May 9, 2012 -- 9:10PM, christzen wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 6:42PM, 57 wrote:

May 9, 2012 -- 9:01AM, christzen wrote:

They do,you know.The hind leg bones are just concealed withing the tissue and don't extend outside the body.So the question is,why?Why have leg bones when you don't have actual legs?

The scientific answer is evolutionary adaptation.Whales are mammals that evolved from land based mammals to live in water,and in doing so gradually adapted to a more streamlined body suitable for swimming rather than walking.But the leg bones of the ancestors didn't fall off or go away,they were just absorbed into the soft tissue of the body.But they are still there.

The creationist answer is God did it.But this answer begs the question of why.Why create an animal from scratch that has never lived on land with leg bones hidden within it's body?

Does it really make more sense for creationists to look at an animal that breathes air with land based lungs even though it lives in water,is warm blooded when fish are cold blooded,and has leg bones like land based mammals,and decide that God made it this way for some weird reason rather than explore the possibility that it evolved to life in the water from an amphibious mammal?

Do tell us how mutations added up and morphed into the spout. 

 

Actually,the question is...why would a Creator create a whale with hind leg bones that are worthless and are nestled inside the tissue of the whale.If you feel capable,please offer an answer.If you do not,then move along and let someone more qualified to speak for creationism give it a try.

I'm not interested in a juvenile debate with someone who can do nothing but try and divert the subject because of an inability to participate intelligently in a civil discussion.

That question has been answered a long time ago I'm surprised you asked it. 

Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.

ref

So how did mutations add up and form the spout?

May 10, 2012 -- 10:31AM, MMarcoe wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 10:24AM, 57 wrote:

Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.

If they best explain creation, then they suggest that God is an incompetent designer. Those bones aren't all that useful as strengtheners for reproductive organs. The reason they do so at all is exaptation. Which supports evolution.

A god would have used a more efficient means for strengthening reproductive organs.

Actually what you are promoting is de-evolutionism.

Anyway, Considering the amount of whales swimming in the oceans...God seemed to have created a pretty  efficient means.   So much for your argument.

May 10, 2012 -- 10:35AM, 57 wrote:

Actually what you are promoting is de-evolutionism.

Major Premise: If you knew anything about evolutionary biology, you'd know that there's no such thing as "de-evolutionism"(sic).

Minor Premise: You appear to believe that there is such a thing as "de-evolutionism"(sic).

Conclusion: (left to the alert reader to fill in)

May 10, 2012 -- 11:04AM, d_p_m wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 10:35AM, 57 wrote:

Actually what you are promoting is de-evolutionism.

Major Premise: If you knew anything about evolutionary biology, you'd know that there's no such thing as "de-evolutionism"(sic).

Minor Premise: You appear to believe that there is such a thing as "de-evolutionism"(sic).

Conclusion: (left to the alert reader to fill in)

de-evolutionism is the destruction of a "system" ..not reverting back to what the evo's claim it once was. 

May 10, 2012 -- 11:25AM, 57 wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 11:04AM, d_p_m wrote:

May 10, 2012 -- 10:35AM, 57 wrote:

Actually what you are promoting is de-evolutionism.

Major Premise: If you knew anything about evolutionary biology, you'd know that there's no such thing as "de-evolutionism"(sic).

Minor Premise: You appear to believe that there is such a thing as "de-evolutionism"(sic).

Conclusion: (left to the alert reader to fill in)

de-evolutionism is the destruction of a "system" ..not reverting back to what the evo's claim it once was. 

Only in retrospect. All that's truly happening is that the system is adapting to its environment. Even in the "variation within kinds" model, that is what's happening. It's still evolution.