Failed mutations

Can you support that with any evidence? Do you realise that the chart is not based on simple outward form but on a variety of anatomical features identified from the fossil record? You might be able to make up a similar chart if you ignored the actual comparative anatomy and just looked at the surface morphology but anything else is going to take a lot more than your unsupported word that it can be done to convince anyone. What conceivable substantiation can you have for this? What current observed rates of change do you mean? You are extrapolating from what? At best a couple of centuries of reasonably well observed anatomical studies up to the millions of years covered by the whale lineage transitions?Can you offer any actual evidence instead of just your mere opinion?TTFN,WK

"What conceivable substantiation can you have for this? "This is exactly the issue at hand here. What is the measured rate of change? You mention a couple centuries isn't enough, my question to you is, in a couple centuries how many DISTINCT animal types have we observed go extinct?List of extinct bird species since 1500 - Wikipedia
List of recently extinct mammals - WikipediaNow, here's some science for you, whether you want to disqualify me because I'm not an expert or because I can't link to any scientific studies, I think what I'm about to say makes a point at least worth listening to:If you look at the creatures that have become extinct in recent history you will notice some of them have very distinctive features that makes them unique. In the same time frame how many new creatures have appeared as visually unique as some of the ones listed above? Yout must admit there is a large discrepancy.So when the original poster poses the question of whether all those fossils were, in fact, transitional, or not, I think a perfectly valid point is raised. Further still, if we count "improvements" in creatures that have taken place in 200 years there really aren't many as significant as the ones extinguished.Another interesting thing to note about that chart is that none of those fossils are placed as transitional. So before you take everything you read or hear in that field as gospel or absolute truth, try to think for yourself a bit and see if the data really makes sense.So again, going back to the original poster's question, based on the limited evidence that we have a large number of fossils must have become extinct without transitioning. Regardless of what anyone may claim, current technology doesn't allow us to be certain which fossils were in the chain and which fossils were loose ends.Your chart, if anything, shows EXACTLY that. Loose ends!

---

Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain

quote:

---

If you look at the creatures that have become extinct in recent history you will notice some of them have very distinctive features that makes them unique. In the same time frame how many new creatures have appeared as visually unique as some of the ones listed above? Yout must admit there is a large discrepancy.

---

And why shouldn't there be ? You will note that many of those species were wiped out by humans. And that many of the species were native to islands. Both these points are important.Then there is the criterion of what is "distinctive". A new species will not be greatly different from the ancestral population. The most distinctive species are distinctive with regard to other species still existing - but not so distinctive if their ancestors are considered. It is unlikely that we would be able to determine that a new species had appeared in the last two centuries without also discovering the species from which it separated.

quote:

---

Another interesting thing to note about that chart is that none of those fossils are placed as transitional. So before you take everything you read or hear in that field as gospel or absolute truth, try to think for yourself a bit and see if the data really makes sense.

---

In fact, Pakicetus down to Basilosaurus are marked as transitional. They are not marked as being in the direct line of ancestry because that is the convention. It is very hard to tell whether the direct ancestral species is a known species or a closely related but as yet undiscovered species. Thus the diagrams are drawn so as not to make such a claim. Yet a transitional is not required to be a direct ancestor - a close relative will do perfectly well.Science never requires the evidence to be perfect. The limits to what the fossil record can tell us does not negate what it DOES tell us. ANd it does tell us that these intermediates exist, as predicted by evolutionary theory.

Marcosll, just like ideas, not all reply buttons are equal. Below each post is a reply button that looks like this . If you click on one of these reply buttons, it will show at the top right and bottom left of your post whose post you just replied to. So, if you intend to reply to, say, Catholic Scientist's post #13, then you need to press the reply button right below his post #13. This way, it will greatly help us keep track of who's talking to who.By the way, welcome to EvC.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.