Indohyus
A report published December, 2007, outlined a description of a new fossil discovery claimed by Dr. J. Thewissen and his colleagues to represent the ancestor of the whale/cetaceans. This went viral.
(Imaginary drawings)
The reason why evolutionists cling to Indohyus as a missing link is that:
1- they depict a structure between the middle and inner ear (tympanic bullae, involucrum extra "wall") as similar to that in marine mammals.
2- they claim that Indohyus' teeth have a similar structure to those of marine mammals
3- eyes being higher in the skull than is the case in other ungulates,and this is a feature shared with whales.
(Magnified, actual bones in the link below:
http://static.guim.c...-indohyus-1.jpg
However, the idea of the evolution of the whale, a fantastical and unscientific fairy tale, is incompatible with the emergence of Indohyus. Let us now examine these inconsistencies.
a) Indohyus is a finding that rocks the idea of whale evolution, and the idea that it supports it is a total deception.
According to the classic scenario of whale evolution, mammals dwelling on the land are considered to have moved into the water. The fact is, however, that an examination of Indohyus shows that it already lived in water (teeth 18O values and osteosclerotic bones- Virtually all aquatic vertebrates have it ), and its dental structure shows that it lived a herbivorous existence. This feature of Indohyus represents a major contradiction of those evolutionists who say, in their classical accounts, that terrestrial mammals moved into the sea in order to find prey.
The New Scientist article said this on the subject:
This suggests that Indohyus was a shallow water wader already, and had not returned to the water simply to hunt live prey.
Whenever they are confronted by findings that clash with their own fairy tales they attempt to save their theories by means of such trickery as saying “evolution happened in this way, rather than that,” when what they should say is; “our accounts are wrong, there is no foundation to what we have been describing as the true facts in school text books.”
b) The similarities constructed between Indohyus and whales are not restricted to these life forms alone.
The similarities they have come up with between the two can also be seen in other mammals which have no connection at all to whales in respect of the theory of evolution. Scientists make the following admission on the subject:
As we have seen, Indohyus shares anatomical features not just with whales, but also with other mammals which are totally incompatible with whales in terms of the myth of evolution. For that reason, the depiction of Indohyus as “the missing link in whale evolution” in New Scientist magazine is devoid of any scientific justification.
'The 48-million-year-old actual skeleton of Indohyus spent much of its life in water.
The cell phone is for size comparison .'
c) The similarity constructed between Indohyus and whales on the basis of dental structure is also questionable
Those making these claims about Indohyus also suggest that it shares a common dental structure with whales. However, whales are carnivores. Indohyus, on the other hand, was a herbivore, with totally different feeding patterns.
http://www.scientifi...09B24DA94_1.jpg
They said
What they are basically saying is that Indohyus must have been a whale ancestor because its teeth are NOT whale-like, which is proof that the shape of whale teeth evolved!
Additionally, ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."
Conclusion:
Since evolutionists adopt their theories as a dogma right from the outset, and since evolutionary development is a belief imposed by materialist ideology, they are quite capable of manufacturing huge flights of fancy based on the very smallest similarities. The way they regard Indohyus, an animal that lived in rivers and no larger than a racoon (compared to the small swimming mouse deer), as the ancestor of the whales, on the basis of superficial similarities, such as Indohyus' eye sockets being located a little higher, represents a striking and dazzling example of this dogmatic and fantastical mindset.
Any normal, rational individual whose thought processes are unfettered by materialist preconceptions will know that this design can only be possible as the result of a mind having planned it. In the same way that the existence of a computer points to the existence of a computer engineer, or a building to that of an architect, so the sublime complexity and vast quantities of information in the biological systems in living things indicate the existence of the Creator who brought them into being. It is quite certain that this Creator is Almighty God, Who has no need of blueprints or designs in order to create, and Who brings all things into existence merely by commanding them to “Be!”
http://www.darwinism...akale_id=148106
http://www.ridgenet....sage/v12i4n.htm
A report published December, 2007, outlined a description of a new fossil discovery claimed by Dr. J. Thewissen and his colleagues to represent the ancestor of the whale/cetaceans. This went viral.
(Imaginary drawings)
The reason why evolutionists cling to Indohyus as a missing link is that:
1- they depict a structure between the middle and inner ear (tympanic bullae, involucrum extra "wall") as similar to that in marine mammals.
2- they claim that Indohyus' teeth have a similar structure to those of marine mammals
3- eyes being higher in the skull than is the case in other ungulates,and this is a feature shared with whales.
(Magnified, actual bones in the link below:
http://static.guim.c...-indohyus-1.jpg
However, the idea of the evolution of the whale, a fantastical and unscientific fairy tale, is incompatible with the emergence of Indohyus. Let us now examine these inconsistencies.
a) Indohyus is a finding that rocks the idea of whale evolution, and the idea that it supports it is a total deception.
According to the classic scenario of whale evolution, mammals dwelling on the land are considered to have moved into the water. The fact is, however, that an examination of Indohyus shows that it already lived in water (teeth 18O values and osteosclerotic bones- Virtually all aquatic vertebrates have it ), and its dental structure shows that it lived a herbivorous existence. This feature of Indohyus represents a major contradiction of those evolutionists who say, in their classical accounts, that terrestrial mammals moved into the sea in order to find prey.
The New Scientist article said this on the subject:
The
research also challenges the idea that cetaceans – the order that
includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises – split from their
land-dwelling forebears and returned to the water to hunt aquatic prey.
This suggests that Indohyus was a shallow water wader already, and had not returned to the water simply to hunt live prey.
Whenever they are confronted by findings that clash with their own fairy tales they attempt to save their theories by means of such trickery as saying “evolution happened in this way, rather than that,” when what they should say is; “our accounts are wrong, there is no foundation to what we have been describing as the true facts in school text books.”
b) The similarities constructed between Indohyus and whales are not restricted to these life forms alone.
The similarities they have come up with between the two can also be seen in other mammals which have no connection at all to whales in respect of the theory of evolution. Scientists make the following admission on the subject:
None of
these features characterize all modern and extinct cetaceans
[whales—KB].... In addition, all of these characters are found in some
mammals unrelated to cetaceans”(Thewissen, et al., 2007)
As we have seen, Indohyus shares anatomical features not just with whales, but also with other mammals which are totally incompatible with whales in terms of the myth of evolution. For that reason, the depiction of Indohyus as “the missing link in whale evolution” in New Scientist magazine is devoid of any scientific justification.
'The 48-million-year-old actual skeleton of Indohyus spent much of its life in water.
The cell phone is for size comparison .'
Quote
What does Indohyus actually prove? It proves that the alleged closest relative of the whale can change from the hippopotamus to a small deer-like creature in the blink of an eye, based on certain similar structures that it has in common with other mammals besides whales.
The DNA of whales is most like the DNA of hippos. Therefore, the molecular biologists say whales must have evolved from an early hippopotamus.
Paleontologists don’t buy that argument because they think the oldest whale fossils are 50 million years old, and the oldest hippo fossils are just 15 million years old. If whales preceded hippos by 35 million years, they could not have evolved from them. But the fossil record has “not resolved the issue of cetacean relations” either. So, there are several different proposed whale ancestors.
c) The similarity constructed between Indohyus and whales on the basis of dental structure is also questionable
Those making these claims about Indohyus also suggest that it shares a common dental structure with whales. However, whales are carnivores. Indohyus, on the other hand, was a herbivore, with totally different feeding patterns.
http://www.scientifi...09B24DA94_1.jpg
They said
"All fossil and recent cetaceans differ from most other mammals in the reduction of crushing basins on
their teeth: there are no trigonid and talonid basins in the lower
molars, and the trigon basin of the upper molars is very small (for
example in pakicetids and ambulocetids) or absent. Crushing basins are large in raoellids
-indohyus- and other basal ungulates. This implies that a major change
in dental function occurred at the origin of cetaceans, probably related
to dietary change at the origin"(Thewissen, et al., Nature)
What they are basically saying is that Indohyus must have been a whale ancestor because its teeth are NOT whale-like, which is proof that the shape of whale teeth evolved!
Additionally, ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."
Conclusion:
Since evolutionists adopt their theories as a dogma right from the outset, and since evolutionary development is a belief imposed by materialist ideology, they are quite capable of manufacturing huge flights of fancy based on the very smallest similarities. The way they regard Indohyus, an animal that lived in rivers and no larger than a racoon (compared to the small swimming mouse deer), as the ancestor of the whales, on the basis of superficial similarities, such as Indohyus' eye sockets being located a little higher, represents a striking and dazzling example of this dogmatic and fantastical mindset.
Any normal, rational individual whose thought processes are unfettered by materialist preconceptions will know that this design can only be possible as the result of a mind having planned it. In the same way that the existence of a computer points to the existence of a computer engineer, or a building to that of an architect, so the sublime complexity and vast quantities of information in the biological systems in living things indicate the existence of the Creator who brought them into being. It is quite certain that this Creator is Almighty God, Who has no need of blueprints or designs in order to create, and Who brings all things into existence merely by commanding them to “Be!”
http://www.darwinism...akale_id=148106
http://www.ridgenet....sage/v12i4n.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment