****
Evolutionists point to Mesonyx as the so-called
ancestor of all marine mammals. Carroll states:"Mesonyx was the size and
proportions of a wolf and perhaps, had a similar way of life."(see p. 483,
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Carroll) Doesn't sound like much of
a transitional form to me.
Basilosaurus? Was it a whale, or a transitional creature? Again, it all
depends on one's interpretation of the evidence. Yes, it had fairly large
front feet and legs, and tiny hind legs. But even evolutionists state these
tiny hind legs were too small to assist in swimming and could not have
supported the body on land. To think that this creature could be an
intermediate between a wolf-like animal and a whale is ridiculous.
One chap told me a few months ago:
***
"Though evolutionists suspect that basilosaurids descended from the earlier
Protocetidae, experts admit there is a "lack of clear ancestor to
descendant relationships." R. Ewan Fordyce, "Cetacean Evolution and
Eocene/Oligocene Environments" in Donald R. Prothero and William A.
Berggren, eds., _Eocene-Oligocene Climatic and Biotic Evolution_
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 376. Indeed, the tremendous
size difference between Basilosaurinae and protocetids casts serious doubt
on that hypothesis. All protocetids were less than ten feet long. Lawrence
G. Barnes, "Whale" in _McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science & Technology 1993_
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993), 482. _Basilosaurus cetoides_, on the other
hand, was over eighty feet in length, and _Basilosaurus isis_ was over
fifty feet. Robert L. Carroll, _Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution_ (New
York: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1988), 523-524; Gingerich, et. al. (cited
above), 155."
"As far as descendants go, it is now generally recognized that
Basilosaurinae was an isolated subfamily that had nothing to do with the
origin of modern whales. In the words of Thewissen, "It is now clear that
several derived archaeocetes, such as _Basilosaurus_, did not give rise to
modern taxa." J. G. M. Thewissen, "Phylogenetic Aspects of Cetacean
Origins: A Morphological Perspective," _Journal of Mammalian Evolution_
2(3): 173 (1995)."
***
I came across a paper by David J. Tyler, New fossil find shows a
whale with hind limbs: Evidence for evolutionary transformation?
_Origins_. 4(12), 6-7.(1992)
Tyler, who is a prominent member of the Biblical Creation Society
<http://www.pages.org/uk/org/bcs> writes on p. 7, regarding Basilosaurus:
***
1. Although the feet are very small, they are not degenerate....This
situation implies that functionality and design considerations should be
given due weight and, instead of viewing the pelvic limbs as a relic of the
past, they should be regarded as an integral part of the organism's
structure.
2. The feet show specialized features....The authors [Gingerich et al.,
1990] conclude that the limbs....were suited for positioning and holding.
'Abduction of the femur and plantar flexion of the foot, with the knee
locked in extension, probably enabled hind limbs to be used as guides
during copulation, which may otherwise have been difficult in a serpentine
aquatic mammal' (p. 156)
3. Basilosaurus is not a transitional animal, but highly specialized. The
16 metre long serpent-like body can hardly be regarded as a good transition
between land animals and toothed or baleen whales....Indeed, many
authorities deny that the archeocetes as a group are the precursors of
modern cetaceans. Harrison and King (1980)...
It is essential to evolutionary theory that whales are mammals that have
lost their limbs, and so it is to be expected that evolutionists will
conclude that the limbs of Basilosaurus are transitional (via deductive
reasoning). However, the real issue is whether it is scientifically
justified to reach this conclusion (via inductive reasoning). The lack of
degeneracy, the evidences of functionality and the obvious specialisation
are suggested here to argue against their transitional status.
Evolutionists are so committed to the principle of transformation that they
appear to have no interest is studying discontinuities. All their
intellectual tools are geared to identifying relationships between
organisms, and appear to be incapable of recognizing the existence of gaps.
Creationists have consistently argued for the principle of optimum design:
organisms possess a morphology and features which are suited for life in
specific ecological niches. Creationists also argue that homology can be
understood as variations on a design theme. Aquatic mammals, like all
mammals, reveal the mammalian blueprint with modifications. The diverse
physiological and skeletal differences between cetaceans and land mammals
reveal a major discontinuity which is totally unbridged by transitional
organisms. Within this general creationist perspective, Basilosaurus can be
viewed as a specialized form of whale, needing hind limbs on its
serpent-like body in order to fulfil the Designer's intention that it
should reproduce 'after its kind.'
***