A report published by the New Scientist news service on 19 December, 2007, outlined a description1 of a new fossil discovery claimed by evolutionists to represent the ancestor of the whale2. The fossil species in question has been given the name of Indohyus, and is thought to have lived in the rivers of India 48 million years ago. Scientists describe Indohyus as a deer-like mammal about as long as a racoon. The reason why this fossil is linked to the supposed evolution of the whale is this: according to the theory of evolution, the forerunners of the whale are regarded as ungulates (animals with hoofs such as pigs, sheep and hippopotami) that lived on land and moved into the seas around 50 million years ago in search of food. The Indohyus fossil also belongs to an ungulate, and it is claimed in the New Scientist article that this creature fills in certain anatomical gaps between whales and their supposed forerunners. The claims in the New Scientist article are answered one by one below.
1. The claim that whales evolved is a myth
Charles Darwin”s writings about the origins of the whale show that the idea that they evolved is based entirely on fantasy and preconception:
“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” 3
Darwin assumes that a terrestrial mammal such as the bear turned into a mammal such as the whale, many times larger than itself and with very different physiological characteristics. He says he sees no difficulty in that hypothesis. Had Darwin written this as a novelist the limits of his imagination could not, of course, be questioned. He could even have refereed to flying pigs, crawling elephants, tree-dwelling giraffes and the like. Yet what Darwin wrote about the origin of whales appeared in a book he maintained was scientific. It is therefore out of the question to shed any scientific light on the subject by saying that he sees no difficulty in making such an assumption. Since he rests this claim on supposedly scientific grounds, he should indicate the evidence he relies on rather than saying he sees no difficulty in his hypothesis. But Darwin produced no concrete evidence in favour of this claim, and the idea that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals has remained a fairy tale.
The approach adopted by evolutionists who came after Darwin was no different. Looking at their writings on the origin of whales, they, too, employ the same fantastical language devoid of ant scientific foundation. This, for example, is what appeared in the tale of “the evolution the whale” carried in National Geographic magazine:
“”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.””4
The National Geographic report went on to provide information about through what imaginary mechanisms and intermediate stages, through what intermediate form fossils, the changes assumed to have taken place in the feet, skin, nostrils and tail actually emerged. In those terms, the above account is no different to the fairy tale of the frog turning into a prince. The only difference lies in the attempts being made to make the former more credible as time passes.
2. Whales have unique structures and systems not found in mammals
There are huge differences between whales and the terrestrial mammals alleged to be their forerunners, in terms of basic physiological attributes such as water conservation, vision and communication. Let us now examine the design in whales and look at the scientific dilemmas facing the theory of evolution in that regard.
The special water conservation design in whales
Although whales live in water, they are unable to use it to meet their water requirements. They need fresh water in order to survive. We do not yet fully understand how these animals meet their water needs, although it is thought that much of those needs are met by consuming sea creatures containing up to 30% less salt than the sea water around them. In this environment in which fresh water is so scarce, critical restrictions emerge in order for the body to conserve as much water as possible and for consumption to be kept to a minimum. Water levels are highly important for whales, which is why, just like camels, they do not perspire. Their kidneys regulate the concentration of urea in such a way as to gain water for them.
Why is whale milk so fatty?
Another delicate balance regarding water needs emerges in the levels of fat in the milk of female whales. The mother feeds her calf with a highly concentrated milk of the consistency of cheese. This milk is 10 times fattier than human milk. There are various chemical reasons why their milk has such a high fat level. Fat gives off water as a side product as it is processed after being consumed by the calf. The mother this resolves her calf’s needs for water with the lowest possible water loss.
The design in whales’ eyes
The design of the whale eye and its communication systems contain complex details of a kind not found in land mammals. These have an eyelid to protect the eye against foreign particles and blows. Whales, on the other hand, have a thick layer to protect against a different peril – water pressure. In addition, the refraction index in the design of the whale eye makes it possible for a killer whale in a show tank to leap 6 metres out of the water and catch a fish suspended in the air. Furthermore, in contrast to land mammals, whales’ eyes are on the sides of their heads, which protects them against strong currents. Thanks to the delicate equilibrium between the levels of rod and cone cells in their eyes, they are more sensitive to light and other details. The presence of phosphorus in their eyes is another feature that makes it easier for them to see in the murky depths.
The mathematical calculation used by whales
The sense that whales most use in order to locate food sources and one another is not sight at all, but hearing. Many whales are able to hunt in the dark regions of the sea bed thanks to a kind of “sonar.” The whale brain emits clicking sounds, in a manner that scientists have not yet unravelled. The distance of the object from the whale is determined by means of a mathematical calculation. The whale’s brain divides the speed at which the sound it emits strikes an object and returns, the time needed for this to happen, by two. The result represents the distance of the object in question. Moreover, the whale is also able to emit sound waves and focus on a single point. The returning waves are analysed and interpreted in the animal’s brain. This interpretation determines the size of the body in front of the animal, its shape, speed and location. Its skull is sound insulated to protect against sound bombardments so constant and powerful that they would otherwise injure the brain itself. The sonic system in these creatures is unbelievably sensitive. So much so that the U.S. Navy is copying the sonar design in sea mammals in order to improve its own technology.5
The design peculiar to whale calves
That is by no means the sum total of the immaculate designs in whales. The calf’s mouth has been so appropriately designed for it to suckle its mother’s milk that does so with no milk being lost and with no water entering the calf’s mouth. In addition, whale calves have lungs capable of storing high levels of oxygen for protracted dives and a design that protects their ears against high pressure.
These calculations, each of which indicates an evident design, are all unique to whales and are not found in land-dwelling mammals. Yet National Geographic expects its readers to set their reason aside and believe that all this emerged by way of evolution. National Geographic denies that whales were intelligently designed, and claims that they emerged by evolving, through the unconscious mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection, neither of which is able to foresee the future, from a land-dwelling mammal that one day decided to go and live in the sea.
But what mutation could give rise to a sonar system in the mammal claimed to be the forerunner of the whale? Bearing in mind the effects of mutations and the importance of the whale’s brain to its very survival, it is clear that mutations will either cripple the animal or kill it.
How could the brain acquire a perfect sonar system able to produce sound waves, focus them on specific points and determine objects’ position using mathematical calculations, in places that would be destroyed by the random processes in question? What coincidence could produce a quality of sonar that not even the technological knowledge of the U.S. Navy has been able to match? What mutations could turn a land mammal’s feet into fins and produce a tail capable of propelling a body weighing several tons?
The questions could also be asked in reference to the systems making the efficient use of water possible, the suckling system and the systems that protect the eye and ear from high pressure. However, evolutionists have no logical answer to any of them. There is only one answer to those questions. Whales were created in perfect form in a single moment. God has created whales with all the systems they need, as He has all other life forms. In one verse of the Qur’an He tells us: “Mankind! remember Allah’s blessing to you. Is there any creator other than Allah providing for you from heaven and earth? There is no god but Him. So how have you been perverted?” (Sura Fatir, 3)
3. The inconsistencies in evolutionists’ claims regarding Indohyus
The reason why evolutionists cling to Indohyus as a missing link is that they depict a structure between the middle and inner ear as similar to that in marine mammals. In addition, they claim that Indohyus” teeth have a similar structure to those of marine mammals, and they point to the eyes being higher in the skull than is the case in other ungulates, and maintain that this is a feature shared with whales. However, the idea of the evolution of the whale, a fantastical and unscientific fairy tale, is incompatible with the emergence of Indohyus. Let us now examine these inconsistencies.
a) Indohyus is a finding that rocks the idea of whale evolution, and the idea that it supports it is a total deception.
According to the classic scenario of whale evolution, mammals dwelling on the land are considered to have moved into the water. The fact is, however, that an examination of Indohyus shows that it already lived in water, and its dental structure shows that it lived a herbivorous existence. This feature of Indohyus represents a major contradiction of those evolutionists who say, in their classical accounts, that terrestrial mammals moved into the sea in order to find prey. The New Scientist article said this on the subject:
The research also challenges the idea that cetaceans – the order that includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises – split from their land-dwelling forebears and returned to the water to hunt aquatic prey. . .
This suggests that Indohyus was a shallow water wader already, and had not returned to the water simply to hunt live prey.
This shows that evolutionists are looking at a finding that fundamentally undermines their claims of the evolution of the whale. As always, however, they are trying to reshape their account by concealing the impact of this shock and ignoring it entirely. Whenever they are confronted by findings that clash with their own fairy tales they attempt to save their theories by means of such trickery as saying “evolution happened in this way, rather than that,” when what they should say is; “our accounts are wrong, there is no foundation to what we have been describing as the true facts in school text books.”
b) The similarities constructed between Indohyus and whales are not restricted to these life forms alone.
Even those researchers who equate Indohyus with whales in evolutionary terms admit that the similarities they have come up with between the two can also be seen in other mammals which have no connection at all to whales in respect of the theory of evolution. Scientists make the following admission on the subject:
None of these features characterize all modern and extinct cetaceans [whales—KB]…. In addition, all of these characters are found in some mammals unrelated to cetaceans”6
As we have seen, Indohyus shares anatomical features not just with whales, but also with other mammals which are totally incompatible with whales in terms of the myth of evolution. For that reason, the depiction of Indohyus as “the missing link in whale evolution” in New Scientist magazine is devoid of any scientific justification and is a complete and utter deception.
c) The similarity constructed between Indohyus and whales on the basis of dental structure is also questionable
Those making these claims about Indohyus also suggest that it shares a common dental structure with whales. However, whales are carnivores. Indohyus, on the other hand, was a herbivore, with totally different feeding patterns. That being the case, it is obvious that the similarity constructed between the two does not stand on any sound foundations.
The claims regarding Indohyus consist of fantastical tales invented with the aim of keeping evolutionists’ theories alive and ignoring those findings that conflict with existing accounts. Since evolutionists adopt their theories as a dogma right from the outset, and since evolutionary development is a belief imposed by materialist ideology, they are quite capable of manufacturing huge flights of fancy based on the very smallest similarities. The way they regard Indohyus, an animal that lived in rivers and no larger than a racoon, as the ancestor of the whales, on the basis of superficial similarities, such as Indohyus” eye sockets being located a little higher, represents a striking and dazzling example of this dogmatic and fantastical mindset.
Any normal, rational individual whose thought processes are unfettered by materialist preconceptions will know that this design can only be possible as the result of a mind having planned it. In the same way that the existence of a computer points to the existence of a computer engineer, or a building to that of an architect, so the sublime complexity and vast quantities of information in the biological systems in living things indicate the existence of the Creator who brought them into being. It is quite certain that this Creator is Almighty God, Who has no need of blueprints or designs in order to create, and Who brings all things into existence merely by commanding them to “Be!”
We advise the editors of New Scientist to abandon their obsession with linking the origin of living things with a fictitious evolutionary process that never actually happened, and we hope that they will see the unscientific nature of the evolutionist myths prodproduced for that purpose.