On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

So you are claiming, Byers, that the field of comparative anatomy is not in fact a biological science? And that the study of biomechanics can teach us nothing real about extinct or extant animals? Both these assertions are absurd and seem to have been based on a erroneous notion of what constitutes biology. But beyond the fact that we CAN glean valuable information from a skeleton, one sees skeletal characteristics that identify transitional forms everywhere. I honestly haven't read the other 293 posts so this may be redundant, but in the fossil record we see various fish in the fossil record whose pectoral fins have transitioned from the multitude of bones seen in actinopterygians to the one bone-two bones-many bones pattern seen in tetrapods.
And what of whales? Some of the best transitional forms around are whales. Pakicetids, Ambulocetids, REmmingtonocetids, Protocetids, Basilosaurus etc. Ignoring for the moment all the earlier whale ancestors, Basilosaurus is a whale that still has hind legs. Whales evolved from terrestrial ancestors (likely mesonychids), so it is unsurprising that we find these transitional forms that still possess reduced hindlimbs. Basilosaurus is clearly a transitional form. Unless you are going to claim that bones are so uninformative that they can't be used to identify an animal as aquatic and then assert that Basilosaurus was in fact terrestrial.