It would be easier if we took this one topic at a time; I think it's best for all posters if we avoided very long and detailed posts. I'm getting tired of writing a book every time I come here. Having said that, you brought these things up, so OK then.

That's a very roundabout way of getting around your Lucy point, no mention of that in your post. Just an attempt to strip what I said of any authority by claiming I don't know what I'm talking about and am just, er, shouting from the sidelines. Sorry, you'll have to do better. Address what I am actually saying please.

Morphological evidence, well that's a whole topic unto itself isn't it. But no, we're not simply guessing when we look at a couple of creatures and think they might have a similar origin. Science doesn't work that way. Even when scientists are inspired by intuition, they will put their ideas to the test. Factual evidence from a number of different scientific disciplines can go into the study of the evolution of a species. If you would like to name a more concrete example we can talk about this in more detail. Like others here have said, you may cite the tome you pasted in this thread, but I am not going to wade through it. I could paste huge chunks of info here too but out of respect for the audience and the medium we are using, I try to be brief and to the point where I can.

Assuming for now that what you say is true about whale genes -- what is your point about them being similar to ungulates? These are mammals. What would you rather they were more similar to? Problem with this?

Vestigial evidence -- Darwin himself never claimed that vestigial organs must be functionless. In his section on vestigial organs in On the Origin of Species (which you ought to read if you are going to talk against it on threads like this), he emphasises that vestiges can be functional and gives several examples. The entirety of which I will not put here, but in brief:

"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other . . . Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given."

"Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails."

". . . an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose."

Saying that functional vestigial organs proves evolution wrong is to ignore the original context and definition of the term vestigial. Darwin said that vestigial structures have lost their original, greater physiological significance, not ALL physiological significance.

Haeckel was wrong. Does this disprove evolution? No. It doesn't invalidate anything other than what Haeckel said, and he was post-Darwin. Scientists get it wrong sometimes. That's why it's always important to check your facts and test what you think you know, as well as what you've just discovered. All it usually takes is convincing evidence to the contrary. Creationism ain't it folks. BTW do creationists ever admit they got something wrong?

You are oversimplifying where you talk about whales. I have read before about the oxygen isotopes in the teeth. You say that this alone isn't enough evidence for you. You then claim that when logical predictions are used, and we find land animals where we would predict and aquatic animals where we would predict, that is not enough evidence for you. I have seen evidence of plenty of what I would call transitional forms and the reasons for these being considered to be so, though I am aware that creationists seem to want to have a smooth line documenting every single little change over the years before they might be willing to say these are transitional forms -- and maybe not even then. You then say that evolutionists claim one animal evolved into the other. If you have studied this for 20 years as you say then you know evolution is more complex and less straightforward than that.

I see a lot of evidence here when you combine all these things. Still not convinced? What are you waiting for, what kind of evidence would actually convince you, if any? It's easy to be a creationist isn't it. Just keep saying there's not enough evidence, and that any fact presented to you cannot be proved or is a hoax.

You seem to have trouble believing it's possible that creatures left the sea at one point, and returned to the sea later. I'm not sure what your point here is, other than you personally find it improbable, which has no basis in science or fact. If there is an ecological niche to be exploited, then creatures with the ability to do so, will exploit it. Reptiles returned to the seas and the crocodile, an amazing example of a successful species, is still around today. (And before you try to start another debate, it is entirely possible for a creature to have evolved a long time ago and still be around, and also for other creatures to have evolved from it that either became extinct or are still around too.) And as you say, after the mass extinction that included the dinosaurs, a lot of ecological niches opened up -- in the air, on land and in the seas. Mammals, which had remained more or less unchanged for 100 million years, began to evolve very quickly once this happened. Why wouldn't some of them have returned to the seas? Obviously this would not have happened overnight, but in evolutionary terms it might have been fairly quick. Why not, what's your beef here?

By all means carry on the discussion, but can we focus on fewer things at a time and try to trim the length of the posts? I would appreciate it, thanks.

Linda.