Page 662 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), sea mammals known to be extinct, and living whales and dolphins.

However, evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the pe-
culiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any
of the whales of our day." 140
The evolutionist account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries

in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario assumes that the two major whale groups,
the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and the baleen whales (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. Yet Michel
Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. He stresses that this as-
sumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries:

Evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and
molecular analyses reach very different conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the

morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding
baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups... On the other hand, phyloge-
netic analysis of DNA... and amino acid... sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. One
group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, appear to be more closely related to the morphologically highly di-

vergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes. 141
In short, marine mammals defy the imaginary evolutionary scenarios which they are being forced to fit.

Contrary to the claims of evolutionist propaganda on the origin of marine mammals, we are dealing not
with an evolutionary process backed up by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a presupposed
evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two.
What emerges, if the evidence is looked at objectively, is that different living groups emerged indepen-
dently of each other in the past. This is compelling empirical evidence of the fact that all of these creatures were
created.

Mammals are regarded as the life forms on the top rungs of the so-called evolutionary ladder. That being
the case, it is hard to explain why these animals moved over to a marine environment. Another question is how
these creatures adapted to the marine environment even better than fish, since animals such as the killer whale
and the dolphin, which are mammals and therefore possess lungs, are even better adapted to the environment

they live in than fish that breathe in water.
It is perfectly obvious that the imaginary evolution of marine mammals cannot be explained in terms of
mutations and natural selection. One article published in GEO magazine refers to the origin of the blue whale,
a marine mammal, and states the despairing position of Darwinism on the subject thus:

Like blue whales, the bodily structures and organs of other mammals living in the sea also resemble those of
fish. Their skeletons also bear similarities to those of fish. In whales, the rear limbs that we can refer to as legs ex-

hibited a reverse development and did not reach full growth. Yet there is not the slightest information about
these animals' form changes. We have to assume that the return to the sea took place not through a long-term,
slow transition as claimed by Darwinism, but in momentary leaps. Paleontologists today lack sufficient infor-
mation as regards which mammal species whales are evolved from. 142

It is indeed very difficult to imagine how a small mammal living on dry land turned into a whale 30 meters
in length and weighing some 60 tons. All that Darwinists can do in this regard is to produce figments of the

imagination, as with the following extract from an article published in National Geographic:
The Whale's ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy, four-legged

mammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred. Hind
legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils
moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant water world the body became

enormous. 143
The scenarios of gradual evolution described above satisfy nobody, not even their own authors. But let us
in any case examine the details of this tale stage by stage in order to see just how unrealistic it actually is.

660 Atlas of Creation Vol. 2