I'm saying since the evidence shows there can be no ancestor, there is no tree.
I read the articles you presented and I don't see any conclusions by the scientists that there is no ancestor to the whale. Please point it out for me.
The hippo can't be the ancestor.
Saying the hippo and whale are related is not saying that one is the ancestor of the other. Your cousin is not your ancestor but he is related to you.
The 99% make-believe critter extrapolated from teeth can't be the ancestor.
What evidence shows you this?
The "old model ancestor" can't be the ancestor.
Please show me where the articles say this.
It's starting to look like I'll have to wait 'til I stumble across something else. I don't see room for much more clarification or elaboration.
You haven't clarified anything. All you've done is say that since there is a bit of controversy concerning the relationships, that there is no relationship.
That would be like me saying that since there is a bit of controversy concerning the use of "tongues" in modern times that Christianity is a false religion. In other words, your conclusion seems nonsensical unless you can provide clearer evidence to support it.
