Aaron writes:
If someone would like to perform a good service (perhaps even the OP's author), they could summarize the OP into a few paragraphs summarizing the evidence and arguments.
Good point. I realize this article is a little much for this type of venue. I was mostly using it as an opportunity to flesh out some thoughts.
Basically, I'm tackling three aspects of whale anatomy that have previously been considered only explainable from an evolution standpoint.
1.) The presence of a femur/tibia in certain whales
2.) The occasional presence of a hind "limb" in cetaceans
3.) The emergence and regression of a "limb bud" in cetaceans
I believe each of these has been misrepresented and errantly used as evidence of cetacean quadruped ancestry.
There is good evidence that the limb buds are not limb buds at all, but are involved in forming the mammary region.
This helps explain why the femur and tibia in whales (as well as the pelvis) are so dramatically different in their orientation when compared to a quadruped pelvis and limb. Their developmental process and function are quite different.
Also, if the hind buds are not limb buds, then the occasional hind "limb" can't be a leg reversion - and indeed the physical and chemical evidence strongly suggests these limbs are not at all atavistic reversions.
indeed organized creationism has said the marine mammals did not evolve from land.
This YEC creationist insists marine mammals were all from the land and descendants off the Ark.
They simply filled a empty post flood sea.
i welcome and want to find great evidence for marine mammals being post flood adaptations.
In fact they make the case against evolution because they are amongst the very few creatures with remnants of former anatomical structures indicating a previous type of body.
If evolution was true all creatures should be crawling with remnants of this and that.
In fact only these creatures obviously first land creatures have these vestiges.
They could adapt to the seas so far but not do the full fish thing.
In fact since creationism teaches there are only kinds and common details are just because of common needs then it could only be that marine mammals are the original like needs of mammals.
I mean that there are no such creatures as mammals but only like needs bred like details in unrelated creatures.
I don't see a evolution of land to marine but rather such rapid adaptation that some mothers son could swim but not mom.
Marine mammals could only be from land creatures and indeed creationists should embrace this .
™ Version 4.2
