Originally Posted by M@RS
Whales have don't "vestigal" bones (they say it proves that it used to be used for walking) those bones serve as anchor points for muscles. Without them whales can't reproduce, they have nothing to do with walking on land... Even IF it was vestigal, isn't losing something against evolution?
No. "Losing something" isn't "against evolution." It will be exceedingly difficult to engage in discourse if you aren't prepared, so I might recommend Biology
by Miller and Levine, you can pick up used versions at any used book store. This will give you some primer and offer good source material for evolutionary theory.
The vestigial bones on whales are, indeed, vestigial bones. We have a seriation of fossils that exist chronologically in strata and show the gradual changes these bones went from legs to their current form. This is empirical data. To give an idea, these are but a few diagrams:
"The photo shows three ankles, respectively those of Rodhocetus, a modern pronghorn antelope, and Artiocetus. Remarkably, all three show a "double-pulley" astragalus. The astragalus is the bone with the deep, rounded groove in it (imagine a rope fitting into the groove of a pulley wheel). This groove, called a trochlea, fits another bone to form a sliding joint. The artiodactyl astragalus -- in both the modern pronghorn and these ancient swimming whales -- has the unique feature of having two trochleas, one on each end. This is the "double-pulley." These protocetid whales were definitely not runners, but they retain a clear mark of their ancestry as hoofed running animals. "
Protocetid hindlimb/ankle reconstructions from Figure 2, p. 2241 of: Gingerich, P. D.; M. Haq; I. S. Zalmout; I. H. Khan; and M. S. Malkani (2001). "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan." Science 293(5538), 2239-2242.
Muizon, Christian (2001). Walking with Whales. Nature
Its not clear why you state that the bones on whales are not vestigial. Perhaps they were used for muscle attatchment -from photos I've seen, however, I don't see the raised ossification indicative of muscle attatchment- but that doesn't imply they aren't vestigial.
God didn't use a process in which millions of creatures have to die just to get the perfect creature. Besides he's perfect,
In that case, this would seem to be evidence for an absence of gods.
You guys sure can ask a lot of questions...
I see no reason to ask you questions regarding evolution as there is no indication that this is a subject you're well-versed in. Sorry.