I’m not interested, since it’s been shown to be futile.
If you’re appealing to unknown future results, all you’re doing is ignoring current results. We have to judge hypotheses based on data we have, not data we hope might turn up some day. In particular, the data we have are conclusive. And we are very, very unlikely to find a new mammal species that doesn’t fit into the nested hierarchy we already have. We know about almost all mammal species that exist.
A great many, but let’s stick with the ones you have made: that aquatic mammals and land mammals must belong to different kinds. The data are conclusive on this. We know what whales are: they’re artiodactyls most closely related to hippos. We know what manatees are: they’re afrotherians most closely related to elephants. We know what seals are: they’re carnivorans most closely related to bears and musteloids. We know what sea otters are: they’re (duh) otters. I can provide references if you really want, or you could google it yourself.
We’ve established you don’t read the papers you cite. Now it appears that you don’t even read the stuff you cut and paste. What part of “Those organs are typically functional in the ancestral species but are now either semi-functional, nonfunctional, or re-purposed” is unclear?
The bible, and Hugh Ross, conflict with the claims you had previously made and with the claims that you just used Ross to support. This is getting tiresome.
My point is that you’ve been saying they flow into Eden. Do you not see the difference? And have you even read Rose? You seem to be quoting from a secondary source. None of the four simultaneous events your unnamed secondary source mentions are in evidence, and #2 is nonsensical.
It’s frustrating to discuss anything with you since you ignore most points and seem not to remember from moment to moment what your original claims were.