I have noticed that the quality of your objections and arguments have dropped off, until now they seem so obviously poorly thought out and blatantly false its almost cruel to go on. But I could say:
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?

Quote:

---

I understand, they saw something in common between all of these animals. I see those things in common too, and it would almost look convincing......it means if the fossils make a good mosaic, you can use them as quick visual example in place of actual evidence

---

I dont think you do understand; its not just something "in common", its a set of traits that appear first in the ealiest fossil, and then appear only in the specific line shown subsequently. The traits are specific, and are observed by measuring and comparing shapes and so on. The comparisons arent just made between single features; there are likely sets of specific points of interest that are always common.

Your objection to the size of the total animal is weak, becasue size is very rarely dependent on bone structure, and can vary dramatically even within a closely related family. For instance, dolphins and blue whales are clearly related closely, but dolphins are only a few feet long, whereas blue whales are more than hundred feet long.

Quote:

---

There's no link between the whale's fossil ancestors, and what we see in modern biology and genetics. In other words, the line that includes hippos and camels and such, does not include whales.

---

I'm not not sure where you get your evidence, and how you can make such a claim. This is is muddled thinking.

First, hippos are the closest known living ancestors to the whales--this doesnt mean they are in a direct lineage to whales. I'm not sure what your objection really is, because as said before, we can't get genetic materials from fossils.

Quote:

---

Creationists don't worry about antibiotic resistance. Its only proof of evolution in the mind of an evolutionist.

---

Again, your point is made wihtout any attempt to show why this is wrong. Whether or not you "worry" about it, its certainly showns that natural selection can operate on organism, in the way Darwin predicted.

This seems like strong evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection. It's odd that you argue that evidence in favor of evolution is *not* evidence in favor of evolution....without even showing why.

Quote:

---

Why would dinosaurs and man not have been able to coexist

---

There is no real reason that I know of that would prevent such a coexistence as such. But since all the evidence points to the conclusion that they didn't coexist, so why should be we beleive otherwise? No higher mammals seems to have come into existence until after the dinosaurs died out. There is no reason to suppose that hominins existed more than a few million years ago.