None of these is a sin, or even much of a mistake. The Mesonychus hypothesis is now largely abandoned, yes. An honest blind alley. Science makes progress.
It becomes inexcusable of the antagonist, when having been shown by a messenger the shortcomings of those objects, that the messenger is then derided by him.
It's all in the context. Pointing out that a picture is a picture of a replica of a skull and not the original skull does not make, say, faunal succession and the evidence for same go away. Even pointing out that all the Brontosaurus reconstructions in the world had the wrong name and the wrong head for 90 years does not accomplish this. (Not yours, I know. Bet you're jealous.)
And so much of your stuff just sort of vanishes when you try to examine it. Nothing inside.
Take your attacks upon guessing tooth size from animal size. Gore attacked the conclusion that Obduron insignis was a platypus that retained teeth in its adult life.
(All there is of it were teeth identical to a baby platypus tooth, except it's much too big to be the modern version. Later, however, specimens of 5-mya-younger Obduron dickinsoni turned up, supporting the earlier ideas about insignis. Gore could have learned this just by reading further.)
What inference are we supposed to make when we find a part from a modern animal, but it's in very old sediments and it's way too big? Is this a conspiracy to defraud the public? How so?
Gingerich makes a chart of tooth size in Pelycodus/Notharctus, assuming a correlation with animal size. You scream foul.
All distraction. Like just now, when the question is,
Why can so incredibly few of your C-side buddies don an evolutionist hat even temporarily to consider a question?
After all, they're always purporting to do so, getting it wrong, and announcing that evolution is refuted.
You didn't hang your hat on it.
You evidently presume people can't read. This question is first addressed to me in the post this is answering. I started this particular interchange by pointing out what you again demonstrate. Misrepresentation. If you are asking the question now instead of pointing out your misrepresentation, I have already answered it by my comment to the religious horror canard.
You are darn right! Your "species" is a lower jaw and unlike the platypus has teeth! The evos further state that two teeth found in S. America, reputed to be 60 million or so years old are evidence that the platypus was alive there. The platypus has no teeth! This is just more evidence of paleontologists making up evidence to prove evolution.