Falcon Miniatures Wargaming Miniatures & Models

Marine Wolf

Marine Wolf

How much do wolf and marine biologist get paid a year?

there's this great site called GOOGLE.com, I know, you've probably never heard of it, but trust me, it works pretty well. I actually used it to find this in less than 3 seconds

the average marine biologist salary is $50100 with a potential of $58000 or more

A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic

National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research worldwide and shares the results with their readers. The magazine is an important source of information in a number of important areas, however, few readers are aware of the extent to which passes this information through an ideological "filter" before turning to its readers, and sometimes even turns data according to the demands of this ideology and build imaginary stories completely invented.

The ideology in question in the National Geographic is a mixture of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as neo-Darwinism. On behalf of the defense theory that, in general, presents the prejudices of the findings, and even opens the door to scientific misrepresentations. For example, there was a misrepresentation of the fossil Archaeoraptor, which was presented by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible test that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been "crafted."

Even scientists who support the theory criticizing the magazine for leading the blind propaganda. According to Dr. Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, National Geographic has reached its lowest point for the exercise of sensationalist journalism without foundation, the tabloid press. "(1)

An example of National Geographic 'sensational foundation and evolutionary propaganda tabloid' was their 'Evolution of Article whales, "held in the November issue 2001. The paper argues that a series of fossil discoveries have shown the evolution of whales thesis, and even quoted paleontologist Hans Thewissen as the argument that whales were one of the best examples of evolution. The images, reconstructions and diagrams of the soup in the 14-article front-page is intended to visually reinforce the same claim in the minds of readers.

However, the "evolution of the situation of whales, so fiercely advocated by the National Geographic, was-and is-nothing but a fairy tale, it lacks scientific evidence.

The Parade of the reconstructions on pages 66-69 November 2001 issue of National Geographic were designed in short claim of the magazine about the origin of whales. A series of creatures were lined up one after another and is described as transitional forms in the evolution of the whale. According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to the geological periods in which lived, was as follows:

* Pakicetus (50 million years ago)

* Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)

* Rodhocetus (46.5 million years)

* Procetus (45 million years ago)

* Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago)

* Durodon (37 million years ago)

* Basilosaurus (37 million years ago)

* Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago)

List of National Geographic has continued, but known categories including dolphins and whales.

There are very misleading features in this list. Let us consider the most fundamental of these. According with National Geographic, the first two creatures on the list, and Pakicetus Ambulocetus were "walking whales," however, the claim that these two creatures land were "whales" is pure fiction, even ridiculous.

Consider first Pakicetus.

Inachus Pakicetus: A quadruped

Forced to be the "ancestor of the whale '

Fossil remains of the extinct mammal inachus Pakicetus to give his name, first entered the agenda in 1983. PD Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, did not hesitate to say immediately that this was a "primitive whale" although in fact only found a skull.

However, the fossil has absolutely no relation to the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be four-legged structure similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and contains fossils of terrestrial creatures as snails, turtles or crocodiles. In other words, was part of a stratum of land, not water.

So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced as a "primitive whale" and why is it still presented as such by the National Geographic? The magazine gives the following answer:

What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination-the arrangement of cups on the molars, a rolled up in a middle ear bone, and positioning of the ear bones within the skull-are absent in other land mammals, but later the signing of Eocene whales. (2)

In other words, on the basis of some details in its teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like inhabitants of the land as a "walking whale." One look at the reconstruction of the evolutionary Pakicetus illustrator Carl Buell reveal the absurdity of calling it a "whale walking. "

Distortions in reconstructions of the National Geographic

Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus a mammalian quadruped. The skeletal structure of the left, published in Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this. Thus, reconstruction of Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which is based on that structure, is realistic.

National Geographic, however, has chosen to use an image of a "swim" Pakicetus (below) in order to portraying the animals as a "walking whale and to impose that image in your readers. The inconsistencies in the photo, Pakicetus intend to do more like" the whales, "are obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a position to" swim ". Its hind legs are stretched back, and an impression of "fins" has been given.

Reconstruction Pakicetus by National Geographic

The characteristics of the details discussed by National Geographic, "the provision cups in the molars, a rolled up in a middle ear bone, and positioning of the ear bones within the skull "no convincing evidence that base a relationship between Pakicetus and the whale:

At National Geographic also indirectly stated in writing "subtle clues in combination," some of these features are truly terrestrial animals.

None of the features in question are evidence of an evolving relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely reliable. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf, which had so long been extinguished, then there is no doubt that the evolutionary picture in the same taxon and defined as close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are far from each other in the tree evolution of life implies. (Indeed, their similarity indicates common design, not a common origin.) Pakicetus, National Geographic, who claimed to be a "walking whale, was a unique species which houses various features in your body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the family mesonychid of Pakicetus which must be a member, as "presents a strange combination of characters." (3) This prominent evolutionists such as Gould accept that " mosaic creatures "of this type can not be regarded as transitional forms.

In short, describing Pakicetus, which is clearly an inhabitant of the earth as "walking whale" simply on the structural features of the ear bones and molars, is but another example of the tradition of National Geographic of 'sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. "In his article" The Overselling of Whale Evolution ", the creationist writer L. Ashby Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that mesonychid class, which should include land mammals as Pakicetus could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:

"The reason evolutionists are confident that resulted mesonychids archaeocetes, despite the inability identify any species in the royal line, is known and archaeocetes mesonychids have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient for the case of the ancestors, especially given the enormous differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact that many groups of mammals, reptiles and have even suggested as ancestor of whales. "(4)

Ambulocetus natans: a fake whale with 'Webbed' Claws

The second fossil creature after of Pakicetus in National Geographic Ambulocetus natans sequence is imaginary. This fossil was brought to world attention in 1984 in an article in the journal Science. Actually, is a land creature that evolutionists have insisted "to become a whale."

The name of ambulare Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words ',' (Walking), 'Cetus (the whale) and "natans" (swimming), and means "a walking and swimming whale. It is obvious that animals used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even all claws on their feet and legs on his hind legs. Besides the disadvantage of Evolutionists, however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that swimming in the water, or living on land and in water (like an amphibian).

In order to see the border between science and imagination illusions on this subject, let's take a look at the reconstruction Ambulocetus National Geographic. Here's how represented in the magazine:

Manipulations little National Geographic: Imaginary added networks claws and hind legs to look like fins.

If you look carefully you can easily see the two little visual manipulations were used to "turn the land into a housing Ambulocetus whale:

The animal's hind legs are shown with their feet to help him walk, but like fins that enable it to swim. But Carroll, who examines the leg bones of the animal, says who possessed the ability to move forcefully into the ground. (5)

In order to present an impression of adaptation to water, the belts should be developed on its front paws. However, it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of fossils Ambulocetus. In the fossil record is almost impossible to find the soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on characteristics beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. Evolutionists that offers a large empty space than speculation to use their propaganda tools.

The same sort of evolutionary tinkering that has been applied to the development Ambulocetus, it is possible do any animal is like no other. You could even have a monkey skeleton, remove the fins on the back and the webs between the fingers and present it as the "ancestor Primate of the whales. "

The invalidity deception carried out on the basis of fossils Ambulocetus shown in the picture below, on the basis of actual paleontological data:

The real Ambulocetus: The legs are the legs of truth, not "flippers", and no networking between his fingers as imaginary National Geographic, he added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335)

With the publication of the image of the skeleton of the animal, National Geographic had to take a step back from the adjustments she has made in the image reconstruction made her look like a whale. As shown clearly skeleton, the animal's feet are designed to bring to earth. There was no sign of the imaginary networks.

The Myth of the Walking Whale

In fact, there is no evidence that Ambulocetus Pakicetus and are the ancestors of whales. Merely described as "possible ancestors" by evolutionists interested in finding terrestrial ancestry for marine mammals in the light of his theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures to marine mammals that appear in the fossil record in a very similar geological time.

After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, move the plan from National Geographic to the calls of marine mammals and fixed (whale extinct) species as Procetus, Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea. The animals in question are the mammals that live in the sea and are now extinct. (We will be playing in this matter later). The anatomical differences, however, there are significant between them and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. No matter how he tried to reduce National Geographic the minimum light touches of the brush, when we look at the fossils it is evident that no "transitional forms" linking together:

The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful then extend the hind legs of the same. This is typical anatomy of land mammals. In whales, however, the backbone goes right to the tail, and no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus believed to have lived about 10 million years after Ambulocetus, has the anatomy of the latter. In other words, is a typical whale. There is no way of Ambulocetus transition from a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.
Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm whale, There are small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims that these vestiges of the legs. Yet that same magazine mentions that these bones actually had another function. In Basilosaurus these bones 'functioned as guides copulary' and sperm whales "[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitals. (6) To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, such as "vestigial organs" is nothing but Darwinian prejudice.
In conclusion, Despite all best efforts of National Geographic, the fact that no transitional forms between land and marine mammals and that both were born with their own characteristics particular, has not changed. There is no evolutionary relationship. Robert Carroll accepts, albeit reluctantly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids that leads directly to the whales. "(7)
Other scientists agree that animals that evolutionists publications as National Geographic, try portrayed as "walking whales really have nothing to do with the whales is true, but are a separate living room group. Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Mchedlidze Russian whale expert GA is not compatible with the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans and similar four-legged creatures as "possible ancestors of the whale, and describes them rather as a completely isolated. (8)

Problems with National Geographic superficial sequences

Visual effects (plans and drawings) play an important role in the imposition of Darwinism on society. However, these are sometimes completely unscientific, and other scientific discoveries are interpreted in a biased manner. National Geographic time scale diagram (pages 64-77) of mammals that are becoming more "whale-like" over time is an example of these deceptive tools.

We have now been reduced taking into account, but adjustments to the reconstruction misleading of animals in the diagram. Besides this, the dates assigned to them by the National Geographic have been selected in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are displayed as succeed in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. L. Ashby Camp clarifies the situation on the basis of paleontological data:

"In the standard system, inachus Pakicetus Ypresian dates from the late, but experts agree that may date to the early Lutetian. If the young date (early of Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is almost, if not contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, Ambulocetus date of which was found in the same training as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. This would that under Rodhocetus Ambulocetus and possibly younger than even Protocetus Indocetus. "(9)

In summary, two different views of where the animals National Geographic presents chronologically one after another, really lived. If one accepts the second view, then Ambulocetus Pakicetus and that National Geographic presented as "the walking whale, are of the same age or even younger than true whales. In other words, no" storyline "is possible. National Geographic has totally ignored the problem and has used only views that correspond to his own thesis. This is a method of propaganda, not science.

Stories Ear and nose

Any evolutionary scenario between land and marine mammals has to explain the different structures of the ear and nose between the two groups. Through colorful graphics you used, National Geographic has tried to give the impression that the issue has been resolved. However, this impression is false.

Consider first the structure of the ear. Like us, land mammals into the trap of the sounds of the outside world in the outer ear, amplify with the bones in the middle ear, and convert signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors on their jaws.

National Geographic says that the second system evolved from the first. This is made clear on page 71 in the diagram entitled 'headphones. This scheme has been developed so as to give readers the impression that hearing organs evolved in stages. However, no no evolution in stages from here. A look at the language used by the National Geographic will be enough to make this clear:

"... This whale Pakicetus walk lacked the fat pad extending to the middle ear that modern ceteans have a clue that had kept earth features. In most whales Later, the jaw with the fat pad, adapted to receive sounds. "

We have seen that Pakicetus was a typical land mammal, and it is ridiculous to call a "walking whale." The logic employed by National Geographic is no less ridiculous: First, it describes the land Pakicetus housing as a "walking whale 'and then says he is keeping the attributes of the land animal. That's like calling a cow a' bat walk 'and then say, 'There are wings, keeps his earthly attributes.

This is one aspect of the matter. The aspect that concerns us here is the clear difference between Pakicetus and the ears of whales. After the National Geographic previous statement, we must naturally look to see if there is a transition between the two. After Pakicetus in the family tree comes Ambulocetus, evolutionists call a "walking whale swimming," but was actually a land mammal. National Geographic uses the following words about Ambulocetus: "Although most aquatic Pakicetus, Ambulocetus still heard directly through your ear."

In other words, no movement towards a whale's ear Ambulocetus.

When you come to the third horse in the list of National Geographic, suddenly face a huge change. The previous statement follows: The sounds were transmitted to the ear through vibrations Basilosaurus as the lower jaw.

In other words, Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. Was a creature that perceives the sounds around not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching his jaw. And there is no transitional form between Basilosaurus ear "and that Ambulocetus Pakicetus and that National Geographic presented to him in his scheme.

When the subject is discussed in theory, one can observe that in any case, a transitional form would have no chance of survival. Any development in stages between a system sound perfect for a totally different is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with their ears, but has not yet developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage.

The issue of development as such ',' could arise is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and have never been unequivocally to add information significant new genetic information from animals. It is reasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in marine mammals might have arisen as a result mutations.

A similar situation applies to the National Geographic account of the 'nose slide. The review identified three skulls Pakicetus , And a gray whale Rodhocetus of our own time on top of each other and said they represented an evolutionary process. Whereas the nasal structures of the three fossil especially those Rodhocetus and gray whales are so different that it is impossible to accept as transitional forms in the same series.

Moreover, the movement of the nose to his forehead requiring a "new design in the anatomy of the animals in question, and believing that this could happen as a result of mutations is only fantasy.

National Geographic Tales Lamarckian

In fact, the National Geographic writers and most share the evolutionary community basic superstition about the origin of living things, and that is the real problem. This superstition is the magical force of nature "that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes or anatomical features they need. Let's look at a few interesting passages from the history of Article National Geographic's "Whale"

"I tried to visualize some of the varieties of the ancestors of whales had been found here and around ... As members later declined, as did the hip bones that supported them. That made more flexible spine to the right of the fins developing tail. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body over a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimal resistance, while the arms assumed the shape of the rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving water directly to sounds through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a bit more rational than previous models and wandered farther from the coast. "(10)

Up close, this has all the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel the needs changing according to the changing environment in which they live, and this need is perceived as an "evolutionary mechanism." By this logic, the fewer bodies needed to disappear, and the necessary organs appear of their own volition!

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs as our bodies. Since Lamarck's theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words, for a century or so has been a known fact. However, when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along the lines of Lamarck. If you object, say, "No, do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions exert evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result this, you select the appropriate characteristics, and in this way species evolve. But here's the critical point: What evolutionists call "pressure evolutionary "can not lead to living things, acquire new features according to your needs. That's because the two evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly called respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation can not provide new organs for animals:

Natural selection can only select existing features can not create new ones.

Mutations can not add to genetic information, which can only destroy the current one. No mutation that increases unambiguously new and significant information to the genome (and therefore constitutes a new body or new biochemical structure) has never been observed.

If you look at the myth of whales awkwardness of National Geographic once again moving in the light of this fact, we see that in reality are participation in a rather primitive Lamarckism. Up close, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick, "shows" that "Each whale in the sequence was a bit more rational than previous models. "How could this happen morphologic change in a species over generations in a particular direction? For that to happen, representatives of that species in each sequence "," would have to undergo changes to reduce their legs, that mutation would cause no harm to animals, mutants therefore should enjoy an advantage over normal, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation in the same point in their genes, this should be done without changes over many generations, and the foregoing should occur by chance and quite to perfection.

If the National Geographic writers believe that, then you will believe someone who says, "My family has flown. My son suffered a mutation and some structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will pass from generation to generation, and finally, my descendants have wings and can fly. Both stories are equally ridiculous.

As mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that the needs of living things "that can be addressed by a magical force of nature. Ascribing consciousness of nature, the belief found in cultures animists, it is interesting that rises before our eyes in the 21st century under a 'scientific' layer. The famous French biologist Pierre Paul Grasse, the former President of the French Academy of Sciences and a major critic of Darwinism, once he has made it clear that faith is simply daydream:

"The opportune appearance of mutations that allow animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. However, Darwin's theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with probability infinitesimal, could not fail to occur ... There is no law against daydreaming, but science should not fall into it. "(11)

More recently, Henry Gee, editor of science journal Nature and an evolutionist undeniably important, noted the same fact and admitted that explain the origin of an organ by its necessity, is like saying;

... our noses were made to wear glasses, so we have spectacles. However, biological evolution do the same when interpreting any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility, but not acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or even how the evolutionary history of a structure itself may have influenced the shape and properties of that structure. (12)

Another scenario that National Geographic is trying to impose, without too much discussion, refers to the body surface of the animals in question. Like other mammals, and Pakicetus Ambulocetus, accepting as land mammals, generally accepted that there were bodies covered in fur. And both are shown as thick hair covered in National Geographic. However, when we after animals (marine mammals true), all the skins away. The evolutionary explanation of this is no different from that of Lamarck fantastic sets of the sort we have seen before. The truth of the matter is that all animals were designed within the most appropriate for your environment. It is unconscionable that seek to to account for this design by mutation or easy Lamarck type stories. Like all life design, the design of these creatures is the evidence of creation.

The Marine Mammal Scenario Itself

So far we have examined the evolutionary scenario that evolved from mammals marine and terrestrial. The scientific evidence shows no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that National Geographic put at the beginning of history. So what the rest of the stage? The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty here. The theory seeks to establish a phylogenetic relationship between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), marine mammals known to be extinct and living whales and dolphins. National Geographic set of demand in a way oversimplified (pages 156-159). However, many experts think very differently. The evolution paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl writes: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated teeth make it clear that these archaeocetes could not have been ancestral to any modern whales. "(13)

The evolutionary account the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionary scenario assumes that two groups of large whales, toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti), evolved from a common ancestor. However, Michel Milinkovitch University of Brussels has opposed this view with a new theory. Emphasizes that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries:

Evolutionary relationships among major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological analysis molecular and reach different conclusions. In fact, based on conventional interpretation of morphological and behavioral data set, whales echolocating toothed (about 67 species) and filter feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups. ... Moreover, phylogenetic analysis of DNA ... and amino acids ... sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. A group of toothed whales, sperm whales, appear be more closely related to the baleen whales are morphologically different than other odontocetes. "(14)

In summary, marine mammals defy the evolutionary scenarios for which they are forced to be subjects.

Conclusion

Contrary to the claims of the paleontologist Hans Thewissen which assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the subject of the origin of marine mammals, and is one of the most important sources of information National Geographic, not this is an evolutionary process backed by empirical evidence, but evidence obtained under duress to suit alleged evolutionary family tree, despite the many contradictions between the two.

What emerges, if the evidence is looked at objectively, it emerged that different groups living independently each other in the past. This is convincing empirical evidence to accept that God created all these creatures.

Strong evolutionary propaganda on mammals marine, however, resembles the series 'horse' was once presented in the same way, evolutionists, but later admitted it was not valid. A number of extinct mammals that lived at different times were lined up one after another, and evolutionists of the time tried to impose this measure of "solid evidence". However, the truth emerged over time, and realized that these animals could not be the ancestors of others, who had emerged in different periods, and that extinct species were actually independent. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum in New York, where "evolution the horse "diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

"There have been a lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example still on the ground low exposure, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. Has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think it is regrettable, especially when people who propose this kind of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of these things. "(15)

The evolution of whales fairy tale, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, is another of those fantasies of Natural History. Like its predecessors, which soon will be in the dustbin of science.

Under the pen name Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read for free, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

(1) Open Letter to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
(2) National Geographic, "Evolution of the Whales ", November 2001, p. 68
(3), Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329
(4) L. Ashby Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution", building material, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May / June 1998
(5) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.333
(6) National Geographic, "Evolution of Whales ", November 2001, p. 73
(7), Robert L. Carroll, patterns and processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 329
(8) GA Mchedlidze, the general characteristics of the evolution of paleobiological Cetacea, trans. Russian (Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1986), 91.
(9) Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling Whale Evolution ", building material, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May / June 1998
(10) National Geographic, "Evolution of Whales ", November 2001, p. 69
(11) Pierre-P Grasse, Evolution of living organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 103
(12), Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the fossil record to STORY A new kind of life, The Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 103
(13) BJ Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems of Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., 1985, p. 489.
(14) Michel C. Milinkovitch, molecular phylogeny cetacean calls for revision of morphological transformations, "Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10 (August 1995): 328-334.
(15) Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), page 78.)

About the Author

ABOUT THE AUTHOR, HARUN YAHYA
Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar writes his books under the pen name of Harun Yahya. Ever since his university years, he has dedicated his life to telling of the existence and oneness of Almighty Allah, and to disseminating the moral values of the Qur'an. He has never wavered in the face of difficulties and despite oppression, still continues this intellectual struggle today exhibiting great patience and determination. For mor information pls visit: http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php