Well, I've found something very interesting. When I was at a museum, I noticed this, from a whale's skeleton. Of course, I googled it to find out more.

Whales have a pelvis. OK, you're asking, "So what?" Well, only animals with hind legs have a pelvis! And whales do not have hind legs. The ancestors of whales had leg muscles attached to the pelvis; modern
whales have other muscles attached to it. This is good evidence for
evolution. Whales are also mammals. So, (please excuse me, I'm only 10) whales must've once been land animals. 

Reposted from the old thread: 

First off, let's wrap up the religion stuff. Just because you're Christian, doesn't mean I am. So let's get the excuses about being Christian outta the way.

And now, look closely at a WHALE'S SKELETON. What do you see? A PELVIS. And do whales have hind legs? NO. Could whales once have had hind legs, hence the pelvis? YES.

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution, they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of
whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... How did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today, and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the
world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't
suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty";
there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex
world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow
deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only
because they are not about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a
style of argument that they themselves favor). In science
"fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics
classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this
distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if
only because we have always acknowledged how far we are
from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by
which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually
emphasized the difference between his two great and
separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of
evolution and proposing a theory--natural selection--to
explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory";Discover, May 1981

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary
process, especially those who have been misquoted and used
by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a
fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology
are questions of details of the process and the relative
importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a
fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6
billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been
around for at least half of that period and that organized
multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is
a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all
represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250
million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of
the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs
and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact
that all living forms come from previous living forms.
Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral
forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and
humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any
understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any
more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of
the relative importance of various forces in molding
evolution.

 

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for
Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution
versus Creationism, op cit.

 My post is getting long enough. 

(August 22, 2008 - 4:47 pm)