more hsocking to the knuckleheads at nature is the idea that the ‘studies’ apparently aren’t ‘studies’ at all, but rather nothign more than ASSUMPTIONS based on what again? The fact that different species have similar designs? EEEEEEK! Are there ANY evidences showing the trillions of differences between the two species evolving one way or hte other? ANy evidences showing even one small morphological change evolving from a blowhole to nostrils? Nope- just pure ASSUMPTIONS that there are MISSING SPECIES somewhere that must have shown a nice neat little evolutionary line of change- but fret not- ‘One day, we’ll discover these missing links’- until then we have these incomplete ‘Studies’ that ASSUME hippos evolved from whales- oh wait- ooops- I mean Pigs, or was that horses?
Put the word ‘Study’ i nthe article, and everyone simply assumes it’s scientific with all manner of evidences to support it- little do they realize though that ALL these scientists have to base their ASSUMPTIONS on are a could of entirely moot examples of homology- but as we KNOW from science, homological smilarities do NOT a descendant make- But let’s not let these icky little details cloud our vision of evolution eh?
It's HorseWhalePig, newly discovered big brother of ManBearPig. Al Gore is beaming.
Actually since whales were originally land mammals the nostril evolved into the blowhole………….but anyway this will help explain that process.
“The evidence that whales descended from terrestrial mammals is here divided into nine independent parts: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological. Although my summary of the evidence is not exhaustive, it shows that the current view of whale evolution is supported by scientific research in several distinct disciplines.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/