Deceptive Walking Whale News
There is both an advantage and disadvantage to writing up posts several days ahead of time. This one was set up and ready to go, and then suddenly three more posts appeared on the subject that offer additional information. This post can be a resource for those who want details on the alleged "walking whale".
We know that paleontologists can determine a great deal of information about an organism, especially when they have something living to make comparisons. I reckon the would not be able to know that a frilled lizard will hiss and run on hind legs, for example. So, how can scientists know that a critter was a walking whale?
A fossil discovered in Peru was referred to as a "walking whale", and purveyors of evoporn got the bit in their teeth and told unfounded, unscientific stories about how it walked across continents and similar nonsense. There is no evidence for how it lived and acted, or that it was a long-distance traveler. The pretend whale has characteristics like modern otters or sea lions, but it must be a walking whale because evolution. Remember, the narrative drives the facts for these folks — can't be admitting that there is a Creator, nosiree!
The evolutionary narrative drives the interpretations of the evidence for Darwinoids and their desire for a missing link. It should not be much of a surprise that details are omitted and circular reasoning (as well as hilarity) ensues.
Workers at the propaganda mill seem to be hoping that people do not have a basic education in science, or that they will not bother with critical thinking. Where are the intermediate features? Some of us would like actual evidence more than assertions and more non-science fiction.
Finally, Dr. Jerry Bergman has been working on yet another book. This one is about whale evolution, so he has already been doing his homework. Darwin was embarrassed and frustrated by his own theory that the ancestor of whales was a bear. That didn't work out so well, so the substitute was something resembling a dog or wolf. All this "science" speculation raises more questions than it solves.
There are so many examples of storytelling, circular reasoning, and downright bad science, I wonder if this is yet another instance of desperation. Indeed, it may very well be deception — there's lotsa grotzits in evolutionary "discoveries", you know. Creationists to shine light on the truth, and thinking people are not fooled. Yippie ky yay, secularists! You may also like to see "Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales".
We know that paleontologists can determine a great deal of information about an organism, especially when they have something living to make comparisons. I reckon the would not be able to know that a frilled lizard will hiss and run on hind legs, for example. So, how can scientists know that a critter was a walking whale?
 |
| Credit: Unsplash / Ryan Grewell |
A skeleton of an extinct creature was found on the coast of Peru. Evolutionists are all calling it a walking whale.No need to spout off or blubber, you can read the rest by clicking on "Otter Not Call This a Walking Whale". Be sure to come back for the rest.
In Current Biology, a team led by Olivier Lambert announced a skeleton of what they call an “amphibious whale” or a “quadrupedal whale” they found off the coast of Peru. When the story (complete with artists’ conceptions) hit the press, reporters took the bait and ran with it without asking any questions, printing blow-ups of the artwork as the leading tease under their breathless headlines.
The evolutionary narrative drives the interpretations of the evidence for Darwinoids and their desire for a missing link. It should not be much of a surprise that details are omitted and circular reasoning (as well as hilarity) ensues.
Like many claims of missing links, we should ask: what was the actual evidence? E.g. the original claims of Pakicetus (‘Whale from Pakistan’) as an aquatic whale ancestor were based on skull fragments only. . .evolutionary agitprop needs to keep claiming to have ‘found the missing link’, apparently hoping that we forget that they have said that before.To read this article in its entirety, click on "Peregocetus pacificus, 43-million-year–old walking whale?"
. . .
But it was missing a lot of crucial information as well: the skull for example, so we have no idea what its ear was like, and this is crucial for identifying putative whale ancestors. And while its tail vertebrae showed widening (“expanded transverse processes”), so it could have helped with propulsion in water, it was more like “those of beavers and otters”. There was no evidence for tail flukes as in real whales.
Workers at the propaganda mill seem to be hoping that people do not have a basic education in science, or that they will not bother with critical thinking. Where are the intermediate features? Some of us would like actual evidence more than assertions and more non-science fiction.
The newly found fossil creature may have been amphibious because it appears to possibly have had webbed feet for swimming. It could definitely walk on land and possibly also swim in water, like beavers and otters. If all it takes is an amphibious capability to earn the name whale, then why not call otters, muskrats, and beavers “whales,” too?To read the whole thing, click on "Whale Evolution Dives to New Low"
. . .
Besides the enormous differences in size and specializations—filter feeding versus toothed whales—many designs are only found in whales. To name a few, whales have specialized bodily features that allow for unique breathing, swimming, deep diving, reproduction, echolocation, communication, specialized feeding, and many other novel traits not found in any other type of sea or land creature.
Finally, Dr. Jerry Bergman has been working on yet another book. This one is about whale evolution, so he has already been doing his homework. Darwin was embarrassed and frustrated by his own theory that the ancestor of whales was a bear. That didn't work out so well, so the substitute was something resembling a dog or wolf. All this "science" speculation raises more questions than it solves.
Peregocetus pacificus (“the traveling whale that reached the Pacific”) was the name given to the “whale” fossil. It is a “remarkably well-preserved” four foot long, fairly complete animal, the discoverers say. The fossil includes its jaw, front and hind legs, bits of its spine, and most of its tail. The fossil was found in 2011 at a site called Playa Media Luna and is the first ostensible “whale” found in Peru. Due to possessing characteristics similar to modern otters and beavers, this mammal was apparently well-adapted to both land and water.You can read all of that one by clicking on "Calling Something a Whale Doesn’t Make It a Whale"
Another popular article was more accurate and did not call it a whale or a Protocetidae but an “unknown species of animal.” Claiming this animal was a whale is worse than claiming a dog is a cat. It is rather more like claiming a dog looks like a crocodile. The illustrations used to publicize the creature show a large doglike body and a crocodile-like head that contains the brain, head and mandible. Plus, it has a crocodile-like tail. So what is the more absurd comparison? Although shown swimming in the water, it had four legs and could navigate on land as well as any other land mammal. The problem is, “Whales look so unlike other mammals that it’s hard to imagine the type of creature that they evolved from.”
There are so many examples of storytelling, circular reasoning, and downright bad science, I wonder if this is yet another instance of desperation. Indeed, it may very well be deception — there's lotsa grotzits in evolutionary "discoveries", you know. Creationists to shine light on the truth, and thinking people are not fooled. Yippie ky yay, secularists! You may also like to see "Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales".