>Your insistence that the theory does to predict the existence of such fossils does not make it so. Perhaps you are unwittingly expressing heartfelt disagreement with a theory that you have fabricated out of ignorance.<
That's what happens when I quote other self-described experts on these recurring threads.
To use a bear/dog example from this thread:
Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).
This phrase in particular, is unsubstantiated "From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America"
It's as bad as the Economist extracting himself from the bottom of a well by "assuming" a ladder.
As to the examples you reference, do you (perhaps) have an alternative (non-evolutionary) explanation for the mere existence of these fossils, or for the morphological relationships apparent in the chain?
And is it your contention that the main line of canid evolution cannot be traced in North America?