From experience, I expect that we will continue to see these false reconstructions used for many years to come and that is certainly fraudulent.I hope you keep an open mind about the evidence for evolution, because if you do, I am confident you will come to reject it, like I did., has checked out the claims, interviewing the researchers and others.
Also, I really dislike the title "whale evolution fraud" because its just wrong to sit around calling them fraudsters, malicious liars while they worked hard to bring us these amazing finds, transitional form or not.
Whale evolution in question is a much more suitable title.
Although there are powerful motives to maintain faith, in their hearts they have to know that they hope in a fraud.
And that sometime the voices saying "the emperor has no clothes" will be heard and the world realize that it is true. is ludicrous and defies evolutionist's own cardinal principle that animals, via natural selection, will survive (and evolve! They should be evolving NEW structures and biochemical "improvements" to become the "fittest" --- NOT needing to leave ONE environment and venture into a completely different one.
Also, the cheek bone, which Thewissen claimed is thin like a whale cheek bone, is actually not thin at all; a horse, for example, has a much thinner cheekbone than to various museums that show a blowhole in the snout of the skull, but there is no fossil evidence of a blowhole. To Biblical Literalism, sure, but not to mature faith."The evolution of the whale is known from multiple fossils." The three key ones that link whales to land animals are here shown to be duds. Did you actually read the article and the linked material?
Dr Werner says, “All eight characters he reported as whale features are disturbingly non-whale features.” was claimed to be an aquatic animal that was developing front flippers and a whale-like tail with flukes (horizontal fins)—i.e. However, when Dr Werner pointed out to the paleontologist who discovered Expand this site. Support this site The evolution of the whale is known from multiple fossils. However, if such evidence DID become available, scientists would publish it. As far as I know there has never been a Nobel Prize for paleontology, and with good reason, as it is not a science that provides anything that advances knowledge in any way that benefits mankind, unlike experimental biology, chemistry or physics. With such a naive view of the self-correcting nature of paleontology, you don't sound like a trained scientist, especially one with a research doctorate. You could have debunked at least one, rather than resorting to logical fallacies. nothing in evolution poses a danger to Christianity." Really?
However, the ear-bone is not like a whale, which has a finger-like projection (sigmoid process), but is plate-like, like the fossils of land animals known as artiodactyls.
but Dr Werner recorded on video Dr Thewissen admitting that a key evidence of whale ancestry, the sigmoid process of the ear-bone apparatus (again), was actually nothing like a whale ear bone. I caution my fellow Christians that all of the statements here can be debunked, and that nothing in evolution poses a danger to Christianity.
And thanks for the 'hullabaloo'; it encourages critical thinking, which is good.
It's clear from the evidence and letters that evolutionists, no longer having the illusion of evidence, must resort to scorn and vindictiveness to protect their position.
However, by the evolutionists' own dates the whale evolution story is in trouble because of the dating of a true whale before any of the supposed transitional forms. Regarding the title; I agonized over that and originally had 'Whale evolution in question'.