Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

quote:

---

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

​

...What percentage of these steps are shown in the fossil record?

---

These questions are unnecessary and unreasonable.Let me explain with an analogy. The oral history of my family (on my mother's father's side) is that the family arrived in Oregon from Ohio by way of Kansas. My mother did a little geneological research, and found the proper birth certificates, marriage liscences, and death certificates, all of them with the proper names and with the proper dates found in the proper times.However, randman is suggesting that this is not enough. Unless I can give the exact paths, including the number of steps, of my family's journey from Ohio to Oregon, I have no basis to claim that my family did travel from Ohio to Oregon by way of Kansas; I suppose the conclusion is that my mother was specially created in Alaska shortly before I was born. (Or, alternatively, my ancestors were magically moved to the various stages in their journey by an Intelligent Transporter -- what I call IT theory).

quote:

---

First, I would expect evolutionists to do this if they want to properly assess their data.

---

You may expect this, but no one is obligated to meet your expectations, especially when they are not reasonable.It's too bad you didn't like my analogy, because the point is valid and germane. It is possible to consider a historical event verified by finding a relatively small number of pieces of evidence; it is not necessary to have to provide the excruciating amount of detail that you require.

quote:

---

A better example would be that we found you one day as a baby or something, with no oral history, and we were trying to see who dropped you off or something along those lines.

---

Actually, that is not a better example. Scientists already realized, before the fossils were found, that whales evolved from some line of artiodactyls (although which line was disputed). The "oral history", so to speak, was already known -- it was only left to find out the stops along the way.But let's not get too caught up on the details of the analogy. The point is that a historical event can be considered confirmed with a relatively few pieces of data even if the entire history is not known in complete excruciating detail.Scientists had a hypothesis: whales evolved from artiodactyls. So a prediction is made: there must have been creatures alive in the past that showed characteristics intermediate between artiodactyls and modern whales. Notice that there is no other reason to expect that such creatures ever existed. But the theory of common descent, as well as data collected from taxonomy, makes a definite prediction that these creatures did exist. Now we have found the fossil remains of creatures that show intermediate characteristics between artiodactyls and whales. What is more, they are found in the right strata: more artiodactyl, less whale-like in lower strata; less artiodactyl, more whale-like in higher strata, exactly as the theory of evolution says that they should be.This is what counts as confirmation. You make a prediction, based on the theory. When that prediction is verified, it is confirmation.The theory of evolution predicted that creatures that have characteristics intermediate between artiodactyls and whales should have existed in the past. This was a prediction. This prediction has been confirmed; there were such creatures alive.I really don't understand why some people are having trouble with this.

I really don't understand the problem here. I guess I will have to repeat myself.

quote:

---

Scientists hypothesize based on the assumption that whales could only come into being via ToE.

---

Of course. That is how you test a scientific theory; you make predictions based on the assumption that the theory is accurate. The prediction is: If this theory is true, then this fact should be true. If the theory of evolution is accurate, then there should have been animals that show characteristics intermediate between whales and artiodactyls. That is how we do science. That is how all of the sciences are done. You assume the theory is true, you figure out what the theory implies, and if the implications are observed then that counts as a confirmation of the theory. What is it that you don't like about this? This is the standard description of the scientific method.Now let's play scientist and make a prediction. According to taxonomical data, whales show more similarities with some artiodactyls than other animal groups, including other artiodactyls. Therefore, if the theory of evolution were true, then whales and some artiodactyls share a common ancestor not shared with other currently living animals, including other artiodactyls. That is, that ancestor should be an artiodactyl itself. Therefore, there used to be species that have characteristics that are intermediate between artiodactyls and whales.So, according to the theory of evolution, we have the following:If the theory of evolution were accurate, there used to be species that show characteristics between artiodactyls and whales.Got that yet? If not, we can spend some more time on this. Assuming that you understand this point, we then make the following observations:Fossils have been found. Several fossil species have been found. These species have characteristics between artiodactyls and whales. Therefore, we have a prediction: if evolution is an accurate theory, then there used to be species that show characteristics between artiodactyls and whales. Species just like this have been found. There used to be living creatures that had characteristics between artiodactyls and whales. These creatures did not have to exist; without another theory that predicts what sorts of species must have existed, there is no reason to have suspected that these species ever existed. But the theory of evolution predicts that these species did exist. And the fossil remains of some of these species have been found. This is confirmation of the theory.

quote:

---

Chiroptera, the prediction was actually that hundreds of fossils of species would be found showing this type of transition....

---

Actually it doesn't. The theory of evolution says nothing about what fossils should be found; fossilization is a pretty rare process, and we should be lucky to have any fossils at all. The theory of evolution makes predictions as to what sorts of creatures existed in the past; whether we find those fossils or not is a matter of luck (or skill of the finder).As I said, these animals did not have to exist. Without the theory of evolution, there is no reason why we should expect that these animals existed; but the theory of evolution predicted that these types of animals existed, and we now have some evidence that some of these animals did, in fact, exist.

quote:

---

Without the theory of evolution, there is no reason why we should expect that these animals existed;

​

Wrong and increbily arrogant as well, but it doesn't really matter here since it is not germane to the thread.

---

Actually it is correct and it is very germane to the thread. The evidence that you ask for in the OP is an unreasonable red herring, and it is germane to discuss what scientific evidence really is.

quote:

---

The subject here is the available data in the fossil record. Get it?

---

Oh, yes, we are discussing the available data in the fossil record, and why it confirms the theory of evolution. Sadly, you don't seem to get it. Here is another article, nicely written, about the significance of these transitional species, although I don't expect you to get it either.-

quote:

---

Are they purely fictional?

---

Ha ha ha ha. Oh, you're on to us! Yes, they are all fictional. None of them exist, just a bunch of random rocks and photoshop.

quote:

---

All I am asking for is the nature of the available fossil evidence and the analysis done.

---

Go to TalkOrigins. Use search to find whale evolution. On the pages it brings up, it will list the actual peer reviewed, scientific literature on the subject. Note the references, go to a university that has a decent research quality library, and look up the references. The scientific papers will very carefully discuss the analyses done.

Actually, Yaro, this whole thread is one big moved goal post. Creationists have always said that they want to see some transitionals. Now we have some transitionals, now they need all the transitionals. And even if all the transitionals were found, complete with randman's asinine "speciation events" well marked, they'd want a complete geneology, which individuals begat whom.

quote:

---

You guys act like imbeciles.

---

Mr. Pot, I'd like you to meet Mr. Kettle.

What are you talking about? It's true. Creationists used to snear because they claimed there weren't any transitional fossils. Now there are plenty of clear transitional fossils. Now you are saying that there aren't enough transitional fossils.

quote:

---

The topic is specifically tailored to avoid getting into useless diversions.

---

Discussing why your requirements are not good science is very useful, in my opinion. Discussing how science actually operates is very useful, in my opinion. Discussing what the evidence actually is seems useful to me.I realize this upsets you, but a discussion that does not end, "Oh, creationism must be true! Thank you, Jesus!" is not necessarily useless.

Your OP is exactly like my writing, "If Jesus were really the Son of God and rose from the dead, I would expect him to walk into my room and perform miracles for me."I would expect not a few Christians would feel the need to explain how my demands were unreasonable, and would try to explain to correct way to get to know God.

Here is a summary of the article:"Nuh-uh!"Mostly just says, "It isn't so!" Not very impressive.

quote:

---

You may view this "whale" which looks an awful lot like some sort of wolf, run across the page, on all four legs, a fully land animal, but hey, it's a whale! Yippee!

---

Did you read anything about why they think it is a whale ancestor?