Volume 3, Number 3 May / June 1998 The Overselling of Whale Evolution by Ashby L. Camp, J.D., M.Div. Summary: This article examines briefly the of land mammals that were well adapted for three major transition stages in the stan- running. [1] It is hypothesized that some dard account of whale evolution: (1) from a mesonychid species began feeding on crea- mesonychid to an amphibious archaeocete, tures inhabiting shallow waters and that (2) from an amphibious archaeocete to a over many generations the selective pres- fully marine archaeocete, and (3) from a sures created by this change of diet trans- fully marine archaeocete to modern whales. formed one or more of the species into an Regarding the first stage, it is argued that amphibious archaeocete. The selective no known mesonychid species qualifies as pressures of amphibious living, in turn, an actual ancestor of archaeocetes. Meso- generated a variety of archaeocetes. Even- nychids simply are assumed to have been tually one or more of the species was ancestral on the basis of some general transformed into a fully marine archaeocete. similarities with archaeocetes and for lack Marine existence then shaped further adap- Announcing of a better candidate. Regarding the second tations to produce the 75 to 77 living species stage, it is argued that the standard repre- of whales, porpoises, and dolphins. [2] Field Studies in sentation of archaeocetes as a series of Some evolutionists believe the fossil record stratomorphic intermediates is dubious. has established this claim beyond a reason- Catastrophic Geology Even if the representation was accurate, the able doubt. One writer went so far as to by Carl R. Froede, Jr., P.G. archaeocetes involved would not constitute pronounce that “the evolutionary case is an actual lineage. Regarding the third now closed.” [3] The purpose of this article n this the latest volume in the CRS stage, it is argued that the consensus opin- is to suggest that the fossil evidence for the technical monograph series, geologist ion only decades ago was that archaeocetes mesonychid-to-whale transition is not per- ICarl Froede provides material for sci- were not ancestral to modern cetaceans. suasive, let alone conclusive. entists who are not geologists but who The alleged ancestral relationship remains otherwise have an interest in the subject. highly speculative. Mesonychids to Archaeocetes To help with the terminology, a glossary has been included. Editor’s note: This article is somewhat more “techni- The first claim in the evolutionists’ scenario cal” than those that normally appear in CM. However, is that archaeocetes descended from a The chapters in this book provide ex- we believe the summary and Figure 1 will aid the mesonychid species. The ancestral status of amples of catastrophic geological proc- nonspecialist in understanding the essential problem Mesonychidae was first proposed by Leigh with stories of the supposed evolution of whales. esses, and demonstrate the lack of physical Van Valen in 1966 on the basis of certain evidence supporting a uniformitarian in- onventional wisdom among evolu- dental similarities between the mesonychid terpretation of immense time periods on tionists, at least at the popular level, Dissacus navajovius (which is Dissacus the earth. The author contends that while is that whales descended from C carnifex of Cope) and some archaeocete model building and conceptual theorizing Mesonychidae, an early and diverse family specimens. His rather cautious statement of have a place in attempting to understand the claim is worth recalling: how the geological record fits within the Contents: “To my knowledge the biblical framework, these activities must The Overselling of Whale Evolution 1 family of Mesonychidae occur in close conjunction with fieldwork Geology book: is one of the relatively and data gathered from actual sites. Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology 1 Biology textbook: Designs in the Living World 5few groups of mammals 93 pp. (8.5 x 11) $14.95 plus $3 for postage & handling. Order from: Creation and Evolution — A Side Issue? 6 (and even of reptiles) Speaking of Science 7 that has not been spe- CRS Books Wolves, Dogs, and Foxes cifically suggested as P.O. Box 8263 A Dispute for the Birds ancestral to the whales, St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263 Creation Calendar 8 but in my opinion the Geological Strata Standard Scheme Alternative Scheme L P A R T I E E B O A M R Basilosaurus Basilosaurus C I D E D L L U N E T Protocetus Indocetus Ambulocetus Indocetus Protocetus Rodhocetus Pakicetus Rodhocetus E Ambulocetus Pakicetus E A Y R P L R Y Figure 1. Relative Geological Relationships of Supposed Evolutionary Ancestors of Whales broken skull with lower jaws. [8] No one Protocetus [an early archaeocete - Above left: Basilosaurus cetoides, the state fossil of Alabama has nominated any of these genera for an- AC] are not similar to those of http://www.asc.edu/archives/emblems/st_fosil.html cestor of the archaeocetes, and thus meso- either the Hyaenodontidae or the nychids continue to be classified in the Mesonychidae (or to any other more technical literature as a “sister group” terrestrial mammal known to me) preceding argument establishes to the archaeocetes. [9] and probably represent to a con- them as at least the most likely siderable extent a reorganization To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did candidate. Dissacus navajo- of the skull, the chain of effects recently, that “[i]t is not possible to identify vius is possibly directly ancestral, resulting from adaptation to hear- a sequence of mesonychids leading directly but little is known of the early ing, feeding, locomotion, and to whales” is to understate the problem. history of the mesonychids, espe- other functions in an aquatic ex- [10] It is not even possible to identify a cially outside North America.” [4] istence.” [11] single ancestral species. All known meso- In a more extensive analysis published nychids are excluded from the actual chain This point was later echoed by Edwin three years later, Frederick Szalay sug- of descent by the evolutionists’ own crite- Colbert: ”In general this [archaeocete] skull gested that both hapalodectines (which was ria. appears as if it might have been derived then considered a mesonychid subfamily) The reason evolutionists are confident from a mesonychid type, but there is little and archaeocetes probably “derived from that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, beyond certain general resemblances to either early or middle Paleocene mesony- despite the inability to identify any species support such a relationship.” [12] Others chids, species more primitive than known in the actual lineage, is that known meso- have likewise noted that the cited similari- mesonychines” [emphasis mine]. [5] In nychids and archaeocetes have some simi- ties in skull and dental characters “are not other words, Szalay concluded that both larities. These similarities, however, are not all clear-cut.” [13] One need only compare Dissacus and Ankalagon, the only middle sufficient to make the case for ancestry, the reconstructed skull of the late Paleo- Paleocene mesonychids known at that time, especially in light of the vast differences. cene Sinonyx jiashanensis to that of an were too derived (i.e., evolutionarily ad- The subjective nature of such comparisons early archaeocete to appreciate these re- vanced) to be in the archaeocete lineage. [6] is evident from the fact that so many groups marks. [14] He saw them as “sister groups” of the ar- of mammals and even reptiles have been chaeocetes, not as actual ancestors. Amphibious Archaeocete to suggested as ancestral to whales. Fully Marine Archaeocete Since publication of the Szalay article, In the case of mesonychids, the rela- three more genera of middle Paleocene The second claim in the evolutionists’ ex- tionship to archaeocetes is based on the mesonychids have been identified in Asia planation of the origin of whales is that an most general of similarities. As Van Valen (Dissacusium, Hukoutherium, Yangtan- amphibious archaeocete evolved into a acknowledged in the original article pro- glestes), but none is known from anything fully marine archaeocete. It is believed that posing mesonychid ancestry: more than fragmentary crania. [7] Infor- this transformation is documented by a se- quence of intermediate forms, what one mation on Hukoutherium, the best known “[M]any features of the skull of of the three, is limited to a crushed and writer called the “sweetest series of tran- May/June 1998 A publication of the Creation Research Society 2 sitional fossils an evolutionist could ever tually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, discussed above), but specialists admit hope to find.” [15] This series, which spans an early Lutetian fossil from another for- there is a “lack of clear ancestor to de- 10-12 million years of the Eocene, includes mation in Pakistan. [19] Moreover, the date scendant relationships.” [26] Indeed, the Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, of Ambulocetus, which was found in the tremendous size difference between Basi- Rodhocetus kasrani, Indocetus ramani, same formation as Pakicetus but 120 me- losaurinae and protocetids casts doubt on Protocetus atavus, and Basilosaurus isis. ters higher, would have to be adjusted up- that hypothesis. All protocetids were less [16] ward the same amount as Pakicetus. [20] than ten feet long, whereas Basilosaurus It is important to understand that, in This would make Ambulocetus younger cetoides was over 80 feet in length, and calling these creatures a “series of transi- than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Basilosaurus isis was over 50 feet. [27] It tional fossils,” the evolutionist does not Indocetus and even Protocetus. [21] has been calculated that, even in a rapidly mean that they form an actual lineage of According to the standard scheme, evolving line, changes in size are usually ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, on the order of only 1-10% per million they readily acknowledge that these ar- but some experts have dated it in the early years.