National Geographic Marine Biology Articles
National Geographic Marine Biology Articles
A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic
National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research across the globe and shares the results with his readers. The magazine is an essential source of information on a wide range of important areas, but few readers are aware of what extent that it passes this information through an ideological "filter" before handing it to his readers, and sometimes even turns the data in accordance with the requirements this ideology and builds up entirely imaginary stories.
The ideology is involved in National Geographic is a mixture of philosophical naturalism and the current brand development theory, known as neo-Darwinism. On behalf of the defense, that theory, it generally presents biased views on discoveries, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example, there was the false allegation of Archaeoraptor fossil, which was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been 'handmade'.
Even scientists who support the theory criticize magazine for blind propaganda it carries. According to Dr. Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, National Geographic reached an all-time low in order to participate in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. "(1)
An example of National Geographic's' sensational, unsubstantiated and tabloid 'Evolutionist propaganda was its "Evolution of whales article carried in the issue of November, 2001. The article claimed that a number of fossil discoveries had demonstrated evolution of whales thesis, and even quoted paleontologist Hans Thewissen who claimed that whales were one of the best examples of evolution. The pictures, reconstructions and charts plastered all over the 14-page article was intended to visually reinforce the same claim in readers' minds.
But the 'evolution of whales' scenario, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, was-and is-nothing but a fairy tale with no scientific justification.
The parade of reconstructions on pages 66-69 in National Geographic November 2001 issue was meant to sum up the magazine's assertion origin of whales. A whole raft of creatures were lined up one after another, and describes as transitional forms in the evolution of the whale. According to the magazine, is the order of these creatures, according to the geological periods they lived in, as follows:
* Pakicetus (50 million years ago)
* Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
* Rodhocetus (46500000 years ago)
* Procetus (45 million years ago)
* Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago)
* Durodon (37 million years ago)
* Basilosaurus (37 million years ago)
* Aeticetus (24 to 26 million years ago)
National Geographic's list continued, but included the known types of dolphins and whales.
There is very misleading features in this list. Let us consider the most fundamental of these. According to National Geographic, the first two creatures on list was Pakicetus and Ambulocetus both 'walking whales, "yet claim that these two terrestrial beings were' whales are completely fictitious, even ridiculous.
Let us first consider Pakicetus.
Pakicetus inachus: A Quadrupedal
Forced to be 'Ancestor of the Whale'
Fossil remains of extinct mammals Pakicetus inachus, to give it its proper name, first came on the agenda in 1983. PD Gingerich and his assistants took Fossil had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," although they actually only found a skull.
But the fossil has absolutely no connection with whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, turtles and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.
So why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced as a "primitive whale, 'and why is it still presented as such by the National Geographic? The magazine gives the following answer:
What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle traces in combination arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone in the middle ear and the placement of ear bones within the skull-are absent in other land mammals, but a signature of later Eocene whales. (2)
In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a 'walking whale. "Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus of evolutionist illustrator Carl Buell will reveal the absurdity of terming it a 'walking whale. "
Distortions in reconstructions of National Geographic
Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammals. The skeletal structure to the left, published in Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this. Thus, reconstruction of Pakicetus (bottom left) by Carl Buell, which was based on this structure is realistic.
National Geographic has chosen to use an image of a 'that Swim 'Pakicetus (below) to portray animals as a "walking whale" and to impose that image on its readers. Discrepancies in the picture aims to make Pakicetus seem more "whale-like," are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a 'swimming' position. Hind legs are shown stretching behind and an impression of "fins" have been given.
Pakicetus reconstruction of National Geographic
The features discussed in detail National Geographic, "the location of the cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone in the middle ear, and positioning of the ear bones in the skull" is no decisive evidence as a basis a connection between Pakicetus and whale:
As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing "subtle traces together ", some of these features are indeed terrestrial animals as well.
None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, so it is no doubt that evolutionists would see them in the same unit and define them as very close relatives. But we know these are two different animals, but surprisingly similar in their anatomy, very far apart in the supposed evolutionary tree of life is. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.) Pakicetus by National Geographic declared to be a 'walking whale, "was a unique species occupied different functions in the body. Indeed, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes Mesonychid family Pakicetus should be a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of signs. "(3) Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that" mosaic creatures' of this type can not be regarded as transitional forms.
In short, describing Pakicetus, which is clearly a country dweller, as 'walking whale' simply on the structural features of its ear bones and molars, are nothing more than yet An example of National Geographic's tradition of 'sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. "In his article' The overselling of Whale Evolution," the creationist author Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus could have been ancestors Archaeocetea or extinct whales, in these words:
"The reason evolutionists are convinced that mesonychids raised archaeocetes, despite the lack ability to identify all species in the lineage is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities are not sufficient to argue for provenance especially in light of the significant differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons, it is fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales. "(4)
Ambulocetus natans: A false Whale with 'webbed' Claws
The second fossil creature after Pakicetus in National Geographic's imaginary sequence Ambulocetus natans. This fossil was first brought to world attention in 1984 in an article in the journal Science. It is indeed a land creature evolutionists have insisted on 'becoming a whale. "
Name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin word 'ambulare' (to go), 'Cetus '(Whale) and "natans" (swimming), and means' a walking and swimming whale. "It is obvious that the animal used to go because it had four feet, like all other mammals, and even big claws on its feet and hooves on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists' prejudice but there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian).
In order to see the boundary between science and wishful thinking imagination on this topic, let's take a look at National Geographic's reconstruction of Ambulocetus. This is how it is portrayed in the magazine:
National Geographic Little manipulations: Imaginary webs added claws, front and back legs, made to look like fins.
If you look at it carefully, can you can easily see the two small visual manipulations that have been employed to "flip-ground dwelling Ambulocetus in a whale:
Animal's hind legs are not shown with their feet, which would help it to go, but as fins, which will help it to swim. But Carroll, who examines the animal's leg bones, says it had the ability to move vigorously on land. (5)
To provide an idea of adaptation to water, slings have been prepared on the forefeet. Yet it is impossible to draw such a conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is almost impossible to find soft tissue such as these. So reconstructions based on features beyond those the skeleton is always speculative. It offers a wide evolutionists empty space of speculation to use their propaganda tools.
With the same kind of evolutionists touching up has been used to Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make an animal look like everyone else. You can even take a monkey skeleton, drag fins on the back and straps between his fingers and present it as a "primate ancestor of whales.
Disablement of deception carried out on the basis of Ambulocetus fossil can be seen from the diagram below is based on real paleontological data:
The real Ambulocetus: The legs are real bones, not the "fins," and there are no imaginary webs between his toes, such as National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Process of vertebrate evolution, p. 335)
With the publication the image of the animal's skeleton, National Geographic had to take a step back from retouching it had carried out the reconstruction image that made it seem more like a whale. As skeletal clearly shows, the animal's feet, who must wear it on land. There was no sign of the imaginary fiber.
The myth of the Walking Whale
In reality there is no evidence that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors of whales. They are simply described as "possible ancestors' by evolutionists eager to find a terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals in light of their theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures with marine mammals that occur in the fossil record at a very similar geological time.
After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, National Geographic plan goes to the so-called marine mammals and requests (extinct whale) species such Procetus, Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea. You these animals were mammals that lived in the sea, and is now extinct. (We shall touch on this issue later). However, there are significant anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. No matter how much National Geographic tried to reduce these to a minimum by a slight hint of a brush, when we look at the fossils, it is clear that they are not "transitional forms" linking each other:
The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. Actually Basilosaurus believed to have lived around 10 million years after Ambulocetus, the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.
At the backbone of Basilosaurus and sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be vestigial legs. But it same magazine mentions that these bones actually had another function. In Basilosaurus served these bones 'as copulary guides' and in sperm whales "[act] as an anchor for muscles in the genitals. (6) To describe these bones, which actually performs the important functions which 'vestigial organs' is nothing but Darwinistic prejudices.
In conclusion, despite all of National Geographic's best efforts, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals, and that they both express their own characteristics have not changed. There is no evolutionary context. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leads directly to the whales. "(7)
Other scientists agree that animals which evolutionist publications such as National Geographic attempt to portray as "walking whales actually have anything to do with true whales, but has a separate living group. Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert GA Mchedlidze not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans and similar four-legged creatures as "possible ancestors of the whale ' and describes them instead as a completely isolated group. (8)
Problems with National Geographic's Superficial Sequences
Visual Effects (plans and drawings) plays a major role in the introduction of Darwinism on society. But these times completely unscientific, and at other scientific discoveries are interpreted in a biased manner. National Geographic's time frame chart (pages 64-77) of mammals, which becomes more and more "whale-like 'through time is an example of these deceptive tools.
We have so far been considering small but misleading adjustments to the reconstructions of the animals in the chart. In parallel, the dates attributed to them by National Geographic has been selected in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are displayed in succession in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. Ashby L. Camp clarifies the situation, based on paleontological data:
"The standard scheme is Pakicetus inachus dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts recognize that it may date to early Lutetian. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted as Pakicetus is almost, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover date of Ambulocetus found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. It would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus. "(Nine)
In short, there are two different views of when the animals National Geographic chronologically describes one after the other really lived. If the second view is accepted, then Pakicetus and Ambulocetus which National Geographic describes as "walking whale, ' are of the same age as or even younger than most whales. In other words, to date no 'line' is possible. National Geographic has completely ignored the problem and has only spent views similar to his own thesis. This is a method of propaganda, not science.
Tales About ears and noses
Any evolutionary scenario between land and sea mammals has to explain the different ear and nose structures between the two groups. Using flashy graphics it used, the National Geographic tried to give the impression that the issue has been resolved. But this impression is a false one.
Let us first consider the ear structure. Like us, says land mammal trap in the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with bones in the middle ear, and turning them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by using vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws.
National Geographic claims that the other system evolved from the first. It is clearly page 71 in the chart entitled "Hearing Aids." This chart is prepared in such a way as to give readers the impression that hearing organs evolved in stages. But there is no evolution of stages here. A look at the text used by National Geographic will be sufficient to make this clear:
"Pakicetus … This time the whale was missing fat pad enlargement of the middle ear that modern ceteans have a clue that it had kept terrestrial attributes. In recent whales jawbone a fat pad that is adapted to receive sounds. "
We have already seen that Pakicetus was a typical land mammal, and that it is ridiculous to call it a 'walking whale. "The logic employed by National Geographic is no less ridiculous: the first describes the soil-dwelling Pakicetus as a 'walking whale' and then say that the animal is terrestrial attributes. It's like calling a cow 'walking bat "and then says," It has no wings, it keeps its terrestrial attributes. "
It is an aspect of the case. The aspect that interests us here is the clear difference between Pakicetus and whale ears. After National Geographic extract above, of course we look at whether there is a transitional form between the two. After Pakicetus in family tree comes Ambulocetus which evolutionists call a "walking-swimming whale" but there was actually a land mammal. National Geographic uses the following words on Ambulocetus: "Although more water than Pakicetus, Ambulocetus ever heard directly through his ear. "
In other words, there is no progress towards a whale's ear in Ambulocetus.
When we come to the third animal in the National Geographic list, we suddenly meet a huge change. The above excerpt continues: Sounds were sent to the middle ear Basilosaurus as vibrations from the lower jaw.
In other words, Basilosaurus a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceived sounds around it not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching his jaw. And there is no transitional form between Basilosaurus' ear and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus that National Geographic is argued for in his scheme.
When the subject is treated theoretically, it can be seen that at least one such transitional form would have no chance of survival. Every development in stages between a perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be an advantage. An animal slowly loses its ability to hear with his ears, but have not yet developed the ability to hear through his jaw is a disadvantage.
The question of how such "development" could come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful information to animals' genetic information. It is unreasonable to assume that the complex hearing system in mammals could be caused by mutations.
A similar situation applies to National Geographic's account of the "sliding nose." The magazine identifies three skulls from Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and a Grey Whale from our own time against each other and claimed that these represented an evolutionary process. While the three fossils "Nasal structures, especially in the Rodhocetus and Grey Whale is so different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms in the same series.
Moreover, the movement of nostrils to the forehead would require a "new design" in the anatomy of these animals, and believe that this could happen as a result of mutations is nothing but fantasy.
National Geographic's Lamarckian Tales
Indeed, National Geographic's authors and most of the evolutionist community share a basic superstition about the origin of living things, and it is real problem. This superstition is the magical 'natural force', which allows living beings to acquire the organs, biological changes or anatomical features they need. Let's have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic's article "Evolution of cetaceans,"
"I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby … As the rear limbs dwindled, so has hips that supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to drive the process tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body to more of a tubular hull to plow through water with minimal drag, while the poor shape of the rudder. Having little need for outer ears longer, some whales receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbone and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models and wandered farther away from shore. "(10)
On close inspection, says in this whole account evolutionist mindset that living things feel changing needs after the changing environment they live in, and this needs perceived as an "evolutionary mechanism." According to this logic disappears less need for organs, and needed organs out of himself!
Any with the slightest knowledge of biology, will know that our needs do not shape our bodies. Ever since Lamarck's theory of transmission of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words, for a century or so, there has been a known fact. But when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to think in Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: 'No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we are saying is that the natural conditions to the evolutionary pressure on living things and that as a result of this, the appropriateness features selected, and in this way species evolve. "But here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call 'evolutionary pressure "may not give rise to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation can not create new organs for animals:
Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it can not create new ones.
Mutations can not add genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No one mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information for genome (And thus forming a new agency or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.
If we look at the myth of National Geographic's awkwardly moving whales once more in light of this fact, we see that they actually started with a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick "Visualizes" that "Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models." How could a morphological change in a species over generations in a certain direction? For that to happen, representatives of the species in each "sequence" must undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would cause the animals no harm, these mutants must therefore enjoyed an advantage over normal to them, the next generations, by a great coincidence should undergo the same mutation at the same time in its genes, this would have to continue unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would be by a randomness and quite flawlessly.
If National Geographic writers believe that they will also think anyone who says, "My family has flying. My son has undergone a mutation and a few structures such as bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will grow. This will continue for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and could fly. "Both stories are equally ridiculous.
As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living creatures can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interesting rises before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific" cloak. The famous French biologist Pierre Paul Grasse, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and a foremost critic of Darwinism, has once again made it clear that this belief is just daydreaming:
"The opportune appearance of mutations allow animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. But the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur … There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. "(11)
Recently, Henry Gee, science editor of Nature magazine and an undisputed prominent evolutionist, pointed to the same facts and admitted to explain the origin of a body as its necessity is to say;
… Our noses were made wear glasses, so we have spectacles. Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same when they interpret a structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility needs tell us something about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure could even influence the shape and properties of this structure. (12)
Another scenario that National Geographic is trying to impose without too much discussion relates to the body surface of the animals. Like other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to have had fur-covered bodies. And they are both shown as covered in thick fur in National Geographic. But when we move on to later animals (most mammals), all the skin disappears. The evolutionist explanation for this is no different from fantastic Lamarckian-type scenarios, we have seen above. The truth of the matter is that all these animals were designed using the most appropriate way for their surroundings. It is irrational to try to take account of this design by mutation or facile Lamarck-type stories. As all designs in life, the design in these creatures is proof of creation.
The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself
We have previously studied evolutionist scenario that marine mammals evolved from terrestrial them. Scientific evidence shows no correlation between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that National Geographic put at the beginning of the story. So what about the rest of the scenario? The theory of evolution is again in a big difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a phylogenetic relationship between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins. National Geographic, which is the requirement in a very simplified form (pages 156-159). But many experts think differently. The evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl writes: "Serpentine shape of the body and the peculiar jagged cheek teeth makes it clear that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales. "(13)
The evolutionist account of the origin of mammals faces a huge impasse in terms of discoveries in molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that the two major whale groups, toothed whale (Odontoceti) and baleen (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. But Michel Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels has opposed that view with a new theory. He stresses that this assumption is based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries:
"Evolutionary relationships between major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and molecular studies reach very different conclusions. In fact, based on conventional interpretation of morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two separate Phylogenetic groups. … On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis of DNA … and amino acids … sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, appears to be more closely related to morphologically very different baleen whales than to other odontocetes. "(14)
In short, marine mammals defy the evolutionary scenarios where they are forced to be subjects.
Conclusion
Contrary to what the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, who assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on this subject the origin of mammals, and is one of National Geographic's main sources of information, this is not an evolutionary process backed by empirical evidence, but the documentation required to fit a presupposed evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two.
What shows if the evidence is looked at more objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently in the past. It is compelling empirical evidence to accept that God created all these creatures.
Loud evolutionist propaganda about marine mammals, however like 'horse series' that was once raised in the same way but which evolutionists so busy was invalid. A number of extinct mammal that lived at different times were aligned behind each other, and evolutionists of the time tried to introduce this as 'hard evidence'. But the truth over time, and it was realized that these animals can not be each other's ancestors that were occurring in different periods and that they were actually self-extinct species. Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, where "development of the horse" diagrams was on public display at that time the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:
"There has been an awful lot of stories some more imaginative than others, what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still exhibit downstairs, is the exhibition of horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. It has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is regrettable, especially when the people which suggest the kind of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of this stuff. "(15)
The evolution of whales tale, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, is another of those fantasies of natural history. Like its predecessors, it will soon be in the waste bin of science.
Under the pen name Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, pages 7000 and 6000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read the free, all the books Adnan Oktar wrote under the pseudonym Harun Yahya on these sites www.harunyahya.com
(1) Open Letter to National Geographic from Storrs L. Olson Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution
(2) National Geographic, "Evolution of whales", November 2001, p. 68
(3) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329
(4) Ashby L. Camp, "The overselling of Whale Evolution", Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May / June 1998
(5) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.333
(6) National Geographic, "Evolution of whales ", November 2001, p. 73
(7) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 329
(8) GA Mchedlidze, general features of Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1986), 91
(9) Ashby L. Camp, "The overselling of Whale Evolution", Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May / June 1998
(10) National Geographic, "Evolution of whales", November 2001, p. 69
(11) Pierre-P Grasse, Evolution of living organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 103
(12) Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a new Hýstory Of Life, The Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 103
(13) BJ Stahl, Vertebrate Animals History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., 1985, p. 489
(14) Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans prompts revision of morphological changes," Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10 (August 1995): 328-334.
(15) Niles Eldgridge quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, California, Master Books, 1988), page 78).
About the Author
ABOUT THE AUTHOR, HARUN YAHYA
Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar writes his books under the pen name of Harun Yahya. Ever since his university years, he has dedicated his life to telling of the existence and oneness of Almighty Allah, and to disseminating the moral values of the Qur’an. He has never wavered in the face of difficulties and despite oppression, still continues this intellectual struggle today exhibiting great patience and determination. For mor information pls visit: http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php