@dcscccc
Thanks for your reply. It is clear to me (and I hope you will agree) that you are wholly committed to rejecting any evidence for evolution no matter what might be presented. I suggest that we should be honest with each other and acknowledge that our disagreements are not really about natural observations at all, but what we believe are allowable natural discoveries based on biblical interpretations and theology. If you have predetermined that evolution cannot be valid, then I understand that you will always have some kind of counter to every bit of evidence. But this is, of course, a non-productive merry-go-round.
Part of my intent in presenting the list of evidence for ungulate-to-whale evolution (a very abbreviated list at that) was to show how many diverse observations point to an evolutionary creation scenario that are not explained under other creationist proposals. At some point, I believe we need to acknowledge that the overall weight of different evidences is what is so compelling as support for evolution, even if you can dismiss one item or another. But I must say that most of your quick dismissals don’t directly address what the evidence is implying.
Before I go on, thanks for the reference on the function of whale pelvic bones in penis support. I had heard that suggestion before, but not seen this new study. I applaud you for providing a function for the whale hip bone. The thing is that the whale pelvic bone is STILL evidence for evolution. The penis in all male mammals with hind limbs is anchored to the pelvic bone that also supports the limbs. Is it just coincidence that whales have a comparable bone precisely in the region of the body where hind limbs are present in fossil whales?
You missed the point about embryonic teeth and nostril migration in whales. The real question is why do teeth develop AT ALL in an animal that that will only need baleen as an adult? The presence of temporary teeth is explained under an evolutionary scenario, but makes no sense in a specially created or designed animal. Likewise, why don’t the nostrils of whales develop directly at the location of the blowhole rather than begin at the tip of the snout where they are located in older fossil whales and other mammals?
I am very surprised at your simple suggestion that if it has legs, then it’s not a whale. This reminded me that years ago Duane Gish used to argue that since Archaeopteryx had feathers, it was simply a bird. But the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is unmistakably a bipedal, thecodont reptile by almost all of its features - it’s a dinosaur with feathers. In the same way, the limbed whale fossils I mentioned are unmistakably whale-like by criteria of their teeth and skull (included a reduced zygomatic arch, and large poorly attached tympanic bullae). Especially important, the presence of HOOVES and a double-pulley astragalus bone are remarkable confirmations of evolution because they wonderfully fit previous stated predictions that whales evolved from hoofed ancestors.
Finally, comparisons of genetic sequences are particularly powerful evidence for an evolutionary past, as they have, in most instances, confirmed evolutionary phylogenies that were developed previously from other criteria. Humans are not morphologically closest to orangutans, and the genetics confirms that humans are closely linked to chimps and bonobos. But here is the real point: why should humans be extremely close in genetic sequences to any of these particular primates if it is not due to an evolutionary ancestry? It is not sufficient to say it is because they are all primates. I fully believe God knew we would discover these things. Can we really quickly dismiss the information?
I conclude with a repeated exhortation: There is so much positive evidence for evolution in God’s natural creation that I believe we must engage it head on as a real aspect of God’s creative artistry – for His glory, for the health of the church, and for an effective witness for Jesus.