This article is from
Journal of Creation 38(1):104–109, April 2024

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Whales designed or evolved: part 2—anatomy and genetics

by Marc Surtees

Darwin suggested that whales might have descended from bear-like creatures. However, until the 1980s there was no fossil evidence to support the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals. In the last few decades, paleontologists have discovered fossil ‘walking whales’ and other ‘archaeocetes’. They have been claimed to be the key steps in the transition from fully terrestrial into obligate marine animals. Advocates of this evolutionary transition support their theories with various lines of evidence. These include: (i) fossil archaeocetes (ancient whales); (ii) hind-limb vestiges in modern whales, and (iii) teeth buds and pseudogenes in baleen whales.

 Image: Archibald Thorburn / PD

The fossil evidence was reviewed in part one of this article. This second part examines some anatomical genetic evidence and design features for which there is no adequate evolutionary explanation. There are no viable evolutionary theories to explain the appearance of the features which fit whales for life in the sea. Therefore, the biological evidence is consistent with the design hypothesis.

---

Whales, for example the blue whale (figure 1), are marine mammals which are extremely well designed for life in the sea. Some of the features which make these beautiful creatures so superbly fitted to life in the ocean include:

• streamlining
• hairlessness
• 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
• echolocation system (toothed whales)
• baleen (food extraction system)
• underwater birth and suckling
• specialized ear morphology.

These features provide considerable evidence of design. However, evolutionists claim, “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 was evaluated previously.² This article focuses on the design features that are a major challenge to evolutionary claims that terrestrial quadrupeds evolved into fully marine-adapted creatures with flukes and flippers.

Living whales are of two types: those with teeth and those with baleen. These are very different, yet according to evolutionists, the baleen whales (mysticetes) and toothed whales and dolphins (odontocetes) we see today evolved from a common ancestor with teeth, something like Dorudon (figure 2) a so-called ancient whale.

Image: Nobu Tamura, Wikimedia / CC BY 3.0, (redrawn by Caleb)

Echolocation

Dolphins, porpoises, and toothed whales (i.e., odontocetes) all have an echolocation system made up of various parts (figure 3). They all work together to enable these creatures to effectively ‘see’ using sound. The echolocation system of odontocetes is possibly the most significant difference between them and other mammals, apart from bats. However, the bats’ system differs remarkably from that in odontocetes—although evolutionists believe “200 genes had independently changed in the same ways.”³ This is a huge problem for evolution, because these common genes are homoplastic. That is, there is no possible way they came from a common echolocating ancestor.⁴

Image: Marc Surtees

The dolphin’s echolocation system has features found only in these creatures, which enable them to locate things in the water, including a double-beam system.^5,6 The components of the echolocation system, or biosonar system, can be thought of as three subsystems: sound production, projection, and signal detection.

All whales have a blowhole through which they breathe. In odontocetes, the blowhole is a part of a complex sound production system which allows these creatures to produce sounds which are used to echolocate. The blowhole is not connected to the buccal cavity (the inside of the mouth). Instead, it leads to a number of airsacs which have a vital role in the echolocation system.

Air from the blowhole passes through this system of air sacs, allowing air to be moved across ‘phonic lips’ to produce sounds, which the dolphin uses for echolocation. The airsacs mean that the dolphin can generate sound within a closed system underwater while the blowhole is shut. This is unique to cetaceans, since all other animals can only produce sound by breathing in or out, which is not possible while underwater. The odontocetes have two pairs of phonic lips which research suggests can produce different frequencies of clicks, simultaneously.

The melon in the forehead is filled with lipids (fats) that have about the same density as sea water, which is essential for effective functioning of the system. If the fat was a different density, the sound waves would be refracted, which would make directing the sound waves more difficult. However, the melon contains various lipids with different ultrasound refractive indices, in the right sequence so the melon acts as an ultrasound lens. The lipids are different from blubber lipids, and are made by different and complex enzyme pathways.⁷

Thus, the melon organ projects the sounds, and dolphins can change the shape of the melon to focus and direct the sounds. The presence or absence of the melon in extinct odontocetes is obvious from the shape of the skull, which has a large indentation to accommodate it. The complexity and functioning of the dolphin’s amazing system for producing sound beams far exceeds any human-designed sonar.⁸

The sound collection part of the echolocation system is in the lower jaw. Incoming sound is transmitted through the jaw via the fat-filled acoustic window (which is similar to the melon) to the middle ear. The auditory nerve transfers the signal from the middle ear to a specialized area of the brain which processes the signals and interprets them into a ‘soundscape’.

The echolocation system is so well designed that the dolphin can sense the density of objects, as well as discriminate between objects of differing compositions. The echolocation clicks can even penetrate soft structures like sand to detect objects buried there.

There is no evidence-based evolutionary explanation for the origin of the various unique components of this biosonar system through a process of random mutation and natural selection. Even the earliest fossils of echolocating cetaceans show that the echolocating system is fully formed—the same applies to bats.

Baleen

Baleen (figure 4), the filter system used to capture small creatures such as krill, is another example of an optimally designed system for which there is no evolutionary explanation. That fact notwithstanding, evolutionists have tried to explain the origin of baleen by mutation and natural selection, but the story is rather confusing.

Image: PeakPX.com | CC0

Back in 2008 there was a report of a creature called Aetioceus weltoni, which was described as a toothed mysticete,⁹ whereas a mysticete is, by definition, toothless. This creature is believed, by evolutionists, to have lived about 26 Ma ago. The skull resembles that of a creature like Dorudon, but it is claimed to be a mysticete. The reasons for the claim are features of the skull and fine details of openings and channels in the skull. Although they are much smaller than those found in mysticetes, they are believed to be homologous with similar features found in living mysticetes. The authors imagine that this creature had both teeth and baleen, which seems highly unlikely from a functional point of view.

Intermediate lacking both teeth and baleen?

More recently, the evolutionary story appears to have changed, as shown by a report published in 2018, of Maiabalaena, which is described as the ‘sucking whale’.¹⁰ This creature was supposed to have lived about 30 Ma ago and we are assured that this is a stage in the evolution of baleen. It had neither teeth nor baleen; instead, it apparently sucked in its food. Maiabalaena is presented as evidence that whales went through a toothless stage before evolving baleen.

At the same time, the authors wrote of their surprise at this intermediate stage between modern filter-feeding whales and their toothed ancestors. We are told that even though this was an efficient suction feeder, it was an intermediate between toothed whales and baleen whales.

This story is perhaps more convincing than the idea that there was a stage with both teeth and baleen. Indeed, the authors wrote, “Previous hypotheses for the origin of baleen have attempted to infer the presence of baleen in fossils from osteological correlates.” They then go on to explain why these theories are inadequate, writing:

“In crown mysticetes, deep palatal sulci on the ventral surfaces of the maxillae accommodate structures that innervate and vascularize the tissue overlying the baleen; identical sulci are absent in stem mysticetes, although much smaller foramina in the same area have been proposed as homologs, concurrent with the presence of multicusped, adult teeth on the lateral margins. However, these foramina are not present in all taxa within the relevant clades, and they differ from the sulci of baleen-bearing mysticetes in size, orientation, and overall morphology. Moreover, similar foramina have been described in the basilosaurid Dorudon atrox.”

However, we are assured that a suction feeder evolved baleen, without any evidence showing that this happened, or how.

Other claimed supporting evidence is that baleen whale embryos have ‘tooth buds’, which proves that they evolved from whales with teeth. These ‘tooth buds’ appear at an early stage and are ‘resorbed’ and replaced with baleen.¹¹

There are, however, problems with this story. One might imagine that if one looked at the jaw of the embryo one would see little tooth buds in the embryo jaw, which later disappear to be replaced by baleen. But this is not what you see. The ‘buds’ are not like that at all. They appear as areas inside the jaw which can be distinguished from the surrounding tissues using histological stains.

They do have some features in common with teeth at an early stage of development. This could be because teeth and baleen share common developmental pathways in the early stages, which is consistent with design.

In particular, these buds are not consistent with a transition from teeth to baleen because there are too many of these tooth buds for them to be some sort of evolutionary vestige. The toothed whales from which they are supposed to have evolved had no more than a maximum of 30 teeth in the upper jaw. The embryos of modern whales have as many as 80 ‘tooth buds’. Evolutionists have no explanation as to why or how whales with relatively few teeth gained a lot more teeth and then lost them as baleen evolved.

The evolutionists’ belief in a naturalistic explanation for the origin of baleen must be taken on trust. The best explanation is that baleen was designed to give these whales an efficient feeding system, and they were created with baleen.

Reproduction

Whale reproduction provides remarkable evidence which is consistent with creation biology and impossible to explain by slow, gradual evolution. The reproductive systems of whales have some amazing features which enable them to successfully reproduce.¹² Whales live their whole life in the sea and therefore face some unique challenges when it comes to reproduction, especially because of their streamlined shape and means of propulsion. In order to optimize speed and efficiency, the male reproductive organs of whales are completely internalized to minimize drag.

The body temperature of whales is 35–38°C. However, the production of mammalian sperm occurs most efficiently at temperatures around 32–33°C. This is why most terrestrial mammals have external testicles. If whale testicles were at the same temperature as the rest of the body, spermatogenesis would be very inefficient.

There is an additional challenge because the internal testicles are next to main muscles which propel the whale through the ocean. Such active muscles generate much heat, raising the temperature to even higher levels. The insulating blubber only makes things worse because it keeps that heat inside the body. Therefore, without some counter measures, spermatogenesis would effectively stop and whales would be extinct!

The solution is the countercurrent heat exchange blood flow system. The blood vessels of the whale are arranged so that cooler blood from the outside of the body cools the blood flowing into the testicles. Other mammals have a single testicular artery, but whales have 20 to 40 coming from the aorta. These arteries run alongside a similar number of veins carrying cooler blood from the dorsal fin and flukes. The direction of venous flow is the opposite of the direction of flow of the arteries. This countercurrent heat exchanger cools the arterial blood before it reaches the testicles so that the internal testicles are cool enough for spermatogenesis to proceed.

Female whales also have a countercurrent heat exchanger to keep the fetal whale from overheating. This is vital to the survival of the fetus since the growing fetus produces heat, and there is no way for the heat to escape because of the insulating blubber. The female also has to deal with the same source of heat as the male—the muscles used to propel the whale. Without the countercurrent heat exchanger, the fetus would suffer from fatal overheating. Female whales have 20 to 40 arteries providing blood to the uterus, which run parallel to the veins carrying cooler blood from the dorsal fin and fluke, which keeps the fetus at the ideal temperature.

Another design feature concerns the specialized bones supporting the reproductive organs. Evolutionists claim that these bones are vestiges of the hips and legs of the whales’ ancestors. This is an appeal to homology which is not well supported by the evidence (see below). These bones are not similar to hip bones despite the fact that evolutionists label different areas with the same names as part of the pelvic girdle of tetrapods. They are essential parts of the cetacean urogenital system in both the male and female, which is designed to ensure successful reproduction of whales.

Vestigial legs?

Evolutionists claim that the existence of whales with vestigial leg and hip bones is proof of evolution from terrestrial quadrupeds. Before the claim can be evaluated, we need to define what is meant by an evolutionary vestige. One definition of a vestigial organ is a reduced organ that serves a different function from the original in an evolutionary ancestor. A vestige will also be homologous with the structure from which it was supposedly derived. Homology is established on the basis of the following:

1. same fundamental structure
2. same relationship to surrounding characters
3. same embryonic development.

The claim that living whales have vestigial hips and legs will only be proven if these three requirements are met. The strongest evidence is the presence of bones which are often called ‘pelvic’ bones and sometimes associated bones referred to as a ‘femur’. However, in 1998, Pabst et al. wrote: “the exact identity and development of the elements of the pelvic vestige of extant cetaceans [i.e., are they ischium, ilium, or pubis?] have not been established. Such identification is critical to fully understanding the events underlying the evolution of the cetacean pelvis.”¹³ This is still the case. These bones are embedded in the abdominal wall and connected via muscles to the reproductive organs. They are essential to the function of the reproductive organs. This is not consistent with them being vestiges, since the pelvic and leg bones of land mammals are not embedded in the abdominal wall and are not directly connected to the reproductive organs. For example, in the male whale, there are muscles linking the bone to the penis.¹² Also, these bones do not appear to have the same fundamental structure as the hip and leg bones of land animals, as shown in figure 5.

Notice that while labels are used to suggest that they are the vestiges of hip and thigh bones, there is nothing to prove that the various parts are related in any way to the ilium, ischium, pubis, and femur. This seems to be a clear case of confirmation bias and a prior commitment to evolution. This is particularly true for the labels on the two ends of the killer whale bone. How does anyone know which end is the ‘ilium’ and which is the ‘ischium’? It is far from obvious that these bones have the same fundamental structure as hips and legs. Furthermore, they do not have the same relationship to surrounding tissues. The bones are located within the body wall of the abdomen or the reproductive organs, which disqualifies them from being vestigial legs, since they are differently located with respect to other parts of the body.

There have also been reports of atavistic hind-limbs dating from the late 19^th and early 20^th century. (Atavism: the reappearance of something lost during evolution). But these historical accounts of atavistic legs have not been verified and there are no recent reports. In addition, the whole idea that evolution can be verified by atavistic features is fraught with problems.¹⁴ Interestingly, there was a report of a dolphin with hind-fins which some have claimed proves that dolphins evolved from land animals.¹⁵ But since they are clearly not legs, this implies that dolphins went through a stage with four fins. There is no evidence for this. It is more likely that this was the result of a developmental defect which caused the growth of extra fins.

Genetics

Genetics of limb loss

Bejder and Hall reviewed the evidence for the genetic control of limb development in lizards, chickens, and mice; and the theory of limb loss in snakes.¹⁶ They believe that limb loss and body elongation are linked, and discuss the role of Hox genes. The position of limbs in normal chicks is specified by the pattern of expression of HoxC-6 and HoxC-8 to 10 genes, during development. Differences in the expression pattern in pythons, however, do not prevent the initiation of limb buds and they conclude that other factors are responsible for the failure of fully developed hind-limbs. Others have shown that there are variations in regulatory sequences controlling the expression of Hox genes. These are believed to be responsible for the different positions of limbs in the mouse and chicken. This finding and the fact that regulatory sequences in five species of baleen whales are different from those of artiodactyls prompt Bejder and Hall to suggest that similar regulatory changes may have caused body elongation and, secondarily, limb loss. However, they also acknowledge that the equivalent regulatory sequences in 12 other whales are conserved. They conclude that “A simple evolutionary change in Hox gene expression or Hox gene regulation is unlikely to have driven loss of hindlimbs in cetaceans … .” The fact that they are unable to provide a genetic basis for limb loss is easy to explain if limb loss never occurred.

Pseudogenes

Evolutionists like to point to the existence of pseudogenes of genes which are part of the developmental pathway of teeth development. It is claimed that these pseudogenes are found in baleen whales because they evolved from toothed whales. It is much more likely that these are fully functional regulatory elements which are part of the developmental pathway for baleen formation. If these are evolutionary relics, as some claim, then that raises the question as to why 30 Myr of natural selection has not resulted in the elimination of the useless pseudogenes along with the ‘tooth bud’ stage mentioned above?

Waiting time problem

One big problem with the proposed evolution of whales is that the window of time available for the transition from terrestrial to fully marine creatures is far too short to allow for the origin and spread of the required genetic changes. Table 1 below shows the approximate ages assigned by evolutionists to the various key fossil intermediate steps in the evolution of whales from the hypothetical ancestors and highlights this problem.

When interpreted within the evolutionary paradigm, the fossil record indicates that the evolutionary transition, from terrestrial to fully aquatic, took about 10 Myr. This rapid evolution is clearly difficult to reconcile with slow, gradual neo-Darwinian evolution. This ‘waiting time problem’ is because the mathematical principles of population genetics place severe constraints on the rate at which new genes can originate and spread. Yet evolutionists never question the soundness of their belief that a sufficient number of mutations could have accumulated to produce the required optimally designed body systems of whales in a relatively short period of time. One possible solution is that whale ancestors existed many millions of years before the fossils listed above. This allows more time but is based on belief that the creatures in question were not fossilized.

Discussion

Previously, we have examined the fossil archaeocetes and concluded that there is not enough fossil evidence for the proposed evolutionary transition from a terrestrial quadruped like Pakicetus to obligate marine creatures. However, the biggest challenge to the evolutionary account of the origin of whales is not the inadequate fossil evidence but rather the origin of the integrated systems which enable life in the sea.

The three features reviewed herein—echolocation (odontocetes), filter feeding (mysticetes)—and the reproductive system, reveal a high degree of design. This, together with the lack of evidence for the evolutionary origin of these novel features, means that the evolution of whales must be taken on the word of people with a priori commitment to evolution.

The genetic evidence for the supposed loss of the hind limbs is also inconsistent and therefore inconclusive, as is the argument for vestigial hind limbs. There is also the waiting time problem. Even allowing them 10 Myr, evolutionists cannot account for the development of one of these unique features, required for life in the sea, by a process of mutation and natural selection. The problem is further compounded by the requirement to explain things such as osmoregulation, the cardiovascular system, and the respiratory system, which also show exquisite design. There is not enough time in the evolutionary account of whale evolution for the fixation of the genes and genetic regulatory pathways which are required to produce the systems which are essential for life in the sea. Evolutionists just have to believe that given enough time new genetic networks, not just mutations in one or two genes, can originate and produce the unique design features of whales.

Conclusions

Having reviewed the evidence, it seems that the evolutionary origin of the design features mentioned herein is far from proven. Even allowing evolutionists the hypothetical 10 Myr assumed within the evolutionary paradigm, they cannot show how the echolocation system, baleen, or the countercurrent cooling system of whale reproductive organs could have evolved.

The design of these creatures clearly reveals the wisdom of God, who created them for life in a marine environment.

Related Media

Dr Hans Thewissen Interviewed About Walking Whale Ambulocetus