Still complaining that scientists actually do science, eh CTD?

Quote
You said
Quote
Originally Posted By: RAZD
What does it predict about the genetic record? That it will match the fossil evidence for common ancestry exactly.

There is not an exact match for whales.
So when there is a mismatch, scientists look to see if one or the other (or both) was wrong.

You like to highlight words to emphasis them:

The prediction is that - when both trees are fully developed - that they will match exactly.

Scientists are still making some of those connections, and recent fossil evidence invalidated the previous lineage

Quote
What difference does it make that someone invents a story in an attempt to resolve the known mismatch? In order to match, they have to match up. Compromising one in light of the other isn't a match. Your own propaganda is evidence I am right. This would never had been written if the two "trees" had matched in the first place. Look again folks, if you've forgotten. When two things match, there's no need to revise one of them.
Ah yes, whenever things don't turn out to suit CTD, fall back on the world wide conspiracy theory.

Gingerich invalidated the lineage of whales from mesonychids with new fossil finds:

Quote
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).
The (new) fossil evidence invalidates the mesonychid lineage.

Curiously so does the genetic evidence. Curiously the genetic evidence didn't make the new fossil appear out of thin air, nor is the ankle of the new fossil imaginary. Curiously neither source of information has been "compromised" ...

Curiously you still have not shown that whales have some unique to whales DNA, different from all other life forms, or that their skeletons are completely different, with no homologies -- which is the evidence YOU NEED to falsify evolution. Sadly, for you, the evidence shows both DNA relationships and homology\morphology relationships between whales and other early artiodactyla mammals quite clearly.

This is how Gingerich sorts it out:

Quote
Cetacean Phylogeny
[Linked Image]
Figure 13. Phylogeny of Cetacea showing a common ancestry shared with Artiodactyla, and the hypothesized evolutionary origin of both from older Paleocene age Condylarthra. Horizontal axis is arbitrary, while the vertical axis is geological time. Our 2000 discovery of distinctively artiodactyl-like double-pulley astragalus bones in articulated skeletons of early archaeocetes is the principal evidence linking whales and artiodactyls as shown here (see Gingerich et al., 2001). The evolutionary origin of both whales and artiodactyls is closely tied to the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, and the transition from archaeocetes to modern whales is related to climatic and ocean circulation changes at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. Source: University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology. Figure may be reproduced for non-profit educational use.
Want to make any bets about the next intermediate fossils found?

Notice that they show the part, the astragalus, of the fossil with the trait shared between cetacea and artiodacyla but not shared with mesonychidae between three fossils of similar age.

Enjoy.