You sought to obscure and discredit my original point. (Pakicetus is a multi-fossil species, etc. Gore was of course assuming that the picture he had was the only basis for reconstructions.) If you didn't do either of those things--and you didn't--you've certainly provided a nice object lesson on the accuracy and limited focus of the AndrewC Accuracy Police Detail.
So, what does it mean when you say, "It is in better shape, because it is a replica?"
It didn't "weather" for umpteen million years.
AndrewC has the natural abilities that would make him an excellent proof-reader. But fly-specking, although a necessary task, isn't the same thing as making a substantive review, and it certainly doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
Wrong again Vade! The only thing I was assuming was that the link provided proof of macro-evolution as lexcorp stated it did. As I showed, it did not. Even adding your replica to the "evidence" in the article, it is totally insufficient to show the evolution of whales from Pakicetus since no whale bones are given for comparison, the breast bones are missing from the cadaver of Pakicetus (which is an important difference between whales and land animals) and the Pakicetus cadaver has legs which obviously whales do not. You would at a minimum have to show some intervening cadavers to prove the point of evolution from Pakicetus to whales.
What this whole discussion shows more than anything else though is that the links given by evolutionists do not prove what the evolutionists claim they prove.