This might be true, however, too often I think scientists are using THEIR imagination and wishful thinking by assuming that animals who share common characteristics or appearance are descended from or related to each other. I don't know that that is true at all. For example, the pictures you just posted - there is some similarity just a one might say there is similarity between a small cat and a small dog (there are more similarities than you might initially consider once you think about it), however do cats and dogs have a common ancestor because they have some characteristics in common? I don't know. And I don't know how you go about proving such a descent either. Where is the proof other than visual similarities? What would constitute "proof" for this evolution? Personally I think scientists are as desperate to prove their belief in evolution as religious folks might be to prove it isn't true.
Are those pictures a joke? Is this an attempt at pro macro-evolution material?
But they are all still whales. No change at all except for size, color, shape, fur, teeth and other such superficial things.
I don't think most critics of evolution would dispute that your pics might constitute a limited form of micro-evolution, or at least the possibility thereof. But for the picture to be complete, you'd have to take the evolutionary line a lot further back than you've done there. And as far as I'm concerned, the problem with the theory of evolution is that it does not very well account for the beginnings of the process, the development of complex molecules, amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc., i.e., how the whole process overcame the law of entropy and the laws of probability. You would have to posit some organizational property inherent in matter that would be almost equivalent to intelligent design.
Pretty pictures! ... Im totally convinced. How do I renounce my faith and join the family of "real" scientists?
You've discovered patterns. Almost every designer I've ever known designs according to patterns.