Are you being intentionally dense? The "missing pelvis" isn't missing. Compare the creationist accounts with the actual bones on Thewissen's page.
1: Nose moves to the back of the head.
We have exactly this progression in the fossils. Thanks for bringing it up.
2: feet, claws, and tail are exchanged for flippers.
Ditto.
3: random growth of dorsal fin for steering and stability.
Even in modern whales, the dorsal fin is soft tissue (not supported with skeletal bone). That probably doesn't tell you anything, of course.
4: It would have to change the shape of it's body for hydrodynamics.
Like from Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to Rhodocetus?
5: It's entire skeletal and muscular structure would have to change along with metabolism, audio, visual, sensory, olfactory, and circulatory systems.
We can see the hard parts changing. They give clues to the changes in the soft parts. Where are you imagining the difficulty, given all the evidence that it happened and that creationists are lying about the evidence?
6: It would have to develop a method of desalinizing sea water to remain hydrated.
There is isotopic evidence for this change occuring somewhere between Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus.
7: Develop sonar and a way to interpret it to aid with visibility.
Not something the fossil record can tell you about, but it clearly happened.
I did – and found what you had pointed out as ironic. As for the “intentionally dense thing” Do I need to keep explaining things to you? (rhetorical)
Not something the fossil record can tell you about, but it clearly happened.
No, it did not clearly happen. You refute maybe 1 out of the 7 and conclude that it clearly happened? (rhetorical) Thanks for the insight to your dogma…