National Geographic

Geographic national generally is considered as a scientific important magazine that executes prepares everywhere in the planet and divides the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a big number of important, nevertheless few sectors readers are conscious of the range to which it passes these information by a "filters" ideological before to transmit it on to its readers, and even twists sometimes them given according to the ask of this ideology and this accumulation these completely imaginary histories.

The ideology in the question in Geographic National is a mixture of philosophical naturalisme and the current brand of evolutionism, known as Neo Darwinism. In the name of to defend this theory, it generally presents seen them prejudiced of discoveries, and opens even the door to the scientific lies. For example, there was the lie of the fossil of Archaeoraptor, that was presented by Geographic National in 1998 as an infallible proof that the evolved birds of the dinosaurs, but that later revealed itself 'the hand did'.

Even the scientists that support the theory criticize the magazine for blind publicity that it carries. Grant Dr. Storrs Olson, the Conservative one of Birds to the National Museum of Natural History, the Institution of Smithsonian, "Geographic National attained a record of unprecedented mediocrity to engage in the journalism sensationnaliste, corroborated no and tabloaŻd". (1)

An example of Geographic National one 'sensational, corroborated no and tabloaŻd' evolutionist publicity was his 'the Evolution of Whales' the item carried the problem of November, 2001. The item maintained that a string of discoveries of fossil had proved the evolution of thesis of whales, and the paledontologiste Hans same Thewissen quoted as disputing itself that the whales were one of the better examples of evolution. The pictures, the reconstructions and the diagrams plastered everywhere the item of 14 pages visually was wanted to reinforce the same complaint in the spirits of the readers.

Nevertheless, the 'the whale evolution' the scenario, therefore ferociously defended by National Geographic, was-et I nothing but a fairy story, lacking in scientific proof.

The reconstruction parade to the page 66-69 in the problem November 2001, Geographic and National was meant to summarize the magazine complaint as for the whale origin. An entire string of creatures the one was after aligning that the other and described as the transitional forms in the whale evolution. According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to the geological periods that they lived in, was as follows:

* Pakicetus (50 millions of years there is)

* Ambulocetus (49 millions of years there is)

* Rodhocetus (46,5 millions of years there is)

* Procetus (45 millions of years there is)

* Kutchicetus (43-46 millions of years there is)

* Durodon (37 millions of years there is)

* Basilosaurus (37 millions of years there is)

* Aeticetus (24-26 millions of years there is)

The national Geographic list continued, but included categories known heirs apparent and of whales.

Very cheat there characteristics in this list. We to allow considering the more of basic principle of these. According to Geographic National, the first two creatures in the list, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the two 'walked of the whales,' nevertheless the complaint that these two earthly creatures were of the "whales" are totally fictitious, even ridiculous.

Leave considers us first Pakicetus.

Pakicetus inachus: A Quadrupa¨de

Forced to be the 'the Ancestor of the Whale'

The fossil remains of the mammal Pakicetus inachus extinct, to give him his correct name, came first on the program in 1983. P. D. Gingerich and its assistance, that found the fossil, had not hesitation in claiming immediately that the it was a 'the primitive whale,' although they only found in fact a skull.

Nevertheless the fossil has not absolutely connection with the whale. His skeleton proved itself to be a structure four pay, similar thereto of common wolves. It was found in a region a lot of ore in iron, and contain the fossils of such earthly creatures as such snails, such tortoises or such crocodiles. In of other terms, it was part of an earth layer, not a water the one.

Then, why was an inhabitant quadrupa¨de of earth announced to be a 'the primitive whale' and why it always is presented as such by Geographic National? The magazine gives the following response:

What does it cause scientists to declare the creature a whale? The subtle indices in combination arrangement it of cups on the molar teeth, one to fold in a bone of the ear of the environment, and the position of the bones of ear in the skull are absent in the other mammals of earth but a signature of whales edoca¨nes later. (2)

In of other terms, based on some details in its bones of teeth and ear, Geographic National felt able to describe this inhabitant of earth quadrupa¨de and wolf affectiant as a 'walking the whale'. Just the one looks at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the illustrator Carl Buell evolutionist will reveal the absurdity in the said person a 'walking the whale'.

The deformations in The Reconstructions of Geographic National one

The paledontologistes believe that Pakicetus was a mammal quadrupa¨de. The skeletal structure on the left, published in the magazine of Nature clearly shows this. Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (to the under left) by Carl Buell, that was based on this structure, is realistic.

Geographic national chose nevertheless to use a picture of a Pakicetus of "swimming" (to the under) to paint the animal as a 'walking the whale' and impose this picture on its readers. The flimsiness ones in the picture, wanted done Pakicetus to seem more 'whale affectiant,' are immediately evident: The animal was painted in a position of "swimming". Its legs of behind are showed to stretch behind, and an impression of "fins" was given.

The reconstruction of Pakicetus by Geographic National

The characteristics of the details discussed by Geographic National, "cup arrangement on the molar teeth, one to fold in a bone of the ear of the environment, and the position of the bones of ear in the skull" are not any irresistible proof on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale:

As Geographic National indirectly declared also while to write "the subtle indices in the combination", certain of these characteristics are found in fact of the earthly animals also.

None of the characteristics in the question are any proof of an evolutionist relation. Even the evolutionists admit that most of theoretical built relations while basing itself on the anatomical similarities between the animals are completely unfaithful. If the wolf tasmanien marsupial and the wolf of common placental the two had been extinct since a long time, then it this is without any doubts that the evolutionists would imagine them in the same taxon and the define as the very close parents. Nevertheless, we know that these two different animals, although similar frappamment in their anatomy, are very moved away from every other in the evolutionist tree presumed of life. (In fact their similarity indicates not common conception the common descent). Pakicetus, which Geographic National declared being a 'walking the whale,' was a type unique characteristic different harboring in his body. Indeed, Carroll, an authority on the paleontology vertedbrede, describes the family of Mesonychid, of which Pakicetus should be member, as "exposing a curious combination of characters". (3) Such eminent evolutionists as Gould accepts that 'the creatures of mosaic one' of this type cannot be considered as the transitional forms.

In Pakicetus runs and describing, that clearly is an inhabitant of earth, as 'walking the whale' simply on the structural characteristics in its bones of ear and the molars, is nothing but another example of National Geographic tradition of 'the sensational journalism, corroborated no and tabloaŻd'. In his item 'The too To Praise Evolution of Whale,' the Camp of L. of Ashby of writer of credationniste reveals total disability of the complaint that the class of Mesonychid, that should include the earth mammals as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or the extinct whales, in these words:

"The reason evolutionists are confiding that mesonychids generated archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any type in the true alignment, is this mesonychids and archaeocetes known have similarities. These similarities are not nevertheless sufficient to do the case for the ancestry, especially taking account of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident of the so many groups fact of mammals and even of reptiles were suggested as ancestral to the whales". (4)

Ambulocetus natans: A False Whale with the Claws "Palmate"

The second creature of fossil after Pakicetus in the sequence more imaginary, More geographic and More national is Ambulocetus natans. This fossil first was brought to the world attention in 1984 in an item in the magazine of Science. The this is in fact a creature of earth that the evolutionists were anxious 'turning in a whale'.

The name Ambulocetus natans comes from the Latin words "ambulare" (to walk), "cetus" (the whale) and "natans" (swiming), and the means 'a whale of walk and swimming'. The it is evident the animal that is used to walk because it had four legs, as all other mammals, and all even wide claws on its feet and its clogs on its legs of behind. Outside of the prejudice of the evolutionists nevertheless, there is not absolutely basis for the complaint that it saim in water, or that it lived on the earth and in water (likes an amphibious one).

To see the border between the science and the desirous imagination on this subject, we to allow having one to look at the National Geographic reconstruction of Ambulocetus. This is how it is painted in the magazine:

The small national Geographic manipulations: The imaginary canvass added to the claws, and the posterior legs did to resemble fins.

If you look at it carefully you easily can see the two small visual manipulations that was employed 'to turn the Ambulocetus earth remaining in a whale:

The posterior legs of the animal are not showed with the feet that it would help to walk, but as the fins that it would help to swim. Nevertheless, Carroll, that examines the bones of leg of the animal, says that it possessed the capacity to move itself powerfully on the earth. (5)

To present an adaptation impression for water, webbing was drawn on its forefeet. It is impossible nevertheless to draw any such conclusion of a study of fossils of Ambulocetus. In the this of report of fossil is almost impossible to find soft fabrics as these. If the reconstructions base on the characteristics beyond those of the skeleton always are speculative. That offers the one space empties big breadth of speculation to the evolutionists to use their publicity tools.

With the same type of evolutionists touching up that was applied to the drawing of Ambulocetus, the it is possible to do any animal to seem any other. You could take even a skeleton of monkey, draw fins on his back and webbing between its fingers and the presents as the 'the ancestor of primate of whales'.

Deception disability executed while basing itself on the fossil of Ambulocetus can be seen drawing to the under, based on the true paleontological data:

The true Ambulocetus: The legs are true legs, not 'the fins,' and there is not imaginary canvass between its orteils as Geographic National had added. (The picture of Carroll, the Models and Process of Evolution Vertedbrede, p. 335)

In the edition of the picture of the skeleton of the animal, Geographic National had to take a step of return of the alteration that it had executed to the reconstruction picture that did it seems more as a whale. As the skeleton the clearly spectacles, the animal feet were conceived to concern it the earth. There was not signs of the imaginary canvass.

The Myth of the Whale of Walk

Indeed, there is not proof that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are ancestors of whales. They simply are described as 'the possible ancestors' by the fascinated evolutionists to find an earthly ancestor for the sea mammals to the light of their theory. There is not proof linking up these creatures with the sea mammals that emerging in the fossil report to a geological very similar time.

After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the National Geographic project moves itself on to the so-called mammals of sea and to the series out (the extinct whale) the type as Procetus, Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea. The animals in the question were mammals that lived in the sea and that are now extinct. (Will touch us on this question later). Nevertheless, there are considerable anatomical differences between these and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. Do not import how much Geographic National tried to reduce these to a minimum by the insignificant keys of the brush, when we look at the this of fossils is clear that they are 'the transitional forms' linking up itself:

The vertebral column of the ends of Ambulocetus of mammal quadrupa¨de to the pool, and the powerful posterior legs spread themselves then of him. This is the typical anatomy of mammal of earth. In the whales nevertheless the vertebral column goes to right down below to the tail, and there is not bone pelvien to all. Indeed, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived about 10 millions of years after Ambulocetus, possesses the last anatomy. In of other terms, the this is a typical whale. There is not transitional form between Ambulocetus, a mammal of typical earth, and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.
Under the vertebral column of Basilosaurus and the whale of sperme, there is independent small of the bones of him. The national Geographic complaints these to be rudimentary legs. Nevertheless that the same mentions of magazine that these bones had in fact another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones 'worked as copulary directs' and in the whales of sperme '[act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genital organs'. (6) to describe these bones, that execute in fact of the important functions, as 'the rudimentary organs' is nothing but the prejudice of Darwinistic.
In conclusion, despite all better National Geographic efforts, the Fact that there was not transitional forms between the mammals of earth and sea and that they the two emerged with their own special characteristics did not change. There is not evolutionist link. Robert Carroll accepts this, although grudgingly and in the evolutionist language: "This not to be possible to identify a sequence to take mesonychids directly to the whales". (7)
The scientific others accept that the animals that the evolutionist editions as Geographic National tries to paint as 'walking of the whales' has in fact nothing to do with the true whales, but are a living separated group. Although it is evolutionist, the famous Russian whale G. HAS. Mchedlidze expert does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans and the creatures to four similar paws as 'the possible ancestors of the whale,' and describes them rather as a completely isolated group. (8)

The problems With the Sequences More superficial, More geographic and More national

The visual effects (the projects and the drawings) plays a major role in the abuse of Darwinism on the corporation. Nevertheless these are sometimes completely not very scientific, and to other are scientific discoveries interpreted in a partial manner. The Geographic national calendar diagram (asks 64-77) of mammals that become more and more more whale affectiant by the time is an example of these misleading tools.

We far considered if of small adjustments but misleading to the animal reconstructions in the diagram. Next to this, the dates attributed for them by Geographic National was chosen in the line with the prejudices of Darwinist. The animals are showed as itself following in a geological line, while these are questionable. The Camp of L. of Ashby clarifies the position, based on the paleontological data:

"In standard arrangement, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the last Ypresian, but several experts recognize that it can date to the first Lutetian. If the youngest date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is almost, so not indeed, contemporary of Rodhocetus, a first fossil of Lutetian of another formation to Pakistan. Of more, the date back to Ambulocetus, that was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 higher meters, would must are tailored towards the top the same quantity as Pakicetus. This done YOUNGER Ambulocetus than Rodhocetus and probably younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus". (9)

In the report, there are two different views of when the animals that Geographic National chronologically the one exposition the really lived other. If the second view is accepted, then Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which Geographic National paints as 'the walk whale,' are same age as, or them even younger more than truer whales. In of other terms, no 'the evolutionist line' is possible. Geographic national neglected totally the problem and used only views that correspond to his own thesis. This is a publicity method, no science.

The stories OF Ears and Noses

The evolutionist scenario between the mammals of earth and sea must explains the different ear and the nose structures between the two groups. By means of the graphic visionaries that it used, Geographic National tried to give the impression that the question was resolved. Nevertheless this impression is a false the one.

Leave considers us first it structures ear. As us, the earth mammals take to the sound trap in the outside the world in the exterior ear, to amplify them with the bones in the environment ear, and to turn them in the signals in the internal ear. The sea mammals has not any exterior ear. They hear sounds by means of the receivers vibrations sensitive in their lower jaws.

The national Geographic complaints that the second system evolved first. This is specified to the Page 71 in the directed diagram 'hearing assistance'. This diagram was drawn in such a manner as to give the impression that hears evolved organs in the steps to the reader. Nevertheless, there is not evolution by the steps here. One to look at the text used by Geographic National will suffice to do this clear one:

aeoePakicetus.. This walk whale lacked the big cushion spreading itself to the environment ear that modern ceteans has, an index that it had kept earthly attributes. In the later whales, the jaw, with the big cushion, adapted to receive sounds".

We already saw that Pakicetus was a mammal of typical earth, and that the it is ridiculous to call it a 'walking the whale'. The logic salaried by Geographic National is not less ridiculous: It describes first the Pakicetus earth remaining as a 'walking the whale' and says while the animal kept earthly attributes. That is as the cow call a 'walking the bat' and saying then, 'It has not any wing, it keeps its earthly attributes'.

That is a question aspect. The aspect that concerns us here the clear difference between the ears of Pakicetus and whale. After the National Geographic extract above, we must look at to see naturally if there is a transitional form between the two. After Pakicetus in the genealogical tree comes Ambulocetus, which evolutionists call a 'the whale of market swimming' but that was in fact a mammal of earth. The national Geographic usages the following words of Ambulocetus: "Although more water than Pakicetus, Ambulocetus always heard directly by his ear".

In of other terms, there is not evolution towards a whale ear in Ambulocetus.

When we come to the third animal in the National Geographic list, we meet suddenly a huge change. The above mentioned extract continues: The sounds were transmitted to the ears of the environment of Basilosaurus as the vibrations of the lower jaw.

In of other terms, Basilosaurus possesses an ear of typical whale. The it was a creature that perceived sounds around him not by an exterior ear but by vibrations attaining his jaw. And there is not transitional form between Basilosaurus 'the ear and that of Pakicetus and of Ambulocetus, which Geographic National to put before it in his arrangement.

When the subject theoretically is examined, it can be seen that in any case that a such forms transitional has not the least luck to survive. Any evolution by the steps between a perfect auditory system to a completely different the one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that loses slowly his capacity to hear with its ears, but did not always develop the capacity to hear by his jaw is in a disadvantageous position.

The question of how a such "development" could have just is an insoluble dilemma for the evolutionists. The mechanism evolutionists put sassy is mutations and these never was seen to add of without new and significant ambiguity information to the news of the genetic animals. The it is unreasonable to suggest that the complex heard the system in the sea mammals could have emerged as the mutation result.

A similar position applies to the National Geographic account of the 'slipping the nose'. The magazine series out three skulls of Pakicetus, Rodhocetus and a Gray Whale of our own time above the one the other and claimed that these represented an evolutionist process. While the three nasal structures of the fossils, especially those of Rodhocetus and the Gray Whale is so different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms in the same collection.

Of more, the nostril movement to the forehead would demand a 'the new conception' in the animal anatomy in the question, and believing that this could arrive as the mutation result is nothing but the fantasy.

The Stories of national Geographic Lamarckian

Indeed, the National Geographic writers and most of the evolutionist community divide a basic superstition of the origin of living things, and that is the true problem. This superstition is the magic one 'the natural force' that allows living things to obtain the organs, the biological changes or the anatomical characteristics that they need. We to allow having one to look at someone interesting passages of the National Geographic item 'the Evolution of Whales:'

"I tried to envision certain of the varieties of ancestors of whale that here had been found and very near... As the posterior members diminished, therefore did the hip bones that supported them. That did the vertebral column more flexible to supply the blows of bowl of tail of development. The neck shortened, turning the principal end of the body in more of a shell tubulaire to plow by the water with the minimum leads, while arms supposed the rudder form. Having the small need for the exterior ears longer, some whales received sounds transported by water way directly by their lower jaws and transmitting them to the internal ears through the big special cushions. Every whale in the sequence was a little has streamlined more than the preceding models and wandered further shore". (10)

On the close inspection, in this body explains the evolutionist mentality says that living of the things feels changeable needs according to the changeable environment that they live in, and this need is perceived as a 'the evolutionist mechanism'. According to this logic, less than necessary organs disappears, and the necessary organs appear of their own agreement!

Do not import that with the knowledge more insignificant of biology will know than our needs form our organs. Never since the theory of Lamarck of the transfer of obtained characteristics to the subsequent generations was refuted, in of other terms for a century more or less, that was a makes known. Nevertheless when the one looks at evolutionist editions, they seem to always think alongside the lines of Lamarckian. If you oppose yourself, they will say: 'No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say are that the conditions natural put of the pressure evolutionist on the things living, and that following this, the traits fitting are chosen, and in this type in a manner evolves'. Here remains nevertheless not at all criticizes it: Which evolutionists call 'the evolutionist pressure' cannot take to the living things obtaining new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionist mechanisms that reply be saying to this pressure, this selection and this natural mutations, cannot furnish again organs for the animals:

The natural selection can choose only characteristics that already exist, it cannot create the new one one.

The mutations cannot add to genetic the news, they can destroy only to exist it the one. No mutation that adds information without new and significant ambiguities to genome (and that forms thus a new organ or a new biochemical structure) never was observed.

If we look at the myth of Geographic National one moving clumsily whales one more time to the light therefore, we see that they engage in fact in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On the close inspection, writer Douglas O'CLOCK. National Geographic Chadwick "envisions" that "Every whale in the sequence was a little has streamlined more than the preceding models". How could a change morphologique arrive in a type on the generations in a special direction? For that that arrived, the representatives of this type in every "sequence" would must undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that the mutation would have the cause the animals no evil, these thus transfering would must appreciate an advantage on the a normal, the next generations, by a big coincidence, would must undergo the same mutation to the same not at all in its genes, this would must continues Unchanged for a lot of generations, and The au-dessus should arrive by the coincidence and completely impeccably.

If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will believe also someone that says: 'My family appreciates to fly. My son underwent a mutation and some structures as the bird feathers developed under its arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will continue for the generations, and finally my descendants will have wings and can fly'. The two histories are equally ridiculous.

As mentioned us to the beginning, the evolutionists post the superstition that lives needs of the things can be met by a magic force in the nature. The conscience attributing to the nature, a conviction met in the animistic cultures, itself in a manner interesting student in top before our eyes in the 21st century under a coat "scientific". The biologist Paul Rock Grassed French known, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and a first critic of Darwinism, specified once this faith daydreams just:

"The timely appearance of mutations allowing the animals and the plants to reply to the needs seem strong to believe. Nevertheless the Darwinian theory more demands even: An only plant, an only animal would demand thousands and thousands of happy one, appropriate events. Thus, the miracles would become the rule: the events with an infinitesimal probability could not arriveaeĤ there is not law against to daydream, but the science not the must devote itself to". (11)

More recently, Henry Gee, the science editor for the magazine of Nature and an evolutionist incontestedment eminent, pointed to the same does and admitted that explaining the origin of an organ by his necessity is as the word;

... Our nose were done to carry spectacles, therefore we have spectacles. The nevertheless evolutionist biologists do a lot it same thing when they interpret any structure from the viewpoint of the adaptation to current usefulness while to fail to recognize that current usefulness must not say us anything of how a structure evolved, or in fact how the evolutionist history of a strength of structure himself influenced the form and the property of this structure. (12)

Another scenario that Geographic National tries to impose, without too much discussion, concerns the surface of body of the animals in the question. As the other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, that are accepted as lands mammals, are consented to have had generally bodies furs covered. And they the two are showed as cover in the thick fur in Geographic National. Nevertheless when we move ourselves on to the later animals (the true sea mammals), the whole fur disappears. The evolutionist explanation of this is not different of the scenarios of fabulous lamarckian-type saw us above. The question truth is that all the animals in the question were conceived in the manner more fitting for their environments. The it is irrational to try to represent this conception by means of the mutation or by means of the histories of easy lamarck-type. As all conception in life, the conception in these creatures is proof for the creation.

The Sea Scenario of Mammal himself

We far examined if the evolutionist scenario that the sea mammals evolved of the an earthly one. The scientific proof does not show any relations between the two earthly mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that Geographic National put at first history. If and the scenario remainder? The evolution theory is again in a big difficulty here. The theory tries to establish a link of phylogenetic between Archaeocetea (the archaic whales), the sea mammals known to be the whales and the extinct and living heirs apparent. The national Geographic series the complaint out in a very simplified form (Asks 156-159). Nevertheless, a lot of experts think rather differently. The evolutionist paledontologiste Barbara J. Stahl writes: "The form sinueuse of the body and the jagged special cheek teeth the fact the plain that these archaeocetes could not have been probably ancestral to any of the modern whales". (13)

The evolutionist account of the origin of sea mammals does facing a huge dead end in the form of a discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist scenario supposes that they two groups of major whale, the whale of toothed (Odontoceti) and the whale emballottede (Mysticeti), evolved of a common ancestor. Nevertheless Michel Milinkovitch of the University of Brussels opposed this view with a new theory. It stresses that this assumption, based on the anatomical similarities, is refuted by the molecular discoveries:

"Evolutionist relations among the major groups of cetaceans are more problematic since morphologiques and molecular analysis the reach conclusions very different. In fact, based on the conventional interpretation of the of data morphologiques and behavioral regulated, the whales of toothed of echolocating (almost 67 types) and the whales emballottedes filters nourishing (10 types) are considered as two distinct monophyletic group. ...On the other hand, the analysis of phylogenetic d'ADN.. and the amino acid... the sequences contradict this division taxinomique long admitted. A group of whales of toothed, the whales of sperme, seem to be more closely linked to the whales emballottedes morphologiquement extremely differing than to other odontocetes". (14)

In the short mammals and sailors challenges the evolutionist scenarios for which they are forced to be subjects.

Conclusion

In contrast to the complaints of the paledontologiste Hans Thewissen, that supposes a major role in evolutionist publicity on the subject of the origin of sea mammals, and is an of most of the important National Geographic sources of information, we do not treat with an evolutionist process backed up by the empirical proof, but by the proof that is constrained to adjust a genealogical tree presupposed evolutionist, despite the Two.

What emerges, if the proof more is looked at, is objectively this screw the different groups emerged in an independent way of every other in the past. This obliges empirical proof for accepts that God created all these creatures.

Noisy evolutionist publicity of the sea mammals resembles nevertheless to the 'the horse collection' that was put once forward in the same manner, but which then admitted evolutionists were null. A number of extinct mammals that lived to the different times was aligned behind the one the other, and the time evolutionists that is tried to impose this as 'the proof closes'. Nevertheless the truth emerged progressively, and it was realized that these animals be not every others' the ancestors, that they had emerged in the different periods, and that they were the extinct type in independent fact. Dr. Eldredge of Nil, a conservative one to the American Museum to New York,, where "the horse evolution" the diagrams were on the public exposition at that very moment to the ground floor of the museum, said to follow it by the exposition:

"There were an a lot of terrible, again imaginative histories that of others, of what the nature of this history [of life] really is. The example more famous, always on the exposition, is down below the exposition on the horse evolution prepared maybe fifty years ago. Who was presented as the literal truth in the manual after the manual. Now I think that that is lamentable, notably when the people that proposes that these history types are able are conscious of the speculative nature of certain ones of these things". (15)

The evolution of story of fairies of whales, therefore ferociously defended by Geographic National, is another of these fantasies of natural history. As its predecessors, it soon himself will find also in the can of waste of science.

Under the pseudonym of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar wrote about 250 works. Its books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations treat the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free, all the books Adnan Oktar wrote under the pseudonym Harun Yahya on these sites internet www. harunyahya. the com

(1) To Open the Letter to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson, the Conservative one of Birds, the National Museum of Institution of Smithsonian of Natural History
(2) Geographic National, "the Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 68
(3) Robert L. Carroll, the Models and Process of Evolution Vertedbrede, the Press of University of Cambridge, 1998, p. 329
(4) The Camp of L. of Ashby, "The too To Praise Evolution of Whale", the Questions of Creation, a bulletin published by the Corporation of Research of Creation, ******eut/le June 1998
(5) Robert L. Carroll, the Models and Process of Evolution Vertedbrede, the Press of University of Cambridge, 1998, p. 333
(6) Geographic National, "the Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 73
(7) Robert L. Carroll, the Models and Process of Evolution Vertedbrede, the Press of University of Cambridge, 1998, 329
(8) G. HAS. Mchedlidze, the General Characteristics of the Evolution of Paleobiological of Cetacea, freezes. of Russian (Rotterdam: Has. HAS. Balkema, 1986), 91.
(9) The Camp of L. of Ashby, "The too To Praise Evolution of Whale", the Questions of Creation, a bulletin published by the Corporation of Research of Creation, ******eut/le June 1998
(10) Geographic National, "the Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 69
(11) Rock p Grassed, the Evolution of living Organisms, New York: The academic Press, 1977, p. 103
(12) Henry Gee, to the Research of the Deep Time: Beyond The Fossil Records HAS A New Ha½story Of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 103
(13) B.J. Stahl, History Vertedbrede: The problems in the Evolution, the Editions of Dover, Inc., 1985, p. 489.
(14) Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans incites the revision of transformations morphologiques," the Tendencies in Ecologie and Evolution 10 (August 1995) : 328-334.
(15) Eldgridge of Nil, quoted in the Enigme of Darwin by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CALIFORNIA, the Books of Master, 1988), ask 78.)