Explore
This article is from
Journal of Creation 37(3):121–127, December 2023

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Whales designed or evolved: part 1—the fossils

by

Darwin suggested that whales might have descended from bear-like creatures, but until the 1980s there was no fossil evidence to support the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals. The discovery of fossil ‘walking whales’ and other ‘archaeocetes’ has resulted in claims that the key steps in the transition, from fully terrestrial animals into obligate marine creatures via a series of amphibious intermediates, have been identified. Advocates of this evolutionary transition support their theories with various lines of evidence. This includes: 1) fossil archaeocetes (ancient whales); 2) hind-limb vestiges in modern whales; and 3) teeth buds and pseudogenes in baleen whales. Examination of the evidence shows that it is not always consistent with the claims and provides no viable theory to explain the appearance of the features which fit whales for life in the sea. An alternative way of handling the evidence is presented that is consistent with a suggested classification of the fossil archaeocetes and extant whales into basic types.

Image: Archibald Thorburn / Public Domainblue whale
Figure 1. Blue whale.

Whales, for example the blue whale shown in figure 1, are marine mammals which are extremely well designed for life in the sea. The list below gives some of the features which make these beautiful creatures so superbly fitted to life in the ocean:

  • streamlined
  • hairless
  • blubber (for insulation)
  • tail fluke (plus muscles and bones) for propulsion
  • flippers for directional control
  • heat exchanger circulatory system
  • blowhole (muscles and nerves)
  • specialized respiratory system (oxygen storage, lung collapse, heart rate suppression)
  • salt elimination system
  • echo location system (toothed whales)
  • baleen (food extraction system)
  • underwater birth and suckling
  • specialized ear morphology.

These features provide considerable evidence of design, yet it has been claimed that “The origin of whales (order Cetacea) is one of the best-documented examples of macroevolutionary change in vertebrates”.1 The fossil evidence which evolutionists point to includes more than 50 species of so-called ‘primitive whales’, which have been assigned to at least five families: Pakicetidae, Ambulocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, Protocetidae, and Basilosauridae.2,3 According to evolutionary biologists, four-legged land creatures evolved all of the above features by the process of random mutations and natural selection over a period of about 10 Ma (million years).

Creation biologists have previously reviewed the evidence and concluded that it did not prove the claims of evolutionists. Woodmorappe, writing in 2002, showed that the evidence available at the time was consistent with design.4 Other more recent publications by creationists have reviewed newer evidence from evolutionists, as it became available, and found it lacking. This review attempts to bring together the currently available fossil evidence and comes to the same conclusion, which is that the evidence does not support evolution. One would expect that creation biologists would all agree, however some creation biologists have suggested that the ancestors of modern whales literally walked off the Ark and evolved into today’s modern whales and presumably dolphins.5,6

This first part of a two-part review will evaluate the reported fossil evidence and assess the validity of the claim that these fossils record the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds to fully marine-adapted creatures with flukes and flippers. The second part will look at some of the key design features which enable whales to live in the sea.

Evolutionary ancestors?

drawing of pakicetus
Figure 2. A drawing of the illustration of Pakicetus on the cover page of Science 220(4595) in which Gingerich et al.8 described Pakicetus.

One of the first reports of a ‘transitional’ fossil, which was claimed to be evidence that whales evolved from land animals, was published in 1981.7 The authors described the partial skull of Pakicetus and were careful to point out that the post-cranial skeleton was unknown.

However, a later article, published in Science,8 was accompanied by an artist’s reconstruction on the front cover of a creature diving into the sea to catch fish (figure 2). It was stated that Pakicetus provides the first direct evidence of an amphibious stage in the evolutionary transition of whales from land to sea. This was later found to be incorrect when more complete fossils were discovered, and it became clear that Pakicetus was fully terrestrial.9

Another important fossil is that of Indohyus (figure 3), which lived in Asia. It was found in rocks described as middle Eocene, which evolutionists believe to be about 47 Ma old.3,10 This was a small artiodactyl (hoofed animal, bearing weight equally on two toes), which is claimed to be closely related to the ancestor of whales because of the morphology of the bones of the middle ear.

Image: Nobu Tamura, Wikimedia / CC BY 3.0 (redrawn by Caleb)reconstruction of iIndohyus
Figure 3. Reconstruction of Indohyus, a small extinct artiodactyl known from fossils which evolutionists believe to be closely related to the ancestor of whales.

The walls surrounding the inner ear cavity of most mammals are of a similar thickness all the way around. However, the internal wall of the inner ear cavity of extant whales is thicker than the external wall. This thickened wall, called the ‘involucrum’, is a distinctive feature shared by all cetaceans (whales and dolphins). The presence of the involucrum in all cetaceans is considered a major apomorphy (a trait which characterizes an ancestral species and its descendants) of cetaceans. Many evolutionists consider the involucrum to be an unequivocal diagnostic character for the cetaceans, including Pakicetus. Luo, writing in 1998, stated that “The involucrum marks the beginning of the development of pachyostosis (massiveness and hypertrophy) and pachyosclerosis (high density and heavy mineralisation) of the tympanic complex in cetaceans.”11 In other words, they have thick, heavy ear bones.

It is also suggested, on the basis of the heavy bones and ratios of oxygen isotopes in the skeleton, that Indohyus was semi-aquatic and this is consistent with the presence of the involucrum, which is believed to be an adaptation to underwater hearing.12

Evolutionary biologists claim that there is a lot of other evidence to support the evolutionary account. For example, websites like that maintained by the University of California, Museum of Paleontology,13 show an ‘evogram’ of a nice series of fossils as evidence that whales evolved from creatures related to Indohyus and Pakicetus. This evogram presents a nice clean series of fossils which look increasingly whale-like as time goes on. There are a number of things which can be said about the information on this web site.

Firstly, and most surprising perhaps, is the statement in the opening paragraph that “In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know.” They refer to hypothetical ‘ancient relatives’. Once again, we find that evolutionists cannot produce any direct fossil ancestors for major groups of animals.

Secondly, they refer to a land creature such as Pakicetus as a whale, which is not a claim based on similar morphology or lifestyle, but only on the thick wall of the middle ear and robust ear bones.

Thirdly, there is a large gap between amphibious creatures like Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus, and the fully marine Dorudon, which has to be filled with some imaginative storytelling.

Finally, they gloss over the fact that there is a large morphological gap between Dorudon and living whales (the odontocetes and mysticetes). Some published information also includes Basilosaurus, which is a bit of a red herring! It was a creature which lived in shallow seas and resembles a giant eel but is not considered to be an ancestor of modern whales. Barbara Jaffe Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, pointed out that “The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.”14

The astragalus

One thing which is shared by some of these four-legged fossil creatures is the shape of one of the ankle bones (the astragalus), which is similar to that of even-toed ungulates (artiodactyla). (Note that Pakicetus had five toes on the front legs and four toes on the back legs.) The ankle bones of Pakicetus, Indohyus, and living artiodactyls (like the deer, pig, and hippo) have a ‘double pully’ astragalus, as shown in figure 4.

Image: Thewissen et al., BioMed Central / CC BY 4.0astragali
Figure 4. Various astragali from Thewissen et al.3

The existence of the double-pulley astragalus in the fossil archaeocetes is one of the reasons that evolutionists consider whales to be related to artiodactyls. However, this conclusion is driven by a prior commitment to common descent. An alternative hypothesis is that this is an example of shared design consistent with a terrestrial lifestyle.

Archeocetes

The archaeocetes are all claimed to be extinct ‘whales’ and include the following families: Pakicetidae, Ambulocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, Protocetidae, and Basilosauridae (which includes Dorudon). Evolutionists often refer to pakicetids and ambulocetids as ‘walking whales’.

Pakicetidae

The best-known pakicetid is Pakicetus inachus (figure 5), which evolutionists believe to be related to the ancestor of whales. It is now known to have been a dog-sized carnivorous quadruped with hooves, living on land.3 It was found in Pakistan in lower Eocene rocks that are claimed to be about 50 Ma.

Image: Nobu Tamura, Wikimedia / CC BY 3.0 (redrawn by Caleb)pakucetus
Figure 5. Pakicetus, a wolf-like creature once claimed to be an amphibious intermediate showing the transition from land to sea, but now known to have been fully terrestrial.

The claim that it is related to the ancestor of whales is based on the thick, bony wall (involucrum) of the middle ear (the auditory bulla) and the relatively heavy, anvil-shaped small bone in the middle ear (incus), which are the only things linking Pakicetus to living cetaceans. The thick wall of the involucrum is thought to be an adaptation to underwater hearing, along with other unique features of the ear of extant whales. Yet almost everyone agrees that Pakicetus lived on land. The question is, why did an animal have ears which were ‘adapted to underwater hearing’ when it was a land creature?

Figure 16 from Ekdale et al.16tympanic bulla
Figure 6. Tympanic bulla of Balaenoptera borealis

Another claim that is still current is that the auditory bulla had a sigmoid process, like that of living whales. However, the feature that was identified as the sigmoid process in Pakicetus is in fact a flat, plate-like ridge.15 The sigmoid process of living whales and dolphins (figure 6) is finger-like and S-shaped (hence sigmoid).

Comparison of these tympanic bullae shows that Pakicetus did not have a sigmoid process. So the idea that Pakicetus was a walking whale is based mostly on the fact that it had an involucrum and robust ear bones. Evolutionists will protest at this and say that Pakicetus also had other characteristics in common with other archaeocetes, like, for example, Ambulocetus and Dorudon. This claim is based on the assumption that these were ancient whales which is questionable since none of these creatures was very whale-like.

Ambulocetidae

There is only one known species of Ambulocetid and that is Ambulocetus natans.17,18 It was found in Pakistan in rocks which evolutionists think are roughly 48 or 47 Ma old. It is almost always shown in a swimming posture, which is odd given that its name means swimming (natans) walking (ambulo) whale (cetus). There is no reason to doubt that it could walk as shown in figure 7.

Image: Marc Surtees (redrawn by Caleb)reconstruction ambulocetus
Figure 7. A reconstruction of Ambulocetus, showing how it could have walked.

The fact that it had a double-pulley astragalus like antelopes and hippos is consistent with an ability to walk on land. Nevertheless, it seems likely that Ambulocetus was amphibious and could probably have moved through water much like an otter, using its powerful hind legs to propel itself.

Protocetidae

This family includes creatures like Maiacetus, Niparajacetus, and Peregocetus, which are all very similar to each other and to Ambulocetus.

Maiacetus was discovered in 2000, and additional material was found in 2004.19 These fossils were recovered from early middle-Eocene rocks in Pakistan, which evolutionists believe to be around 47 Ma old. One specimen is of an adult female and includes the skull and partial skeleton of a single large near-term foetus, which is positioned for a head-first delivery, typical of land mammals. Therefore, this creature must have been able to walk on land. This fact only goes to highlight the huge difference between the amphibious protocetids and Dorudon, which was an obligate aquatic animal.

Dorudon

Dorudon (figure 8) was a fully marine creature with very small ‘hind legs’ of uncertain function which probably did not have a double-pulley astragalus.20 The hind limbs may have functioned as claspers to enable copulation. It has been found in various locations and is claimed to have lived 40 to 34 Ma ago. Evolutionists point to similarities, mainly of the skull and teeth, as evidence that Dorudon evolved from creatures similar to Ambulocetus.

Image: Nobu Tamura, Wikimedia / CC BY 3.0, (redrawn by Caleb)dorudon
Figure 8. Dorudon was a fully marine creature, claimed to be an evolutionary ancestor of living whales.

The shape of the bones at the end of the tail of Dorudon (wider than they are high) is consistent with the presence of a fluke. However, no-one has been able to describe the process for the change to propulsion through the water by a fluke. The fluke appears suddenly in the fossil record. There are no fossils showing the gradual appearance of a fluke. In fact, it is difficult to see how this transition could occur gradually as the creatures would have been unlikely to survive the reduction in the size of the hind limb while the fluke was still developing. Protocetids probably relied on their large, powerful hind legs to propel themselves through the water. It seems likely that the process of natural selection would have caused any possible intermediate with smaller legs to become extinct, since it would have been unable to move as efficiently as its ancestors. There are other problems, since this change would have had to come about at the same time as the creature adapted to a fully marine lifestyle, with the ability to cope with the salt from the sea, underwater hearing, giving birth and suckling underwater, to name but a few of the features required for life in the sea.

All these things illustrate the huge difference between Pakicetus and Dorudon, yet evolutionists believe that the change could have occurred in less than 10 Ma. This seems hardly credible when compared with the belief that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor in about 5 Ma. There is not enough time for all the new features required to change the hypothetical common ancestor of Pakicetus and Dorudon into a creature like Dorudon, which appears well designed for life in the sea, especially when one considers that the supposed evolution of humans did not require any completely new features. Not only is there a huge gap between the protocetids and Dorudon, there is also an enormous gap between a creature like Dorudon (shown above) and a modern cetacean like the dolphin (figure 9).

Image: David Mark, Pixabay / CC0dolphin
Figure 9. Dolphin.

The shape of the head of Dorudon was unlike living cetaceans. Dorudon had a long, narrow snout. Its teeth were heterodont (teeth of different sizes and shapes) and included incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. The largest cheek teeth of Dorudon were triangular, blade-like, had two widely separated roots, and had serrated crowns. Living odontocetes have teeth with a single root and typically have only a single cusp. Their teeth are all a similar shape (homodont).

The so-called walking whales had nostrils which, even though they were in some cases set back on the snout, are clearly nostrils and have no resemblance to a blowhole. It should be noted that a blowhole involves more than simply moving the nostrils to the top of the head. There is a complex network of nerve endings located in the region of the blowhole. These nerves end with pressure sensors, so the animal knows when its blowhole is clear of the water, and it is safe to breathe. Furthermore, the airways connecting the blowhole to the windpipe follow a different route from that in terrestrial mammals. The major difference is that the airways from the nostrils and the mouth do not connect, so a dolphin cannot breathe through its mouth.

Any evolutionary account must explain how these differences originated through the process of random mutation and natural selection in less than 10 Ma.

Missing fossils

The fact that there are no fossils of the extant (modern) whales in rocks considered by creationist geologists to have been laid down during or shortly after the Flood has been suggested to be a problem for creation biologists. According to the traditional reading of Scripture, the archaeocetes and extant whales would have co-existed in the pre-Flood oceans and therefore should have been fossilized together. So the argument goes that the fact that extant whale fossils are never found with the archaeocetes shows that they must have evolved later. However, this argument is weak because there are many cases of creatures which are alive today yet are missing from large parts of the geological column.

Discussion

Having reviewed the fossil evidence, it seems that the evolutionary origin of whales is not proven. The claim that the fossils reviewed above are an example of macroevolutionary change and the suggestion that the ancestors of whales walked off Noah’s Ark can both be rejected. It is important to note that the evidence is focused primarily on the anatomical features of the skeletons of the supposed ancestors of extant whales. The proposed evolutionary transition might appear to be more plausible when only the skeleton is considered. However, this overlooks the biggest challenge, which is the origin of the integrated systems which enable life in the sea (this will be discussed in part two).

Nevertheless, the fossil ‘archaeocetes’ are presented as evidence of an evolutionary transition from fully terrestrial to fully marine creatures. It is believed that the ancestor of whales was some sort of artiodactyl (even-toed hoofed animals, like pig, deer, and hippopotamus). Currently evolutionists consider that Indohyus, a semi-aquatic artiodactyl, is closely related to the ancestor of whales. However, it is important to emphasize that the evidence does not provide a series of credible transitional fossils. The only feature which links Indohyus to whales is the involucrum (the thickened bony wall of the middle ear), although some have even disputed the existence of the involucrum in Indohyus.21 Nevertheless, there were other creatures (for example Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Maiacetus) which evolutionists claim are ancestors of whales because of the involucrum, which is believed to be an adaptation to underwater hearing.12 Sharing this solitary feature with whales scarcely justifies the confidence of evolutionists that whales evolved from these walking animals. The evolutionary theory is further weakened by the fact that another semi-aquatic artiodactyl, the hippopotamus, does not have an involucrum; neither do beavers nor otters, which are semi-aquatic.

Another part of the evolutionary account is the fact that fossils like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Maiacetus have ankle bones with a double-pulley astragalus (ankle bone). This is a feature shared with artiodactyls. Therefore, these extinct creatures are considered to be artiodactyls because of the double-pulley astragalus and whales because of the involucrum. Of course, living whales do not have ankles, so the only things that link them to the so-called archaeocetes are the thickened ear bones and the involucrum of the auditory bulla.

Dorudon is also considered to be closely related to an ancestor of whales. This creature lived in the sea and had very small hind limbs and possibly a double-pulley astragalus. This and other features of the skeleton and teeth are seen as evidence that creatures like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Maiacetus were ancestors of Dorudon. However, there is a massive difference between Dorudon and living whales.

It is clear that an alternative interpretation is needed. There was a group of extinct creatures which were paddle swimmers; Ambulocetus is a good example. These creatures appear to have been amphibious and would also have been able to walk on land. However, Pakicetus is considered by many to have been fully terrestrial, although one expert on whale evolution (Philip Gingerich) considers this reconstruction to be erroneous because it is based on bones of a terrestrial creature that have been incorrectly referred to as Pakicetus.22 According to Gingerich, Pakicetus was very similar to Ambulocetus. If Pakicetus was indeed more similar to these amphibious creatures, then its status as a morphological intermediate, linking land animals to the paddle-swimming creatures, is less obvious.

From the point of view of creation biology, there appear to have been three different kinds of extinct creatures which had an involucrum. Terrestrial creatures like Indohyus, which may have been amphibious, the amphibious paddle swimmers, like Ambulocetus (and also, according to Gingerich, Pakicetus) and fully marine creatures like Dorudon, which, like Basilosaurus, had very small hind limbs of uncertain function, thought by many to be reproductive claspers. The morphological differences between these groups are considerable, and the belief that they represent a series of transitional fossils is because of an a priori commitment to evolution. There is an especially large gap between extant whales and creatures like Dorudon.

A creation biologist would consider that the fossil evidence is consistent with the concept of distinct basic types or created kinds, specifically designed for life in different environments. Some experts in the science of baraminology (the study of created kinds) have studied whale baraminology. There is evidence for at least five baramins: baleen whales, beaked whales, sperm whales, other toothed whales, and the archaeocetes.23 A study of baleen whales suggests that there are at least three baramins of baleen whales.24

Conclusion

Given the evidence reviewed here, the evolutionary account of the origin of modern whales appears to be unsupported. The fossils which are claimed to be closely related to the ancestors of whales belong to three distinct groups of extinct animals defined as follows:

  • terrestrial creatures with an involucrum (e.g. Indohyus and Pakicetus)
  • amphibious paddle swimmers with an involucrum and double-pulley astragalus (e.g. Ambulocetus, Maiacetus, and similar creatures)
  • toothed marine creatures with small hind limbs that possibly functioned as claspers (e.g. Dorudon, and Basilosaurus).

Each of these extinct groups appears to have had a unique set of features and was designed for a specific lifestyle; terrestrial, amphibious, or marine.

Today there are at least three ‘families’ of extant whales; the mysticetes (baleen whales) and two families of odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins). Future research could be directed to further defining the various basic types or baramins of extant whales and the so called archaeocetes.

Posted on homepage: 17 June 2025

References and notes

  1. Nummela, S., Thewissen, J., Bajpai, S. et al., Eocene evolution of whale hearing, Nature 430(7001):776–778, 2004. Return to text.
  2. Gatesy, J., Geisler, J.H., Chang, J. et al., A phylogenetic blueprint for a modern whale, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 66(2):479–506, 2013. Return to text.
  3. Thewissen, J., Cooper, L., George, J., and Bajpai, S., From land to water: the origin of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, Evolution: Education and Outreach 2:272–288, 2009. Return to text.
  4. Woodmorappe, J., Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? J. Creation 16(1):111–119, 2002. Return to text.
  5. Wise, K.P., Mammal kinds—how many were on the Ark? in: Wood, T.C. and Garner, P. (Eds.), Genesis Kinds: Creationism and the origin of species, Wipf & Stock, Eugene, OR, p. 143, 2009. Return to text.
  6. Transitional fossils—the top ten, earthhistory.org.uk, accessed 2 May 2023. Return to text.
  7. Gingerich, P.D., and Russell, D.E., Pakicetus inachus, a new archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the early-middle Eocene Kuldana Formation of Kohat (Pakistan), Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, the Museum of Michigan 25(11):235–246, 1981. Return to text.
  8. Gingerich, P.D., Wells, N., Russell, D., and Shah, S., Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science 220(4595):403–406, 1983. Return to text.
  9. Thewissen, J., Williams, E., Roe, L., and Hussain, S., Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413(6853):277–281, 2001. Return to text.
  10. Luo, Z., Homology and transformation of cetacean ectotympanic structures. The emergence of whales, Advances in Vertebrate Paleobiology 1:269–301, 1998. Return to text.
  11. Thewissen, J., Cooper, L., Clementz, M., Bajpai, S., and Tiwari, B., Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India, Nature 450(7173):1190–1194, 2007. Return to text.
  12. Luo, Z., and Gingerich, P.D., Terrestrial Mesonychia to aquatic Cetacea, The University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology 31:1–98, 1999. Return to text.
  13. The evolution of whales—Understanding evolution, berkeley.edu, accessed 4 May 2023. Return to text.
  14. Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in evolution, McGraw-Hill, p. 489, 1974, Return to text.
  15. Nummela, S., Hussain, S., and Thewissen, J., Cranial anatomy of Pakicetidae (Cetacea, Mammalia), J. Vertebrate Paleontology 26(3):746–759, 2006. Return to text.
  16. Ekdale, E., Berta, A., and Demere, T., The comparative osteology of the petrotympanic complex (ear region) of extant baleen whales (Cetacea: Mysticeti), PloS One 6(6), p. e21311, 2011. Return to text.
  17. Thewissen, J., Madar, S., and Hussain, S., Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetacean (Mammalia) from Pakistan, Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 191:1–86, 1996. Return to text.
  18. Madar, S., Thewissen, J., and Hussain, S., Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales, J. Vertebrate Paleontology 22(2):405–422, 2002. Return to text.
  19. Gingerich, P.D., Ul-Haq, M., von Koenigswald, W. et al., New protocetid whale from the middle Eocene of Pakistan: birth on land, precocial development, and sexual dimorphism, PLoS One 4(2), p. e4366, 2009. Return to text.
  20. Uhen, M., Form, function, and anatomy of Dorudon atrox (Mammalia, Cetacea): an archaeocete from the middle to late Eocene of Egypt, Univ. Michigan Pap. Paleontol. 34:1–222, 2004. Return to text.
  21. Werner, C., Evolution: The grand experiment, New Leaf Press, pp. 270, 273, 2014. Return to text.
  22. Gingerich, P.D., Evolution of whales from land to sea, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 156(3):309–323, 2012. Return to text.
  23. Mace, S. and Wood, T.C., Statistical evidence for five whale holobaramins (Mammalia: Cetacea), Occasional Papers of the BSG 5(15):2005. Return to text.
  24. Wood, T.C., Fears, G., and Doran, N.A., A baraminological analysis of fossil mysticetes, J. Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences 10:7–8, 2020. Return to text.

Related Articles

Further Reading

Helpful Resources