Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

What part of "in the context of the fossils" do you guys not understand?

The topic is specifically tailored to avoid getting into useless diversions. The idea is to get a good picture of what is and isn't available in the fossil record.I realize that upsets you, but assessing the available data in one area can be quite helpful and educational. You should try it sometime.

Even a guess would suffice here. I am willing to be extremely lenient.The issue appears to be there are not even potential candidates so your insistence it is impossible is a moot point. No one has tried because you don't even have anything close. You have no data, nada, to substantiate from the fossil record even a potential speciation event taking place in the land mammal to whale theorized evolutionary transition.Is it so much to ask you guys to provide even one case of actual speciation taking place in this theorized chain.As far as your link, I read it and quoted from it in fact.It appears to back up my assessment of the available data, but more to the point, to the independent thinker, the data presented is evidence against ToE.From reading that web-site, it is apparent than some of these extinct species are found in more than one place in the world, and in sufficient numbers to indicate they are real.But here is the kicker, which they studiously avoid discussing.Why are the immediate subsequent and prior species not found?If fossilization is so rare, why can we find numerous examples of one species, and none in the species immediately prior and after that species.You cannot explain that?Now, if only one fossil or part of one, per species was found, then maybe ToE proponents would have a case for fossil rarity, but that's not the case.There is no good reason for other species living near to the same time not to be found as well, especially since they would be living in similar conditions, living near water as semi-aquatic species.The truth is the fossil record appears to show these species did not in fact evolve because had they, you would see that in the fossil record, but you don't. You can find multiple specimens for one species, and then find nothing of the next species that theoritically evolved after that.If fossilization is so rare that we should not see any fossils of the vast majority of a theorized transition, the odds of finding more than one specimen in multiple areas for any single species is astronomical, but that's what we see.A more reasonable assumption based on the data is the species are not found because they never existed.This message has been edited by randman, 08-04-2005 10:51 PM

You guys have multiple specimens, some found in different places of the world, and claim they are transitional.But you have no fossil specimens for the species immediately after and before, or even close enough to posit that.Why is that?If you say because fossilization is so rare, then what are the chances of finding more than one fossil specimen per species and in more than one place in the world?The odds are atronomical if fossilazation is so rare that the vast majority of species show no fossils, but somehow we find some with abundant fossils, especially when the species immediately afterwards would share a similar eco-system.Isn't it more reasonable to think that, just maybe, we don't see the fossils of these hundreds or maybe thousands of species because they never existed?just a thought.This message has been edited by randman, 08-04-2005 10:57 PM

Mick, maybe you can take a stab at answering a question on fossilization, which to me is strong evidence against ToE.If fossilization is so rare, why do we find multiple specimens of some of these theorized intermediaries, even in different areas, but then see nothing of the species following in the chain, perhaps even hundreds of species over millions of years?It seems like we should not be finding so many of one species and none of the others, if the process is so rare, especially since the immediate subsequent and prior species would undoubtedly share some of the same habitat and conditions.

Thanks for taking a stab at it, and undoubtedly there is some truth in what you say.But it seems more likely in this context that multiple specimens be found in the same spot, with the same event, but finding multiple specimens in various places raises some doubts as to why there would be multiple fossils of one species in different areas across a wide range, sometimes even different continents, and then none for millions of years before that of the species' theorized ancestors and after that of the species that arose from it.Your answer helps for some examples, but doesn't answer for the wider context of fossils being found across continents, and yet none of the following species being found at all, at least not until potentially hundreds of speciation events later.

Um, I really didn't read past the first paragraph because your claim of no speciation events is nonsense. Moreover, I did not bring up "kind" and am not even thinking in terms of "kinds". Please stay on topic.Take a look around you. While it is true that it can be hard to nail down the exact concept of species, we do indeed, especially with mammals, see species. I even made it easier and said we could broaden the definition of species for this discussion to be the group that can sexually reproduce.Since between land mammals and whales, there are many such groups, called species in fact, that cannot reproduce fertile offspring, I suggest you retract your claim and think about the reasonableness of what I am asking.Theoritically, a land mammal evolved and kept evolving all the way until it was a whale, right?This did not happen with an individual, but within whole groups, right?Those groups are species. When one species evolves, or part of it evolves, into a new group that could not interbreed with the former group, that is a speciation event for purposes of this discussion.Got it?Next question is why we don't see any such speciation events in the fossil record?This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 12:28 AM

Looking around, I found this which estimates the steps or transitional species involved, if taking into account the collateral branches, would be thousands between land mammals to whales.Where are they? The Institute for Creation Research

Could not interbreed hypothetically.But I don't care how you define species really. I was trying to make it easier. My point is where are they in the fossil record?They don't exist in the fossil record. There should be thousands of species between land mammals and whales, and at best evolutionists have come up with a handful of hopeful candidates.The excuse seems to be the rarity of fossilization, but there are semi-aquatic and marine species with bunches of fossils.Why did the many thousands of theorized transitional species escape fossilization, but some other species have dozens or hundreds of fossils?It just doesn't add up.The most reasonably conclusion is that the reason we don't see the thousands of transitional species that should exist between land mammals and whales is that they never existed in the first place except in the minds of evolutionists.

There would have to be. Species evolve, not individuals alone.You don't see in life half-humans, full humans, and apes, and everything in between, do you?No, you see distinct species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Robin, break it down and label it anything you want, but show the data, please, and admit to what the data is and isn't.That's the point of this exercise, and no species are not like the spectrum.At some point, a species theoritically evolves into another species, or a group within that species does.Where are these species in the fossil record?I suggest, btw, you read the following. Mutations | Answers in Genesis

Robin, that already is the claim of evolutionists. Read the darn thread, the OP, and answer the questions and quit fouling up the thread with nonsense.Why are the many thousands of transitional species not found in the fossil record?

I think the evolutionists here ought to read the following article. Mutations | Answers in Genesis

No speciation event is documented in the fossil record because the immediate preceding species [or even something close] is not seen.It's a pretty simple concept that illustrates the lack of data.Why is it so hard for you to grasp it?Are you just not willing to accept that fact? Because it is a fact. Evolutionists don't even claim to have found any back to back species or anything close in the theorized land mammal to whale transition, not even one.

Mods, please step in and correct Robin's nonsense and refusal to discuss the topic.No one has brought up kinds on this thread, Robin, except you. If you wish to talk about kinds, please start a thread doing that.This thread is about the actual fossil data available.is that a topic that threatens your basic belief system or something?