Critiquing Whale Evolution

I'll quickly summarize Richard Sternberg's critique I mentioned in my previous post and in my August 2, 2008 interview with Greg.

Darwinists believe that the transition from a wolf-life creature to a whale is one of the best documented cases of gradual evolution. Given the relatively short time-frame that this alleged transition took place (much less than nine million years according to the literature), Sternberg argued it is impossible to account for all the novelty inducing mutations necessary to adapt a terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic marine mammal.

The force of his argument grows stronger when you learn the details from each section of his case (I’ve just listed the subsections of his case below without all the details):

  • the rarity of beneficial mutations vs. the more common neutral or negative mutations
  • the need for large breeding populations vs. what’s assumed in the literature
  • the finite number of generations available to make this transformation
  • the need for engineering adaptive mutations and anatomical novelties (including the ability to drink sea water and the retooling of kidneys, giving birth to and nourishing air-breathing mammals under water, the development of a dorsal fin, the reduction of hind and forelimbs with the simultaneous development of flippers, the hydrodynamic properties of the skin, retooling respiratory systems to collapse and re-inflate without adhesions, bringing testicles inside the body and developing cooling systems to keep sperm from dying, developing underwater acoustic systems and virtual sonar, filter feeding mechanisms, the development of blubber, and much more.)

Sternberg also cited some articles in the genetics literature that estimated how long it takes to get all the novelty inducing mutations in large mammals. The amount of time was somewhere near 100 million years – far more time than the nine million years that the wolf-to-whale transition allegedly took place.

Interestingly, many Darwinists recognize the same problems that Sternberg is raising and are rethinking how to account for all the beneficial mutations that let to the great morphological transformation in such a short time-span.

I’m not trying to make Sternberg’s case here. I’m just telling you the overall content of his research on this topic. Darwinists sometimes fault their opponents because the critiques are too simplistic. What was intriguing about Sternberg’s presentation is how the more in depth you learn about the scientific details, the stronger the case becomes against this alleged transitional series.

There were some hints about his work on this topic being published, but I don't have any details on that.

blog post |
Alan Shlemon

Give

Give

Give