I'm done wasting time on this. You don't care whether the whale has an ancestor or not, and we both know it. I'll play no double-talk games.

It's the same as abiogenesis. One group clearly sees the old model's dead & hopes to find something else. One group sees the hippo & tooth fantasy don't work, and are gambling that the mainstream will let things fall back to the old model since there's nothing better. The last group's banking on the imaginary ancestor because the old one's dead and the hippo won't work; but even they themselves say this critter's not right & they hope to find something better.

That's a big paragraph, but the DNA says the hippo is the candidate, and the evodates rule out the hippo.

Your position is that you don't give a crap that NONE of these are viable options, so long as there's "controversy". You'll accept any totally bogus option they choose in spite of the evidence. When homology doesn't work, you overlook it. When DNA homology doesn't work, you'll overlook it. If you cared seriously about honestly applying homology of any type, you wouldn't be an evolutionist. I know from my own experience because I tried really hard to make it work. It can't be done. And the situation has become much, much more difficult since I gave up trying.

My position is: I'm finished wasting time with the mess. I've demonstrated my point clearly enough for anyone to understand, and I'm done.