It all depends on how they are interpreted, and generally reading an ancient text with a lot of symbolic implications as if it's a news report is probably going to lead to misunderstandings.
That can happen, but even modern whales have the remnants of a pelvis which similarly floats (see the skeleton I posted). Also, a related species, Basilosaurus has also been found with tiny hind limbs (Basilosaurus is the larger skeleton on top).
Even more evidence along these lines is dolphins and other cetaceans are sometimes born with larger "hind fins".
Perhaps the more complex teeth in the back were lost during evolution.
Also, it's very clear the skull is a mammalian one based on the opening in the skull - the synapsid opening. Most reptiles have a second opening and are termed diapsids.
A lot of 'science' assumptions. Genesis doesn't allow 'loose' symbolism. The symbolism is specific and tightly defined. The "Serpent" is indeed symbolic of Satan, but the curse followed an actual serpent. So both Christians and scientists can and do observe leg indications in snakes, but we alternately apply 'curse' vs. 'evolution' to the phenomena. We don't disagree on the observations, we disagree on terms and derivative ideas not in common.
Continuing with a tight interpretation of Genesis: Gap theorists believe God created in 6 days, but they believe there may have been a large gap between the first part of creation because 'day' isn't mentioned until verse 4 and 5 (there are not many Gap Theorists).
If that's correct, then God had room to make the earth. Being Creator, and Creative, dinosaurs could have lived. Evolved? :nono: Not in this scenario. The building blocks of life God used/uses are cells and DNA etc. This does not mean by necessity, derivative species. I've 70% in common with onion according to DNA. This doesn't mean I evolved from an onion. The branching idea may allow for derivative species, but 'after their kind' from scripture may allow God to remold a species or even restart from scratch. God can do as He wills. What I rather question, is whether one species today, had or does become another because of the phrase "after its kind."
God can certainly do so, but after committing to an action, "after its kind" it must been seen as a truth.
The basics of argument are this:
1) "Evolutions." The term means 'on its own.' This is problematic because it'd suggest that Colossians 1:15,17 is wrong (see also John 15:5). Because God 'sustains' His creation, there is no room for something to 'evolve.'
2) Freewill autonomy, at least for my theology understanding is problematic. Yes the serpent has a will 'free' from God. Yes men have a will 'free' from God, but these are the result of the Fall, not according to design, thus any 'random' or 'chaotic' means for adaptation is part of the Fall.
3) Does it happen? If so, then all of creation groans Romans 8:20 being subjected to 'futility.' However, grace and the sustaining power of Christ must support the existence and continuation of any species. Therefore, evolution for survival of the fittest etc. cannot be seen as random undriven mechanics, but rather the hand and grace of God purposefully interacting to cause species to continue.
4) Macro-evolution - one species becoming an entirely different species, is yet science speculation. "After its kind" as well as Genesis 2:7 "from the dust (directly) indicate that men are special creations Genesis 1:27 "...in His image..." It is not said of any other creature BUT man.
5) Being 70% similar to an onion, doesn't mean related directly (cousins, according to the flesh, rather than siblings).
Cousins in only the sense that we each come from God (not too related) vs. siblings is the largest argument between Judeo/Christian understanding and current science thought.
