Comment from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/nature07776.html by Giesler and Theodor:
“Thewissen et al. describe new fossils from India that apparently support a phylogeny that places Cetacea (that is, whales, dolphins, porpoises) as the sister group to the extinct family Raoellidae, and Hippopotamidae as more closely related to pigs and peccaries (that is, Suina) than to cetaceans. However, our reanalysis of a modified version of the data set they used differs in retaining molecular characters and demonstrates that Hippopotamidae is the closest extant family to Cetacea and that raoellids are the closest extinct group, consistent with previous phylogenetic studies. This topology supports the view that the aquatic adaptations in hippopotamids and cetaceans are inherited from their common ancestor.’
And the shocking (to the knuckleheads at creation safaris) reply from Thewissen et al at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/nature07775.html:
“The analysis of Geisler and Theodor confirms our main phylogenetic result, that raoellids are, or include, the sister group to cetaceans. Their study expands on our findings by inferring that hippopotamids are the sister group to the combined raoellid–cetacean clade, whereas our paper had explicitly stated that our data could not address the position of the extant artiodactyl families.”
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?