Think for a moment what you have presented, as the bastion of all evolution on earth, a few whale-like creatures. You can expect me to bend so easily.
Dishonest and ridiculous.
Genetic evidence is a much stronger source of evidence for evolution than fossil evidence.
However, despite that, what I presented to you a picture of a series of skulls demonstrating a smooth transition from basal ape to modern human. This picture was not the totality of the evidence they represent, but it was indicative.
There is no hard line between what is colloquially called an ape and what could be described as human.
It's interesting that you pose this situation as if you are bravely standing in defiance of us trying to "bend" you. You are clearly ignorant about science and proud of it. You've made no attempt to do any research before this
As I explained in one of my more recent posts, there is no (apart from flimsy whale evolution) demonstratable proof of evolution in the fossil record, no gradually changing creatures. All the creatures are fully functional, with no growing appendages, no slowly evolving limbs. Minor variations within a species are not evolution. As I mentioned with my Dog example, there are various sizes of dog, different colours, different tail lengths, different snouts, but they are all the same base DNA no evolution is occurring within the species to have that variation. Slightly different shapes of fish, or lizards, prove nothing.
False on every level.
If there aren't gradual changes what's the difference between an ape and a human? Specifically.
Dogs do not have identical DNA to each other or to wolves. They are similar to be able to produce viable, fertile offspring, but the variations in dog breeds are the result of mutations and genetic differences not found in the parent population.
Have you ever heard of the
Tiktaalik roseae? It's a transitional form in between the first land animals and fish. It was discovered by scientists searching the fossil sites of material from the right era and the right environment. This is a fish, but with rudimentary legs, a neck and snout; found right when and where it should have been given evolutionary history.
You need to look up the photos of these dolphins, they don't have limbs, just fully functional rear fins.
Why would a two finned animal have the genes of a land walking creature to grow a second set of fins?
I am ignoring it because a fin on a dolphin is not proof that it once had a leg there.
Do some research about the skeletal structure of sea mammals. They have contained flippers, but the underlying skeleton has independent bones that line up with fingers on land creatures... completely unlike the structures found in fish.