Whale Evolution in the Fossil Record

I have never done this before, so I will simply introduce my argument The evolution of whales and dolphins (cetaceans) is represented in the fossil record by a great series of fossil intermediate (otherwise known as transitional forms/fossils) including Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Remingtonocetus, etc. The definition of transitional form: A transitional form is a life form that has traits characteristic of one taxa, traits characteristic of another taxa and/or traits intermediate between two said taxa. A transitional form does not have to be a directly ancestor (equivalent to a mother or grandmother) to the hypothetical descendant group, but can be a collateral ancestor (equivalent to an uncle or cousin): "...Transitional forms do not have to be on the direct line of descent from an ancestor to a living descendant - they could be evolutionary cousins that went extinct." - Prof. Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 2009. Furthermore, most fossils are not interpreted as direct ancestors, but collateral ancestors because genealogies always have more collateral ancestors, especially when you go further back in time. For instance, going back one generation I have two direct ancestors (mother and father) and one collateral ancestor (brother). One more generation back I have increased my direct ancestors to 6 (four grandparents and two parents) but have greatly increased my collateral ancestors to 16 (4 uncles, 1 aunt and 11 cousins). Going back even further, counting all my great uncles and second cousins and third cousins and so on, the exponentially-increasing number of collateral ancestors eclipses my direct ancestors. Similarly, the tree of life, according to the theory of evolution, includes an infinitely larger number of collateral ancestors. This is why transitional fossils are rarely considered direct ancestors to living groups, because the odds of finding one is very small. "It is theoretically conceivable that a particular fossil really is the direct ancestor of some modern animal. But it is statistically unlikely, because the tree of evolution is not a Christmas tree or a Lombardy poplar, but a densely branched thicket or bush... Fossils as well as living creatures are usually best treated as cousins, not ancestors." The fossil whales series is not a direct line of descent. Pakicetus is not the direct ancestor of Ambulocetus and Ambulocetusis not the direct ancestor of Basilosaurus and so on. They are interpreted as cousins. The Fossil Whales Series: Pakicetids have a great mixture of traits found only in living cetaceans and traits found in artiodactyles (even-toed ungulates). Firstly, they have four limbs with the 'double-pulley' astragalus (ankle bone) which is a feature unique to artiodactyles. But they also have features found in cetaceans such as the thickening of the medial lip of the auditory bulla (called the involucrum) as well as the presence of a sigmoid process (both traits are only found in whales). The bones of Pakicetids were also osteosclerotic (heavy and thick) which is common for bottom walkers in rivers and oceans because it ways them down so they can forage on the floor. Remingtoncetids, just like Pakicetids, also has the involucrom and sigmoid process (as well as four limbs). But they also have another feature: the reduction of the semi-circular canals. Cetaceans are unique in that their semi-circular canals are three-times smaller compared with other mammals relative to body size. So remingtonicetids have three unique whale features: the involucrom, sigmoid process and a three-fold reduction in the semi-circular canals. Remingtonocetids also had another trait found (but is not unique) in cetaceans. This trait is the ability to osmoregulate in saltwater (a trait not found in land mammals) Because I am getting tired I will use this wonderful explanation by 'The Virus and the Whale: How Scientists Study Evolution': "Living whales and dolphins can drink seawater, while land mammals can drink only freshwater. The two kinds of water are different in several ways, and not just because seawater is salty and freshwater is not. Both kinds of water contain oxygen atoms, but the oxygen atoms are slightly different. Like other elements, oxygen atoms are made up of a combination of negatively charged electrons, positively charged protons, and neutral neutrons. All oxygen atoms have 8 protons, and most have 8 neutrons. But a fraction of oxygen atoms on the Earth have extra neutrons, making them heavier. Scientists have observed that seawater has more oxygen atoms with 10 neutrons than does freshwater. And animals that live on land and at sea reflect this difference in the oxygen atoms incorporated in their bones. Living whales and dolphins have a larger percentage of heavy oxygen in their bones than do mammals that live on land. Thewissen wondered if the oxygen atoms in ancient whale fossils might indicate where they lived. So he and his colleagues ground up tiny samples of ancient whale teeth and measured the ratio of light and heavy oxygen. They discovered that Pakicetus still drank freshwater. Ambulocetus, which belongs to a younger branch of the whale tree, had an intermediate ratio, suggesting that it was drinking brackish water near the shore, or a mix of freshwater and seawater. More recent fossil whales had the ratios you would expect in animals that drank seawater alone." Remingtonocetids has a oxygen isotope ratio of marine organisms, indicating that they lived their life in the ocean. You can look up the document by typing the name of it into Google (it's free). Also note that Ambolucetids had an transitional oxygen isotope value (neither showing that it drank freshwater nor seawater but brackish or a mixture). Ambulocetids also had an involucrum. However, the region that should show the sigmoid process in Ambulocetus was not preserved and I believe the semi-circular canals were also not preserved so we don't know what size they were. I am getting really tired so I await your response.