Quote
In other words, they are now useless to the creature, because they do not serve them in anyway right? A similarity to leg/hip bones does not mean they were hindlimbs, if it's there it serves a function and it most certainly does serve a vital function towards reproduction. I've repeated this now for the third time. What lineage of whales? There isn't one, just the evolutionary wish list.
No they are useless as legs. They may still retain some other function.
The evolutionary wish list denied by you ishereandhere

Quote
I'd like to see photographic fossil evidence of these stages. The flippers being less like flippers, the legs being bigger, all these things need to exist in proof not animated pictures, there needs to be the gradual evidence for the transition from land dwelling creature to the mammals we see today. Not other creatures that existed which the evolutionist has decided to label as an earlier form of a whale. Coin tossing? Just wishful thinking and lots of assumptions. They have to find other fossils and label them as earlier forms, rather than other animals or variations.
Well, you could look into the links above and the links referenced by them and you might get photographs of all the skeletons found so far. However, I doubt that you will believe these paleontologists are telling the truth, because you already said it is a lot of bull.....

Quote
If evolution were true, the fossil record should be inundated with evidence of transitional forms. Yet there is not even a "single" example. And now you're onto penguin evolution when you haven't even provided proof for the whale.
Ok...I'll show you a transitional if you tell me what a "true" transitional is supposed to look like. You can use the "supposed" whale evolutionary tree as your basis for deciding what the transitional should look like.

Quote
This is not evolution. If you really want to use the word - micro evolution, then I guess you can but guess what? The dogs didn't become anything else, they stayed dogs. What is the evolutionist to do? Not even intentional breeding can make a dog a "non dog", yet he/she wants us to believe that nature can do it all by itself. Why are you asking me questions? Evolution should have provided the proof without question. Changes in the environment? What changes in the environment have caused one kind of animal becoming an entirely new species over time? We know that animals develop thicker coats, but I've not yet seen any animal changing into something else as a result of the environment. Again, no evolution here. Variation/breeding is not one kind becoming something else given lots of time and chance.
So how different does it have to become before you would declare it is no longer "micro" evolution. How far away from the original wolf (where dogs came from) should the progeny be before you say that it is not wolf anymore? What is the dividing line? Is it toy poodle, mastiff or terrier? How about one that looks like a cat?

When does "micro" become "macro"? You'll have to tell me where the demarcation point is because neither of those terms are used to describe evolution since almost all changes are small. They just add up to big changes over time.

Quote
I do not know enough about viruses to comment on your list here Linear, perhaps someone more familiar with this can? I'd still like to know how one kind of animal has become another kind of animal and I'd like to SEE proof of the entire transitional stages.
You will see that when you can tell me when you would call it another kind of animal.

Quote
If you want to side-track me onto viruses and all those things, it's pointless. You should be able to give solid evidence that one kind of animal has become an entirely new kind of animal. Not just tell me "well it's possible because of this, how do you explain this?" We've already been told it's happened, you don't need to resort to the virus stuff, just give plain evidence and visual proof of one kind of animal becoming something else. Very simple.
Those whale "drawings" are from the fossils of animals that were dug up by paleontologists. Some of the middle ones were dug up because these paleontologists predicted approximately what level in the fossil record they should be found. Amazingly, they found them in the layers of rock that it was predicted that they would be found. According to you these guys are just making this stuff up and are a bunch of liars. So they shouldn't have been able to find anything, much less find a fossil that matched their prediction.

Quote
No animation either. That is not scientific proof.

1. There is no such thing as scientific proof, only evidence in favor of or in refutation of a particular theory.
2. Do a little research before you discount the theory. I got you a few links on whales that lead to other links. I looked into 7-day creation for quite some time, finding almost no supportive scientific evidence, before abandoning it.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke