"You are right, we can't prove that those intermediate fossils are ancestors of modern whales, but wasn't Darwin the luckiest man alive to predict that such fossils would exist, long before they were found, unless his theory is correct."
Read some of Darwins later writings in which he himself calls into question many of his conclusions. Predictions don't prove anything when you already know the outcome of the prediction when it's made. You might find structural similarities between one skull and another, but the difference between them are huge when one is trying to claim this animal evolved into that one when there are no fossils found in a series to demonstrate how those differences changed over time. I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just misused in explaining the differences between species. Minor changes in species over time could happen. But one species completely evolving into a different one? There is no evidence which supports this contention.
"They are consistent with respect to the geological strata that we find them in. They are consistent with respect to radiometric dating techniques applied to the rock we find them in. They are consistent with respect to the geographical regions we find them in . . ."
I'm not following how these "consistencies" support evolution of one animal into another. I see this as evidence that intelligent design knows what belongs where and with what else. And Darwin predicting that fossils would be found doesn't prove anything except that he was observant.
Darwin constantly called his own conclusions into question from the start, and he attempted to anticipate the arguments of his opponents. This doesn't make his successful predictions less remarkable.
Predictions don't prove anything when you already know the outcome of the prediction when it's made.
But they mean a huge amount when you don't know the outcome, as Darwin didn't and as many other evolutionary scientists haven't when they made predictions. The ERV evidence is a modern example of a successful prediction of evolution made before the genome data came in. Your point is?
You might find structural similarities between one skull and another, but the difference between them are huge when one is trying to claim this animal evolved into that one when there are no fossils found in a series to demonstrate how those differences changed over time.
OK, where do you think the huge unbridgeable gap is in the hominid skull sequence present by Theobald?
I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just misused in explaining the differences between species. Minor changes in species over time could happen. But one species completely evolving into a different one? There is no evidence which supports this contention.
Apart of course from the avalanche of evidence across numerous scientific disciplines which does support that contention. It doesn't go away just because people stick plugs in the ears and put their hands over their eyes