Okay, back now, CTD, shall we see how that prediction panned out?

Quote
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html
Has diagrams and simple explanations for all three competing whale evolution "hypotheses".
Now if only three weren't such a big number...
Except that it really is two, because included in the review is the invalidated mesonychid hypothesis, and it is identified as such:

Quote
Data gathered from the new pakicetid skeletons show that mesonychians are not the closest relatives of cetaceans (sister groups in scientific lingo).
So this is in agreement with Gingerich and the DNA information.

What we are left with is a "choice" between the Artiodactyl Hypothesis:



and the Hippopotamid Hypothesis:



Where Cetacea are "Celia," Hippos are "Heidi," other artiodactyls are "Arlene," and mesonychians are "Megan" ...

What was that prediction?
Quote
That they all say whales evolved from condylarthra because of shared traits and that they all share traits with modern even-toed hoofed animals, like hippos, and that the differences will be minor compared to:

(1) complete failure to find homologous\morphological ancestor or modern cousin
(2) complete failure to find any shared DNA markers with any modern animal
Looks like it panned out, in spades. The disagreement is even smaller than predicted.

In effect we have moved a step closer to the truth, from "great-grandmother" to "grandmother" and the discussion is down to who the "mother" is.

Note also that the only evidence we have for a genetic phylogeny is reference in two articles about the fossil phylogeny, not any primary reference that lays out exactly when who is related to what common ancestor. All we have is "DNA says whales are more related to Hippopotamids" and not the rest of the phylogeny.

Quote
I wouldn't bet against the paleontologist faction on that score. What about betting on the next DNA analysis? Is whippomorpha the future, or just a transient phenomenon?
From your link:

Quote
This would be a sub-grouping of the Cetartiodactyla, which also includes pigs and ruminants. It is not clear how recently the whales and hippos share a common ancestor, though the genetic evidence is strong that the cetaceans arose from within the Artiodactyla, thus making the even-toed ungulate classification a phenetic one.[1]
Gosh, it looks like they have the same issue: are Heidi and Arlene sisters or are Heidi and Celia sisters?

So much for DNA being in total disagreement with the fossil phylogeny.

Quote
Indohys fits in where, exactly?
[Linked Image]
Well the article says:

Quote
Even though Indohyus had the elegant legs of a small deer and walked around on hooves, it also had features found only in modern and fossil whales. Its jaws and teeth were similar to those of early whales, but the best evidence was the presence of a thickened knob of bone in its middle ear, called an involucrum. This structure helps modern whales to hear underwater, it’s only found in whales and their ancestors, and acts as a diagnostic feature for the group.

Based on these physical similarities, Thewissen suggests that the raoellids are a sister group to the whales. Both of these groups are evolutionary cousins to all modern artiodactyls.
[Linked Image]
So that would seem to say it doesn't affect either argument.

Quote
I'll suggest cutting to the chase, just so you can refuse. Do you have any objective standard relating to "transitionals" which would falsify any version of evolutionism?
Which is just where I was going to go next, seeing as all you have done is muddle through various transitional fossils and not dealt with the issue of what is and is not a transitional.

Simply put CTD, what you need is something that is NOT transitional.

Good luck, seeing as the known ancestors of bats and whales are clearly transitional between older known mammals and more modern ones.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
... by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
- to learn - to think - to live - to laugh
... to share.