REGARDLESS...LETS SEE WHAT YOU GOT..<<>.PS...Whales and Hippos may have had a common ancestor,..but..'evolved'.separately.as your linked chart..did in fact display..>>

yeah the chart..i linked to..unlike THE NAMING OF Specific names as requested/but lets LOOK AT THAT DAMN BEAST..THAT SPLIT..ITS GENES INTO NEAR DIRECT ANCESTOR TO A HIPPO..and essentially a wolf[canus]

SO THIS AMASSING SINGULAR-'ANCESTOR'..THAT BIRTHED NOT ONLY THE HIPPO/BUT THE WOLf that became A...PLEASE PROVIDE THE PLAiN SPEAK PLEASE

its said..THAT IF YOu know what your talking of..you canb explain IT/IT'S CLEAR many got NO IDEA WHAT THEIR SAYING[SURE THEY GET THE 'SCIENCE'..of biology..OR EVOLUTION OF SPECIES/BUT THEN CARRY THAT INTO MACRO EVOLUTION INTO GENUS..WHERE ONE amassing critter becomes a hippo/and a wolf

ITS YOU LOT THat got this oNE SELL DID IT ALL
A SEED THAT GREW INTO A TREE..OF LIFE[YOU EVEN WENT AND PLAGIARIZED THE BIBLE..plus the big bang..of let there BE LIGHT..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5899&page=3

except SOMEHOW..YOU MANAGE TO do it by renaming EVE INTO LUCY
BY RENAMING THINGS.INTO LATIN/BY SOME FEATURE LIKE BIG EGG..OR SPINE..OR NO GILLS..OR so much other clever name changing..BUT MATE GIVE IT TO ME..IN..*CLEAR Names

whO WAS/THE HIPPOS MUMMY?..[a fish/salamader/or a hippo?]
WHICH WHALE...BECAME WHICH DOLPHIN THINGY..THAT CAME FROM WHICH CON MAN Ancestor of the wolf and the HIPPO..you need think on using the real common names..cause THAT'..?HOW..ya hide the lie..by using new names/that alone should normally wake people up/cause the bible did the same/PEER-BIASED..things

saul became paul
the old matriarch..became someone..else/just cause he thought/HE..*fought..[raped?]..'an angel'..[Depending/on..the version]

HERE IS..ANOTHER/LINK..Of..WHAT/COMes..to mind..;..[THALIDOMIDE/LIMBS?]
http://www.evolutionevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/i-d0461980488edc7e81dbf3850219c4f6-cet_hindlimb_loss1.gif

AS YOUR..CLEARLY..[THE/CURRENT/PROFESSING-EXPERT]
PLEASE name real names..of real critters..[NOT JUST/STONE BONE/FRAGMENTS..MADE/FROM PLASTER CASTS/DRAWN..INTO PICTURES.

because the pictures..just look nothing..alike..
[none of this..'gradual/evolution/BUT GREAT..CHUNKS OF DELETED ..'JUNK'..THat some how..AVOIDS...Explaining..the reverse[HOW FINS GREW..LEGS/BUT\NOT HIPS..ARMS/..BUT/NOT..SHOULDER BLADES]..

how..do we know ITS..THE WHALE loosing..its digits[hoofs]
OR A WOLF LOOSING ITS PAwS..[OR A FISH..EVOLVING THEM..hips

IE..THESE STONE FRAGMENTS..are you sure/
/science precise..they were all*//made evolving..or devolving?

thing is you cant/no-one..can*
so you throw..some grade.school/theory about..and avoid nAMING NAMES../[YET AGAIN]..it turns out..[pheno-type/as..opposed by geno-type]..taxonomic classification..deceived too many

from
http://www.anusha.com/eukarya.htm

ITS..NOT YOUR FAULT SALTY/I USED TO..BELIEVE IN SCIENCE..1/too...LIKE YOU..TILL I LEARNED..ITS BUILT ON..NON-SCIENCE LIES/AND PLAGIARIZED godless-THEORIES.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5899&page=3

Re: Debunking Evolution: Problems, Errors, and Lies EXPOSED, in plain language for non-scientists
The "Tree of Life" is falling
New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:18

"The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened."

"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree.

"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.

Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.

'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."

"The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes".

"As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web.

In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.11

'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."

I think you’re just dodging the questions I put to you, OUG.

<<AJ..PLEASE//lets focus..just on your whale tale>>

It’s not my “tale” either. Just as it’s not just “my” theory. You are trying personalise this instead of sticking to facts.

<<please put up how 'it really ha[p[end'..according to your theory>>

If you want to know how it all happened, then there’s an abundance of literature for you to immerse yourself in.

<<what specific cow like wolf like mannel/became a whale...[for what reason]>>

The fact that Pakicetus was at the beginning of the list I provided you was supposed to suggest the answer to this question.

You claim to have studied evolution in depth and to have accepted it at one point (until you became “educated”) and yet you don’t know these sorts of details or how to find answers to the questions you pose, despite your apparent ability to find some of the most obscure conspiracy websites. To me, this suggests that you feel you are right if you can just trip up, or draw a blank from, those with whom you are discussing this topic. Whether or not your average Joe knows the answers to your questions is not indicative of how right you are.

<<…that became which whale specifically[ignoring the obvious/size Differences]>>

All Whales. Dolphins too.

<<[I WILL NED FOSSILS AND NAMES..like i did last time..a few bone fragments aint going to fix it this time..>>

I have already provided you with a long list of fossil names. And all in the correct order too. You can do the rest for yourself if you are genuinely interested.

By the way, given what we know of anatomy and skeletal systems, and the computer modelling technology now available to us, bone fragments are all we need. This argument doesn’t help you much with all the more complete fossils that have been found though.

As for your strawman argument regarding amoebas: here’s a short video for you to watch called The Origins of Life Made Easy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

I certainly hope you don’t claim to have studied abiogenesis in depth too.

science/that is uncritical/isnt science/YOuthrow up junk links..i need watch/TO Get insulted..by grade schOOL SCIENCE
IN A 6 MINUTE VIDIO He wastes the first minute..and the last half minute telling creationists how dumb we are

NEAR THE END HE ADMITS WE MAY NEVER KNOW
AFTER THE First point he says words to the affect MOST LIKELT

THING IS THERE ARE 20 STEPS TO LIFE..HE LISTED 6 POINTS
THE THING IS its his theory.not scienCE

IE SPIN..IN LUE OF PROOF[THE CLAY DONT EXPLAIN THE LIPODS INVERSION ESSENTIAL TOP A CELL MEMBRANE[A LITTLE POINT HE JUST LEAVes hanging in a doodle of tangled rna..which isnt paired dna life has

ij short dear boy its spin

now..Regarding to whale evolution,
ACCORDING..to you simply dropping the names proves itself

anyhow..you claim..we have Pakicetus,>>..

IT LOOKS LIKE A TASI TIGER WITHOUT STRIPES
http://www.google.com.au/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tbm=isch&q=pakicetus+skeleton&revid=2031722051&sa=X&ei=2qovU8LcAoiElQXCuYC4Cw&ved=0CFkQ1QIoAg

SO this tassie tiger[mammal]..gave birth to
<<Ambulocetus,>>.. it looks like a stuffed crocodile
OR MAYBE An aligator

anyhow the aligator..GAVE BIRTH TO

http://www.google.com.au/images?q=Ambulocetus&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=ctrl&gws_rd=cr&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=z6svU_rOIc2kkQXb34GQCQ&ved=0CCkQsAQ

<<..Dalanistes,>>. SOME CROCODILE LOOKING SEAL LEOPARD CROSS OTTER looking thing

http://www.google.com.au/images?q=dalanistes&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=ZawvU5i9FY3FkQWJ6YC4Bg&ved=0CCQQsAQ

no picture..at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalanistes

the seal crok/thing..gave birth to..

<<..Rodhocetus,>.SOME LOCKNESS MONSTER CRITTER
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Rodhocetus&ie=utf-8&

THAT DIDNT LAY EGGS LIKE the croCk leopard thing did
ANYHOW nessie gave birth to

<<..Takracetus,>>
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Takracetus&i

THAT SEEMS TO HAVE REVETED TO//the sealcrock/thingy

WHAT GAVE BIRTH TO..
<<..Gaviocetus>>..THAT IN SOME DRAWINGS LOOKS LIKE A STYRGIN WITH NO LEGS IJN OTHERS LIKE A KANGEROO OTTEr cdross

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Gaviocetus&ie=utf-8&o

ANYHOW NEXT the otter roo/sturgen..gave birth to

,<<..Dorudon,>>..WHO LOOKS LIE A FESHWATER DOLPHIN

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Dorudon&ie=utf-8

WHO GAVE BIRTH [PRESUMABLY]..TO..<<..Basilosaurus,..>>
THAT LOOKS like a crock..[salty crock/load of crock?
or maybe like a dinosaur

and the http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Basilosaurus&ie=utf-8

LOAD OR SAUR CROCK..GAVE BIRTH TO<<.. Mysticetes,>>

THAT May..or may not look like a whale[AS NO PHOTOAPPEARS on the first p[age

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Mysticete&ie=ut

So you learned absolutely nothing from the video then, OUG? I didn’t think you would. No acknowledgement either of just how misguided your post regarding amoebas was either.

<<science/that is uncritical/isnt science/YOuthrow up junk links..i need watch/TO Get insulted..by grade schOOL SCIENCE>>

I agree that science that isn’t critical isn’t science. I’m sorry, too, that you felt insulted by the scientific level of the video, but apparently you still needed to hear it.

I’d be interested in your answer to the final question of the video, though. At what step in the process did God need to intervene and what is your evidence for this? You demand some pretty high standards of evidence from others, yet you offer none yourself.

<<NEAR THE END HE ADMITS WE MAY NEVER KNOW>>

So what? It’s better than making something up. How is the possibility of never knowing something for sure evidence against it?

The video does make clear the fact that abiogenesis is still in its infancy, so there are no Nobel prizes for raising unanswered questions; the title should also make it clear that the video is only a brief and introductory overview of abiogenesis, So the rest of your comments regarding it are irrelevant.

<<ACCORDING..to you simply dropping the names proves itself>>

Where did I say that?

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. None of them gave birth to the other and who cares what each transitional species looks like or whether or not you could find a picture of it on Wikipedia. Evolutionary scientists don’t determine ancestry based on what a fossil looks like. It is a combination of anatomy, strata, age, location, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent. Scientists first clued on to Pakicetus because it had the unique ear bone of a whale. Evolution is so accurate in its predictions that it enabled scientists to then locate many of the other transitional species that came after.

Speaking of which, you still haven’t answered my question regarding evolution’s ability to predict the locations of fossils. Was God out to trick us?.

Dear OUG,

How about a different tack.
You are a unique individual, as am I and almost every other Sapiens on the planet. (Some identical twins may be excluded.)
Now, during the Black Plague (circa 1346-1350CE) an estimated 75 to 200 million succumbed worldwide, but millions of others survived because they were able to develop immunity.
Similarly, the 1918-1920 Flu Pandemic infected an estimated 500 million worldwide, and killed some 50 to 100 million - 3 to 5 percent of the world's total human population of the time.

Uniqueness has its advantages - amongst them the capacity to develop immunity to various diseases and to simply overcome or withstand others.
But, genetic uniqueness will condemn some to develop heart disease, leukemia or diabetes, or to be weak or have poor eyesight or low intellect, etc.

Some Sapiens will be seen to be better fitted to survive (and so, to propagate their 'genes'), and in a fully 'natural' system this 'fitness' would, over time, be expected to be reflected in the worldwide gene 'pool'.

We have seen what damage disease and viruses can do to human populations, and we have seen the capability of the AIDS virus to adapt to retrovirus treatments and then to change its 'constitution' to resist and withstand these treatments.
Similarly, vaccines have been our only means of defeating the likes of Polio, Smallpox, Diphtheria and Tuberculosis. Vaccines, which prime and boost our immune systems to 'kill' these infections.

TBC>