quote:
Yes, changes have been postulated, but they cannot be codified (solidifying of such statements through experimentation in discovering the facts/truth of the matter...gravity has been codified for example). Think about what you just said...hind legs could be made useless...then they are not an advantage to a land dwelling creature, then it would have the anti-thesis of fitness, it would not survive. If the creature was living in the water before such a change (which is against all common sense) then it would not be environmentally fit, still having only legs. The scenarios are only just-so stories, having no common sense logic behind it. They are made up because aquatic mammals present a problem for TOE. But, because TOE theorists are committed more to their paradigm than they are to discovering truth...no matter where that investigation leads them...they will continue to give birth to such ludicrous stories that cannot be verified nor even worked out on paper without throwing away common sense logic.
OK, lets see what marine mammals do to the theory of separate creation...
Whales live underwater, yet they must surface every once in a while. The designer decided to burden this creature with its air-breathing apparatus, while he could have made gills just like his other creations, fish & clams & co.
Ambulocetus the walking whale lived before true whales. Rodhocetus the swimming whale with legs lived after Ambulocetus and before legless whales. Basilosaurus the almost legless whale have vestigial legs but with a knee, which apparently cannot be used for walking. No, they were not related. They were separately created in such a sequence that almost look as if they were members of a continuing lineage.
What do you think?
™ Version 4.2