Jackson Wheat

December 6, 2015
Response to Another Whale of a Tale: Creationists Without a Whimper?
This is a response to the Answers in Genesis page Another Whale of a Tale: Creationists
Without a Whimper? written by Mark Looy. I have debunked pages from AiG before, but I
have not done it in a while; thus, I have decided to do it again. While I was sitting at my
computer and looking through papers on biologic evolution, I ran across this article. This
laughably poor attack on whale evolution has no sources and appears to believe that only three
whale fossils have ever been found. At any rate, let us begin at the beginning: I have a problem
with the first sentence. It reads, The alleged evolutionary history of whales continues to be a
hotly debated topic in the current creation/evolution controversy, despite what some evolutionists
are saying (including one of its more visible spokespersons, the science journalist Carl
Zimmer). First, who actually describes the creationist proselytizing as a creation/evolution
controversy? No one except creationists call it that. Second, it really does not matter if some
random journalist attests to the validity of evolution; evolution does not require his specific
verification. Evolution is instead verfied by thousands of observable experiments along with the
fossil record, biogeographic distribution, and phylogenetics.
Looy goes on, The argument for whale evolution became particularly well known in the
1990s when whale fossils, allegedly found with small legs, became major examples of the
proposed land-to-sea evolution. But is the story of whale evolution really settled? First, no,
whale fossils with legs have been known since the discoveries of Basilosaurus and Dorudon in
the 1800s; however, the evolutionary history of whales was becoming better known in the 1990s
since more ancestors of whales (many with long legs) were being discovered. Ambulocetus,
Pakicetus, and Rhodocetus added more information to whale history by displaying traits of
amphibious mammalian hunters and by adding much evidence to the idea that whales
transitioned from land to water. Second, no, the story of whale evolution will never be really
settled because not every fossil is present to give us a continuous sequence, and we would not
expect that to happen.
He [Zimmer] claimed that creationists have now become virtually silent regarding the
fossil record of whales. Zimmer is the author of At the Waters Edge
(www.carlzimmer.com/water_1.html), in which he looked at two evolutionary puzzles: how fish
walked ashore, and how the ancestors of whales returned to the sea. If this Zimmer guy made a
fallacious claim, then he deserves to be called on it; it does not matter which side he supports.
Also, how fish transitioned to amphibians is not really an evolutionary puzzle because there is
a large number of fossilsincluding Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostegathat show the
transition. Third, how the ancestors of whales returned to the sea is not an evolutionary puzzle
because it is also supported by a large number of fossils.
Needless to say [continues the radio report], Mr. Zimmer is pleased that whale fossils
with small legs were discovered in the 1990s. He hasnt heard a whimper about whales ever
since [emphasis ours]. I think all biologists were pleased to find fossils of whales in the 1990s
because it helped shed light on what was previously unknown or an evolutionary puzzle. The
fossils also supported exactly what the biologists proposed: that there would be a transition from
land mammals to amphibious mammals to completely marine mammals. Now, the second
sentence about how creationists never say anything about the whale fossils is a complete lie.
Zimmer apparently had not tried looking for creationists talking about the whale fossils and was

content to stay ignorant. Creationists, on the other hand, will not stop talking about the fossils
demonstrating whale evolution; they will generally claim there are no fossils of whale transition,
and they will also generally claim that all whales were just made that way by Yahweh. There
is, of course, no evidence to suggest that this is true, but the creationists will not stop saying it
anyway.
Next, Looy points to a chapter on whales in a creationist book called Refuting Evolution
by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati as the primary evidence against whale evolution. Allow me to quote
some parts from chapter five of Refuting Evolution titled Whale Evolution? The first claim Dr.
Sarfati makes under the second section of this chapter (Missing Links?) is this: However,
there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to
get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail
movements. However and hilariously, the Smithsonian produced an article in 2014 titled
Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises that reads on the first line, Hips dont
lie: Whale pelvic bones are not vestigial but instead evolved to help the marine mammals
maneuver better during sex. So not only do whales still have their pelvises, but they use their
pelvises during sexual intercourse! This study is directly contradictory of what Dr. Sarfati
proposes. Dr. Sarfati then quotes Everhard Johannes Slijper in his book Whales as saying, We
do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals
[i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales. This seems to be pretty convincing evidence that
there are no fossils of whales transitioning from land to water until we realize that Whales was
published in 1962! Of course the book says that; there were no fossils of the transition at the
time.
Dr. Sarfati continues, One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of
changes to occur by mutation and selection. This quote simple writes off punctuated
equilibrium without looking deeper into it. What Dr. Sarfati clearly does not understand, as most
creationists do not, is that sometimes in history organisms go through quick (several million
years) spurts of evolutionsuch as humans, Hadrosaurs, and early Cambrian fauna. Then Dr.
Sarfati starts rambling about Ambulocetus and finishes with, Finally, it [Ambulocetus] is dated
more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than undisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a
walking ancestor of whales. No, Ambulocetus is dated to the early Eocene epoch, while the
undisputed whales like Basilosaurus are dated to, at the earliest, the late Eocene, which means
that several millions years passed between them. The last whale ancestor Dr. Sarfati discusses is
Pakicetus and cites the fact that it is not in one specific biology book as evidence that it is not a
whale ancestor. He also says the only fossils of Pakicetus are fragmentary remains, despite the
fact that almost entire skeletons of it have been found. He finishes off on Pakicetus with an
argument between paleontologists and molecular biologists. The paleontologists said that whales
were descended from Mesonychids (carnivorous, hooved mammals), but the molecular biologists
said whales were descended from Artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates)like hippos, deer,
pronghorns, pigs, etc. Dr. Sarfati cites a disagreement among scientistswhich was resolved, by
the wayas evidence that no one knows anything about whale evolution. Dr. Sarfati ends his
egregious chapter by saying that modern whales do not have leg bones at all, even though the
fact that whales do is logically undeniable. Dr. Sarfati is completely dishonest.
Now let us return to Looy: the last arguments he attempts to make involve
Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, and Basilosaurus. First, he says this of Pakicetus: however, it
consisted only of jaw and skull fragments yet its been claimed to be a walking whale.
Entirely false. Actually, Pakicetus consists of an almost complete skeleton. Next, it says this

about Basilosaurus: Basilosaurus has also been offered as an ancestor to whales; while it did
have hind limbs, they were far too small to have anything to do with walking. This quotation is
pointless because no one is positing that Basilosaurus was a transition between the land animals
and whales; Basilosaurus is clearly a whale. Referring to Ambulocetus, the article simply says
that Refuting Evolution explained why Ambulocetus is not a whale relative, which was not an
explanation at all. What is perhaps the worst part of the three whales presented is that there are
only three presented as though they represent the entirety of whale evolution! The article
completely avoids Indohyus, Remingtonocetus, Rodhocetus, Kutchicetus, Maiacetus, Protocetus,
and various others. Summarily, neither AiG nor Dr. Sarfati made any factual arguments against
whale evolution.