We stopped because you couldn't quite get them in the water ...
We stopped at Ambulocetus because you couldn't get your land mammals to hop in the water yet. Would you like to go on to another 'walking whale' or a bird transition offered on your recent posting:
We could start with Sinosauropteryx prima ('bird') as I think it would be very fun and interesting!
You pick it - Back to whales or 'birds'?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
A review of the thread shows that questionable quotemines and unreliable creationists sources are the only arguments WiYC presents. When an argument is refuted, she returns to repeat the same untenable argument.
An example is WiYC selecting a sentence here and a sentence there from an article trying to establish that Pakicetus, the first whale in the sequence was terrestrial. Well, seeing as the sequence documents the transition of mammals from land to the sea, one would expect that the first in this sequence would indded be terrestrial.
Of course, WiYC ignores the conclusion of the very section that she has been quoting from explaining how the evidence fits together.
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"