So science has learned something about the details of whale evolution. Most folks would think that was good.
"Science" may have learned something, but have all "scientists"? Prior to 1938, coelacanth fossils were misinterpreted as walking fish using the evolution model. The continuance of this mistake is evidenced in the pakicetus interpretation. In both cases, the interpretation was falsified by the evidence, thus weakening the model overall. When the same mistake is repeated, this is indicative that something more fundamental is flawed.
Evolutionists were misled by their model to interpret coelacanth fossils as evidence for a missing link that possessed appendages used for walking.
Now which model of "origins" is supported by this new information? That of the bible and "kinds" or that of the theory of evolution, within which this new information fits quite well.
The idea that animals were created fully-developed seems attractive when considering the non-viability of animals caught in a state of transition when macro-evolving. Just look at poor old pakicetus in the illustration. His truncated forelimbs serve neither for swimming or walking. Creation theory allows for "genetic variation" within the kinds to allow adaptation. But the variation is limited as evidenced in dog breeding.
Clarification of terms and a priori beliefs:
Wikipedia - "Abiogenesis"
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.
...
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Charles Darwin to George Darwin in 1873 letter:
Real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks [on Christianity]. (
source)
Evolutionists frequently proclaim that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with how life began. From Darwin’s own words, we see how his world-view followed a continuum:
1) God is undesired or doesn’t exist
2) warm little pond
3) spontaneous generation of first cell
4) duplication mechanisms invented by mutations & nat. sel.
Had Darwin known the complexity of a living cell, he would have stopped at #3 (see letter to Joseph Hooker). #4 is just as bad or worse since copying would not be like duplicating a file on a hard drive but like duplicating the
whole computer and the
companies that make the parts for the computer! The production facilities must reside in the organism. Pictured below is Intel’s production facility in Costa Rica that makes ONE PART for a computer. Get the picture?
What Wikipedia fails to mention:The word "micro-evolution" is often used interchangeably with "genetic variation". Evolutionists try to sell "macro-evolution" to undiscerning consumers as being the same as "micro-evolution" which is "genetic variation". The technique is not unlike audio amplifier manufacturers that underhandedly overrate an amplifier's power output as 400W. In actuality the power rating is "instantaneous peak music power on one channel" and not the more revealing and conservative 20W RMS/channel, both channels driven simultaneously, from 20-20,000 Hz, with less than 0.5% distortion. By changing words, evolutionists effectively advertise their "20 watt" theory as being "400 watts".