And, not too surprisingly, CTD, all we have is bluster and denial, and not any discussion of why a single one of the fossils in this thread is not an intermediate form between older fossils and later fossils.

Quote
The data already exists, and it didn't match.
Curiously it doesn't NOT match, because both sets of data are incomplete, both phylogenies are works in progress. What we do see is that as more information becomes available they get closer to giving the same results.

Quote
"Will match" doesn't mean "won't match". Neither does it mean "will be reinterpreted to match".
Thus we see convergence between two different sets of data as the data becomes more complete.

Quote
See what I mean? No ancestor for bats, and the key "whale ancestor" is a skull with an imaginary body. Those who believe choose to believe, and even then they surely must struggle.
Again, you are ignoring the evidence already provided:

(1) http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/batfacts.htm
Quote
Evidence for bat-like flying mammals appears as far back as the Eocene Epoch, some 50 million years ago; however, the fossil record tracing bat evolution is scanty. Based on similarities of bones and teeth, most authorities agree the bat's ancestors were probably insect eating placental mammals, possibly living in trees, and likely the same group that gave rise to shrews and moles.
(2) Insectivore-like mammals, Tiny teeth and their enigmatic owners[/i]
Quote
However, there are only small differences between the teeth of bats and those of certain Paleocene insectivores, including members of the Nyctitheriidae and an unnamed genus known from Germany and Rumania (38, 39, 40). Some of these animals may turn out to be ancient bats when they become better known, especially when skeletons are found. This would not be surprising from the point of view of molecular studies which place the orders Chiroptera and Lipotyphla close to each other on the family tree of mammals (7, 8).
Note that last bit about the genetic phylogeny matching the evidence from morphology\homology.

To say that there are [i]no ancestors to bats means you must ignore and deny this evidence of shared characteristics and the development of mammals as a precursor to the development of bats.

Of course, to find the true ancestor of bats you need to find a mammal without the wings, but with other shared characteristics with bats ... and to deny ancestry means you need to show that the shared characteristics of bats with Nyctitheriidae are due to convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution, however, says that the teeth of the organisms would be similarly evolved to eat insects (analogous), but not the same kinds of teeth in the same places (homologous). We can talk about the differences between wolf and thylacene (tasmanian "wolf") teeth to point out this difference if necessary.

(3) http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
Quote
Figure 1. Skeletons of the archaeocetes Dorudon atrox and Rodhocetus balochistanensis compared to that of Elomeryx armatus, which is here taken as a model for the extinct group of artiodactyls (Anthracotheriidae, s.l.) that we now think may have given rise to archaic whales. Pakicetus has a distinctive skull and lower jaw, but is not demonstrably different from early protocetids postcranially. Note changes in body proportions and elongation of feet for foot-powered swimming in Rodhocetus, then later reduction of the hind limbs and feet as the tail-powered swimming of modern cetaceans evolved in Dorudon.
(bold in original)

Again we have the pre-existing extinct group of artiodactyls with shared characteristics with pakicetus and later whales.

Of course, to find the true ancestor of whales you need to find a mammal living on land, but with other shared characteristics with whales ... and to deny ancestry means you need to show that the shared characteristics of Pakicetus and Rodhocetus with Anthracotheriidae are due to convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution, however, says that the ears of the organisms would be similarly evolved to hear under water (analogous), but not the same kinds of ear structure in the same places (homologous).

Curiously it is the homology of the ankle bone that places Anthracotheriidae in the ancestral chair of whales, just as it is the homology of the teeth that places Nyctitheriidae in the ancestral chair of bats.

Of course you would have to understand the difference between analogous and homologous traits and how they are used to define convergent evolution.

Quote
If it doesn't fit the story, they call it "convergent evolution". Things don't get much simpler than that.
And this just shows that CTD has not learned the difference between analogous structures and homologous structures.

Enjoy.