Replies

what's a whale or a Dolphin.....It's the idea of Flipper getting legs and walking and then turning into an Elephant, that bothers me....lololol....:) Maybe it was an Orca that turns, evolves I mean into an Elephant millions of years later.....:))

Your post is incoherent enough that it's hard to tell exactly what you're talking about, but both the fish-to-mammal transition and the land mammal-to-whale transition are covered here. There is overwhelming fossil and DNA and biochemical evidence for both, along multiple independent cross-confirming lines. If you're still unclear on any point after reading those links, just ask and I'll be happy to clear it up for you, or provide detailed examinations of the evidence for you.

Later you wrote:

The reason that they are similar is that they were created by the same creator, not because they evolved.

It may appear that way superficially if you're not familiar with the field, but that's not how the DNA and fossil and biochemical analysis is actually done, nor is it based on anything as trivially incidental as mere "similarity". There are very specific kinds and patterns of similarities, *and* differences, along multiple independent and cross-confirming lines of evidence, which overwhelmingly support evolutionary origins. See the links I provide if you want to start delving into the details, but the short form is that evolutionary processes would produce *very* specific kinds of similarities across lineages, and *very* specific kinds of differences -- patterns which would *not* be produced by "design" processes, unless the designer was being intentionally deceitful and purposely mimicking the byproducts of evolution. And those evolutionary patterns are exactly what we find when we analyze DNA, at every level, in every genome, in every way we've thought to test so far, hundreds of thousands of times over.

This is not some mere coincidence or loose "similarity". This is a rich, deep, detailed history of evolutionary "tracers" which are embedded in every genome in hundreds of conceivable ways.

It's no overstatement to say that to any objective observer who has taken the time to actually view and understand the DNA evidence, the debate over whether life on Earth evolved through common ancestry is *over*. The evidence is just vastly overwhelming that it did.

For just a few small examples: the "tip of the iceberg" evidence of evolution post.

If you're unclear as to how science actually tests its analyses of the evidence to ensure that they are valid, see this post. This post also covers, in general, how common descent is distinguished from design hypotheses when testing the evidence.