"
The earliest known whales, Himalayacetus and Pakicetus are presently known only from cranial material<.b>, so they are not much help. However, the position of the inner ear bones in Pakicetus are a perfect intermediate between those of land mammals and the rotated ones of cetaceans (Thewissen & Hussain, 1993), not to mention the fact that the tympanic bullae are composed of dense bone as those of cetaceans (Gingerich, et al, 1983). Before I say anything else, your link goes to a personal page which the author did not even bother to assign his name to. It also does not have any examples of bones showing any proof for what he mentions in the text.
Aside from that, we have a very real problem with this article and I am surprised you did not notice it. Look at the bolded words, look at the bottom picture in post#87. The statement is false. We indeed have a lot of bones from Pakicetus besides the cranium. Those bones show a four legged animal.
So there we go Junior, another article "proving" whales came from land animals that does not show any such thing.
Let me just say one more thing about this matter. DNA analysis has shown that whales are in no way related to hippos and have not shown them to be related to any known land animal. So much for evolutionist fantasies.
Face it, gore3000, your brain (or programming) has been trained to force a cognitive disassociation between the pariticulars of evidence and the sum total of evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees. You'll pick at individual pieces of evidence given you, but fail to understand the overall picture painted by the evidence coming in from dozens of scientific disciplines. And, you show an inherent inability to actually learn anything, which is why you come back with the same inanities time and again. About the only difference is you don't automatically call those who disagree with you "slimers." So, maybe there is hope yet.