Yeah, but that's because evolution isn't just a world-wide atheist Darwinist scientist conspiracy, it's a TIME-TRAVELLING world-wide atheist Darwinist scientist conspiracy!!! Don't you know anything?!?<quoted text>
I hope you didn't take my 'learn to live with it' post as an admission of failure on my part.
On the contrary, you have made precious few valid points with regard to Ichty. You were correct about Ichthy's fenestrae. They have ONE pair on each side -- as least for the bulk of the specimens found. But you then wax on about this being proof of their Mammalian distinction. Wrong. As I have provided evidence for:
Euryapsida – one high fenestra (above the postorbital and squamosal)– protorosaurs (small, early lizard-like reptiles) and the marine sauropterygians and ichthyosaurs, the latter called Parapsida in Osborn's work.
Wiki has a good article (with references) about the finding and classification of Ichthy. A relevant snip:
"Perplexed by the creature, Home kept changing his mind about its classification, first thinking it was a kind of fish, then thinking it might have some kind of affinity with the duck-billed platypus (only recently known to science); finally in 1819 he reasoned it might be a kind of intermediate form between salamanders and lizards, which led him to propose naming it Proteo-Saurus. By then Charles Konig, an assistant curator of the British Museum, had already suggested the name Ichthyosaurus (fish lizard) for the specimen and that name stuck."
"In 1821 William Conybeare and Henry De la Beche, both members of the Geological Society of London, collaborated on a paper that analysed in detail the specimens found by Anning and others. They concluded that ichthyosaurs were a previously unknown type of marine reptile, and based on differences in tooth structure, they concluded that there had been at least three species."
So it seems that at a time when commercial whaling was rampant, and therefore the morphology of cetacea should be VERY well known (expecially for an assistant curator for the British Museum), it was vividly apparent that Ichthy was NOT a mammal, but a reptile.
Note also that the naming and the classification of Ichthy as a reptile was done some 4 decades before Darwin published.
If you are still adamant about Ichthy being a mammal, you will continue to be disappointed.
Or...you could strike your favorite Don Quixote pose, and persist in attacking those evil windmills.