1. On the continuum of species change, the relevant issue for this discussion, as I see it, is that new features would need to have arisen, specifically the features whales have, and all of the whale distinguishing features not just a few pontential precursors.
I don't understand what you mean by this exactly. Are you saying that you would expect a whale precoursor to have a blowhole and fins? Like, suddenly a land mamal gave birth to a dolphin?
Seriously, could you explain this question a little more.
2. On the nature of fossilization, I would like to see someone explain why a process so rare routinely has produced dozens, hundreds and thousands of fossils of just one species, and qualify what they mean by "rare." It is rare for some individual to win the lottery, but it is not rare that someone will win the lottery.
Ah, that's an easy one. It boils down to quantity and environment.
We have tons of fossils of trilobites and other Cambrian fauna because they were incredibly abundant, and luckily enough, they lived in a sediment filled environments. Couple that with easy to fossilize hard shells, and continental uplift (pushing their burial grounds up above watter where scientists can study them), you got a creature that turns up a lot in the fossil record.
Now, consider a creature like the whale. It's populations are relatively small, and wide ranging. Most whales live in deep ocean watter. Furthermore, whales haven't been around for very long so we can't really rely on much tectonic activity to reveal any deep ocean burial sites to us.
In any case, while the probabilities are higher given many factors, there is never a 100% guarantee. Just because something fossilizes it doesn't mean 1) it will last the millenia 2) will ever be found.
3. On the data, we have lots of data. I would like to see why comparing living mammal species and known mammalian fossils is somehow discounted by suppossed lack of data?
Again, I'm not following. Are you talking about fossilization rates between extinct and non-extinct critters? If you are, then the fallacy of that logic is evident.
You can't account for the millions of years time difference. Not to mention the myriad other variables involved.