You wrote: Absolutely. The eohippus was dead long before there was a horse. But I'm not talking about the horse nor the eohippus. I am talking about where the Pakicetus fits into the DNA tree. Are you willing to answer the question?
I'm not familiar with Pakicetus, and thus have no opinion on your position on same. But since you make the strong claim that evolution is impossible, any evolution disproves your "theory." You are of course familiar with eohippus.
Yes, I agree that "eohippus was dead long before there was a horse," for the trivial reason that once the animal grew to where it is called the horse it is no longer called eohippus. But the eohippus: 1) got much larger over time in a well-represented series of fossils; and 2)eventually evolved into the horse.
You obviously deny #2 above. Do you also deny #1? (That eohippus grew several-fold?) Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?
Please post a link to my strong claim that evolution is impossible.
Please provide a link to my post advocating a global flood(one covering the entire third planet from the star known as Sol, to the depths of the highest mountains--attempting to preempt any more red herrings) causing the death of any creature.
Lastly, I have criticized the Talk-origins alleged horse tree because of its disagreement with other interpretations of the fossil evidence and its own internal inconsistencies. Thus I do not find it compelling to accept the validity of the tree in any form. Your questions are ill-formed and my response to them remains, absolutely not. If you rephrase your original question into -- Is there an "unbent" ancestral chain linking the "eohippus" fossil with the modern horse?, I would answer, I doubt it, but I do not reject it.