"It's the tale of an ancient land mammal making its way back to the sea, becoming the forerunner of today's whales. In doing so,
it lost its legs, and all of its vital systems became adapted to a marine existence -- the reverse of what happened millions of years previously, when the first animals crawled out of the sea onto land... Another, slightly more recent form, called Ambulocetus, was an amphibious animal."
-Evolution Library, "Whale Evolution," PBS, WGBH Educational Foundation, 2001, retreived Feb 8, 2012, [www.pbs.org]
That quoted article, along with many other public school text books, claims that Ambulocetus is a "missing link," from 50 million years ago, between land dwelling animals, like a cow, and sea dwelling animals, like a whale. Here is some typical textbook propaganda trying to convince students that a land-dwelling mammal evolved into ambulocetus:
Ambulocetus is constructed from a few skeletal fragments discovered by Johannes Thewissen during a dig in Pakistan in 1993. In the following image, side by side, you can see the typical display of ambulocetus by evolutionists (constructed by Thewissen), and just below that are the bones that were actually discovered.
Before we go any further, we need to clarify that
Next, taking a look at how much of the skeleton was found, anyone can see that there was not enough found to tell what that creature looked like. Even though all they found was a few fragments of bones, elaborate artistic images are displayed to deceptively convince students that ambulocetus is evidence for evolution. How do you get these interpretive drawings when no pelvic or legs bones were ever found?
"Its forelimbs were equipped with fingers and small hooves. The hind feet of Ambulocetus, however, were clearly adapted for swimming. Functional analysis of its skeleton shows that it could get around effectively on land and could swim by pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its tail, as otters do today."-Evolution Library, "Whale Evolution," PBS, WGBH Educational Foundation, 2001, retreived Feb 8, 2012, [www.pbs.org]
See how they avoid mentioning anything about the skeleton that was not found? Yet, they show computer-generated models of a complete animal, calling it an evolutionary link.
"But what is not revealed is that Ambulocetus, illustrated as a possible transitional 'link' to the modern whale, is
missing its key body part, 'since the pelvic girdle is not preserved.'"
-Brian Thomas, refering back to Johannes Thewissen's 1996 documentation, "Museum's 'Science' Exhibit Leaves More Questions than Answers," Institute for Creation Research, Jan 11, 2010, retrieved Feb 8, 2012 [www.icr.org]
Not only are they assuming much about the functionality for mobility without the proper skeletal model, they also assumed the tail on the evolutionary model from finding one fragment of tail bone 5 meters away from skeleton. Of course, they had no choice but to assume the tail because they already assumed it was a whale, so they had to put a tail on it to make it convincing.
"Major conclusions were made about its mode of walking, and about its tail structure, and yet the important
fibula bones, pelvis, and tail bones were not found.Only one tail vertebra was found, and it was five metres away from the rest of the skeleton. But because the researchers assumed the skeleton was of a 'whale', they assumed a long tail for Ambulocetus."
-Dr. Angela Meyer, "The World of Whales," Answers in Genesis, also featured in Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine, Dec 1, 1996, retrieved Feb 8, 2012, [www.answersingenesis.org]
So why are we having to pay to be taught the assumption of an evolutionist as if it's a fact? It shows the desperation of the evolutionists to believe in their religion, and some evolutionists think if they can get a majority to believe it by lying to the students, evolution will somehow magically become true.
Evolutionists will complain about this article with the argument that many more skeletons of this creature have been found, but they still will not admit that the initial discovery was based on pure imagination, and many alterations to the general model have been made since it was first discovered. The bottom line is still that no fossils can be used as evidence for evolution. Those calling ambulocetus "proof for evolution" do so by assuming that evolution is already true before they examine any evidence, which means it is a lie that comes from the religious imagination, not scientific data.