Do you agree with that statement? If so, is there any other explanation that fits these facts apart from common ancestry? If so, is there any reason, apart from assumptive bias, for choosing common ancestry as the cause of the genetic similarities?
I agree with the statement. I find it difficult to think of a better explanation other than common descent when there are fossils showing the common descent in a step by step way. They all fall in line when dated too. We don't find a durodon fossil that can be dated before the pakitecus fossils. Funny that.
What is so cute is the pictures they draw to illustrate the similarity.
The pictures are based on the fossils. They may not get the skin colour right in dinosaur documentaries, but nobody says dinosaurs didn't exist.
Here are nine fossils, not pictures, of the development of horses from a small dog sized animal-
Are you saying all these animals leading to whales were really seperately designed? It's just a coincidence that the ones with long legs went extinct before the ones with legs half that size, who went extinct before the whales with only small parts of legs (funny design there, a useless leg bone), who went extinct before modern whales, who were really around at the same time as all these other animals, even though there's no proof in the fossil record of this?