Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

The whole group experiences genetic drift. That's how species form.

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.

I mean seriously, how would you suggest even going about finding out such knowledge?

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?

Let's call these speciation events "steps". I would think evolutionists, considering their dogmatism, would have fairly full theories as to the needed steps involved, with considerable range of course.

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 would you consider "well-documented"? A 2000 fossil unbroken chain? Sorry man, it's just not gonna happen.

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.

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.