Thanks CTD for another opportunity to demonstrate the difference between your world and the world of science.

And the word "WILL" is still in those exact words. I bolded it last time so you could see it easier.

No, because evidence doesn't reach a consensus: it is what it is, and it remains what it is without compromise. Reality doesn't play any favorites for any beliefs or ideas.

You confuse people with evidence. People can come to a consensus on what the evidence shows. For instance the signers of the "clergy list" reached a consensus that:

Of course consensus, being opinion, does not mean truth, just agreement.

No, what I am saying is that when all the evidence is in (or enough to piece together the true picture) for whale evolution that the phylogenies from DNA studies and the phylogenies from fossil homology and morphological studies will match, whether there is consensus among scientists or not.

Again you mistake authority (people) for evidence and logic. It is more important to you WHO made this prediction than whether the prediction is logically derived from the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution predicts that species are related by common ancestors.

This prediction is tested against the fossil evidence, where homologies and morphological changes in traits can be traced from fossil to fossil to see which traits are shared and which are not.

This prediction is also tested against the genetic evidence, where markers on genes show when species diverged from each other by which markers are shared and which are not.

Each of these tests result in cladograms, diagrams of relationships by common ancestry. They show what common ancestry should have been to get these results.

Because the theory of evolution predicts common ancestry, it predicts that both of these systems will result in identical phylogenies, the phylogeny that represent the real ancestry of life on earth.

Failure to match phylogenies would seriously question, if not invalidate, the concept of the common ancestor.

And yet, curiously, the fossils themselves did not change. Instead what happened was that more fossils were found that showed homologous and morpholoigical similarities intermediate between the known whale fossils and these "reinterpreted" fossils.

Strangely this "reinterpretation" does not change the walking behavior of the fossil either. What you are seeing is the process of science, with invalidated concepts discarded and new concepts formed that are based on reevaluation of all the evidence.

Curiously the "finds" are not imaginary, they are new objective evidence of reality, and this evidence invalidated the old view of relation to mesonychids. Strangely DNA cannot force fossils to grow in rock or to morph fossils into different forms. Sadly this seems to be what you are claiming happened.

Of course if the DNA had matched the fossil tree first, you would have claimed that the geneticists had fudged their data instead, because you have convinced yourself of a conspiracy that does not exist. The fact that there are differences in the evidence, and that new evidence is what causes revision to the phylogeny shows that scientists are interested in the evidence and what it shows to be true, rather than in some conspiracy or cover up.

Just that IF you were interested in invalidating evolution THEN this is what you would do. Note that I have restored the full quote rather than just leave your quote-mine snippet and put in bold the relevant portion you seemed to have missed the first time.

And this shows you the problems with assuming a conspiracy: if there were a conspiracy as you complain then none of this would be apparent.

I have to go do something else for a while, but before I leave, from your next message:

I'll make a prediction before reading your source:

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

Failure that would be a problem for common descent rather than just a matter of finding more information.

Enjoy.