%% He created that/Genesis 1....................................................................................
With science ... https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/evol...olutionary-significance-of-the-narwhals-tusk/ https://www.unipi.it/index.php/engl...d-in-the-tropical-waters-of-the-mediterranean
Now, if it could have originated randomly, with time; then it could have also originated via intelligent design.
Nothing in the first article offered any evidence explaining the evolutionary process. The logic was simply: because it is, it must have happened according to natural selection. The second article goes beyond the inability of the first article to offer evidence, by admitting the evidence doesn't actually exist. "While a great deal is known about monodontid biology - explains Giovanni Bianucci - thanks to the research carried out on living belugas and narwhals by scientists from all over the world, very little is known about the evolution of these cetaceans, because their fossil record is extremely scarce. In fact, until now only three extinct species of monodontids were known, each of them was described on the basis of a single fossil skull. Therefore, the skull that we found in Arcille is of extraordinary importance not only because it is the first of monodontid discovered in the Mediterranean area, but also because it allowed us to describe the fourth fossil species of Monodontidae worldwide ”. Nothing in either article had physical evidence of evolutionary transition from one species to another or physical evidence showing how this creature's unique features were formed.
The first article has Surprise! That's part of the definition of natural selection. A fossil skull is physical evidence and apparently good enough for "Giovanni Bianucci and Alberto Collareta, paleontologists from the Department of Earth Sciences of the University of Pisa, alongside with Fabio Pesci and Chiara Tinelli, who took part in the study in the framework of their thesis activities , respectively of master's degree and doctorate." So, my opinion is I'll still tend to agree with the science from both articles. Now I do admit, the only way to know for sure where narwhals came from is with a good time machine. Unfortunately, the science and engineering for that is not quite ready for prime time.
%% The more honest scientists[+ there are some ] admit it doesn't make much sense \ they just don't want God running any part of their life. PLENTY of scientists ,especially the more brilliant like Sir Isaac Newton...... knew the Bible + or were Christians.[Look @ how many in the news, now claim to ''follow the science'' LOL + promote nonsense],
%% Regardless if his 2060 time , hits or doesn't hit, still amazingly wise. Samuel Morse, Werner Heisenberg, William Thomson [Lord Kelvin], B Paschal, Earnest Walton, George Washington Carver. Gregory Mendol , King Solomon, Francis Collins .........These were /are Christian or God respecting. Personally, i like the Forbes family/magazine +goals; ''with all they getting , get understanding'' Proverbs 4
With respect to internet trolls, I like: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."--Matthew 7:6