Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

randman, This is pointless, childlike equivocation.Whether you stop calling something a whale at point x, or point y is irrelevant.DNA, protein, & morphological data taken from modern mammals suggest cetaceans are nested within the artiodactyla. A corollary of this is that fossils should exist that possess characters from both modern cetacea & ancient artiodactyls. Furthermore, the fossil record should show a general "phasing" from one "morph" to another. These predictions are borne out.Your position would have merit if intermediates existed between all possible combinations of taxa, but they don't.If you are going to ignore the evidence or dismiss it as mere coincidence, then do so. It wouldn't be the first time, would it? Remember your assertion that cladograms based upon different datasets don't show overall congruence, & your example of whales to demonstrate this?Camels, pigs, peccarries, mystocetes, odontocetes etc. always fall within artiodactyla and consistently form the same family level clades (above) among themselves. Moreover, they never fall in the following orders (what a coincidence!):Perissodactyls, paenungulata, rodentia, chiroptera, primates, carnivora, xenarthra, ameridelphia, australidelphia, multituberculata, docodonta, triconodonta, symmetrodonta, enantiothornes, hesperornithiformes, icthiornithiformes, anseriformes, galliformes, podicepiformes, gaviiformes, sphenisciformes, pelecaniformes, procellariformes, gruiformes, charadriiformes, columbiformes, ciconiiormes, falconiformes, strigiformes, caprimulgiformes, apodiformes, coraciiformes, piciformes, passeriformes, pelycosauria, therapsida, testudines, araeoscelidia, younginiformes, placondontia, nothosauria, plesiosauria, sphenodontia, squamata, prolacertiformes, crocodilia, pterosauria, saurischia, ornithischia, aistopoda, nectridia, microsauria, temnospondyli, gymnophiona, urodela, anura, anthracosauria, seymoriamorpha, diadectomorpha, thelodonti,heterostraci, arandaspida, astraspida, galeaspida, osteostraci, ctenacanthiformes,hybodontiformes, xenacanthiformes, symmoriformes, eugeneodontiformes, petalodontiformes, iniopterygiformes, chongrenchelyformes, ptyctodontida, rhenanida, acanthoraci, petalichthyida, phyllolepida, arthrodira, antiarchi, saurichthyiformes, paleonisciformes, pholidopleuroformes, perleidiformes, peltopleuriformes, pynodontiformes, parasemionontiformes, amiiformes, osteoglossiformes, anguilliformescrossognathiformes, ellimmichthyiformes, clupeiformes, esociformes, gonorhynchiformes, cypriniformes, charachiformes, siluriformes, salmoniformes, stomiiformes, aulopiformes, myctophyformes, polymiciiformes, percopsiformes, ophidiiformes, lophiiformes, gadiformes, atheriniformes, cyprinodontiformes, beloniformes, beryciformes, lampridiformes, zeiformes, gasterosteiformes, dactyliopteriformes, scorpaeniformes, perciformes, pleuronectiformes, tetraodontiformes, diabolepidida, dipnoi, porolepiforms, rhizodontiformes, osteolepiforms, pandericthyida...I could list the hundreds of other animal order level clades that camels, pigs, peccarries, mystocetes, odontocetes etc. never fall into regardless of dataset used, but what would be the point?The only incongruence is the branching order/location of the family level clades within order artiodactlya. But if you ignore all of that mighty congruence, then different datasets are indeed incongruent overall. The predicted evidence exists, & it all points the same way. Live with it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-06-2005 08:13 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman,You have provided no analysis of the evidence worth rebutting. This is typical creationist denial writ large.Three different datasets have been presented that show an overall phylogenetic congruence. There is no reason whatsoever that amino-acid sequences taken from milk caseins should return similar cladograms to nucleotide sequences taken from long & short interspersed elements, which in turn has no reason to show an overall congruence with morphological data unless evolution were indicative of reality. Your first denial.A corollary of this is that there should be fossils that possess intermediate characters between ancient artiodactyls & modern cetacea, they exist. There should also be a "phasing" of morphs leading to modern cetaceans. There are.Evolutionary predictions are spectacularly borne out, requiring creationists to stick their heads in the sand & claim it's a "small handful of evidence". You actually came here claiming you were honestly assessing the evidence & found against evolution. It is clear you haven't a scooby of how to assess congruence as a statistical artifact, which is why getting three cladograms which show an overall congruence is dismissed out of hand. Three very unlikely things pointing to the same conclusion are not the same as three everyday mundane things pointing to nothing in particular.As far as cetacean/artiodactyl fossils are concerned, there are now four lines of evidence for you to ignore.This may be new behaviour to you, but we've seen it all before.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randman, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dahlanistes, Rhodocetus, Tekracetus, Gaviocetus, Remingtonocetids, Protocetids etc.Duane Gish made exactly the same error you are making, he asks, "where are there transitionals?". They are pointed out to him, & he wants to see the transitionals of the transitionals or he won't accept that the originals are transitionals. If they are provided, he wants to see the transitionals between the transitionals of the transitionals. This has become known as the Gish Number. It is an intellectually bankrupt debating device because it can never be satified.Evolutionary theory expects fossil forms that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa, namely transitionals.They exist. Whether you like it or not, they exist. In the same way you can't show motion in a snapshot. Evolution predicts something that has whale-like properties, what's your beef (pun unintended - artiodactyl in-joke)? It wasn't going to be more than that. This is a sad attempt at playing down a borne out prediction. Would it? Why couldn't individual features evolve fairly rapidly? And as you well know, the actual number of cetacean genera known is relatively low with millions of years between finds, so you are going to see "jumps" in characters. Such a flick-book scenario would only exist if the sampling of the fossil record were amazingly good, which it isn't.So we are left with the fossils we have rather than the ones you think we should have, which alone suggest an artiodactyl-cetacean transition. We have the phylogenies derived from morphology, amino acids, & DNA that also suggest the same thing.Why are you not addressing the congruency of the data? As pointed out before, it's typical creationist head in the sand tactics. If you don't address the congruence you can pretend to live in a world of infinite coincidence where all correlating data that opposes your view (which you laughingly declare to have arrived at evidentially) is dismissed out of hand with a, "c'mon guys *insert irrelevant objection here*".Fortunately the rest of science doesn't work that way. We have four different datasets suggesting the same thing, it is therefore a perfectly reasonable conclusion that the data is a "signal", & that signal is derived from the evolution of cetaceans from artiodactyl ancestors.Pretending that there should be more fossils is not a rebuttal.
Ignoring multiple correlation is not a rebuttal.
Asking, "when did he lose his hooves" is not a rebuttal.
Asking, "when did he develop a tail" is not a rebuttal.
Asking, "when did he start birthing underwater" is not a rebuttal.
Splitting hairs over what we can call a whale, or not, is not a rebuttal.
Repeatedly asserting that four congruent datasets pointing to the same conclusion is making a, "mountain out of the slightest seeming evidence", is most certainly a triumph of wishful thinking over reason, but most definately not a rebuttal.Rebut the correlating evidence, or give it up.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't