National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific journal that the search all over the world and share the results with his readers. The magazine is an important source of information in many important fields, but few readers are aware of the extent to which it transmits this information through an ideology of “filter” before it to his readers, and sometimes even the turns of the data by these ideology is totally imaginary stories and necessary.

The ideology in question to National Geographic is a mixture of philosophical naturalism and the current brand of evolutionism, known as neo-Darwinism. On behalf of the defense of this theory is usually biased discovery, and even opens the door to scientific falsehoods. For example, there was the falsehood Archaeoraptor Fossil, the National Geographic in 1998 as an infallible proof that birds developed from dinosaurs presented, but which later have been as “hand made”.

Even scientists who support the critical theory of blind propaganda magazine that gate. According to Dr. Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, has reached its lowest level ever National Geographic for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. “(1)

An instance of National Geographic evolutionist propaganda “sensational, baseless and popular press was their” published Whale Evolution “article in the November 2001 edition. The paper argues that a number of discoveries of fossils of the theory have been shown the evolution of whales, and even paleontologist Hans Thewissen quoted as arguing that whales were one of the best examples of evolution. The images, reconstructions and illustrations of the entire 14-page article to visually reinforce the same request in the minds of readers.

But the “whale evolution” scenario, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, was and is nothing but a myth without any scientific evidence.

The Parade of the reconstructions on pages 66-69 in the National Geographic magazine of November 2001 a summary of the request of the magazine about the origin of whales. A number of creatures were successively fed, and described as transitional forms in the evolution of whales. According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to geological periods in which they lived, was as follows:

* Pakicetus (50,000,000 years old)

* Ambulocetus (49 million years old)

* Extinct whale (46500000 years)

* Procetus (45 million years old)

* Kutchicetus (43-46 million years)

* Durodon (37 million years old)

* Basilosaurus (37 million years old)

* Aeticetus (24-26 million years)

National Geographic list continues, but included the familiar categories of dolphins and whales.

There are some very misleading in this list. Consider the most fundamental of these. According to National Geographic, the first two creatures in the list, and Pakicetus Ambulocetus were “walking whale,” at once again the thesis that these were two creatures on Earth, “whales” is entirely fictional, even ridiculous. Br
/>
Let us first Pakicetus.

inachus Pakicetus: A four-legged friends

Forced the ancestors of whales are

Fossil remains of extinct mammal inachus Pakicetus to give it its proper name, for the first time on the agenda in 1983. PD Gingerich and his assistants, who found the fossil, had no hesitation immediately that it was asking a “primitive whale,” although they actually do, is a skull.

Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. His skeleton was found to be a structure with four legs, similar to the common wolf. It was in a region rich in iron ore and found fossils of terrestrial creatures such as snails, turtles and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a layer of the earth, not water.

Why then a four-legged inhabitants of the earth as a “primitive whale” announced and why is it always gives as such by the National Geographic Magazine the following response:

What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? subtle signals in combination-the arrangement of the cups on the back teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the bones in the skull that is missing in other land mammals, but the signature of the Eocene whales later. (2)

In other words, on the basis of information provided in the ear, teeth and bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this four-legged friends, inhabit the land of the wolf as a “walking whale.” Only a reconstruction of the evolutionary view Pakicetus illustrator Carl Buell prove the absurdity by the appointment of a “walking whale”.

Distortions in the reconstruction of National Geographic

Paleontologists believe that a four-legged mammal was Pakicetus. The skeleton on the left, published in the journal Nature makes clear. Thus, the reconstruction Pakicetus (below left) by Carl Buell, which is based on this structure, realistic.

National Geographic chose, but a picture of Pakicetus a “pool” used (see below), represent the animal as a “walking whale” and this image on its readers to impose. Inconsistencies in image appear inclined Pakicetus more “whale-like, are immediately obvious: The animal in the situation has been shown to” pool “. Are your hind legs under backward strain and pressure of the” flippers “where we used

Reconstruction Pakicetus National Geographic

The properties of the information provided by the National Geographic discussed, “the provision of sections in the molar, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the bones in the skull” are evidence on which a conclusive link between the whale and Pakicetus

As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing “subtle signals in combination, some of these features are actually found some land animals.

None of the material in question is evidence of a developing relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships are built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals completely implausible. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had appeared to both for a longer period, there is no doubt that evolutionists represent the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. We know that these two different animals, although remarkably similar in their anatomy, are very far apart in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact, shows the similarity common design rather than common ancestry.) Pakicetus, National Geographic, which reported a “walking whale”, a unique species with different characteristics in their bodies. In fact, describes Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, the family that should be Mesonyziden Pakicetus member, as “a strange combination of characters.” accept (3) These eminent evolutionists that Gould “mosaic creatures” can not this type are seen as transitional forms.

In short, describes Pakicetus, which is clearly an inhabitant of the earth, “walking whale” as simply the structural characteristics in their ear bones and molar teeth, is no other example of the tradition of National Geographic “sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. In his article “The evolution of the whale,” says the creationist author Ashby L. Camp, the total inability of the claim that the class Mesonyziden should include land mammals

: missing Pakicetus how the ancestors of whales or Archaeoceti these conditions were
“The reason to believe evolutionists that led Mesonyziden to archaeocetes, despite the impossibility of all types in the line now is that Mesonyziden known archaeocetes and will have some similarities. These similarities are not sufficiently plead the cause of the decline, particularly in view of the significant differences. The subjective nature of these comparisons is apparent that many groups of mammals and even reptiles as the ancestors of whales have been proposed. “(4)

Ambulocetus natans: A whale False /> “webs”
The second fossil creature after Pakicetus imaginary sequence in National Geographic is Ambulocetus natans. This fossil is the world’s attention was in 1984, in an article in the journal Science. It is actually a country already in existence at the evolutionists out to “turn left into a whale.”

The name comes from Ambulocetus natans “ambulare” the Latin words (on foot), Cetus (whale) and “natans (swimming), and means” a whale, walking and swimming. “It is obvious that the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even large claws on the feet and hooves on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists’ prejudice, but there is absolutely no basis for the claim that he swam in the water, or has lived on land and in water (like an amphibian).

To see, to think the line between science and imagination, about it, we take a look at the reconstruction of the National Geographic Ambulocetus. It is described in the journal:

little manipulation of National Geographic: imaginary bands added to claw back legs and made look like fins

.
If you look closely you can see easily, two small visual manipulations, which were to “turn the Ambulocetus life on earth in a Wal

Hind legs of the animal must not stand that would help him walk presents, but to help as fins, they swim. But Carroll, which studies the leg bones of the animal, said he had the ability to move forcefully on the floor. (5)

To get a feel for the adjustment of water, the band has drawn on his front paws. But it is impossible to draw such a conclusion from a study of fossils Ambulocetus. In the fossil record, it is almost impossible to find soft tissue like this. While reconstructions are based on characteristics other than the skeleton is still speculative. Which offers a large empty space of evolutionary speculation about its propaganda to use tools.

With the same kind of evolutionary Ambulocetus retouching the drawing was used, it is possible to make all look like other animals. You can even a monkey skeleton, the fins on the back and pull the webbing between his fingers and places it as the primate ancestor of whales.

The nullity of the deception carried out on the basis of fossil Ambulocetus in the drawing can be seen below, based on real data paleontological

The actual Ambulocetus: The legs are real legs, not “Flipper”, and there is no imaginary band between his toes like National Geographic. (Photo: Carroll, patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, p. 335)

With the publication of photos of the skeleton of the animal, National Geographic had a step back from the contact he made in the image reconstruction more like a whale had been released. As the skeleton shows that animals were created at the feet to be worn on the earth. There was no sign of the imaginary band.

The myth of the whale,

walks
In fact, there is no evidence that Pakicetus Ambulocetus and the ancestors of whales. They are described simply as ancestors “of the evolutionists, who want a terrestrial ancestor of mammals found in the light of their theory. There is no evidence that these creatures with marine mammals, in the fossils emerging at a very similar geological.

After Pakicetus Ambulocetus and the National Geographic map moves on marine mammals known and fixed (extinct whale) species such as Procetus and Archaeoceti extinct whale. The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and now missing. (We discuss this later). However, there are anatomical differences between them and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. No matter how National Geographic has tried the light touch of the brush, if you minimize look at the fossils, it is clear they are not “transitional forms” linking each other:

The backbone of the four-legged mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis and strong hind legs, then go from that point. This is typical land mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the spine down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus, to some 10 million years have lived under Ambulocetus, it has the anatomy. In other words, this is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal and Basilosaurus, a typical whale.
Under the backbone of the Basilosaurus and sperm whales, there are independent small bones. National Geographic claims to these remnants of the legs. But the same magazine states that this bone is a different function. In Basilosaurus these bones’ functioned as the leader of copulatory organ and sperm [act] as for the muscles of the genitals anchor. (6) To these bones that are actually important functions, such as “describe rudimentary organs” nothing but prejudice Darwinist.

As a result, despite the efforts of National Geographic, the fact that it did not change were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals, and both with their own characteristics. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll agrees, but reluctantly and in evolutionist language: “It is not possible to identify a sequence Mesonyziden leading directly to the whale.” (7)
Other scientists agree that animals, publications like National Geographic have evolutionists describe as “walking whale, in fact, try anything with real whales do, but are a group of separate living. Although an evolutionist, the famous Russian whale expert GA Mchedlidze not support the description of the Pakicetus Ambulocetus natans and other four-legged friends as the ancestors of whales and described rather as a completely isolated group. (8)

Problems with National Geographic footage superficial

Visual Effects (plans and drawings) play an important role in the introduction of Darwinism on society. However, it is sometimes completely unscientific, and other scientific findings in a biased way be interpreted. National Geographic chart time scale (pages 64-77) of mammals, more and more “whale-like over time is an example of these tools is deceptive.

So far we have little, but since adjustments for misleading re-enactments of animals in the chart. Meanwhile, the dates were given to them selected by the National Geographic on Darwinian prejudices. The animals are represented as follows in a different geological line, whereas these are questionable. Ashby L. Camp clarifies the situation on paleontological data:

“The standard of inachus Pakicetus Ypresian end, but many experts agree that there may be up to the early Lutetian. If the younger date (early Lutetian), then accepted Pakicetus is almost, if not contemporary extinct whale from a fossil another lutetium education in Pakistan. In addition, the date of Ambulocetus that was in the same training as Pakicetus but found 120 feet higher, to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. This would Ambulocetus extinct whale that young and even younger and Indocetus Protocetus. “(9)

In short, there are two different visions of animals if the National Geographic presents chronological succession actually lived. If the second view is accepted, then Pakicetus Ambulocetus and that National Geographic “the walking whale,” are the same age or even younger than true whales. possible, in other words, no “line of development. National Geographic has completely ignored the problem and are only used, views, his own theories match. This is a method of propaganda, not science.

Stories of ears and nose

Each scenario of the evolution of land mammals and sea shall declare the ear and different structures of the nose between the two groups. Used with flashy graphics, National Geographic has tried to give the impression that the problem was fixed. However, this impression is incorrect.

Consider first the structure of the ear. As we land mammals loop noise in the outside world into the outer ear, they strengthen the bones of the middle ear and turn signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaw.

National Geographic claims that the second system developed from the first. This appears on page 71 in the table entitled “hearing aids. This system has in a way that the reader the impression that the organs of hearing has developed in stages has been developed. However, there is no change in stages here. A glance the text used by the National Geographic enough to make it clear:

“… This Pakicetus walking whale fat pad was missing on the extension of the middle ear ceteans state, an indication that he kept the country in the Internet was. In the recent whale, jaw adapted to the fat pad, to receive sounds. “

We have already seen that a typical Pakicetus was land mammal, and it is ridiculous to call it one of the logic of the National Geographic used no less ridiculous “walking whale.” Is: First, it describes the Pakicetus life on Earth ” walking whale, “he said then, that of land animals. It’s like calling a cow bat go, “and then say:” It has no wings, it keeps his country on

.
This aspect of the matter. The aspect that interests us here is the net difference between Pakicetus and ears of the whales. According to the National Geographic excerpt above, we must look, of course, if there is a transitional form between the two. After the tree is Pakicetus Ambulocetus, evolutionists call “swimming-walking whale,” but was actually a land mammal. National Geographic used the following words about Ambulocetus: “Although more than aquatic Pakicetus, Ambulocetus heard just above the ear.”

In other words, there is no development in the direction of a whale in the ear Ambulocetus.

When we reach the third animal in the list of National Geographic, we have suddenly taken a big change. The above passage continues: The sounds were the middle ear Basilosaurus vibrations of the mandible

transferred.
In other words, Basilosaurus has a typical whale ear. He was seen a creature sounds around it not through outer ear but by vibrations reaching the jaw. And there is no transitional form between the ear and the Basilosaurus Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, National Geographic, which his regime were submitted.

If the topic is discussed in theory, you can see that in such cases, a transitional form would have no chance to survive. Any change in phase of a sound system is for a different impossible perfect. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal, which gradually loses its ability to hear with their ears, but not the ability to hear through its jaw developed is a disadvantage.

The question of how such “development” could occur is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and have never been to new information clear and meaningful genetic information from animals. It is unreasonable to point out that the complex could be seen hearing for marine mammals as a consequence of mutations.

A similar situation is pushing for the National Geographic account of the “nose. The magazine has set three skulls Pakicetus, extinct whale and gray whale in our own time over the other and said they represented an evolutionary process. While the three fossils nasal structures, especially the extinct whale and gray whales are so different that it is impossible to accept them as transitional forms from the same series.

In addition, the movement of the nostrils on the front, there should be a “new concept” of the anatomy of the animals in question, and believe it could happen as a result of mutations nothing but fantasy.

Lamarckian Tales National Geographic

In fact, the authors from National Geographic and many from the community of evolutionary superstition about the origin of living things is based, and who is the real problem. This superstition is the magic of the “force of nature” that the organisms, organs, biological changes or anatomical features that they need to purchase. Let’s take a look at some interesting passages in the National Geographic article Evolution of Whales “

“I’ve tried some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and in the area … Then visualize the hind legs down, as the hip bone that support them. This is the spine more flexible on the tail fin development. The neck shortened, turning the front end of the body over a tubular body through the water with minimal drag plow, while the arms were in the form of rudder. Needing little ear longer, some whales waterborne sounds which are directly on their lower jaw and forward them to the inner ear with special blocks of fat. Each whale in the episode was a bit lighter than previous models and moved from the coast. “(10)

Pay close attention, in this account no evolutionist mentality says that living things according to the changing needs of the changing environment in which they live, and this need is perceived as an “evolutionary mechanism”. By this logic, less needed organs disappear, and means appear by itself!

Anyone who knowing the slightest knowledge of biology, that our needs are not shaped by our bodies. Since Lamarck’s theory of the transmission of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words, for a century or more, this was a known fact. But if you look evolutionist publications, they seem to think, still along the lines of Lamarck. If you object, they say, “No, we do not believe in Lamarck What we say is that developing the natural conditions of pressure on the evolution of living beings, and that will be selected as a result of this, appropriate characteristics, and thus species.. But it is the essential point. What evolutionists call the “evolutionary pressure” not to acquire new properties on living organisms to perform according to their needs because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms involved alleged that the pressure response, natural selection and mutation, can No new organs for animals:

Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it can not create new ones.

Mutations can not add to genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information about the genome (and thus forms a new job or new biochemical structure) has been observed before.

When you click the myth of the awkward moves National Geographic whales again in the light of this, look, we see that they actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. Look carefully, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick “visualizes” that “Each whale in the episode was a bit lighter than previous models.” How could a morphological change in a species from generation to generation in a particular direction? To make this go through, representatives of this species in every “sequence” would need mutations to their legs, that the mutation causing the animals no harm would shorten, would these mutants therefore enjoy an advantage over normal, the next generations, from a large random , the same mutation in the same place would be in his genes, which carry unchanged, would suffer for many generations, all this should not occur by chance and more open to criticism.

If the authors believe that National Geographic, then you must also believe that someone who says. Loves “My family is flying to My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers under his arm developed my little son. grow through the same mutation and the springs. It will go from generation to generation, and eventually my descendants will have wings and can fly. “Both stories are equally ridiculous.

As we mentioned above, see the evolutionists the superstition that the needs of living things by a magical force can be met in nature. The assignment of the consciousness of nature encountered, a belief in animist cultures, is of interest rising before our eyes in the 21st Century under a “scientific” cloak. The famous French biologist Pierre-Paul Grasse, past president of the French Academy of Sciences and especially critics of Darwinism, has once clearly the belief that only dream of:

“The occurrence of mutations allow animals and plants seem to respond to their needs to believe, but the Darwinian theory is even more demanding A plant would require an animal thousands and thousands of happy, activities where appropriate miracles are the norm. With events indefinitely. low probability could not fail to occur … There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. ” (11)

Recently emphasized Henry Gee, chief editor of the journal Nature, evolutionary undoubtedly important, has admitted that the explanation of the origin of an organ by its necessity, as when one says,

… Our noses were made to wear spectacles, so we have spectacles.

…

Conclusion