Bossies and Blowholes 347a link between Pakicetus and the primitive land relatives of whales and hippos known as
anthracotheres. As the years go by, more and more transitional whales are being discovered,
so that by now the amazing transformation from land mammals to whale is one of the best
examples of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record (fig. 14.16). This may not make cre-
ationists happy, but the fossils cannot be denied.
Creationists have been flummoxed by all this new evidence. The ID creationist textbook
Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (Davis and Kenyon 2004:101–102)
claims “there are no transitional fossils linking land mammals to whales.” They could not be
more wrong. This false statement is carried over from their 1989 edition into their 2004 edition,
yet the 1980s and 1990s yielded an amazing array of transitional whale fossils that clearly link
terrestrial land mammals to full-fledged aquatic whales. These fossils have been well docu-
mented in many television shows and websites, in popular books such as Carl Zimmer’s (1998)
At the Water’s Edge: Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life, and in high-profile scientific
journals such as Science and Nature, so there is no excuse for creationist ignorance or denial
of these fossils. Davis and Kenyon (2004:101, figs. 4–5) illustrate two extremes of the whale
evolutionary sequence (the terrestrial mesonychids and the aquatic archaeocetes) but falsely
state that there are no transitional forms between them. Sarfati (2002:135–141) snipes at the fact
that a few of these spectacular whale fossils are not 100 percent complete and suggests that we
cannot draw any conclusions from fossils that are 80 percent complete! He also falls back on
the false idea that if whales did not form a clear series of ancestors and descendants, then they
do not show an evolutionary transition. But as figure 14.16 shows, one could not ask for a more
clear-cut series of intermediate forms from fully terrestrial to fully whalelike fossils.
Every time Duane Gish got into another debate, his opponent brought up Ambuloce-
tus and the amazing sequence of transitional whale fossils and showed any open-minded
individual how whales evolved. Gish (1995:199–208) blustered on for nine pages about
these new discoveries, but his discussion is very confused and self-contradictory. He never
addressed the main evidence but sniped at minor quibbles between specialists. After he has
mentioned numerous red herrings and blown smoke screens on irrelevant points, he makes
the following revealing comment (Gish 1995:203): “Confused? So are we.” Nowhere does he
address the obvious intermediate anatomy of Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, and all the
rest of these new fossils. His verbal gyrations basically boil down to this: if it is a modern
whale without hind limbs it is really a whale, but if it is a transitional form with a whale’s
head but intermediate forelimbs and hind limbs (for either walking or paddling), it cannot
be a whale, but some unknown fossil! Essentially, he dodges the problem by defining whales
in his mind so they cannot have the possibility of intermediate forms. That is not intellectu-
ally or scientifically honest and shows the complete bankruptcy of his illogical thinking. And
the final clinching evidence is the fact that living whales do have hind legs—they are merely
vestiges of the hip bone and thigh bone, usually buried deep in their muscles and not visible
on the surface (fig. 4.9). Nevertheless, this is final proof (if all the molecules and fossils were
not already enough) that whales indeed are descended from four-legged land mammals.
Dumbo and the Mermaid
There is no creature among all the Beasts of the world which hath so great and ample
demonstration of the power and wisdom of almighty God as the Elephant.
—Edward Topsell, The Historie of Foure-Footed Beastes