Seriously?That doesn't help or answer the question. There's no food in the sky, there's no shelter in the sky - it's all on the ground. What purpose would it serve a creature to evolve the ability to fly when it's existence relies on what's on the ground?
Yes there is shelter in taking flight if your predator can't fly or shoot a gun.
And some food is found while flying. I watched a bird soaring over a lake looking for fish through much of my dinner last night. Terrestrial raptors such as hawks and owls do the same thing.
And if you have to cover a lot of ground to find food, flying is helpful once again.
Yes, more or less. Why not? Because it challenges your faith? Why do you suppose that almost all objections to that idea come from people with an agenda to see that it is not believed?Oh ya, the fish grew legs and came onto land, they also grew the right eyes, skin & internal organs at the same time (including a pelvic bone).
Without the deciding part, yes. Why not? Because it challenges your faith?What, some of them decided life was better in the water and went back?
I don't know. Perhaps because it is not necessary. It was necessary to develop lungs form gills to get from sea to land, but it was not necessary to develop gills to get back.Then why not evolve gills from their lungs?
I don't know enough about this subject to give you definitive answers, but as I understand it, the whales are losing their pelvic bones.Why not lose the pelvic bone?
If the pelvic bones still a purpose apart from their original one - to articulate the legs with the pelvis - they won't disappear completely, however. Those bones might still be useful for the birthing process, or to serve as a site of attachment for various muscles.