Well CTD, another opportunity missed.

Quote
You quoted me saying the whale DNA story didn't match the whale fossil story, and this is true.
That was your opportunity to provide evidence showing that the DNA phylogeny differs from the fossil one, and that the whale DNA was totally different from any known organism (to count for falsification).

You may want to read further in the article I provided first.

Quote
We have had very good luck finding well-preserved archaeocetes on the west side of the Sulaiman Range in Pakistan. The most notable were described and named Artiocetus clavis and Rodhocetus balochistanensis (Figs. 7-8; see Gingerich et al., 2001). These are the first early archaeocetes to preserve ankle bones in association with skulls and skeletons, and the first to show that early whales had distinctively artiodactyl-like ankles. Thus the earlier idea that whales evolved from mesonychid condylarths is no longer tenable and we expect that the ancestor was instead something like an anthracotheriid artiodactyl (e.g., Elomeryx in Fig. 1). From the point of view of the fossil record, the 'sister-group' relationship of whales and hippos promoted by molecular phylogeneticists is now plausible, though still tenuous and unproven.
(bold for empHAsis)

To me that looks like a match between genetic and fossil phylogeny - as it gets filled in with new fossils ...

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.