Oooops, except that image was a cladogram demonstrating how the ear structures of Basilosaurids fit neatly within the ear structures of Cetacean evolution. A cladogram created by those people who actually studied the fossils and concluded that Basilosaurid ears were "functionally modern", which you interpreted as "typical" based on whatever Creationist site you read discussing something of which you'd otherwise be utterly unaware.
These pretty pictures are based on preconcieved notions such as comparative genomics and shared traits actually means something. A morphologically based cladogram does not produce the same pretty picture as one based on DNA does. Hence no matter what you say you have a contadiction. Hopefully God knew he was going to mess with evolutionists heads.
So who should we trust? Some gal in Oz who can't figure out how to use the quote function,
I know how to use it. My PC just won't. As much as this peeves you lot off, this is one thing I do not do intentionally.
relies on bogus Wikipedia content,
Wiki is fantastic and speaks to much research all in the one spot. You love Wiki, if you didn't you'd contact them and ask them to change the content of your outdated mate, Dawkins. You haven't. You love them.
You just like to run around holding onto any straw availbable trying to hide behind it.
continually refers to Au. afarensis as "Lucy",
What are you taking about now? Your own researcher speak to Lucy as being australopithecus AFARENSIS. Do you doubt your own researchers now? How embarassing for you.
Here's a link. Back to BIO101 for you.
Lucy - The Australopithecus afarensis Lucy
BTW, Lucy, the same as Ardi, changed current thinking in a single find. which is more substantiation that your flavours of the month are not science, just straw grabbing.
thinks all hominid species should resemble modern H. sapiens
Evolutionary researchers are the boofheads that suggest there are resemblances, only to find that research from your own suggests otherwise eg Lucy is not in the human line. Boo Hoo for you.
Why do you think certain hominids, of various flavours of the month, are put in the human line? I agree with you on this one. There really is no resemblance really, only a few reused designs.
In other words none of them, including you, have no idea what they are talking about.
and read something on a Creationist website, or the experts who actually studied the fossils and placed Basilosaurids as transitionals between Rhodicetids and modern whales?
Creationist interpretations could not possibly we worse than the contradictions and falsifications you lot provide.
Basilosaurus is a whale, silly. You, as usual, are barking up the wrong tree in confusion. It is ambulocetus natans that has been misrepresented, as well as Pakicetus and Indohyus. You lot have appear to use deer, wolf, sea lions ancestors as whale intermediates. What nonsense. With all your supposed butt covering terms lke homoplasy and convergent evolution how the heck could you lot demonstrate any more than wishful thinking.
If a fossil looks, walks and has many similarities to a sea lion or seal, could it be a sea lion of seal ancestor? Of course not. It must be some other totally unrelated creature poofing into a whale. What desperate nonsense evolutionists go on with in their desperate attempts to prove the impossible.
If you're not a troll, you're a great Creationist Astrid.
Thanks. I knew you would come around sooner or later.