- The bones required to determine whether this is a transition to whales are missing! 1
- The dating of Ambulocetus makes it awkward as a transitional fossil to whales. 2
- The transitional series that Ambulocetus is placed in is deceptive. For instance, Basilosaurus was ten times as long as Ambulocetus but is drawn at the same size to demonstrate that they formed a smooth transitional series. 3
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Sarfati, J. D., & Matthews, M. (1999). Refuting Evolution. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
- Sarfati, 1999, p. 73: “The nice pictures of Ambulocetus natans in these publications are based on artists’ imaginations, and should be compared with the actual bones found! The difference is illustrated well in the article ‘A Whale of a Tale?’ This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammals to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram on next page).” ↩
- Sarfati, 1999, p. 74: “Finally, [Ambulocetus] is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than undisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales.” ↩
- Sarfati, 1999, p. 74: “[Basilosaurus] was 10 times as long as Ambulocetus, although the Teaching about Evolution book draws them at the same size — it helps give the desired (false) impression that there is a genuine transitional series.” ↩