Spaced Evolution Neck
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 plastered all over 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 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 quadruped 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 shown with their feet that help you walk, but as flippers that allow 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 of adaptation to water, belts should be drawn on the front legs. However, it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of fossils Ambulocetus. In the fossil record is almost impossible to find soft tissue how are you. So reconstructions based on characteristics beyond the skeletal are always speculative. This provides an empty space wide-range evolutionary speculation to use their propaganda.
With the same kind of touch evolutionists have been applied to the development Ambulocetus, you can make any animal is like no other. You could even have a monkey skeleton, draw fins on the back and the webbing between fingers and present it as the "primate ancestor of whales."
The invalidity of deception carried out on Ambulocetus the basis of the fossil can be seen in the picture below, based on real paleontological data:
The real Ambulocetus: The legs are real, not the legs, fins, and no imaginary networks between their toes as National Geographic has added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335)
With the publication of the 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 that 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 Whale Walk
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 mammals sailors who appear in the fossil record in a very similar geological time.
After Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, National Geographic's plan goes to mammals called and fixed marine (extinct whale) species such as Procetus, Rodhocetus and Archaeocetea. The animals in question were mammals that lived in the sea and are now extinct. (We'll be playing on this later). However, there are considerable anatomical differences between them and Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. No matter how National Geographic tried to minimize light touches of the brush, when we look at the fossils is clear that they are no "transitional forms links together:
The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus 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 the tail, and no pelvic bone at all. In fact, Basilosaurus believed to have lived about 10 million years after Ambulocetus, has the anatomy final. In other words, is typical of a whale. There is no transition between Ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and Basilosaurus, typical of a whale.
Under the backbone of Basilosaurus and the sperm, there are small bones independent of it. National Geographic claims these to be vestigial legs. 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 perform important functions such as "vestigial organs" is nothing but prejudice Darwinists.
In conclusion, despite all of National Geographic best efforts, the fact that 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, albeit reluctantly and in evolutionist language: "It is not possible to identify a sequence that leads Mesonychids directly to the whales. "(7)
Other scientists agree that animals evolutionist publications as National Geographic intended to present as' whales walking "really 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 rather as a completely isolated. (8)
Problems with National Geographic superficial sequences
Visual effects (plans and drawings) play an important role the imposition of Darwinism on society. However, they are sometimes completely unscientific, and other scientific discoveries are interpreted as partially sighted. National Geographic diagram timeline (pages 64-77) of mammals that become more and more "whale-like" over time is an example of these tools can be misleading.
We have been considering so far small, but misleading adjustments to the 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 among another in a geological line, whereas these are questionable. L. Ashby Campo clarifies the situation, based on paleontological data:
"In the system standard Inachus Pakicetus is dated to the late Ypresian, but experts acknowledge that may date from the early Lutetian. If the younger date (In early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is almost, if not contemporary Rodhocetus an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. By Moreover, Ambulocetus date, which was found in the same training as Pakicetus but more than 120 meters, should be adjusted upward the same amount Pakicetus. This would make Ambulocetus under Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and Protocetus even. "(9)
In summary, there are two different views of when the National Geographic animals exposed chronologically one after another really lived. If the second opinion is accepted, then Ambulocetus Pakicetus and that National Geographic features such as' walking whale, are of the same age or even younger than true whales. In other words, no "storyline" is possible. National Geographic has totally ignored the problem and has used only views 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 give the impression that the issue has been resolved. However, this impression is false.
Consider first the structure of the ear. Like us, land mammals trap sounds of the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the ear half, and convert them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration sensitive receptors in your jaw lower.
National Geographic says that the second system was developed from the first. This is made clear on page 71 in the diagram labeled "hearing aids. This diagram has been developed in such a way as to give the reader the impression that the courts hearing was held in several stages. However, there is no evolution in stages here. A look at the language used by the National Geographic will suffice to make this clear:
"… This whale walking Pakicetus lacked pad fat extending to the middle ear that modern ceteans, a track that had held land attributes. In later whales, jaw, with the pad fat, adapted to receive sounds. "
We have seen that Pakicetus was a typical land mammal, and it is ridiculous to call it a "whale walking. "The logic employed by the National Geographic is no less ridiculous: First, describe the land-dwelling Pakicetus as a walking whale" and then says that the animal keeps the land attributes. That is like calling a cow bat walk 'and then said:' There are wings, keep your earthly attributes. "
This is one aspect of the matter. The aspect that concerns us here is the clear difference between Pakicetus and ears of whales. After the previous statement, National Geographic, 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 "whale foot swimming ', but actually was a land mammal. National Geographic used the following words about Ambulocetus: "Although it is more natural than the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus still heard directly through your ear. "
In other words, there is a move towards a whale in the ear Ambulocetus.
When we reached the third animal in the National Geographic list, suddenly facing a huge change. The above excerpt follows: The sounds were broadcast Basilosaurus the middle ear as vibrations of the lower jaw.
In other words, Basilosaurus possesses a typical whale ear. It was a creature that perceives the sounds around you, not through an outer ear but by vibrations reaching his jaw. And there is no transitional form between the ear and the Basilosaurus Ambulocetus Pakicetus and that National Geographic which are presented in outline.
When the subject is discussed in theory, one can observe that in any case a form of transition would have no chance of survival. Any evolution by stages between a perfect phonetic system for a complete one different is impossible. Phases transition would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to listen with your ears, but has not yet developed the ability to listen through your jaw is at a disadvantage.
The question of how "development" could be achieved is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. Evolutionists mechanisms put forward are mutations and these have never been seen unequivocally to add significant new information on the animals' genetic information. It is reasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals could have arisen as a result of mutations.
A similar situation applies to the account National Geographic's slip of the nose. "The magazine identifies three Pakicetus skulls, and a gray whale Rodhocetus of our own time on top of each other and stated that they represented an evolutionary process. Whereas the structure of the three fossils' nasal, especially those of Rodhocetus and gray whales are so different 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 that this would happen as a result of mutations is not fantasy.
National Geographic Tales Lamarckian
In fact, the National Geographic writers and most of the evolutionary community share a basic superstition about the origin of beings alive, and that is the real problem. This superstition is the "magic natural force 'that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes or anatomical features they need. Let's have a look at some interesting passages from National Geographic article "Evolution of Whales:
"I tried to view some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and about … As members later declined, so did the bones hip who supported them. That made more flexible spine to the tail end of development. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body in more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimal resistance, while arms took the form of rudders. Having little ears need more, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jaws and their transmission to the inner ears through the fat pads special. Each whale in the sequence was a bit more agile than previous models and wandered further from the shore. "(10)
On close inspection, this account all evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment in which they live, and this need is perceived as a "mechanism evolutionary. "According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and the necessary organs appear of their own volition!
Nobody with the least knowledge of biology knows that our needs as 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 men alive, 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 lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because to call the two 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 information genetics, can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information for the entire genome (and therefore is a new body or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.
If you look at the myth of the awkwardness of National Geographic once moving whales more in the light of this fact, we are actually participating 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 previous models." How did this happen a morphological change in a species over generations in a certain direction? To make this happen, representatives of the species in each sequence "would suffer mutations to shorten the legs, that mutation should cause no harm to animals, mutants should therefore 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 above would 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 a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers grow. This will last for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and fly. "Both stories are equally ridiculous.
As mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that the needs of living beings can be met by a magical force of nature. Attributing consciousness nature, believing in animist cultures are, it's interesting to get up before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific" cloak. Biologist well-known French 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 only daydream:
"The timely appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. But 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 in 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 journal Science of Nature and a prominent evolutionary undoubtedly noted and acknowledged the same fact to explain the origin of an organ by its necessity is like saying;
… our noses were made to wear glasses, so we have spectacles. However, evolutionary Biologists do the same when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to recognize the need for public services now they tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or even how the evolutionary history of a structure itself may have influenced the shape and properties that structure. (12)
Another scenario that National Geographic is trying to impose, without too much discussion, refers to the body surface of animals in question. Like other mammals, and Pakicetus Ambulocetus, which are accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to the bodies that have skin. And both are shown as specified in the thick skin in National Geographic. However, when we went to the animals after (true marine mammals), all skins disappears. The evolutionary explanation for this is not different from the fantastic Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above. The truth of the matter is that all animals in question were designed in the most appropriate for your environment. It is irrational to try to explain this design by mutation or type of easy stories Lamarck. Like everything in life design, design in these creatures is evidence of creation.
The Marine Mammal scenario itself
So far we have examined the evolutionist scenario that marine mammals evolved from land. The scientific evidence shows no relationship between the two mammalian land (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) that National Geographic was the beginning of the story. What about the rest of the stage? The theory of evolution is again in a great difficulty here. The theory seeks to establish a phylogenetic relationship between Archaeocetea (archaic whales), marine mammals that had been known extinguished, and whales and dolphins. National Geographic's claim set out 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 of the 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 the whale beards (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 morphological and molecular analysis to reach very different conclusions. In fact, from the conventional interpretation of the data morphological and behavioral set, the 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 taxonomic division long accepted. A group of toothed whales, sperm whales seem 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 claims of the 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 of information from National Geographic, we are not dealing with an evolutionary process backed by empirical evidence, but by evidence coerced to adapt to an evolutionary family tree assumes, despite the many contradictions between the two.
What emerges, if the evidence is looked at him more objective, 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 these 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 behind the other, and the evolutionists of the time tried to impose this measure of "solid evidence". However, the truth emerged over time, and realized that these animals was could not be the ancestors of others, which had emerged in different periods, and in fact extinct species were independent. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of 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 Exposure:
"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 on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. This has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is regrettable, especially when people propose such stories, may also 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. Like its predecessors, which will soon be in the dustbin of science.
Under the pseudonym Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar was 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 the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, for 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 by 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, General Characteristics of 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 make history new 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.)
|
|
Dimarzio Evolution Neck & Bridge DP158 DP159 F Spaced $156.00 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Red $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Blue $78.95 |
|
|
* DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Black/Creme $70.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Yellow $78.95 |
|
|
* DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Red $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Creme $70.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Black/Pink $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Pink $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Black/Green $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck & Bridge Set Pink $156.00 |
|
|
* DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker White $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Purple $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Green $78.95 |
|
|
Dimarzio Evolution F Spaced White Neck Bridge DP158 159 $156.00 |
|
|
* DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Purple $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Black/White $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck EVO 2 Bdg Gold Bobbins $250.00 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck & Bridge Set PURPLE $156.00 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck & Bridge Set Green $156.00 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Black $70.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio DP158FBK Evolution Neck Pickup F Spaced $74.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck & Bridge Set B/W $156.00 |
|
|
* DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker White $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Black/Creme $70.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Black/Red $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker White $78.95 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck & Bridge Set Yellow $156.00 |
|
|
DiMarzio F-spaced Evolution Neck Humbucker Black/Blue $78.95 |
