Hmm. This was a lengthy post, but if I sum up all your evidence against whale evolution, it comes down to the following 6 arguments:

1. There is no scientist who is 400 million years old.

2. The Pakicetus fossil does not look like a whale.

3. It was not complete.

4. It could have been a fake.

5. It was a land animal, while the whale is a water animal.

6. I don't trust scientists.

I hope I didn't overloook an argument. If I'm allowed a little comment, Pakicetus lived 50 million years ago, not 400 million, and it was probably amphibious, not a land animal. As to the other arguments, who am I to argue?

A little more detailed explanation of whale evolution for people who might be interested:

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/