If making mistakes is proof of the other guy's position, how about famous author Jonathan Wells claiming that the experiment produced mutant shrimp? The excuse: the initial press release on the experiment was vague and it was necessary to get out a response the same day, Clinton-War-Room style.
Evidence has been posted, you ignore it.
If you mean the followup article from Wells's group, it's so full of AndrewC-style arguments as to be practically gibberish to anyone not already familiar with most details. Lots of Tah-dah!s on irrelevant, nitpicky points. Lots of squirmy misdirection and deliberate confusion. I leave the confirmation to the lurker.
Evidence is what caused you to change from mesonychus to pakicetus. Pakicetus is hanging on by a thread. When they find the Hippo/whale link you can kiss him goodbye as a whale. What will they call him then? Pakihoaxus?
Your fantasies are not evidence. And explain to your creationist cohorts, if you will, what you mean by this "Hippo/whale link" you expect to show up. I'm sure gore and cowboy and Heartlander and Sublunar Kid and everyone else would be fascinated. Wouldn't such a thing be evidence for evolution?
Argue with him. You say he made a mistake. I've posted what I care on the subject, enough for you to admit what actually happened.
Whale/Hippo is easy