Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

Specifically, how many speciation events would be needed to take place to evolve a land mammal to a genuine whale?

And how many mutations necessary to create a single speciation event?

If easier to grasp, how many to create a speciation event that likely creates 2 species incapable of sexually reproducing?

Except that species do occur and are distinct, for example, if we just define species loosely as those that can sexually reproduce, then we see that species are distinct groups, not one part of a sliding group of change.

Spectrum is also a poor analogy because the whole group does not evolve really. If evolution is true, then whatseems to occur is part of the group separates or something and forms into a new species eventually, and the traditional concept may work as well, but the idea it is one smooth, gradual transition is really not supported. If that was the case, you would not have so many different species per order.

But really you don't understand spectrum and light. First off, light is quantized, i.e. the photon, and secondly, and this is more easily demonstrated via RF waves, but waves have definite frequency parameters. Tp claim the entire spectrum is not quantifiable is silly.

Ok, ToE is non-quantifiable???

So how many such speciation events do you estimate would need to occur?

Definitions of speciesThe definition of a species given above as taken from Mayr, is somewhat idealistic. Since it assumes sexual reproduction, it leaves the term undefined for a large class of organisms that reproduce asexually. Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding. Further, there is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural and experimental conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed. Consequently, several lines of thought in the definition of species exist:* A morphological species is a group of organisms that have a distinctive form: for example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. Although much criticised, the concept of morphological species remains the single most widely used species concept in everyday life, and still retains an important place within the biological sciences, particularly in the case of plants.* The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It distinguishes between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations. For example, it is possible to cross a horse with a donkey and produce offspring, however they remain separate speciesin this case for two different reasons: first because horses and donkeys do not normally interbreed in the wild, and second because the fruit of the union is rarely fertile. The key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations.* A mate-recognition species is defined as a group of organisms that are known to recognise one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually.* A phylogenetic or evolutionary or Darwinian species is a group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species.* See also microspecies under apomixis, for species that reproduce without meiosis or mitosis so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation.In practice, these definitions often coincide, and the differences between them are more a matter of emphasis than of outright contradiction. Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgement. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the most practical definition.

The truth seems to be that not one single speciation event is well-documented in the land mammal to whale evolution...

...and there appears to be no thought given to the number of speciation events that would be needed to create this evolutionary path...

...and thus no analysis done to consider whether we have substantial data it occurred or not, in terms of the fossil record.

What it does show are species that are considered by evolutionists to be intermediary forms due to similarities, but in reality, it does not appear evolutionists know or even have ventured a guess on how many "forms" in terms of speciation events are needed to create the transition, and thus how many mutations are needed, and thus the likelihood of this scenario being plausible in terms of the data.

Clearly you want to do that because you think the genetic evidence is somehow stronger, and that's fine, except the point of this thread is to discover and demonstrate the degree that the fossil record actually documents land mammal to whale evolution, not that the fossil record could be considered documentation in some manner if we look at other evidence, and then view a few fossils as clues or some such.

Appears to me that long before any evidence, evolutionists considered "whales evolved from even-toed ungulates."

But no to your question, the genetic evidence deviates from the OP, imo.

Ya, and they made the deduction from whale bones. The ancient proto whale bones were clearly some sort of whale. So, if they were whales as well, they too must be descended from the even-toed ungulates. Surely your not going to claim that the ancient proto-whales are not whales at all?

No it dosn't, it is a perfectly valid defense of the fosill record and the methodology used to study it.

Big deal. That's what one would expect with or without ToE. It means nothing, and more to the point does nothing to answer the questions and issues raised in the OP.

So, to say that you need some sort of fossil that documents a speciation event in order to prove speciation, is an unreasonable request. Not only is it unreasonable, but it is also impossible. Even if we had all the fossils of whales that ever existed, how can we infer from a fossil whether or not the animal could reproduce with others outside it's group? (as per your proposed line of species demarcation)

You can pick the one most well-substantiated if you want. I am looking for some actual fossil evidence, and you guys basically want to run from the fossil record, which is telling.

Actually, that's 100% wrong. The fact that species live in the same physical, chemical and ecological environment means it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to share similar qualities in DNA, irregardless of how these species came to be here.

Yaro, if you want to bow out of the thread and admit you have no answers, fine.

Otherwise, if you are saying we cannot answer the questions in the OP, can you answer why?

Specifically, why don't we see the transitions in the fossil record?

Are you claiming fossilization is so rare? If so, are you going to back up that claim with some actual analysis of whale fossils?

I would suggest a good start is to see how many specimens of whale species, any species to start with, have been found.

Why are the immediate subsequent and prior species not found?