whale) is an otter-sized mammal. Discussions of whale origins assume organisms. Enough of the skeleton has been uncov- various extinct creatures were whale 1. Family Pakicetidae (genera Paki- ered to conclude that it had tiny front ancestors, an assumption often disproved cetus, Nalacetus, and Ichthyolestes) is limbs and longer hind limbs with hoofs, as a result of more fossil finds. One ex- a fully terrestrial, even-toed ungulate large feet, and a strong tail. In spite of ample is mesonychids, which was shown artiodactyl tetrapod. Pakicetus was as being named “walking whale,” recon- not to be a viable whale transition after large as a wolf, Ichthyolestes the size of structions of it look nothing like a whale. Archeocetes was discovered in Eocene a fox, and Nalacetus an in-between size. It had a long non-whale tail and did not strata. Another example is the whale A major reason for considering this dog- have a fluke, as do all whales. Nor did it putative ancestor, Basilosaurus, which like animal a whale ancestor are certain display evidence of a whale’s posterior, was initially thought to be a serpent- inner ear traits judged as cetacean from flippers, blowhole, or most of the other like reptile but was later reclassified as the animal’s skull characteristics. The unique whale traits. It was actually an a “whale-like” mammal (Evans, 1987, first Pakicetus find was a lone skull and amphibious, carnivorous animal with p. 2). This animal does not provide a relatively complete skeleton found legs and a body that looked very much support for whale evolution, though, in 2001. Although Pakicetus had a few like a nine-foot-long crocodile. Its eyes because no clear fossil connections whale characteristics, most of its traits were also in the wrong place—on top of exist between Basilosaurus and the Ar­ were very different from a whale. For its crocodile-like head, and not on the cheocetes and modern whales, whether example, the teeth of this wolf-sized land side of its head as is the case of whales. It toothed (Odontoceti) or baleen, a fact animal “closely resemble those of land- also had tiny webbed feet like a crocodile put bluntly by Gaskin. dwelling mesonychids—so closely that and likely could walk on land. Its fossil Archaeoceti could not be considered paleontologists ... had always regarded spine indicated that it could undulate as direct ancestors of either modern such teeth as belonging to mesonychids like a modern otter. baleen whales or modern toothed until they found the jaws those teeth Further research has forced the whales…. It was unlikely that they came from” (Parsons, 2004, p. 160). discoverer, University of Michigan Pro- gave rise to the ancestral forms of One study of Pakicetus ankle bones fessor Philip Gingerich, to express his either group. The Archaeoceti may determined that it had many similarities doubts that Ambulocetus is in the direct be regarded as a less successful to artiodactyls (Thewissen, et al., 2001). line of whale evolution (Werner, 2007, independent line which died out Pakicetidae nostrils were in the p. 144). In short, he now thinks it is not perhaps 10 million years ago (Gaskin, same anatomical location as that of a whale ancestor, but on a different part 1972, p. 3). dog nostrils, and significantly different of the evolutionary tree. It is not consid- Other evidence supports the conclu- than the location of the modern whale ered a crocodile ancestor either because sion that the archeocetes are members blowhole. In fact, artist reconstructions modern crocodiles date contemporane- of another mammal category unrelated picture Pakicetidae as looking very ously with Ambulocetus, indicating its to modern whales. similar to a medium-sized dog. A major likely was a member of the crocodile Volume 49, Fall 2012 127

family. Evidence does exist that Ambu­ an evolutionary link between it and any The Toothed Whales locetus nations had anklebones similar fossil whales. Unlike modern toothed Fossil teeth are central to the whale fossil to those of artiodactyla, but this does whales, the Odontoceti archeocete fos- record. Unfortunately, this evidence is “not unambiguously support either of sils had teeth that were differentiated very problematic. For example, Pakice- the predominant hypotheses of cetacean into incisors, canines, and molars called tus teeth resemble those of Protocetus relationships” (Thewissen, et al., 1998, p. polyform teeth (thus they were heter- and Indocetus (Berta, 1995; Bajpai 452). This finding only confuses whale odonts), which indicates that they were and Gingerich, 1998). Toothed whales evolution because it requires “extensive terrestrial mammals. All whales have first appeared in the fossil record in the convergence or reversals” to account for monoform teeth (only one tooth type Eocene, estimated by evolutionists to the contradictory evidence (Thewissen, exists in a single animal). No evidence be 30 million geological years after the et al., 1998, p. 452). of a fossil connection has been found Archeocetes became extinct (Evans, 3. Remingtonocetidae were similar between either the Archeocete teeth 1987; Alexander, 1975). Evans concluded to the Ambulocetids, which may be an or pelvic structures and Odontoceti, that the Eocene archeocete fossils were evolutionary dead end (Miller, 2003). toothed whales. “replaced” by members of four different The cranial anatomy is well document- 6. Basilosaurus (king lizard) was fossil whale orders in strata judged to be ed, but so far only one complete upper a serpent-like creature that measured Oligocene. Two separate types of Odon- molar and a complete lower premolar up to 70 feet in length. It was a fully toceti—those with polyform teeth, such and molar are known (Thewissen and aquatic crustacean with sturdy front as the Squalodontidae, and others with no Bajpai, 2001). This evidence indicates flippers and small well-developed dental differentiation (monoform teeth)— that the animal had a long, slender hind legs complete with jointed knees may have existed. Only the monoform crocodile morphology and may be a and toes that were possibly used as dentition groups still exist today. member of the ambulocetus, or croco- copulatory organs. Originally discov- Darwinists claim that whale teeth dile family. ered in the late 1800s in the United evolved from the “differentiated” con- 4. Protocetids are a diverse group of States, Basilosaurus was named “king dition found in fossil whales, to the cetacea, and one of the best known is lizard” because of its resemblance to “undifferentiated” teeth found in modern Genus Rodhocetus (Chadwick, 2001). a large lizard. Stahl (1974, p. 489) Odontoceti. This evolution scenario Although dolphin-appearing, judging by concluded that Basilosaurus “could not requires a series of fossils linking a long the fossils, the animal also looked very possibly have been ancestoral to any serpent-like creature with tiny back legs much like a crocodile/dolphin hybrid. It of the modern whales” for numerous (such as the Basilosaurus) to modern had very small hind legs and was once reasons, including its serpentine body toothed whales. Furthermore, the com- believed to have a fluke-like tail simi- form and the shape of its teeth, often parison of these unrelated and unlinked lar to the whale fluke, an assumption an important means of classification. life-forms is not based on scientific data, that has not been supported by fossil Lawrence Barnes, of the National His- and evidence exists that they were con- evidence—no evidence of any fluke tory Museum, noted that Basilosaurus temporary with whales, thus could not structure exists on any of the known lived contemporaneously with modern be a whale precursor. Rodhocetus fossils. It even lacks a ball baleen whales (mysticetes) and toothed The claim that true polyform teeth vertebrae required for a fluke, a signifi- whales (odontocetesl) and thus could exist in certain fossil Odontoceti requires cant problem because all cetaceans have not be ancestral to modern whales more study (Ridgway, 1972). Toothed ball vertebrae and flukes. (cited in Werner, 2007, p. 144). Basi­ Squalodontidae fossils found in the late Furthermore, no evidence exists losaurus was likely an extinct marine Oligocene possessed teeth grouped into for the bone structure that is required animal and not a transitional form. functional incisors, canines, premolars, for the flippers that exist on all whales. 7. Dorudon atrox, a 20-foot-long ceta- and molars. For this reason evolutionists It did have nostrils that were located cean with a fluke and small back legs, is are forced to claim that teeth became slightly higher on the skull than that of another putative whale link. The animal more numerous and less specialized a crocodile, but not near the location of is very similar to a small Basilosaurus, as the pre-whales evolved into modern the whale blowhole. No evidence exists and for this reason is thought by some Odontoceti whales (Gaskin, 1972). that they functioned like a blowhole. Its to be a juvenile Basilosaurus. The most In addition, when the fossils are com- skull is much closer to that of a crocodile complete skeleton shows small hind pared, one type of whale fossil is found and very dissimilar to that of a whale. limbs, feet, and toes very similar to those almost exclusively, or exclusively, in only 5. The Archeocete class is an extinct of Basilosaurus, indicating that Dorudon one part of the world, such as Pakistan, mammal, and there is no evidence of is a juvenile Basilosaurus. and another transitional form is found 128 Creation Research Society Quarterly exclusively, or almost exclusively, in a the above-proposed transitional forms, Bejder and Hall (2002, p. 445) different part of the world (Thewissen, it appears that, as Colbert concluded, conclude simple evolutionary changes 1998). “whales ... appear suddenly in early Ter- in Hox gene expression or Hox gene tiary times, fully adapted ... for a highly regulation are unlikely to have caused specialized mode of life” (Colbert et hind limb loss, but selection “acting on Summary of the al., 2001, p. 392). Professor Slijper’s a wide range of developmental processes Fossil Record statement made in 1962 is still true: and adult traits other than the limbs are Although many evolutionists believe “We do not possess a single fossil of the likely to have driven the loss of hind the fossil record for the evolution of transitional forms between the afore- limbs in whales.” They argue that hind whales represents a strong documenta- mentioned land animals [carnivores limbs likely “began to regress only after tion for evolution, valid fossil evidence and ungulates] and the whales” (Slijper, the ancestors of whales entered the has been completely lacking to fill the 1962, p. 17). The lack of transitional aquatic environment” (Bejder and Hall, important void between land mammals forms is explained by some evolutionists 2002, p. 445). and whales with valid evidence. This by assuming that whales “enjoyed at the Before the limbs could regress, the is true in spite of the fact that over two outset a series of extraordinarily rapid pre-whale would have needed an effec- million putative fossil whalebones have evolutionary changes that by middle tive method of swimming—and once been discovered. None of the proposed Eocene times made them well adapted it did, why would the limbs regress? fossils is a viable transitional fossil, and for life in the ocean” (Colbert et al., Many Darwinists argue that these bones all are problematic. The best example 2001, p. 392). prove that whales evolved from a terres- of a transitional form is the modern-day trial animal with functional hind legs. dolphin, but since they are contempo- Chadwick (2001, p. 69) wrote that, as rary with modern whales, they cannot Whale Skeletal Structures the “rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip be ancestors of whales. bones that supported them.” An example As Gaskin (1972, p. 5) concluded, Whale Pelvis Bones of this line of reasoning from an online there exists “near unanimity among The so-called “pelvic girdle” of whales discussion group is as follows. specialists that the ancestors of the Ce- and porpoises is located in the general Whales’ hip-bones prove (or sug- taceans were also the ancestors of the region where hip bones exist in land gest strongly) that an “intelligent land mammals known as the Artiodac- mammals (Bejder and Hall, 2002). designer” did not create whales.... tyla, of which modern representatives Scheffer (1976, p. 8) described these an “intelligent” design uses function- are the camels and rhinoceros.” Yet no whale hips as “a pair of slender bones ing parts for rational purposes. Hip clear fossil lineage exists between the floating in the muscles near the sex or- bones have a function: to support Artiodactyla and modern whales: “The gans.” Actually, the whale pelvic bones legs. Whales have no legs. Whales fossil record which could confirm the are “freely floating in muscle tissue just have no use, function, nor need for origin of the cetaceans from terrestrial in front of the anus” (Evans, 1987, p. 4). hip bones. And yet they have hip or freshwater mammals still has many The evolutionary explanation for the bones ... ergo ... the “ID” notion gaps” (Gaskin, 1972, p. 5, emphasis whale pelvic bones is that they are the can’t explain it. It can only beg the mine). Banister and Campbell (1985, p. useless vestigial remains of the pelvic question. “Maybe there is a use we 294) summarized the fossil record, accu- girdle and the hind legs that existed are unable to perceive.” Maybe. rately noting, “The origins of present-day when the whale ancestor was a terrestrial But “Maybe” is not an explanation; cetaceans are poorly known.” More than tetrapod (Young, 1962; Ridgway, 1972; the ID concept has no explanatory two decades later this is still true. Alexander, 1975; Watson, 1981; Evans, value. Evolution, on the other hand, The origin of the first baleen whales 1987). Certain extinct whales did have is easily capable of embracing the is also obscure, and they first appear in pelvic bones, but this alone does not concept of vestigial organs and struc- the fossil record in the Middle Oligo- prove that whale ancestors were ter- tures, and “explains” the mystery.... cene as fully formed whales (Gaskin, restrial. An enormous number of major Whales are descended from animals 1972). There is no fossil evidence linking features separate whales from terrestrial that had legs (“Silas,” 2002). land-dwelling mammals with teeth to animals, and we have no evidence for Crapo (Crapo, 1984, p. 6) concludes, Baleen whales in spite of the fact that transitional forms. Many extinct ani- “It is clear that the empirical data fit the teeth that distinguish them preserve mals have existed with a wide variety of neatly within an evolutionary argument better in the fossil record than any other features that cannot be used to prove while posing an unresolved problem for body part. In view of the problems with anything about evolution. creationists.” Russian zoologist Alexy Volume 49, Fall 2012 129

Yablokov (1974, p. 233) wrote that from The Function of the lutionists in that they once argued that the Hip Bones of Whales the whale hip is a vestigial leftover from time of Charles Darwin to the pres- It is now known that the whale hip bones when its ancestors were terrestrial—just ent, the two small bones in whales have a function similar to the hyoid bone as predicted by evolution. Then when a in the place of the well-developed in humans—to serve as an anchor for function was realized, they immediately posterior extremities of terrestrial various muscles and other structures. As argue that this proves the whale hip was mammals, have been considered to an example, North Sea Beaked Whale derived from the terrestrial ancestor’s be a fine example of vestigial organs. has a putative “pelvis” found only in hip—just as predicted by evolution. Awbrey (1983, p. 6) asserts (but cites males and serves to anchor the muscle Hence, this demonstrates the ‘just so no evidence) that the fossil record of set attached to the penis (Watson, 1981, story’ nature of evolution—nothing is whales supports the pelvic bone degen- p. 33). In other whales, the whale “pelvis” explained, just adjustments of the “story” eration theory because not two, as seen bones, together with the separate puta- (often without even acknowledging the today, but rather three whale pelvic tive limb bones, serve as an attachment story has changed). elements are discernible in the fossil for the penis corpora cavernosa (Young, record. But if the fossils demonstrate 1962, p. 667). Tajima et al. (2004, p. The Whale Limb Bones a modification from three bones in 761) concluded from an anatomical In addition to the small but functional whales’ hips to two, this would not in study of the porpoise pelvic bone that whale hip bones, some whales also have itself demonstrate that the whale pelvis its function in male finless porpoises is structures resembling limb bones. In is now a useless structure. Although to support the penis. some whale species, anterior to the tail Awbrey (1983, p. 6) asserts that the Work by Yablokov (1974, pp. 234– exist “rudiments of a femur and even a pelvis has been reduced by evolution 235) documents that the whale pelvic tibia,” both of which are attached to the and “no longer connects the hind legs bones serve a critical copulation func- girdle (Alexander, 1975, p. 431). Blue to the axial skeleton,” he admits that the tion, and the “pelvis” in toothed whales whales often have a “pelvis” with tiny two small bones have a function—“to is differentially located in males com- bones attached to it. In addition, a tiny support the reproductive and rectal pared to females in order to make “penis tibia-like bone is sometimes found in the muscles.” Their support role fits either erection possible in the male” and aid bowhead whale (Watson, 1981, p. 33). the design, or the descent-with-modi- in “effective contraction of the vagina in Young described the whale hind legs fication view, but either way they are the female.” These bones also support as “bony nodules … representing limb not vestigial. Creationists also once ef- certain internal organs and also serve as bones” (1962, p. 667). Andrews (1921, p. fectively explained the whale hip bones points of attachment for several muscles, 2) described the case of a 31-inch-long as evidence of degeneration, but this as does the coccyx in humans (Williams, whale hind limb, which he concluded view is no longer valid because a clear 1970). Thus, like the human hyoid bone, shows a “remarkable reversion to the function has now been determined for the two small pubic bones in the whale primitive quadripedal condition.” the bones. function in a support role for various A major problem is explaining why Far less is known about cetaceans organs and muscles (Awbrey, 1983, p. 6). the whale lost most of its limbs—many than about many other animals. This Interestingly, Darwinists now ac- aquatic animals such as crocodiles have creates a problem for any analysis. It is knowledge that these “formerly held fully functional limbs that serve as both partly for this reason why vestiges” play “important functions” in paddles to swim and feet to walk. Awbrey the exact identity and development the whale, yet they argue that the bones (1983) claimed these whale leg bones of the elements of the pelvic vestige “still demonstrate descent with modifica- are atavisms that can be explained only of extant cetaceans [i.e., are they the tion” (Conrad, 1983, p. 9). Of course, in terms of mega-evolution, and offered ischium, ileum or pubis?] have not if Darwinism is true, all organs and that: been established. Such identifica- structures would demonstrate descent In many cetacean species, an oc- tion is critical to fully understand with modification because evolution casional individual also has one or the events underlying the evolution teaches that all organs evolved from more poorly formed leg bones that of the cetacean pelvis (Pabst et al., other simpler organs. form no joint with the pelvis. When 1998, p. 393). Like the human hyoid bone, the present, these bones are arranged in The whale hip bones may not corre- two small whale pubic bones provide the typical tetrapod order of femur, spond to any of the bones Pabst et al. structural support for various organs tibia and tarsus, and metatarsal. The (1998) listed, and may serve a different and muscles (e.g., Awbrey, 1983, p. 6). paired protrusions enclosing these function entirely. This creates a contradiction for the evo- leg bones range from tiny bumps to 130 Creation Research Society Quarterly

cylindrical structures up to four feet was a late transitional stage to the legless 450) wrote about the presence of teeth long (Awbrey, 1983, p. 6). modern whale (Chadwick, 2001, p. 73). in fetal whales, which, when grown, As we have seen, no clear fossil data Gingerich, et al. (1990) discovered “have not a tooth in their heads,” the supports Awbrey’s claim that these small several new skeletons of Basilosaurus whale fetus tooth-buds have commonly bones indicate the descent of whales in Egypt that contained comparatively been labeled vestigial. It is assumed this from an ancestor that possessed fully well-preserved examples of the limb proves that the baleen whales’ ancestors formed legs. Byers (1983, p. 2) sum- and foot bones. From their research on had teeth, and that these embryonic marized the lack of fossil data for loss of these skeletons, they concluded that they “teeth” are unnecessary because they are legs in whales: function as copulatory guides to assist not present in the adult. The oldest Cetacean fossils are the animal in sexual reproduction—ob- Darwinists today claim that fetal found in Upper Eocene deposits, viously a critical role for Basilosaurus baleen whales’ teeth are and in none of these fossils are leg (Gingerich et al., 1990). One reason for derived from toothed ancestors bones better developed than they this conclusion is the fact that the puta- [and this] is suggested not only by are in modern specimens. There is tive hind limbs of Basilosaurus appear paleontological evidence but also nothing aberrant or unusual in these too small relative to body size to have by the fact that teeth are still found fossils. I have yet to find anything in much use in swimming, or to support in ... [whale] embryos. The teeth the fossil record that is surprising or the body on land, but are absorbed as the fetus develops difficult for a creationist to explain. maintenance of some function is the whalebone characteristic of this One explanation for these whale likely for several reasons: most bones suborder (Ridgway, 1972, p. 507). “leg” bones (and similar abnormalities) are present; some elements are fused, Darwinists argue that these tooth is they are due to abnormal develop- but remaining joints are well-formed buds in fetal baleen whales can be ment caused by mutations or teratogens. with little suggestion of degeneracy; explained only by evolution and falsify Evidence for this includes their rarity in the patella and calcaneal tuber the design model: the whale teeth are many whale species. The case Awbrey are large for insertion of powerful “evolutionary leftovers” that “clearly (1983) examined “is the only recorded muscles; and the knee has a complex refute design” (Awbrey, 1983, p. 6). case” that he knew of among cetaceans, locking mechanism. ... The pelvis even though “hundreds of thousands of of modern whales serves to anchor Functions of Whale Tooth Buds whales have been killed, especially in reproductive organs, even though Fetal baleen whale tooth buds are now the last fifty years” (Andrews, 1921, p. 6). functional hind limbs are lacking. known to have several documented If these bones, in fact, are mutational or Thus hind limbs of Basilosaurus are functions. Vialleton (1930, p. 164) developmental abnormalities, they tell most plausibly interpreted as accesso­ concluded that, although “teeth in the us little about whale phylogeny. Until ries facilitating reproduction. Abduc- whale do not pierce the gums and func- more cases are studied, it is difficult to tion of the femur and plantar flexion tion as teeth, they ... actually play an draw firm conclusions about their func- of the foot, with the knee locked in important role in the formation of the tion or origin. extension, probably enabled hind bone of the jaws to which they furnish Conversely, in some species of whale limbs to be used as guides during a point d’ apui on which the bones the “leg” bones are very common, if not copulation, which may otherwise mold themselves.” Kaufmann (1983, universal. The most plausible explana- have been difficult in a serpentine p. 4) elaborated on Vialleton’s findings tion is that the “limb” bones are part of a aquatic mammal (Gingerich et al., about the function of whale teeth, not- structure that serve as copulatory guides 1990, p. 156, emphases added). ing that the temporary development of and provide an anchor for the genital whale teeth muscles (Chadwick, 2001, p. 73). Such guides the formation of their jaw. a contemporary function does not sup- Whale Fetus Teeth The teeth are multiplied and the port any evolutionists’ conclusions that As described, modern whales are divided length of the jaw is patterned after these bones are vestigial evidence of legs. up into toothed whales (Odotoceti) and this multiplication. This could ap- An example is a Basilosaurus, as dis- baleen whales (Mysticeti), which use the ply to the baleen whale; after the cussed above, this giant aquatic marine comb-like plates attached to their mouth jaw is properly formed, the teeth animal had a serpent-like body, flippers, roof to strain food from seawater. Adult are completely reabsorbed into the and very small hind limbs. The “well- baleen whales lack teeth but, as a fetus, bone structure. developed” hind limbs of Basilosaurus possess tooth buds in the upper and Dewar (1957, p. 171) also elaborated have been considered evidence that it lower jaws. Ever since Darwin (1959, p. on Vialleton’s research, concluding, Volume 49, Fall 2012 131

Darwin was wrong and Vialleton developed jaw resulted in improper fetal so no longer, it may be said that this was right, [because the] disposition teeth development. It would be more ac- viewpoint has generated a “problem” [of these fetal teeth], their form and curate to term the tooth-like structures a to be “solved” which is entirely spuri- their number, different from those jaw development system instead of teeth ous. Second, there seems to be some of other Cetacea, show that in the that never erupt from the gums. Similar under appreciation of the fact that whalebone whale, far from being scaffolding systems are actually rather not all structures are directly useful merely the relics of an extinct ances- common in embryology. Examples in- to adults (Dubois, 1985, p. 14). tor, they have an individuality and clude the webbing between the fingers In one study of the development a causality peculiar to them, since in humans and certain animals. and degradation of the temporary tooth they are multiplied and adapted to In a penetrating analysis of embry- buds in baleen whales, Ishakawa and the length of the jaw. onic teeth as supposed evolutionary Amasaki (1995, p. 665) found that “the Dewar (1957, p. 171) further con- vestiges, Dubois (1985) reviewed the degradation pattern was little different cludes that the claim that “ancestors of logical fallacies inherent with this con- from that of deciduous tooth buds in ter- the toothless whales first acquired a num- cept. He concluded that, it is “highly restrial species.” The same claim made ber of additional teeth, then scrapped unlikely from an evolutionary point of about whales losing their teeth is also them all and developed in their place the view that the baleen whales would have made about chickens, animals believed extraordinary baleen plates that occur in developed the extra teeth only to begin by many Darwinists to have descended the mouth” is highly improbable. the process of losing them,” and while from toothed dinosaurs. If birds descend- Dewar (1957, p. 171) states that Vial- Darwinists attempt to construct a ed from toothed ancestors (both fish and leton’s (1930) assertion was confirmed in scenario to “explain” such an occur- many dinosaurs have enamel-protein a paper by Dr. John Cameron (Transac­ rence, such scenarios are the evolu- processing genes), Darwinism would tions of the Royal Society of Canada, Vol. tionary equivalent of the creationist’s predict that there should be evidence in 12, 1918), which showed “one of the func- God could have done it that way; and many birds, such as chickens, of “vesti- tions of the developing teeth is to enable in terms of actual explanatory value gial” defective and nonfunctioning but the jaw to be properly molded.” This was are equally worthless. Further, that still present enamel-protein genes rather illustrated by a photograph of a mi- the teeth seem to be “adapted to the than a total absence of these genes, as is crocephalic idiot of whom the jaws length of the jaw” militates against found. A study of the chicken genome recede like those of an ape, because the assertion of vestigiality since has found no evidence that this bird has of the poor development of the one of the characteristics of vestigial enamel-protein genes. teeth. “In many of these individuals” structures is that they are no longer No living or any known Tertiary bird he writes (p. 179) “the teeth never adaptive and therefore in the process has teeth except Archaeopteryx, and develop at all: The effect of this of being discarded. I have actually all known Cretaceous birds had well- defective dentition is reflected in seen one person maintain that even developed teeth. If, as the evolutionist the corresponding feeble degree of the degree to which a structure has supposes, modern birds are derived development of the jaws…. The su- not yet been lost is controlled by from toothed ancestors, many, if not perior and inferior maxillae (jaws) in considerations of adaptive value. I all, birds should exhibit fetal teeth as the early stages of their ossification, it find this incredible. If a structure is whalebone whales do, but no known may be recollected, are fragile bony useless, how can it be of any adaptive bird embryo shows any trace of teeth. shells enclosing the dental germs. value to maintain it? If it is not use- The supposed rudimentary teeth that For example, the lower jaw at birth is less, then it is not vestigial (Dubois, have been described in parrots are not simply a thin trough of bone enclos- 1985, p. 14). teeth but papillae. Birds lack embryonic ing the developing teeth. The cause Dubois concludes that the vestigial- teeth because they are not necessary for (of the poorly developed jaws) is a ity question in this case would never exist the molding of their very slender jaw deficiency or actual total failure of except for two factors. First, the (Dewar, 1957). development of the dental gums, the evolutionary viewpoint generates effect being that the investing jaws certain artifacts—evolutionists must likewise fail to execute their normal have evolutionary evidence, and The Cetacean growth and evolution” (Dewar, 1957, “vestiges” are a phenomenon which Vibrissal Apparatus pp. 171–172). would seem to supply it—but given The “vibrissal apparatus” (hairs, such Several studies using different ani- the number of structures which have as the whiskers cats use as sensors) in mals have found that a feeble, poorly been alleged to be vestigial and are cetaceans are assumed to be remnants 132 Creation Research Society Quarterly

of a former total hairy covering of an determine whale ancestry, with varying like land mammal, to river predators earlier evolutionary stage. The remain- results that support some theories and that were shaped like giant otters, to ing “hairs” found on the heads of whales not others. So far, as a whole, there exists primitive whales, to modern whales are “usually considered a very clear a “wide gulf between the morphologi- (Loxton, 2007, p. 85). example” of a vestigial organ (Yablokov, cal and molecular evolutionary studies” Instead, the half-century-old state- 1974, p. 235). Research has shown that on the question of which mammals ment of Colbert et al. (1955, p. 303) that these structures are not “vestiges” but are the whales’ closest cetacean rela- “no intermediate forms are apparent in rather are very complex functional sen- tives (Luo, 2000, p. 235). In fact, Luo the fossil record between the whales and sory organs that have a well-developed (2000, p. 236) adds, “There is a big the ancestral Cretaceous placentals” is nerve supply connected to each “hairlet” disagreement between morphological closer to the current state of knowledge. (Yablokov, 1974, p. 235). and molecular studies … on the broad The fact is, which terrestrial animal The blue whale (Balaenoptera picture of ungulate-cetacean evolution.” could have evolved into a whale has musculus) has about ten thousand After evaluating the molecular studies, been, and still is, a “source of spirited nerve fibers combined in large bundles Naylor and Adams (2001, p. 444) noted debate” (Harder, 2001, p. 180). and connected to each vibrissae. New that “the phylogenic position of cetecea One reason for my conclusion is research on the behavior responses of within the mammalian tree has long that the various claims postulated for blue whales that resulted from touch- been a subject of debate.” Spaulding all of the existing transitional animals ing their vibrissae has concluded the et al (2009) in an evaluation of extinct are very problematic (Camp, 1998). evolutionary claim that vibrissae are taxa using both morphological and Another reason is no evidence exists for only “remnants of a previous hair cover” molecular evidence, found that the vestigial organs in whales and the enor- is incorrect. The vibrissae actually play fossils closest to whales are Indohyus mous gap between whales and their a major role as tactile organs, especially and similar fossils. Mesonychids were putative ancestors has only widened for determining the presence of food more distantly related. The closest living with further research. The research (Yablokov, 1974, p. 235). relative is the hippo. They also found work on genetic comparisons finds that Recent investigations by Yablokov “mesonychia is only distantly related there exist major conflicts between the and others have confirmed these obser- to Artiodactyla” and that when taxon existing whale genetic evolutionary tree vations. The results of detailed histologi- sampling is altered or other criteria are and the fossil record (Spaulding et al., cal investigations of vibrissae from five used for comparisons, the taxonomic ar- 2009; Xiong et al, 2009). Furthermore, baleen whale species have documented rangement may be changed (Spaulding even the long time periods postulated that it is a complex sensory organ (Yablo- et al., 2009, p. e7062). by evolutionists cannot explain whale kov, 1974, p. 235). The hair follicle evolution: “There is, in short, neither extends deep into the dermal layer of the time nor the mechanism that could the skin and is embedded in connective Conclusions begin to account for so rapid and tissue fibers that differ considerably in In conclusion, I agree with Stahl, who dynamic an evolutionary transforma- size from similar structures used in the wrote that “ascertaining the terrestrial tion from that small mammal to the connective tissue of the cetacean dermis. stock from which the whales came is extraordinary whale is so (relatively) Yablokov (1974, p. 240) concluded that exceedingly difficult” (Stahl, 1974, p. short a period as twelve million years” the pelvic bones and vibrissae are two 486). Colbert et al. (2001, p. 392) further (Fanu, 2009, p. 120). examples that show not only do these state that, like bats, “whales (using this putative “vestigial organs have a func- term in a general and inclusive sense) tion … but they are highly specialized appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, References structures, perfected for carrying out fully adapted by profound modifica- Alexander, R. 1975. The Chordates. Cam- complex and delicate functions as in the tions.” Furthermore, the fossil and other bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. case of the pelvic bones in the present evidence of whale evolution contradicts American Museum of Natural History. toothed whales, or vibrissae in baleen Loxton’s claim: 2009. Getting a leg up on whale and whales.” We also have great series of transi- dolphin evolution: new comprehensive tional fossils for many of the most analysis sheds light on the origin of dramatic transformations of evo- crustaceans. ScienceDaily. Septem- Molecular Studies lutionary history. For example, we ber 25. http://www.sciencedaily.com/ In addition to anatomy and fossil stud- have an amazingly clear record of releases/2009/09/090924185533.htm ies, molecular studies have attempted to the evolution of whales, from bear- (accessed September 2011). Volume 49, Fall 2012 133

Andrews, R. 1921. A remarkable case of ex- sacs. Origins Research 8(2):13–14. Loxton, D. 2007. Evolution. Skeptic ternal hind limbs in a humpback whale. Ellis, R. 1978. The Book of Whales. Alfred 13(2):80–89. American Museum Novitates 9:2–6. Knoph Publishing, New York, NY. Luo, Z. 2000. Evolution, in search of the Awbrey, F.T. 1983. Giving evolutionists some Esperante, R., L. Brand, K.E. Nick, O. Poma whale’s sisters. Nature 404:235–239. space: vestigial organs demand evolution. and M. Urbina. 2008. Exceptional Milinkovitch, M.C., and J.G.M. Thewissen. Origins Research 6(1):6. occurrence of fossil baleen in shallow 1997. Evolutionary biology: even-toed Bajpai, S., and P. Gingerich. 1998. A new marine sediments of the Neogene Pisco fingerprints on whale ancestry. Nature Eocene Archaeocete (Mammalia, Ce- Formation, southern Peru. Palaeogeo­ 388:622–623. tacea) from India and the time of origin graphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeocology Miller, K. 2003. Perspectives on an Evolving of whales. Proceedings of the National 257:344–360. Creation. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. Academy of Science 95(26):15464–15468. Evans, P. 1987. The Natural History of Muizon, C. 2001. Walking with whales. Banister, K., and A. Campbell (editors). 1985. Whales and Dolphins. Facts on File, Nature 413:259–260. The Encyclopedia of Aquatic Life. Facts New York, NY. Naylor, G.J.P., and D.C. Adams. 2001. Are on File, New York, NY. Fanu, J. Le 2009. Why Us? How Science Dis­ the fossil data really at odds with the mo- Bejder, L., and B. Hall. 2002. Limbs in covers the Mystery of Ourselves. Pantheon lecular data? Morphological evidence for whales and limblessness in other ver- Books, New York, NY. Cetartiodactyla phylogeny reexamined. tebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary Gaskin, D.E. 1972. Whales, Dolphins and Systematic Biology 50(3):444–453. and developmental transformation Seals. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY. Nikaido, M.A., A. Rooney, and N. Okada. and loss. Evolution and Development Gingerich, P.D., N.A. Wells, D.E. Russell, 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among 4(6):445–458. and S.M.I. Shah. 1983. Origin of whales Cetartiodactyls based on insertions Berta, A. 1995. What is a whale? Science in epicontinental remnant seas: new evi- of short and long interspersed ele- 263:180–181. dence from the early Eocene of Pakistan. ments: hippopotamuses are the closest Byers, R.C. 1983. Do vestigial organs de- Science 220:403–406. extant relatives of whales. Proceedings mand evolution? Origins Research 6(2):2. Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, and E.L. Si- of the National Academy of Science Camp, A. 1998. The overselling of whale mons. 1990. Hindlimbs of Eocene Basi- 96:10261–10266. evolution. Creation Matters. 3(3):1–5. losaurus. Science 249:154–157. Ober, W., and C. Garrison. 2005. Biology. Chadwick, D. 2001. Evolution of whales. Gingerich, P.D., M. Haq, I.S. Zalmout, I.H. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. National Geographic, 200(5):64–77. Khan, and M.S. Malkani. 2001. Origin Pabst, D., S.A. Rommel, and W.A. McLellan. Colbert, E.H., M. Morales, and E.C. of whales from early Artiodactyls: hands 1998. Evolution of thermoregulary func- Minkoff. 1955. Evolution of the Verte­ and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from tion in cetacean reproductive systems. In brates. Wiley, New York, NY. Pakistan. Science 293:2239–2242. G.M. Thewissen (editor), The Emergence Colbert, E.H., M. Morales, and E.C. Gingerich, P.D. 2003. Land-to-sea transition of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Minkoff. 2001. Colbert’s Evolution of the in early whales: evolution of Eocene Origin of Cetacea, pp. 379–398. Plenum Vertebrates: A History of the Backboned Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to Press, New York, NY. Animals Through Time, 5th edition. skeletal proportions and locomotion of Parsons, K. 2004. The Great Dinosaur Con­ Wiley-Liss, New York, NY. living semiaquatic mammals. Paleobiol­ troversy: A Guide to the Debates. ABC- Conrad, E. 1983. True vestigial structures in ogy 29(3):429–454. CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA. whales and dolphins. Creation/Evolution, Harder, B. 2001. New fossils resolve whale’s PBS.org. 2001. Whale Evolution. WGBH 10:9–11. origin. Science News 160(12):180. Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Crapo, R. 1984. Vestigial organs revisited. Heyning, J.E., and J.G. Mead. 1997. Ther- Sky Productions. http://www.pbs.org/ Origins Research 7(2):1. moregulation in the mouths of feeding wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/1_034_05. Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. John gray whales. Science 278:1138–1139. html (accessed September 2012). Murray, London, UK. Ishakawa, H., and H. Amasaki. 1995. Devel- Prothero, D. 1999. “Mesonychids.” In Singer, Dewar, D. 1957. The Transformist Illusion. opment and physiological degradation R. (editor), Encyclopedia of Paleontology, Dehoff, Murfreesboro, TN. of tooth buds and development of rudi- Volume 2, pp. 716–717. Fitzroy Dear- Domning, D. 2001. New ‘intermediate form’ ment of baleen plat in Southern Minke born, Chicago, IL. ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the Whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. The Ridgway, S. 1972. Mammals of the Sea. National Center for Science Education Journal of Veterinary Medical Science Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL. 21(5–6):38–42. 57(4):665–670. Rose, K. 2001. The ancestry of whales. Sci­ Dubois, P. 1985. Further comments on Kaufmann, D. 1983. When is a vestige not a ence 293:2216–2217. baleen fetal teeth and functions for yolk vestige? Origins Research 6(2):4. Scheffer, V. 1976. A Natural History of Ma­ 134 Creation Research Society Quarterly

rine Mammals. Scribner, New York, NY. Hussain. 1998. Whale ankles and evo- Wikipedia. 2007. Whale. http://en.wikipedia. Silas. 2002. Proof of Design? Astronomical lutionary relationships. Nature 395:452. org/wiki/Whales (accessed September Enigma—Bad Astronomy. Posted June Thewissen, J.G.M., and S. Bajpai. 2001. 2011). 13, 2002 on an Internet online discussion. Dental morphology of Remingtono- Williams, J.G. 1970. The Other Side of Evolu­ www.bautforum.com/archive/index. cetidae (Cetacia, Mammalia). Journal tion. Williams, La Vemge, TN. php/t-1292.html-345k. of Paleontology 75(2):463–465. Woodmorappe, J. 2002. Walking whales, Singer, R. (editor). 1999. Encyclopedia of Pa­ Thewissen, J.G.M., E.M. Williams, L.J. nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do leontology. Volume 2. Fitzroy Dearborn, Roe, and S.T. Hussain. 2001. Skeletons they exist? Technical Journal 16(1):111– Chicago, IL. of terrestrial cetaceans and the relation- 119. Slijper, E. 1962. Dolphins and Whales. Uni- ship of whales to artiodactyls. Nature Xiong, Y., M. Brandley, S. Xu, K. Zhou, and versity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 413:277–281. G. Yang. 2009. Seven new dolphin mito- Spaulding, M, M. O’Leary, and J. Gatesy. Thewissen, J.G.M., M.J. Cohn, L.S. Stevens, chondrial genomes and a time-calibrated 2009. Relationships of Cetacea (Ar- S. Pajpai, J. Heyning, and W.E. Hor- phylogeny of whales. BMC Evolutionary tiodactyla) among mammals: increased ton, Jr. 2006. Developmental basis for Biology 9:20. http://www.biomedcentral. taxon sampling alters interpretations hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin com/1471–2148/9/20#ack of key fossils and character evolution. of the cetacean body plan. Proceedings Yablokov, A. 1974. Variability of Mammals. PLosONE 4(9):e7062. of the National Academy of Science The National Science Foundation, Stahl, B. 1974. Vertebrate History: Problems 103(22):8414–8418. Washington D.C. in Evolution. Dover, New York, NY. Thewissen, J.G.M., L. Cooper, M. Clementz, Young, J.Z. 1962. The Life of Vertebrates. Tajima, Y., Y. Hayashi, and T. Yamada. 2004. S. Bajpai, and B.N. Tiwari. 2007. Whales Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Comparative anatomical study on the originated from aquatic artiodactyls Young, P.H. 2003. Whales still have no ances- relationships between the vestigial pelvic in the Eocene Epoch of India. Nature tor. Creation Research Society Quarterly bones and the surrounding structures of 450:1190–1194. 39:213–218. finless porpoises (Neophocaena Phocae- Vialleton, L. 1930. L’Origine des Etres Vi­ Zahn, K. 1988. Whales. Gallery Books, New noides). Journal of Veterinary Medical vants. Librarie PIon, Paris, France. York, NY. Science 66(7):761–766. Watson, L. 1981. Sea Guide to Whales of the Zhou, X., R. Zhai, P.D. Gingerich, and L. Thewissen, J.G.M. 1998. The Emergence of World. Dutton, New York, NY. Chen. 1995. Skull of a new mesonychid Whales; Evolutionary Patterns in the Ori­ Werner, C. 2007. Evolution: The Grand (Mammalia, Mesonychia) from the Late gin of Cetacea. Plenum, New York, NY. Experiment. New Leaf Press, Green Paleocene of China. Journal of Vertebrate Thewissen, J.G.M., S.I. Madar, and S.T. Forest, AR. Paleontology 15(2).387:396–398.