Every so often, evolutionists release yet another study in their peer-reviewed echo chambers which they tout as indisputable proof of some portion of their dogma. Usually, the proof is spotty, subject to interpretation, and sometimes is completely meaningless or irrelevant. A recent study from the journal Current Biology provides yet another example of just how far the evolutionists are willing to go to support their dogma.
The recent study involved whale evolution, a hot topic in the evolutionary community. I’ve previously addressed one aspect of the evolutionary claim, the whale “vestigial legs” but there are other facets that evolutionists like to use to promote their dogma. In this instance, a new, mostly complete skeleton from Peru was discovered, that resembled the proposed evolutionary ancestor of whales. Immediately, the media went wild, proclaiming a “Four-legged whale” had been discovered. As usual, the media ran without knowing all the facts, and, just as usual, they were led on by the scientific community which is anxious to convince the public that their fairy-tale is true.
When the researchers looked at the incomplete skeleton, they noticed that it shared several similarities with previously discovered members of the “legged whales”. Some of the similarities included teeth, the vertebral column, and the shape and structure of the limbs. There were some differences as well, specifically in the structure and shape of the jaw, as well as the enamel of the teeth.
Placing this newly discovered fossil in the lineage of whales was not based on any observable evidence or any known connection between the two. Instead, evolutionary phylogenies were used to link the two together. I’ve previously addressed the foolishness of the evolutionary phylogeny in numerous other articles but I’ll briefly echo myself and go over it again. Unfortunately, evolutionary phylogenies are not unbiased applications of statistics to data. Instead, the evolutionary phylogenentics, often called cladistics, simply assumes that evolution occurred. It then builds a dataset of characteristics, to which statistics will be applied. The statistical analysis will attempt to determine the lineage of the organisms being compared, based on the similarity of the traits being compared. At the end of the statistical analysis, a phylogenetic tree is produced, which evolutionists will then tout as proof for their dogma.
This is of course patently absurd and ridiculous. You cannot assume that something is true at the start of a process, then use that process to prove that it is true. That is the logical blunder of circular reasoning. Yet this is what evolutionists rely on to determine what organisms are descended from what. If it wasn’t so dangerous and serious, it would be laughable.
So what exactly is this creature, if it isn’t a whale? Based on what was found, it is possible it is a water mammal. It is being interpreted as having webbed feet. If it did, that would certainly indicate a lifestyle that was largely watery. However, the webbing was not found in the fossil so it is wise to be careful with the speculation. Even if it was, that still would not prove that this creature was related to whales. It may have escaped the notice of some of these evolutionists, but there are other marine mammals which are equally problematic for evolution, including otters, walruses, seals, and sea lions. Perhaps before assigning this creature to a group of mammals with no legs, it would be better to consider putting it in a group that actually has legs? First impressions looking at the creature it could pass for an otter the way it’s drawn.
Of course, it should not be surprising that the peer-review echo chamber or the mainstream media would produce such a fundamentally flawed article, or promote it deceptively. It’s mind-boggling that no journalist challenged this particular quote. “When digging around the outcropping bones, we quickly realized that this was the skeleton of a quadrupedal whale, with both forelimbs and hind limbs.” from Dr. Olivier Lambert of Belgium. It should be blatantly obvious, even to people as thick and agenda driven as journalists, that whales in the present do not have legs. This quote should have been at least scrutinized and backed up with something resembling evidence. Instead, it is simply presented to be accepted at face value.
In fact, this newly discovered creature provides no evidence for evolution, nor does it do anything to clarify the picture proposed by overzealous evolutionists. Instead, it is simply an interesting fossil find, that could represent its own kind, or perhaps a bizarre variant of another kind. It is most certainly not a whale, nor is it in any way related to whales. The only “evidence” linking it to whales, is a phylogenetic tree which is hardly an unbiased or neutral arbiter. Apparently, these scientists and “journalists” are following the politician’s mantra of “never let facts interfere with a good story.”