After my CfI lecture in Portland, I met reader Jon Peters, who told me he’d made and videotaped an entire lecture on the evidence for evolution—using only whales and other cetaceans as examples. Some of the material is from WEIT, and I must have given permission for that, though I can’t recall. I may have even posted this before, but can’t be arsed to look.
At any rate, this 47-minute lecture uses evidence from fossils, morphology, vestigial organs, development, atavistic traits (legs popping up, etc.), and genetics. The talk has been up over a year but has only a bit over 500 views. It deserves more attention, for it’s not only full of interesting data, but is also a great teaching resource.
It’s especially useful as ammunition against those who claim that microevolution occurs but not “macroevolution”—usually defined as the evolution of one “kind” of animal into another “kind.” “Kind”, of course, is a Biblical term without any biological meaning. But if it has any meaning at all, surely the evolution of a small terrestrial artiodactyl into a giant seagoing mammal without hindlimbs is macroevolution. And it all happened in a relatively short time: about 10 million years. In contrast, the evolution of Homo sapiens from our common ancestor with chimps took roughly 7 million years, a much slower rate of morphological change.
I asked him to send me the link, which he did (see below) and added this:
I have compiled evidences for whale evolution into a lecture that from what I can tell one cannot find in a single presentation. Although none of the content is original, I have tried to put so much evidence together that further denial of whale evolution is untenable even to the most diehard creationist. Indeed, the lecture is holding up very, very well against anti-evolutionists. Some of the material has been taken from WEIT and I am grateful for all your posts and activity for science and evolution.Here’s the lecture (it’s being used now in some college courses in east Texas and it’s been well received by multiple groups in the Northwest). I have changed it over the years to be much more friendly to those who doubt evolution – my target audience. I’ve tried to make it visually compelling and simple enough for high school students. Since the copy below was made, I’ve also fixed a few errors and updated it by putting in a section on pseudogenes, using the ENAM gene and pseudogenes as one example when they are compared in placental mammals.
Given that the lecture’s being used in Texas, I look forward to creationist Don McLeroy’s response explaining how these data really comport better with the creation story of Genesis.





























