http://monsoonwok.com/russian-serpentine/
Russian Serpentine
The classification of precious stones?
Does anyone have any great websites that would help me classify some gems? In addition, Does anyone know what Russia Serpentine "is exactly? Thanks! Threw some pictures of the particular ball, I'm trying to name: – http://www.bobsi18.com/unnamed/SP0553.jpg – Http://www.bobsi18.com/unnamed/SP1004. jpg (I think this is possibly 'Russian serpentine') – http://www.bobsi18.com/unnamed/SP4153.jpg – http://www.bobsi18.com/unnamed/SP5053.jpg (Picture Jasper red, probably?) – Http://www.bobsi18.com/unnamed/green.jpg any suggestions welcome!
Hello, try this link for descriptions precious stones, is very nice and like the photo. Russian Serpentine http://www.barse.com/store/files/stonebooklet.pdf http://www.gemstone.org/image_library_frameset.html: From Russia's Ural Mountains, Russia Serpentine is a Precious Stone Olive Green with a pattern of black matrix. The word "Serpentine" comes from the Latin "serpens" or a snake. It is thought to be named after a snake, its surface smooth and shiny, like a snake. I hope I can help, Regards.
|
|
Natural RUSSIAN SERPENTINE WAVY SQUARE, 30mm, 1pc $1.05 |
|
|
Gemstone Beads-RUSSIAN SERPENTINE-Loose Beads-6MM-50 CT $4.99 |
|
|
GEMSTONE BEADS-RUSSIAN SERPENTINE-LOOSE BEADS-8MM-20 CT $4.99 |
|
|
4 mm, 4mm Round Russian Serpentine Natural Stone Beads (75 pcs), Forest Green $2.99 |
|
|
Wholesale Lot 5 Beautiful Pendants Russian Serpentine Opalite and Crystal $14.77 |
|
|
WoW!! Russian Serpentine 8mm Round Beads 16” strand ***(LAST ONE)*** $4.50 |
|
|
GEMSTONE BEADS-RUSSIAN SERPENTINE-LOOSE BEADS-6MM-25 CT $3.29 |
|
|
20 x GREEN RUSSIAN SERPENTINE, RECTANGULAR BEADS, 8x6mm $1.25 |
|
|
25mm X 18mm Natural Russian Serpentine Stone Cabochon $3.50 |
|
|
20 x Natural Green RUSSIAN SERPENTINE, 8mm, round $1.35 |
|
|
50x GREEN RUSSIAN SERPENTINE GEMSTONE BEADS, 4mm, round $1.35 |
|
|
30x GREEN RUSSIAN SERPENTINE GEMSTONE BEADS, 6mm, round $1.39 |
|
|
GEMSTONE BEADS-RUSSIAN SERPENTINE-LOOSE STONE BEADS $3.29 |
|
|
50 x NATURAL GREEN RUSSIAN SERPENTINE HEISHI, 3x2mm $1.26 |
|
|
Beads~ Russian Serpentine 6mm Rounds X 16″ (NEW) $2.40 |
|
|
Beads~ Russian Serpentine 4mm Rounds X 16″ (NEW) $1.80 |
|
|
Pretty Rondelle Russian Serpentine Gemstone beads $4.13 |
|
|
Gemstone Loose BEADS-RUSSIAN SERPENTINE-ROUNDED DIAMOND $3.79 |
A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic
National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research worldwide and the actions the results with their readers. The magazine is an important source of information in a number of important areas, but few readers are aware the extent to which passes this information through an ideological "filter" before handing it to his readers, and sometimes turns the data according to the demands of this ideology and based on stories up completely imaginary.
The ideology in question in National Geographic is a mixture of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as Neo-Darwinism. On behalf of the defense theory, usually has prejudices about the discoveries, and even opens door to scientific misrepresentations. For example, there was the falsity of Archaeoraptor fossil, which was introduced by National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been "crafted."
Even scientists who support the theory of criticizing the propaganda magazine for the blind leads. According to Dr. Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, National Geographic has reached a record low for the exercise of sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. "(1)
An example of 'National Geographic sensational, unsubstantiated and evolutionary propaganda tabloid 'was his' Evolution of Article Whales ", held at the November issue of 2001. This article argues that a series of fossil discoveries have shown the evolution of the thesis of whales, citing the paleontologist Hans Thewissen, even as a argument that whales were one of the best examples of evolution. The photographs, reconstructions and diagrams of the soup in the 14-page article was intended to reinforce visually the same claim in the minds of readers.
However, the "evolution of the stage of whales, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, was and still is nothing but a fairy tale, it lacks scientific evidence.
The Parade of the reconstructions on pages 66-69 in November 2001 National Geographic issue were intended to summarize the magazine claims 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 they lived, was as follows:
* Pakicetus (50 million years ago)
* Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
* Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago)
* 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)
National Geographic list has continued, but included known categories of dolphins and whales.
There are very misleading features in this list. Let us consider the most fundamental of them. According to National Geographic, the first two creatures on the list, and Pakicetus Ambulocetus were "walking whales," however, the claim that these land creatures were "whales" is totally fictitious, even ridiculous.
Consider first Pakicetus.
Pakicetus Inachus: A quadruped
Forced to be the "ancestor of the whale "
The fossil remains of extinct mammals 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 it was a "primitive whale," although in reality only found a skull.
However, the fossil has absolutely nothing to do with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-legged similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and contains fossils of land creatures such as snails, turtles and crocodiles. In other words, was part of a stratum of land, not water.
So why an inhabitant of the land quadrupeds announced to be a 'whale primitive "and why it is presented as such by National Geographic? The magazine gives the following response:
What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination-the arrangement of the vessels in the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the bones ear within the skull-are absent in other land mammals, but later the signing of Eocene whales. (2)
In other words, from some details in its teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this four-legged land dweller wolf walk like a whale "." One look at the reconstruction of evolutionary Pakicetus the illustrator Carl Buell reveal the absurdity of calling it a "walking whale."
The distortions in the reconstruction of National Geographic
The paleontologists believe was Pakicetus a quadrupedal mammal. The skeletal structure on the left, published in Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this. Thus, the reconstruction of Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which is based on that structure, realistic.
National Geographic, however, chose to use an image of a "swim" Pakicetus (below) in order to portray animals as walking whale and to impose that image on its readers. The inconsistencies in the photo, the intention to look more Pakicetus 'whale-like,' are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a "swim" position. Its hind legs are stretched back, and an impression of "wings" has been given.
National Geographic reconstruction Pakicetus
The characteristics of the details discussed by National Geographic, "the readiness of vessels in the teeth molars, one rolled up in a middle ear bone, and positioning of the ear bones within the skull "there is credible evidence on which to base a relationship between Pakicetus and the Whale:
At National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing "Subtle hints in combination, some of these features are truly terrestrial animals.
None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolving relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common wolf, that both the placenta is long extinct, then there is no doubt that evolutionists will image to the same taxon and define them as relatives very close. However, we know that these two different animals, though very similar in their anatomy, are far from each other on the evolutionary tree of life is. (De Indeed, their similarity indicates common ancestry of non-common design). Pakicetus, which declared a National Geographic 'walking whale, was a unique species harboring different characteristics in their bodies. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, described mesonychid family, which must be a member Pakicetus, because it "displays a rare combination of characters." (3) prominent evolutionists, Gould and accept that the creatures mosaic "of this type can not be considered as transitional forms.
In short, describing Pakicetus, which is clearly an inhabitant of the earth, or on foot whale simply characteristics structural ear bones and molars, is not journalism, but another example of the tradition of National Geographic's "sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid. In article "The Overselling of Whale Evolution", the creationist writer L. Ashby Field shows the total disability claim that mesonychid class, which should include Pakicetus terrestrial mammals, may have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:
"The reason evolutionists are confident that gave rise to archaeocetes Mesonychids, despite the inability to identify any species in the royal line, which is known and Mesonychids archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient for the case of the ancestors, especially given the huge differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact many groups of reptiles to mammals and have even suggested as the ancestor of whales. "(4)
Ambulocetus natans: A fake whale 'Claws folded'
The second fossil creature after National Geographic Pakicetus imaginary sequence is Ambulocetus natans. This fossil was first brought to world attention in 1984 in an article in the journal Science. It is actually a land creature that evolutionists have insisted on "become into a whale. "
Ambulocetus natans The name comes from the Latin words ambulare "(walking)," Cetus (the whale) and "natans (swimming) and means "a foot and the whale swam away. It is obvious that the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even the claws on its feet wide and claws on their hind legs. Apart from evolutionary bias, 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 reconstruction Ambulocetus National Geographic. This is how it is portrayed in the magazine:
Bit manipulations National Geographic: imaginary networks added to the claws, the hind legs and made to look like fins.
If you look closely you can easily see the two small visual manipulations that have been used for the shift of land-dwelling Ambulocetus in a whale:
animal's hind legs are not displayed with feet that help you walk, but as fins which enable it to swim. But Carroll, who examines the animal bones of the leg, said that had the ability to move forcefully into the ground. (5)
In order to present an idea adaptation to water, belts should be drawn on the front legs. However, it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of fossil Ambulocetus. In the fossil record is almost impossible to find soft tissue such as these. So reconstructions based on characteristics beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. This provides an empty space wide-range evolutionary speculation to use their propaganda.
With the same kind of retouching that evolutionists has been applied to the development Ambulocetus, you can make any animal is like no other. You could even have a monkey skeleton, draw the wings on the back and the membrane between the fingers and present it as the "primate ancestor of whales."
The invalidity of deception carried out on the basis of the fossil Ambulocetus shown in the picture below, based on real paleontological data:
The real Ambulocetus: The legs are real, not the legs, wings, and no networks imaginary between their toes as National Geographic has added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335)
With the publication image of the skeleton of the animal, National Geographic had to take a step back from the touch he has done to the image reconstruction made it seem more like a whale. As the skeleton clearly shows the animal's feet were designed to wear on land. There was no sign of the imaginary webs.
The Myth of the Walk Whale
In fact, there is no evidence that Ambulocetus Pakicetus and are the ancestors of whales. It merely described as "possible ancestors" by evolutionists keen to find an ancestor terrestrial to marine mammals in the light of his theory. There is no evidence linking these creatures to marine mammals that appear in the register fossil in a very similar geological time.
After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, the plan goes to the National Geographic called and fixed marine mammals (whales extinct) species such as Procetus, Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and are now extinct. (We will be playing on this issue later). However, there are considerable anatomical differences between them and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. No matter how much National Geographic sought to reduce to a minimum with a light touch of the brush, when we look at the fossils is clear that they are no "transitional forms linked together:
The column Ambulocetus quadruped mammal vertebral ends at the pelvis and hind legs powerful then extend it. This is typical terrestrial mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right to tail, and no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, believed to have lived about 10 million Ambulocetus years later, has the anatomy final. In other words, is typical of a whale. There is no way Ambulocetus transition from a typical mammalian land, and Basilosaurus, typical of a whale.
Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm, there are small bones independent of it. National Geographic says These legs are vestigial. However, that same magazine mentions that these bones actually had another function. In Basilosaurus, these bones' functioned as guides copulary and [sperm "act] as an anchor for the muscles of the genitals. (6) To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, such as" bodies vestigial "is nothing but prejudice Darwinists.
In conclusion, despite all best efforts of National Geographic, the fact that there are no transitional forms between land and sea mammals, and both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, though unwillingly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence of Mesonychids that leads directly to the whales." (7)
Other scientists accept that animals that publications like National Geographic evolutionists try to present as "walking whale" actually have nothing to do with the whales is true, but are a living group. Although he is an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert GA Mchedlidze 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 the sequences of superficial National Geographic
Visual effects (plans and drawings) play an important role in the imposition of Darwinism on society. However, are sometimes completely unscientific, and other scientific discoveries are interpreted as partially sighted. National Geographic diagram timeline (pages 64-77) of mammals that become increasingly "whale as" over time is an example of these tools can be misleading.
Us so far have been considering small, but adjustments misleading reconstructions of the animals in the diagram. Besides this, the dates attributed to them by the National Geographic have been selected in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are shown as follows each other in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. L. Ashby Campo clarifies the situation, based on paleontological data:
"In the standard system, Inachus Pakicetus is dated to the late Ypresian, But experts acknowledge that may date from the early Lutetian. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is almost, if not, Rodhocetus contemporary, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, Ambulocetus date, which was found in the same formation Pakicetus but higher than 120 meters, should be adjusted upward the same amount Pakicetus. This would make Ambulocetus under Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Protocetus Indocetus and even. "(9)
In summary, there are two different views when National Geographic animals exposed chronologically one after another really lived. If the second opinion is accepted, then Ambulocetus Pakicetus and that National Geographic presents as "the walking whale, are of the same age, or even smaller whale truth. In other words, no "storyline" is possible. National Geographic has totally ignored the problem and only used points of view that correspond to his own thesis. A method of propaganda, not science.
Tales from the ears and noses
Any evolutionary scenario between land and sea mammals has to explain the different ear and nose structures between the two groups. Through colorful graphics used, National Geographic has tried to the impression that the issue has been resolved. However, this impression is false.
Consider first the structure of the ear. Like us, land mammal trap sounds of the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Mammals Marino has no external ear. They hear sounds through vibration sensitive receptors in their lower jaw.
National Geographic says that the second system evolved from the first. This is made clear on page 71 in the diagram labeled "hearing aids. This diagram has been prepared in such a way as to give the reader the impression that hearing organs evolved in several stages. However, there is no evolution in stages here. A look at the language used by the National Geographic will be sufficient to make this clear:
"… This whale walking Pakicetus lacked the fat pad extending to the middle ear that ceteans modern track attributes that had held land. In later whales, jaw, with the fat pad, adapted to receive sounds. "
Already Pakicetus we have seen was a typical land mammal, and it is ridiculous to call it a "walking whale." The logic employed by the National Geographic is no less ridiculous: First, it describes the land-dwelling Pakicetus as a walking whale "and then said that the animal maintains land attributes. That is like calling walking the cow bat 'and then said:' There are wings, keep your earthly attributes. "
This is one aspect of the matter. The aspect that interests us here is the clear difference between Pakicetus and ears of whales. After the National Geographic previous statement, we must naturally look to see if there is a transitional form between the two. After Pakicetus in the family tree comes Ambulocetus, evolutionists call a "walking whale swim ', but actually was a mammal land. National Geographic used the following words about Ambulocetus: "Although it is more natural than Pakicetus, Ambulocetus still heard directly through your ear. "
In other words, there is a move towards whale Ambulocetus ear.
When we reached the third animal in National Geographic list, suddenly facing a huge change. The above excerpt follows: The sounds were transmitted into the middle ear as vibrations Basilosaurus jaw lower.
In other words, Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceives the sounds around you, not through an external ear but by vibrations reaching his jaw. And there is no transitional form between the ear and the Pakicetus Basilosaurus and Ambulocetus, that National Geographic referred to it 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 evolution by stages between a perfect phonetic system for a complete one different is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to listen with your ears, but has not yet developed the ability to hear through its jaw is at a disadvantage.
The question of how "development" could be achieved is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen so unambiguous to add significant new information and genetic information from animals. It is reasonable to suggest that the auditory system in mammals complex sea could have arisen as a result of mutations.
A similar situation applies to the National Geographic account of sliding of the nose. "The magazine identifies three Pakicetus skulls, and a gray whale Rodhocetus of our own time on top of each other and said they represented an evolutionary process. Whereas structures of the three fossils' nasal, especially those of 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 nostrils in the front require a "new design" in the anatomy of the animals in question, and believing this could happen as a result of mutations is not fantasy.
Lamarckian Tales National Geographic
In fact, the National Writers Geographic and most of the evolutionary community share a basic superstition about the origin of living things, and that is the real problem. This superstition is "Magic natural force 'that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes or anatomical features they need. Let us have a look at Some interesting passages from National Geographic article "Evolution of Whales:
"I tried to visualize some of the varieties of ancestors of the whale that was found here and about … As members later declined, so did the hip bones that supported them. That made the column flexible cord to the tail end of development. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body over a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimal resistance, while arms took the form of rudders. Having little need for more ears, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jaws and their transmission to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more agile than previous models and wandered further from the shore. "(10)
On close inspection, this has all the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment in which they live, and this need is perceived as an 'evolutionary mechanism. According to this logic, the fewer bodies needed to disappear, and the necessary organs appear of their own volition!
Nobody with the slightest knowledge of biology knows that our needs is not 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 as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected and in this way species evolve. "However, here is the critical point: What evolutionists call 'the pressure evolution' can not carry living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two known evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation can not provide new organs for animals:
Natural selection can only choose the features that already exist, can not create new ones.
Mutations can not add to genetic information, can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information for the entire genome (and therefore constitutes a new body or new biochemical structure) has been observed ever.
If you look at the myth of the awkwardness of National Geographic whales moving again in the light of this fact, we see that in reality are participation in a primitive Lamarckism. Up close, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "Each whale in the sequence was a bit more agile than the models earlier. "How did this happen a morphological change in a species over generations in a certain direction? For that to happen, representatives of the species in each sequence, "" would have to undergo mutations to shorten the legs, that mutation should cause any harm to animals, mutants therefore should enjoy an advantage over normal, the next generation, 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 all this have to happen by chance and quite smooth.
If the National Geographic writers believe that, then it is also believed that someone who says, "My family enjoys the flight. 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 grow. This will pass from generation to generation and eventually my descendants will have wings and fly. "Both stories are equally ridiculous.
As mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display superstition that the needs of living beings can be met by a magical force of nature. Attributing consciousness of nature, the belief found in cultures animists, it is interesting to get up before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific" cloak. The well-known French biologist Pierre Paul Grasse, the former President of the French Academy of Sciences and a major critic of Darwinism, has once again made it clear that this faith is just daydreaming:
"The timely appearance of mutations permitting 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 fortunate events, appropriate. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur … There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not fall into it. "(11)
More recently, Henry Gee, editor of the science journal Nature and a prominent evolutionist undoubtedly noted the same fact and admitted that explain the origin of an organ by its necessity is as 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 while failing to acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about 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, which are accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to the bodies of those who have had skin. And both are shown as specified in thick skin in National Geographic. However, when we went to the animals after (true marine mammals), all the skins away. The evolutionary explanation this is not different from the fantastic Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above. The truth of the matter is that all the animals in question were designed as most appropriate for your environment. It is irrational to try to explain this design by mutation or type of Lamarck easy stories. Like in all design life, the design in these creatures is evidence of creation.
The scenario of Marine Mammals itself
So far we have considered the scenario evolutionary marine mammals evolved from terrestrial ones. The scientific evidence shows no relationship between the two terrestrial mammals (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) National Geographic that was the beginning of history. What about the rest of the stage? The theory of evolution is again in great difficulty here. The theory seeks to establish a phylogenetic relationship between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), marine mammals known to have become extinct, and whales and dolphins. National Geographic setting out the claim in a very simplified way (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 archaeocetes clear that these could not have been ancestral to any modern whales." (13)
The evolutionary account of the origin of marine mammals faces a huge impasse in the form of discoveries in the field of molecular biology. The classical evolutionist 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. Stresses that this assumption, based on anatomical similarities, is disproved by molecular discoveries:
"Evolutionary relationships among major groups of cetaceans is more problematic, since the analysis morphological and molecular reach very different conclusions. In fact, from the conventional interpretation of morphological and behavioral data established, echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups. … Furthermore, phylogenetic analysis of DNA … and amino acids … sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. A group of toothed whales, the sperm whales appear to be more closely related to 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 assertions paleontologist Hans Thewissen, who assumes a major role in evolutionist propaganda on the subject of the origin of marine mammals, and is one of the most important sources Information from National Geographic, we are not dealing with an evolutionary process backed by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to fit a family tree presupposes the development, despite the many contradictions between the two.
What emerges, if the evidence is looked at more objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently of each other in the past. This is a convincing empirical evidence for accepting that God created all creatures.
Strong evolutionary propaganda about marine mammals, however, the series looks like "horse", once put forward in the same way, but then admitted that evolutionists was invalid. A number of extinct mammals that lived at different times were lined up one after another, and the evolutionary the time tried to impose this as 'strong evidence'. However, the truth emerged over time, and realized was that these animals could not be the ancestors of others, which had emerged in different periods, and in fact extinct species were independent. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum in New York, where "The evolution of 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 plenty of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of] that is life. The most famous example, still exposure on the ground floor is the exhibition on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. This has been presented as literal truth textbook after textbook. Now I think that is regrettable, especially when people who propose these stories may be aware of the speculative nature of some of those things. "(15)
The evolution of whales fairy tale, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, is another of those fantasies of Natural History. As than their predecessors, which will soon 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, 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 for Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
(2) National Geographic, "Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 68
(3) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329
(4) L. Field Ashby, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution, "the establishment, 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) Mchedlidze GA, Features General paleobiological Cetacean Evolution, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: AA Balkema, 1986), 91.
(9) L. Ashby Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution, "the establishment, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May / June 1998
(10) National Geographic "Evolution of Whales", November 2001, p. 69
(11) P-Pierre 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 develop the new history of life, The Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 103
(13) History BJ Stahl, Vertebrate: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., 1985, p. 489.
(14) Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans requests the 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, California, Master Books, 1988), p. 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
