Of all of the negative aspects of religion, I have found none of them to be more profoundly damaging to human dignity and self-respect than the threat of Hell for non-believers. This belief had an extremely negative impact on my life when I believed it and I think it is about time humanity starts pushing back against this doctrine of fear and manipulation. Recently, I have taken to boldly making the assertion that Hell isn’t real. It didn’t take long for the objections to start rolling in:

“Can you prove that Hell isn’t real? Do you have evidence?”

“Are you really willing to stake your life on it?”

“Can you really risk not believing it is real?”

I’m going to turn all of these questions back around. It is not intellectually honest to claim something is true in the first place without evidence to back it up. Show me evidence of Hell first and then we’ll talk. I spent much of my life floating around in Churches that preach Hell, and I have yet to see something that would qualify as real evidence for its existence to any self-respecting skeptic. That it is often further claimed that a non-believer’s disbelief is actually them CHOOSING to spend an eternity in Hell further exacerbates this problem. I will not accept some cosmic or eternal responsibility for not believing in something for which there is no evidence. If a God exists and my eternal fate depends solely on me believing in him, then I would have to expect that, if he is a good and just God, he would not fault me for not believing in things for which there is no evidence.

When I am asked if I have evidence that Hell doesn’t exist, I respond that I am under no obligation to provide evidence for its non-existence. This is not the way evidence works. This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. This is where the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of a claim. The burden of proof rests with the positive claim. In this case, the claim is that Hell exists. This is an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof lies purely with those who would claim that Hell is real. Because there is no evidence in favor of the positive claim that Hell is real, I feel perfectly comfortable in making the positive claim that Hell isn’t real because I never had reason to assume its existence in the first place.

It is irrelevant that there are profound consequences attached to not believing. I can assert an infinite number of things which would have profound consequences, if true, but without evidence there is no reason anyone should lose any sleep over any of them. For instance, I could say that in the afterlife there is a land where all of your dreams will come true forever, and that you can go there provided you take special care to believe that unicorns are real, while living this life. If you don’t believe this, you will be forced to watch re-runs of The Andy Griffith Show for all of eternity without ceasing. No one would take this claim seriously because there is no evidence for it.

It is hard to imagine anyone getting on my case for asserting that unicorns aren’t real. This is because, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Fundamentally, there is no difference between asserting that Hell is a real consequence for not believing in God and that being forced to watch an eternal Andy Griffith marathon is a real consequence for not believing in unicorns (other than that, I would say, my example isn’t as mean-spirited).

I dismiss Hell freely and without concern because there is no evidence for it. In absence of such evidence I am left with the obvious conclusion that it arose as a method of invoking the cruelest kind of fear in order to manipulate people of good faith into accepting harsh doctrines which have empowered institutions of religion with enormous amounts of wealth and power for centuries. I refuse to be manipulated by such emotional violence.

I am truly sorry, and have great compassion for those who are obligated to accept such doctrines based on their faith commitments. It saddens me deeply that so many people must believe that such cruelty awaits their loved ones who don’t believe such nonsense. There is freedom from this mental oppression. That is the good news. I will spread the good news that Hell isn’t real because life is so much better when it is lived without that kind of fear.

I have found happiness and personal fulfillment through the relationships I have with my friends and family, through the exploration of science and our ever-increasing knowledge of the universe, through art, literature, nature, and music. This is something that all people can experience. But many have been severely emotionally damaged by their belief in, and fear of Hell. I want to help those people. Our lives are worth living before death. We should not compromise our lives because someone thousands of years ago said we would burn forever if we don’t listen to what he had to say.

My name is Drew Stedman. I am a recovering fundamentalist. I am a pastor’s son and I was raised as a conservative evangelical Christian in The Christian and Missionary Alliance. I was taught to respect the authority of the Bible as the inspired word of God. As a child, I prayed with my mother to accept Jesus as my personal savior. Throughout my childhood I must have prayed the sinner’s prayer over 100 times. I was so afraid of what would happen if I didn’t know Jesus that I prayed to accept him into my heart every time I was given the opportunity in Sunday school or in church, just to make sure. I went through evangelical children’s programs such as AWANA and Vacation Bible School. Later I was part of a Bible quizzing program in which my church’s team would compete against other churches teams over our knowledge of the scriptures. We would study the Bible constantly, often memorizing lengthy passages or even entire books.

Later, I attended Worthington Christian High School, an extremely right wing evangelical school run by Grace Brethren Church in Worthington, Ohio. It was here where I really became fanatical about God. I attended a revival at a youth summer camp that was similar to, but somewhat less extreme than the camp featured in the documentary, Jesus Camp. I had finally “experienced” God for myself. I returned to school my sophomore year “on fire” for God. I read through the entire Bible word for word as quickly as I could, often skipping class to do so. I started a Bible Study and prayer group in my home that was called “The Love Club”. I would prepare bible studies and teachings with the help of my Father. We would pray earnestly for the requests and concerns of the group. We sang worship songs. I became the worship leader for our high school chapels, which often featured messages of fear that would inspire guilt. We were warned of the evils of masturbation and pre-marital sex. We were shown graphic images of sexually transmitted diseases. The message was clear. This was what happened when you stepped outside of God’s will.

One day, we were led into a revival. We were told that some of us were not true Christians. That we needed to search our hearts to make sure we truly believed in Jesus. Many students, who were emotionally broken by the message, came forward in front of the entire student body and confessed their sins and prayed to God. They cried. I cried. We praised God. We were told that even though we were Christians, many of us had let sin creep into our lives. We were asked to give up our possessions that were holding us back from God. Many of the students felt “led” to go to their cars or lockers to get their “secular” CDs to give up to God. Many of us made commitments to listen to only Christian music. Classes were cancelled. The revival lasted all day.

In addition to this spiritual indoctrination, I was also indoctrinated academically and politically. Prayer and references to scripture were commonplace, even in subjects like math, and especially science. We were presented with a strict Young Earth Creationist model in our science courses. We were taught “evidence” that the Earth was only several thousand years old, that God created every class of animal uniquely, that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and that the flood of Noah was a literal historical event. In history class we were taught a strictly right-wing Christian view of the formation of America. We were taught that America was founded as a Christian nation and that evil forces were hard at work trying to turn America away from our God. I believed them.

After high school I attended Cedarville University, a fundamentalist Baptist school in the middle-of-nowhere, Ohio. It was here that I first began to question my faith. Although I had taken such care in fostering my relationship with God in High School and had made many strong efforts to proclaim my faith and evangelize others, I still felt guilty. In spite of my efforts and prayers to have the desire to do what God wanted me to do, I still behaved more or less like a typical college student. Sex, alcohol, cigarettes, soft drugs… Why was this? My heart was in the right place. I wanted to follow God, I prayed earnestly and often for the will to do so, but I consistently partook of the forbidden fruits which I was told by the Christian authority figures in my life were contrary to God’s will. At this point my faith changed internally. It no longer made sense why God would condemn so many well-meaning people, over what increasingly seemed to be trivial issues. I remember a key moment at this point in my life when I was in a Bible class that was espousing a strict Calvinist interpretation of the Bible. We were discussing the doctrine of Total Depravity, which is that all humans, because of Adam and Eve’s original sin are born into this world inherently evil and in a state of separation from God. I was troubled by the implications of this. I raised my hand and asked the professor if a child born in a distant country, into a culture who had no knowledge of Jesus Christ would be sent to hell if it were to die before missionaries had been able to tell them about Jesus. The answer to this question was yes. I could not accept this.

I began to form my own opinions about the Bible. It seemed to me that Jesus would have been radically opposed to this type of thinking (although now it seems obvious to me that Jesus becomes whoever the believer wants him to be). I became very enamored with Christ’s teachings of compassion, and what I interpreted in his teachings as non-violence. I became increasingly disgusted by the violent desires I saw prevalent in evangelical culture. Cedarville University has a large rock which students can spray paint with different messages, usually “Happy Birthday” wishes and the like. But in 2003, just before the US invaded Iraq, someone had spray-painted the rock with “Bomb Saddam”. In my newfound liberal Christianity I took offense to this. I spray-painted over it with “Blessed are the peacemakers” from Matthew 5:9. In less than a half hour it was painted over with “Go troops, go! Kill! Kill! Kill!” This became a turning point in my life, a moment when I internally rejected evangelical fundamentalism as politically and morally toxic.

Although I had experienced an ideological shift, I still felt comfortable in the Christian community because it was all I had ever known. I left Cedarville for Nyack College in New York, which was another fundamentalist college, although it featured a more relaxed environment. I coasted along, slowly realizing that I was disconnecting with the evangelical belief system on an almost daily basis. By the time I graduated I had essentially stopped going to church and was doing my best to lead a normal life. I reconnected with a fellow classmate from Worthington Christian High School whom I quickly fell in love with. Along with some of my good college friends, we moved to Los Angeles. A year later, we were married.

I had started a new life and a new career, but many of my underlying assumptions about God and Christianity remained unquestioned. My wife and I missed the community of Church and decided to find one that fit our new, non-fundamentalist values. This proved somewhat difficult. LGBT rights were something that we were just coming around on and it seemed that almost every church we went to held official positions against homosexuality. After some searching we finally came across a church that reflected our values. It was encouraging to me to see people who held different beliefs working together to better their community and spread a message of love an acceptance. I became involved with the worship team and eventually became an elder, delivering meditations and occasionally sermons when the pastor was out of town. There were several other young people and couples in the church that had come from similar backgrounds to our own and were seeking a more open, accepting environment. We started a young adult group in our home. Because almost all of us had come from fundamentalist backgrounds, we were all interested in exploring new aspects of faith and belief that had previously been cut off from us during our upbringing. It was obvious at this point that most of us had our doubts about the interpretation of the Bible we were indoctrinated with as children. We began to read a book called The Sins of Scripture by John Shelby Spong, an Episcopal Bishop. For most of us, this book decimated our previous conceptions of Biblical inerrancy, or even divine inspiration. It dealt honestly with the immorality of many of the actions attributed to God in the Bible. I had never heard someone speak so clearly in condemning aspects of Christianity that I had always felt uncomfortable with.

Spong also openly accepted evolution, which gave me pause. Although I had come so far in my journey, I was still a creationist. God had created everything right? I reflected back to a conversation I had had at work when the topic had come up several months prior. Someone was making fun of the fact that so many people believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. This bothered me, so I repeated an argument I had heard as a child from Answers in Genesis. As I recall, it was something about the Grand Canyon being created by a great flood. My co-worker, who explained some basic science about rock formation and stratification, quickly corrected me. This was information I had never been exposed to. I felt stupid. And here was a bishop openly accepting this as well? What else had I been missing?

I became obsessed. I poured over as much information about science as I could get my hands on. As a product of Christian education, I realized that many things I was taught in school did not check out with reality. I began a period of enlightenment in my life where I exposed myself to as much new information as possible. As the last remnants of my fundamentalist indoctrination began to crumble around me it became obvious that much of the other world’s religions depended on the same type of reasoning. Faith, it finally became apparent, was not a source of knowledge but a mechanism for belief in the absence of knowledge. I had discovered reason. I shared many of these ideas with the group. We explored more books, including How We Believe by Michael Shermer, which is a careful, rational examination of the psychology of belief. It was a book that shook my assumptions to their core.

My view of faith and God had fundamentally shifted. I suspected I knew where this would lead me but I wanted to evaluate some further arguments before I could be sure. I picked up a book called The Language of God by Francis Collins and contrasted it with The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Both men are formidable scientists in the field of biology. Both promote modern science and evolution. But they differ radically on the issues of God and religion. I wanted to hear who had the best arguments and if anyone could defend God against atheism, who better than a top-notch scientist? Needless to say, although I rather enjoyed both books, The God Delusion was one of the most powerfully argued books I have ever read. Francis Collins’s arguments in favor of a God seemed almost laughable in comparison (although I really appreciate what he is attempting to do by educating Christians with science).

After years of slowly becoming more and more aware of myself, and the universe around me, and after long and careful consideration, I admitted to myself that I was an atheist. I felt as if a terrible and heavy burden had been lifted from my shoulders. I was free. Free of the yolk of superstition, magical thinking, and dependence upon authority for information. I was free to explore the world around me without the barriers I used to place upon it by faith. I was free to ask any questions I wished without a nagging fear of where they would lead. But most of all I was free to define myself on my own terms.

My close friend and colleague Rob Steiner and I decided to create this website for people like us. People who have escaped from the mental clutches of fundamentalism. If that is you, you are free to define yourself however you wish. Don’t let others do it for you. This is not intended to be an atheist website. It is a website for human beings. If you have left or are in the process of leaving a fundamentalist belief system, we hope you will find this site helpful. Also, if you feel comfortable, please take the time to share your story. There are many out there who may benefit from your experience. We would love to know where you came from, where you are now, and where you are going. You are not alone.

This video explores some of the numerous contradictions between the Bible’s multiple creation accounts.

Related Posts: Dismantling Fundamentalism Series

Dismantling Fundamentalism Intro

This series will focus on some of the many errors within the Bible in the hope that those who are questioning these beliefs will find the information helpful.

Therefore it is very very very very very old.

We know this because of light, which travels at a constant rate of 186,000 miles per second. Using a method called triangulation (using geometry and trigonometry) we can calculate the distance between us and objects in space. This reveals distances so great that we can scarcely comprehend them, distances so great that we must measure them in light years.

The distance which light travels in one year is 5,878,630,000,000 miles.

The nearest star to us is over 4 light years away.

• Wikipedia: Alpha Centauri

The most distant objects we can observe are nearly 13 billion light years away.

• Wikipedia: GRB 090423

Because of this we know that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.

The age of the earth and our solar system are also well understood and have been independently verified using many different methods.

• Wikipedia: Age of Earth

Rocks from asteroids, mars, the moon and earth all agree upon an age of around 4.6 billion years.

Because of the Hubble space telescope we can actually OBSERVE the formation of solar systems. We see from the birth of stars as gravity causes compressed gas to collapse in on itself starting nuclear fusion…

• Wikipedia: Star Formation

…to the formation of planets.

• Wikipedia: Protoplanetary Disk
• Hubble: Protoplanetary Disk
• Hubble: More Protoplanetary Disk

These are things that we can actually SEE directly.

Why then after knowing this, would we assume that our Earth and our solar system are any different?

Since creationism has no evidence to support its claims it cannot even begin to stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. Because creationism is not science and cannot be taught in public schools, creationists rely heavily on tactics such as the indoctrination of children and spreading doubt among those who have little or no scientific education. This is done through church seminars such as this one and by removing children from public schools to be taught at home or in private religious schools. Pay attention to the interviews with the children at the end of the video. They have been manipulated into having predisposed opposition to science and the theory of evolution before they are even old enough to think and discern for themselves and evaluate the evidence.

I still chose to live within the Christian faith. Many times I have been forced to ask myself, why? Ultimately, it is because I believe in striving for something higher than myself. Love that transcends, well… everything else. I find that in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and they still move me in ways that few other writings can. I am fascinated by the way that these ancient ideas still live on. I appreciate the way that they influence the actions of the faith community I belong to in helping the greater community to which we consider ourselves servants. I also still find the familiar traditions of Christianity to be helpful and meaningful in my life. Have I stumbled on some unchanging ultimate Truth? I cannot be so arrogant to think so. What I can say is that, for my life, I believe I am better for it.

In thinking about all of this, I decided to write my own human mythology. One that makes more sense from where I am now. Its a song. I still don’t know if it will make it into my regular catalogue or not, but either way I want to share it. I hope I have gained some better understanding of who I am from this. I think I have.

We Were Alive, We Were Alone

We woke up in a world of life

And gazed upon the evening sky

One hundred billion lights

Heaven spirits to guide the night

With a twinkle in our eye

Deep in Eden, cradled tight

The morning-god began to rise

On the dawn of the human mind

We were alive.

Then we came down from the trees

To golden plains and crystal seas

And we spread our holy seed

As far as the eye could see

Then we let our garden grow

And we reaped what we had sown

But somewhere deep within our soul

We wanted to be known

We were alone.

Then the voices in our head

Spoke of life beyond the dead

And every word that they said

Felt like heaven’s very breath

We built alters to the sun

We searched for the chosen one

When we looked back at all we’d done

We still stood where we had begun

All the gods that we had made

Could not pull us past the grave

Still we worshipped, still we prayed

Still we were longing to be saved

We could be right, we could be wrong

While we are weak we still are strong

Searching for the place where we belong

Our salvation won’t be long

We will live on

We will live on

We will live on.

Copyright 2009 Drew Stedman

I was taught young-earth creationism in science class at my high school and as a result I believe that my education was severely compromised because I graduated from high school almost completely ignorant of what the Theory of Evolution (the foundation of modern biology) actually says. Much of the time I was actually taught that evolution made claims that in reality are the exact antithesis of what it says. Specifically:

1. I was taught that Evolution asserts that life came from non-life through “spontaneous generation” and that this had been proven impossible in the laboratory. This is false. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how life got here, it only describes biological changes after life already existed. The Theory of Abiogenesis is what attempts to describe this. It is a separate theory which also does not assert “spontaneous generation”.

2. Similar to #1. I was taught that Evolution teaches that everything came about from the Big Bang. Again, this is false. The Big Bang Theory is a completely separate theory from Evolution and is not even from the same field of science.

3. I was taught that evolution teaches that complex life formed and evolved by random chance or “random selection”. This is untrue because the process which evolution says explains the complexity of life is Natural Selection which is by it’s very definition not random. This was presented in several ways with arguments such as, “How can something as complex as the eye have evolved by pure random chance?” With the answer, of course, being that it couldn’t have. Also, the “random” element in the theory of evolution, mutation, is not actually thought to be purely random in the first place.

4. I was taught that no fossils of transitional life forms had been found in the fossil record and that this posed a serious threat to the theory of evolution. This one I find to be particularly dishonest because there are literally thousands of transitional species that have been found in the fossil record. (See my entry, No Transitional Fossils??? Here: http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/dubunking-creationism/no-transitional-fossils.html)

5. I was taught that there is doubt in the scientific community as to whether the theory of evolution is correct or not. I was lead to believe that there were plenty of respected scientists that were skeptical of evolution. In my research I have found the exact opposite to be the case. There have been over 235,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers published which support evolution and not a single one that has discredited it. Furthermore, evolution is supported by every independent discipline within biology including: Embryology, Anatomy, Paleontology and the fossil record, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Ecology, Bio-geography etc.

6. I was led to believe that Creationism or Intelligent Design was a scientific theory that was a legitimate alternative to evolution in biology. This is misleading as even Micheal Medved of the Discovery Institute (Intelligent Design Advocate Group) has acknowledged: “The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory – which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It’s a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.”

This list could go on and on, but I think I made my point. Sometimes it is easy for me to get very upset that I was taught complete and utter untruths as a child. The fact that this was presented to me in a science classroom and presented to me as real science adds salt to the wound. Today I am grateful that I eventually questioned this teaching because I have learned a wealth of knowledge in the process and my life has been greatly enhanced as a result.

“I am not 100% convinced (*that people are born gay*) (there are few things that I am 100% convinced of and I think most people are that way if they will admit it)”

I want to return to this idea of skepticism. It is human nature to be skeptical of that which we do not understand. We tend to be skeptical of anything that challenges our preconceived understanding of the world around us. This isn’t all bad. Perhaps many have been saved from needless mental breakdowns and existential crises by following traditional wisdom.

In fundamentalist religions however, believers frequently become skeptics of everything that challenges their worldview. “If it can’t be proven 100% then I do not accept it.” This a very convenient stand to take. It really gets one out of learning… well pretty much anything. As I said before, nothing can be proven 100% (unless we enter the realm of mathematics). And since 100% proof seems to be what is required to change a fundamentalist’s mind on this issue (although I’m not sure that would be enough), I won’t even bother to try to prove anything. Instead, I’m going to take a cue from Jesus and turn the tables on this one.

Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin because it is in the Bible (or whatever holy book you claim to live by)? If so, are you willing to apply the same level of skepticism to the traditions and doctrines of your religion? To your holy book?

In challenging the belief that homosexuality is a sin I am frequently met with statements similar to this:

“I can come to no other conclusion from reading scripture other than that homosexuality is sinful and that sinfulness cannot be diminished. Both the OT and NT condemn it in the strongest language.”

I have to agree that on the surface the Bible does seem to condemn homosexuality. But is this really the only conclusion we are left with?

Of the sixty-six books of the Bible (over 31,000 verses written over 1,200 years), there are, at most, nine references to homosexual behavior. One of the most quoted verses is Leviticus 18:22:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Followed by the less quoted Leviticus 20:13:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Now that is harsh. But what Bible quoters won’t tell you up front is what else was considered an abomination. For instance, lets look at Leviticus 11:9-12:

^“And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”

There’s a whole lot of abomination going on there. So why isn’t there a political crusade to ban Red Lobster? Last I checked that place was pretty full on early Sunday afternoons. And where did these harsh laws come from? Why does God appear to be so displeased with the notion of a shrimp cocktail?

Leviticus was written near the end of the sixth century BCE while the Ancient Hebrews were in exile in Babylon. It was written by Jewish religious leaders and at its crux is The Holiness Code. In the book, Sins of Scripture, John Shelby Spong discusses this:

“The priestly writers were surely aware of a variety of sexual practices among their captors and decided to define themselves in terms of a strict moral code that reflected their sixth-century BCE sense of values based upon their knowledge and the popular prejudices of their day”

It is interesting to point out that female/female sex is not mention in the holiness code. Perhaps they were unaware of this practice? This seriously challenges the notion that authors of the Holiness Code had any concept of sexual orientation as we do today. They certainly had no concept of two members of the same sex, in a committed relationship. So what are they reacting to exactly? I think there is a clue in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I will assume this story is familiar, but just in case, it is found in Genesis 19.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a myth which was used by the ancient Hebrews for two purposes: 1. To illustrate and reinforce the concept of hospitality. In the mosaic law the Hebrews were required to invite a fellow Hebrew into their home if they had no shelter and treat them with kindness and respect. This story is an illustration of that principle. 2. It also served the purpose of condemning the barbaric practice of surrounding tribes to rape outsiders in order to “show them who’s boss”. Rape was often used in these days to signify tribal superiority and humiliate outsiders and was commonly used after winning a battle. So this story does NOT have to do with “homosexuality” as we are discussing it now. The ancient Hebrews had no more of a concept of sexual orientation than they did that the Earth revolved around the sun or that there was not a giant ocean in the sky (the firmament).

The same can be said of the passages in the New Testament. In Romans 1 where Paul seemingly condemns homosexuality it is important to note that context is everything. At this time it was common place for mentors to have sexual relationships with their understudies. Paul may have been trying to separate the Church from this practice. Again, it is important to understand that Paul did not have any concept of sexual orientation or a committed homosexual relationship. He was responding to what anyone today would also condemn as either pedophilia or rape.

That pretty much covers everything the Bible has to say about homosexuality. The authors of the Bible certainly did not have the same understanding of human sexuality that we do today. They frequently condemned practices that today are commonplace and accepted by Christians everywhere such as women speaking in church or wearing head coverings. In addition, there are several things that the Bible does not condemn, such as polygamy or slavery, that are repugnant to almost all Christians.

So is homosexuality a sin?

If you are a Christian who follows the teachings of your church, and your church condemns homosexuality, I would like to ask a few questions:

Does your church allow women to speak?

Does your church require women to wear head coverings?

Does your church condemn slavery?

Does your church condemn polygamy?

And finally, after church lets out on Sunday morning, is it considered acceptable for you to enjoy a nice shrimp cocktail over lunch?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you may want to consider why you are so willing to uphold such a double standard. You say it is the “Word of God” yet it seems that it becomes pretty flexible in areas that inconvenience you or are irrelevant in a modern society. May I challenge you to apply the same skepticism to the traditions of the church that you do to everything outside it. We don’t live in the bronze age. Isn’t it time we let go of bronze age morality?

Ending The Theology of Hypocrisy starts with you.

I hope those of you who are interested in this topic will find this resource useful when being confronted with the statement “There are no transitional fossils”

For the purpose of clarity, I will define transitional fossils as: The fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition (Wikipedia).

I must emphasize that transitional fossils are those that exhibit a transitional feature. “The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.” (Wikipedia) Because of our understanding of geology and the specific conditions required for the formation of a fossil, we would not expect to have a perfect, or “complete” fossil record. However, upon careful examination of the record, the evidence of a clear and branching pattern of divergence can be observed in the transitional features of taxa. This evidence becomes increasingly overwhelming the more one studies the fossil record as is seen throughout many of the scientific papers referenced in the list below.

Before reviewing this list I find it important to note that ALL of these examples appear in the fossil record in the correct strata and periods predicted by the evolutionary tree of life. This is most extremely exhibited in the case of Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik was discovered because of these predictions, which led Neil Shubin and his colleagues to Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada where they found the fossil in the precise layer of rock they expected to.

Also, the trees of life constructed from the fossil record are identical to those independently constructed from genetics, anatomy, embryology, molecular biology etc. This adds serious weight to the validity of the fossil record.

In this list I have included references for each example in relevant peer-reviewed scientific papers along with a link to each article (or article listing) when possible, as well as relevant news articles. I have also included a link to the Wikipedia entry for each example. This is a very streamlined list of transitional fossils which doesn’t include the much more recent ancestry of humans. We will get to that soon.

Note: (Some of the preliminary information I used to compile this list came from online posts by DonExodus, a biologist whose education includes: BS Evolutionary Biology- UNC-Charlotte. Doctoral- UNC. I used some information from his videos, Transitional Fossils I and II: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F9729F67CD4034C9) I did my own research in finding more information and peer-reviewed papers about each example. As part of this I spoke with Kevin de Queiroz, Research Zoologist at the Department of Vertebrate Zoology Division of Amphibians & Reptiles at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History who provided me with information on the transitional taxa and stem reptiles which mark the transition between amphibians and reptiles in the fossil record. A site that he directed me to is helpful and relevant to this entire list:

tolweb.org

TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

The following two articles are relevant to the information found in this list.

Heterochronical patterns of evolution in the transitional stages of vertebrate classes.
Schad W.
Acta Biotheor. 1993 Dec;41(4):383-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8191805?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Extreme convergence in the body plans of an early suchian (Archosauria) and ornithomimid dinosaurs (Theropoda).
Nesbitt SJ, Norell MA.
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 May 7;273(1590):1045-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16600879?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

FISH TO AMPHIBIANS

Eusthenopteron – an example of the beginning of the formation of characteristics only found in tetrapods: Internal nostrils, Labyrinthodont teeth, two part cranium, Intracranial joint, the development of arm and leg bones (humerus, ulna, radius, femur etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusthenopteron

Related paper:
Terrestrial-style feeding in a very early aquatic tetrapod is supported by evidence from experimental analysis of suture morphology.
Markey MJ, Marshall CR.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 24;104(17):7134-8. Epub 2007 Apr 16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17438285?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Panderichthys – development of large tetrapod head, pelvic girdle to support developing limbs, a breathing tube on the top of head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys

Related paper:
The pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys and the origin of tetrapod locomotion.
Boisvert CA.
Nature. 2005 Dec 22;438(7071):1145-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16372007?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Gogonasus – “the most complete, acid-prepared Devonian tetrapodomorph fish yet discovered.” “shares several features with that of Tiktaalik”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gogonasus

Related paper:
An exceptional Devonian fish from Australia sheds light on tetrapod origins.
Long JA, Young GC, Holland T, Senden TJ, Fitzgerald EM.
Nature. 2006 Nov 9;444(7116):199-202. Epub 2006 Oct 18
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17051154?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Tiktaalik – Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada. (Wikipedia). Had fish scales, fish gills, tetrapod rib bones, mobile neck and lungs. Fins with basic wrist bones and fingers that were weight bearing. These are clearly traits that are in development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Related papers:
The cranial endoskeleton of Tiktaalik roseae.
Downs JP, Daeschler EB, Jenkins FA Jr, Shubin NH.
Nature. 2008 Oct 16;455(7215):925-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18923515?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb.
Shubin NH, Daeschler EB, Jenkins FA Jr.
Nature. 2006 Apr 6;440(7085):747-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16598250?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Ichthyostega – New bones in pelvic girldle (pubis, ischia, ilia), Rib cage and sternum, still had fish lateral line system, gills and finned tail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega

Related paper:
Contrasting developmental trajectories in the earliest known tetrapod forelimbs.
Callier V, Clack JA, Ahlberg PE.
Science. 2009 Apr 17;324(5925):364-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19372425?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Temnospondyli – Eryops and Cacops, Branchiosaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temnospondyls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eryops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cacops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchiosaurus

Related paper:
The armoured dissorophid Cacops from the Early Permian of Oklahoma and the exploitation of the terrestrial realm by amphibians.
Reisz RR, Schoch RR, Anderson JS.
Naturwissenschaften. 2009 Jul;96(7):789-96. Epub 2009 Apr 4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19347261?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Others:
Anthracosauria – Ancestral line to reptiles. Ex. Diadectes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracosaur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diadectes

Cheirolepis, Osteolepis, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheirolepis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteolepis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pholidogaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pteroplax

AMPHIBIANS TO REPTILES

For information about the transition between amphibians to reptiles I consulted Kevin de Queiroz – Research Zoologist Department of Vertebrate Zoology Division of Amphibians & Reptiles Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. He directed me to Seymouria as well as several other stem reptiles that can be found on tolweb.org.

Seymouria – Labyrinthodont skull and teeth with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus and digits; amphibian ankle. (See first article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymouria

Related papers:
Early tetrapod relationships revisited.
Ruta M, Coates MI, Quicke DL.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2003 May;78(2):251-345.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12803423?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

FIRST DESCRIPTION OF SKULL OF LOWER PERMIAN SEYMOURIA SANJUANENSIS (SEYMOURIAMORPHA: SEYMOURIIDAE) AT AN EARLY JUVENILE GROWTH STAGE
Jozef Klembara, David S. Berman, Amy C. Henrici, Andrej Čerňanský, Ralf Werneburg, and Thomas Martens
Annals of Carnegie Museum 76(1):53-72. 2007
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2992/0097-4463(2007)76%5B53:FDOSOL%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Hylonomus and Limnoscelis – slightly amphibian skull with reptilian skeleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylonomus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limnoscelis

Related papers:
Discussion on ecology of earliest reptiles inferred from basal Pennsylvanian trackways
David G. Keighley, John H. Carder, Adrian F. Park, Ronald K. Pickerill, John W.F. Waldron, Howard J. Falcon-Lang and Mike J. Benton
Journal, Vol. 164, 2007,1113-1118
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/extract/165/5/983

Microsaurs and the Origin of Captorhinomorph Reptiles
Joseph T. Gregory Dept. of Paleontology, University of California Berkeley
American Zoologist 1965 5(2):277-286; doi:10.1093/icb/5.2.277
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/277

REPTILES TO MAMMALS

Pelycosaur Synapsids – ex. Ophiacodon, Varanopidae, Ophiacodontidae. Intermediate between cotylosaurs and therapsids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiacodon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varanopidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiacodontidae

Related papers:
Fossil Synapsids: The Ecology and Biology of Mammal-like Reptiles.
Kemp TS.
Science. 1987 May 15;236(4803):862-863
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17777853?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The mammary gland and its origin during synapsid evolution.
Oftedal OT.
J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2002 Jul;7(3):225-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12751889?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Therapsids – ex. Dimetrodon – Many therapsid fossils show gradual intermediate changes from reptilian to mammalian features: Ribs become restricted to chest instead of entire body, legs are not spread out but pulled in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon

Related papers:
Evolution of bone microanatomy of the tetrapod tibia and its use in palaeobiological inference.
Kriloff A, Germain D, Canoville A, Vincent P, Sache M, Laurin M.
J Evol Biol. 2008 May;21(3):807-26. Epub 2008 Feb 25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18312321?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Post-Jurassic mammal-like reptile from the Palaeocene.
Fox RC, Youzwyshyn GP, Krause DW.
Nature. 1992 Jul 16;358(6383):233-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1630490?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Cynodont theriodonts – ex. Cynognathus – Very mammal-like reptiles. Differentiated teeth, differentiated vertebral column, mammalian limbs and digits, has undeniably reptilian jaw joint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theriodont
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynognathus

Related papers:
[Acquisition of masticatory structures in mammalian reptiles (preliminary study]
Buyle-Bodin Y, Dubreuil D.
J Biol Buccale. 1976 Jun;4(2):91-108.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Cynodont reptile with incipient mammalian jaw articulation.
Romer AS.
Science. 1969 Nov 14;166(907):881-2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5345204?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

[Jaws of primitive mammals]
Tsubamoto T.
Clin Calcium. 2005 Jun;15(6):1045-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15930721?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Tritylodont theriodonts – ex. Tritylodon – even more mammal characteristics but still has reptilian jaw joint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritylodon

Related paper:
THE POSTCRANIAL SKELETON OF THE LATE TRITYLODONT BIENOTHEROIDES
Ailin Sun and Yuhe Li
Vertebrata PalAsiatica Volume XXIII, No.2 April, 1985 pp. 135-150
http://www.paleoglot.org/files/Sun&Li_85.pdf

Examples of transition b/w reptilian inner ear and jaw to mammalian inner ear and jaw:

Ictidosaur theriodonts – ex. Pachygenelus (formerly known as Diarthrognathus) – has all mammalian features of tritilodonts and has double jaw joint, both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint side by side in the skull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ictidosaur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachygenelus

Related papers:
An Ictidosaur Fossil from North America.
Chatterjee S.
Science. 1983 Jun 10;220(4602):1151-1153
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

The dentitions of the Tritheledontidae (therapsida: cynodontia)
Gow CE.
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1980 Jul 17;208(1173):461-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Morganucodonts – ex. Morganucodon – Same double jaw joint but with the MAMMALIAN JOINT DOMINANT with reptilian joint moving inward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganucodonta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganucodon

Related paper:
Mammal Teeth from the Forest Marble (Middle Jurassic) of Oxfordshire, England.
Freeman EF.
Science. 1976 Dec 3;194(4269):1053-1055.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Eupantotheres – ex. Amphiperatherium – Mammals begin to show complex molar cusp patterns. Has mammalian jaw joint.

Related papers:
Crystallite orientation discontinuities and the evolution of mammalian enamel–or, when is a prism?
Lester KS, von Koenigswald W.
Scanning Microsc. 1989 Jun;3(2):645-62; discussion 663
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2683049?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Mammal Teeth from the Forest Marble (Middle Jurassic) of Oxfordshire, England.
Freeman EF.
Science. 1976 Dec 3;194(4269):1053-1055.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17840306?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

An example of the transition between egg-laying reptiles and placental mammals is the Platypus which is warm-blooded, has fur, produces milk but lays eggs instead of having live young. Some parts of their skeleton are more similar to a reptile than to a mammal. EX. Obdurodon – Extinct platypus that had molar teeth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obdurodon

Related article:
Platypus Genome Reveals Secrets of Mammal Evolution
Scott Norris for National Geographic News May 7, 2008
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080507-platypus.html

Related paper:
New information about the skull and dentary of the Miocene platypus Obdurodon dicksoni, and a discussion of ornithorhynchid relationships.
Musser AM, Archer M.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Jul 29;353(1372):1063-79.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9720105?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

REPTILES TO BIRDS

Anchiornis huxleyi – New feathered Dinosaur just discovered in China in the past few weeks. Has “dino fuzz” and four limbs with wing-like characteristics which also found in later specimens such as Arhaeopteryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis

Related article:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47800/title/Feather-covered_dinosaur_fossils_founds

Archaeopteryx – has many avian characteristics such as feathers but also some that are only found in reptiles such as: has no bill, trunk region vertebra are not fused as in all birds, pubic shafts with slightly angled cross-section, neck attaches to skull from rear as in dinosaurs not from below like birds. Claws on 3 non-fused digits a feature that no adult bird has. The sacrum occupies 6 vertebra (birds always have 11-23) along with many other traits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Related paper:
A well-preserved Archaeopteryx specimen with theropod features.
Mayr G, Pohl B, Peters DS.
Science. 2005 Dec 2;310(5753):1483-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16322455?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

More on Archaeopteryx:

From Answers in Genesis:
“One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is now generally recognized to be a true bird.”

I must note that this argument, while it has been thoroughly refuted is further weakened by the very recent discovery of Anchiornis huxleyi, which pre-dates Archaeopteryx. Also, Archaeopteryx is NOT widely recognized as a true bird. It is widely recognized as a transitional form between reptiles and birds, it could in fact be more accurate to describe it as a “true reptile” rather than a true bird because it actually has more reptilian characteristics than avian ones.

An article from UC Berkeley:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

I have also heard a similar argument that uses this quote from Dr. Alan Fedduccia: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
While Fedduccia believes that Archaeopteryx is fully a bird, he is in the minority in that regard. This is a classic case of quote mining in a weak attempt to overlook that the fossil clearly has both reptilian and avian traits.
Dr. Fedduccia also said of Archaeopteryx:
“…The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian…. The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms–what has come to be called a “missing link,” a Rosetta stone of evolution….”

Sinornis santensis – Bird traits: short trunk, claws on toes, stronger flight-feather bones, short hand. Reptilian traits: Reptilian stomach ribs, non-fused hand bones, pelvis, teeth and tail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinornis_santensis

Related paper:
Early Evolution of Avian Flight and Perching: New Evidence from the Lower Cretaceous of China.
Sereno PC, Chenggang R.
Science. 1992 Feb 14;255(5046):845-848.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Las Hoyas Birds – Reptilian pelvis and legs, bird-like shoulder. Transistions between Archaeopteryx and modern birds.

Related paper:
The birds from Las Hoyas.
Sanz JL, Ortega F.
Sci Prog. 2002;85(Pt 2):113-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

An additional note: Chicken bills can be induced to form teeth because they still have dormant genes for making teeth. Why would they have genes for making teeth if not for a toothed ancestor?

Articles about teeth in birds:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1666805

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/hens_teeth_not_so_rare_after_all_10081.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5230538

LAND MAMMALS to WHALES

Should see transition between ears that are designed to hear on land and those that are designed for the water.

Pakicetus – Distinct whale skull, but with nostrils on tip of snout. Ears which are partially modified for hearing under water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus

Related paper:
Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls.
Thewissen JG, Williams EM, Roe LJ, Hussain ST.
Nature. 2001 Sep 20;413(6853):277-81
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11565023?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Ambulocetus natans – A whale with four legs. Stubby front legs with well developed back legs and large feet that stick out like tail flukes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus_natans

Related paper:
“Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetacean (Mammalia) from Pakistan”
J. G. M. Thewissen, S. I. Madar, and S. T. Hussain
Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg (1996) 191: 1–86.

Related article:
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/Ambulocet.html

Rodhocetus – hind legs which were shorter than A. natans. Could probably waddle on land but with powerful tail. Nostrils moved back from tip of snout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus

Related paper:
Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan.
Gingerich PD, Haq Mu, Zalmout IS, Khan IH, Malkani MS.
Science. 2001 Sep 21;293(5538):2239-42. Epub 2001 Sep 19.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Basilosaurus isis – Whale with legs but hind feet had 3 toes and small remnant of 2nd toe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus_isis

Related paper:
Hind Limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of Feet in Whales.
Gingerich PD, Smith BH, Simons EL.
Science. 1990 Jul 13;249(4965):154-157.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Prozeuglodon – Very tiny hind legs, had vestigal 6 inch legs at rear of 15 foot body. Whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils.
http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=53288

Related paper:
Replacement of Deciduous First Premolars and Dental Eruption in Archaeocete Whales
Mark D. Uhen
Journal of Mammalogy 81(1):123-133. 2000 doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081