DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[libalchris]

Its body was rather like that of an otter or crocodile and it could move on land as well as in water. It was probably not as fast and agile as an otter though, and palaeontologists think that it hunted more like a crocodile - ambushing and then using its large, puncturing teeth to hold struggling prey underwater until they drowned.

http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7.htm

Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

This is why we have real scientists doing this kind of work, and not you. You don't seem to understand how much information can be drawn from fossils. You can tell from the feet and the fact that it had lungs that it is definitely capable of moving on land, but you can tell from the position of the nostrils more toward the top of the skull that it spent probably most of its time in the water. Frankly, the bone structure is all that matters for its evidence for transition between mammals and whales, its hunting methods aren't important. The point is: this, combined with the other fossils in the series show clear transition from land mammals to whales. You can see the nostrils move further back to where the whale's are today, and you can see arms and legs become more adaptive for swimming, and eventually disappear as mammals became fully aquatic.
The hunting methods can be, usually, determined accurately from a fossils bones. He was obviously a carnivore (you can tell from his teeth.) You can tell he spent time in and out of the water (I described this before) and since he shares some similarities with a crocodile, we can think of what methods of hunting would be the best for the body type. In this case, it would be what was described, or something similar.