"Vestigial" does not mean "useless". It is a descriptor used in identifying parts that no longer perform their original function. The bones that evolutionists claim were parts of legs in ancestors of whales are identified by their similarity to the leg and hip bones of land animals. Coupling that with the fossil lineage of the whales that shows the changes through generations, evolutionists categorize those bones as vestigial.


So you are saying that evolutionists looked at whales, then determined that they must have been land animals once, as just a guess? What did they do...flip a coin? I guess the coin didn't flip in favor of fish.
Anyway, according to your conjecture, after randomly choosing whales as former land animals, evolutionist paleontologists happened to find fossils with all the attributes of whales except they had small legs. Then in an earlier period in the fossil record, they just happened to find another fossil with all the attributes of the whale except a slightly smaller head and bigger legs than the previous fossil. They just happened to keep finding fossils that, as the age of the fossils was greater, the legs were bigger, the flippers were less like flippers, the hip bones were more like a hip....etc.
Strangely, fossils that look similar to modern fish but with a few changes, never show a change toward previously having legs. No matter how far back they look, paleontologists only find that animals with similarities to fish are only simpler fish.

I guess that coin flip was lucky for the evolutionists, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to find fossils that they could pretend are ancestors of a sea creature that they wanted to say was formerly a land creature.

Because the whale predecessor fossils don't show wings, then flippers. However, you can look at penguin ancestry if you are interested in wings to flippers evolution.

Evolution is not some kind of pathway to the stars. It is a change in organisms that may or may not meet a particular survival need. If the change meets a survival need, then the species evolves. If it does not meet survival needs then that species dies out...extinction.
Who says it is not happening now? Creatures have been changed in our lifetime. Dog breeds are evolution. Yes it is directed by man and forced to occur more rapidly than in nature. However, the breeding of dogs to make a cairn terrier that can go into gopher holes shows that animals have the capability to change and become better than others of its species at obtaining a food source. If man can change animal populations, why can't changes in the environment cause changes in the animal populations?



Common design does not account for the same changes caused by endogenous retroviruses in animals that are related to each other. Quick explanation:
1. Viruses multiply by taking over a cell in a host organism and inserting it's RNA into the DNA of the cell.
2. The cell then tries to divide by copying its own DNA, but that DNA has the virus RNA in it so that is copied too.
3. Instead of the cell dividing, the virus is copied and the cell dies.
4. When the virus inserts its RNA, it is placed in a random location on the cell's DNA. Because of the randomness, sometimes the replication of the virus does not happen and the DNA of that cell is simply changed. This is somewhat rare.
5. Sometimes the cell affected is a sperm or egg cell. This is also rare and it causes the copy of the virus RNA to remain in the progeny of that sperm or egg cell. This can be detected by looking at the DNA of an animal and seeing where the virus RNA is. The virus RNA left in the animal's DNA is called an endogenous retrovirus.
6. Since the location of the retrovirus on the DNA string is random, plus the infection of a reproductive cell (sperm or egg) is rare, it is unlikely that 2 unrelated species would have retrovirus RNA in the same place in their DNA.
7. However, the same retrovirus RNA has been found in the same location on the DNA strings of bovines (cows) and whales. Not only that, but multiple retrovirus RNA strings have been shown to match up between bovines and whales, less so between bats and whales, and even less so (but still some!) between whales and horses.
8. The retrovirus RNA commonality of this order is not shown between whales and fish, or whales and birds.

So what do you think caused this retrovirus commonality between whales, cows, bats and horses? Do you think God just put these RNA strings in the DNA for reasons of His own when he created these creatures (and all the extinct creatures we see in the fossil record) during creation week 6000 years ago?

Since God randomly put in those RNA strings, do you also think that when evolutionists did that coin flip to decide which sea creature they would say had land animal ancestors, they just happened to get lucky that whales had endogenous retrovirus RNA that matched these land creatures so closely?

Maybe God affected the coin flip so these guys wouldn't look so foolish when they presented their "Big Joke" to the world. But why would He do that?

Maybe it was just one lucky coin flip.