Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

Ned, evolutionists here are the ones claiming rarity of fossilization, right?So why are you not asking them to back up their claims?Moreover, quite often on this thread evolutionists sought to dismiss the OP topic as useless and argue something else entirely.Would you do back and correct them for doing that? And make them stick to the OP and deal with the data substantively instead of via analogy and unsubstantiated assertions.With just a few exceptions, I have been the one doing all of the relevant research here, even trying to help make evolutionists in their arguments by pointing them to ways they could back up their assertions.But thus far, with the exception of a few thoughtful posts, your's on page 1 and Thor's few posts, the evolutionists here refuse to engage on the subject of the OP.I even suggested for sake of argument, we just assume (for now), that there are 5 good candidates for transitional forms.That still leaves the issues of the OP unanswereed.If evolutionists are claiming fossilization is a rare event in the context of thousands and millions of years, then let them back that up, please?Thus far, they are not willing to back up any of their claims relative to the issues in the OP, and even have the gall to at times say it's not necessary! Well, if it's not necessary, why are they posting here at all?As you can tell, I spent hours last night researching claims on the Net, and took time today.I think at this point, either you or some other evolutionists here need to take a little time to explain their scientific rationale and research to validate the claim of extreme rarity of fossilization since this claim was made first by evolutionists here.Is that not a reasonable request?

More analogies. I quit reading them in detail although I do note something like 99% of the pages found and one missing, which once again shows your ignorance. It's 99.8% of the theorized data missing, and you have one word or two and want to claim it was a Shakespearan play.Just answer based on data for from here on out, please.You are claiming there are no fossils based on extreme rarity of fossilization, right?Please back that up, or back up something with data.These analogies are useless.This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 02:12 PM

Brad, a big error imo is the assumptions based on T-Rex. If we want to create some reasonable accuracy, we need to have something measurable today to work off of.That's why I suggested current whale species and their fossils.Now, one could argue they are not as old and thus less likely to have fossils disturbed, but an counter-balancing argument is that since some presumably are younger species, they are less likely to have ever fossilized so maybe it's a wash.Regardless, if evolutionists are claiming rarity IN THE CONTEXT OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, then they need to back up that claim, but I see no analysis backing up that claim.In terms of fossils, I do know of over 300 whale fossils being found in one location. It would seem then evolutionists need to reevaluate the prevalence of T-Rex since hundreds of whale fossils have been found, but relatively few T-Rex's and as you state, whales are considered to be fewer in number compared to other species.

Chiro, you have been running from the substance of this thread the whole time. I even, for sake of argument, said we could consider 5 good candidates of transitional forms, but you still refuse to debate the OP.Is that because you cannot answer?On the subject of ToE, I have never thought there was no evidence at all, and don't think Genesis discounts ToE. In fact, I have stated genetic evidence is the best, and imo, about the only real viable evidence evolutionists have produced to my knowledge, but imo, that cannot discount the fact the fossil record does not show the speciation events occuring so the genetic evidence can probably best be explained by similar DNA matched to similar function.What I do think is the evidence in the fossil record as a whole indicates that universal common descent did not occur, and I give my reasons here on this topic. The actual transitional forms are not seen. At best, only a handful of the many thousands of forms that should exist are seen in the land mammal to whale evolution.You have yet to explain why there would not be thousands of transitional forms seen? You claim fossilization is a rarity, but you never explain or back that up.

It shows that I quit reading them in detail and thus misinterpreted the analogy.Another analogy would be we find letters from different languages, and don't even have the right language, and try to make all these letters fit into one alphabet or something.After awhile, analogies are useless.The data is the subject of the thread.In fact, you may not realize this, but whether ToE is true is not even the primary subject, the primary subject is the data itself.What is the available data and what is missing and why, in terms of the fossil record and the number of mutations to produce a speciation event?Why can't you guys answer based on fact?

Brad, but in what context is "rare"?For example, it may be a rare occurence for an individual to be getting married on any given day, but it's not so rare for an individual to get married if we spread that out to a life-time.In fact, given a lifetime, it may be a likely and non-rare event for someone to be married.That link does not explain the context of rarity, and thus is somewhat meaningless.Another example would be, if fossilization is such a rare event, what are the odds of multiple fossils of any one species being found. Let's take winning the lottery. That's a rare event. What would be rarer is winning it more than once. If several people routinely won the lottery, it might actually not be such a rare event.Several species routinely win the lottery, in terms of fossilization.

Already done several times in fact.Quit stalling and answer.Where are the thousands of transitional forms between land mammals and whales?This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 02:56 PM

If you aren't going to read the thread, that's your problem.Your little spectrum analogy is a waste of time because when we look at life, we don't see the entire spectrum laid out. With light, the entire spectrum exists, but you don't see life as one big species with every little step laid out.In fact, terms like "species" are scientific terms with standards for defining them, just in case you did not know that.To make it even more easier, I suggested we use a looser definition of species drawing the line at being unable to produce fertile offspring. That may technically lump a few species together, but since you guys have so little data anyway, it doesn't matter if we assist your efforts in creating a definition easier to show that if we asked for a more fine-grained definition.It's up to you guys though, ultimately, to show the speciation event since that's your claim. The best you can do so far is to make an assertion that a speciation event must have occurred, because you know, evolution is true and all that, and hey, we have a creature with a hoof that also had a slighly expanded aural cavity.But you could quantify, as I suggested earlier, the number of differences in whales that cannot interbreed, or even try to find the nearest whale relatives that cannot interbreed, such as those within the same genera or family, and get a diagnostic picture of what level of change exists on bone structures between near relatives, and then assess how many speciation events, defined loosely there would need to be.Of course, and I didn't think of this in the OP, but since evolution theoritically does not occur via a direct tree, there would be many dead-end or perhaps non dead-end branches so that the actual transitional forms would be many times the number of transitions needing to take place.

That's one place I mentioned it. There are others.But the relevant point is we have no candidates available to show that.In terms of speciation events theoritically, evolutionists posit the speciation events took place. All I am asking is for reasonable details on the process.How many differences exist between closely related current whale species on average? How many for land mammals?How many mutations would it take to produce those changes?Then, we could see how many mutations it would take and how many speciation events, and assess whether the data indicates this "story" really happened and is plausible.For example, if it would take an estimated 500 hundred speciation events, we might consider there to be 3000 transitional forms (as an example) considering the theorized branch-like nature of ToE.We could then see what percentage of these transitional forms (species) are seen in the fossil record.We could try to then see if there is a plausible explanation, backed up by solid research, showing in this instance why some species have multiple fossils, and yet among the thousands of transitional forms that existed, we have at best, what, 5?We could also examine whether mutational rates can explain the transition?Imo, these are basic questions evolutionists need to show BEFORE they can make a claim of the fossil record supporting their hypothesis.It appears to me, in fact, that the fossil record, from a layman's perspective, disproves ToE, and I can tell you that the fossil record is the main reason I don't accept ToE.

You could estimate based on the differences between whales and land mammals that cannot interbreed but which have similarities. You could also weight the evidence by estimates of the creature's habitat and theoritical reproductive system.For example, if one creature is thought to give birth in water, and another on land, clearly they could probably not interbreed from what we know about mammals. The issue would be the speciation events in that area that need to take place. What are the mid-birthing stages? A creature that gives birth in water or on land?But you guys are the ones claiming speciation occurs. So maybe you should back it up. Evolutionists do tent to make a lot of claims based on fossilized remains, often their initial assumptions presented as fact in popular literature are false, but they usually run a pattern of claiming transitional form.Neanderthal was claimed as excessively ape-like, and Pakicetus was presented as an aquatic creature.This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 03:35 PM

Ned, it's not really a problem because all we asking for are estimates. Speciation does occur to evolutionists. The fact there are problems with the concept is, if anything, a problem for ToE, not my ideas on this thread.With mammals, we see different species, right or not?We see different whales and different land mammals, right?In no sense are these all on interbreeding group. In one of the posts you linked to, you seem to discuss a gradual change of the whole species, and for this discussion that is fine, although we don't really see that in the fossil record and hence, PE advocates usually speciation takes place along the fringes of the species in isolated groups.But even with a species that changes in toto, there is still a point where there is a new species presumably, where the new form could not or would not interbreed with the old form if present, right?So it's just not an issue for the hypothetical analysis to posit a range of how many different forms of interbreeding species would it take to mutate a land mammal to a whale, and then multiply that number by how many branches off that line one would expect, and one can estimate the number of transitionals that would need to be involved.This is what evolutionists should have done if they are going to realistically assess whether the scenario is plausible by existing mechanisms and whether the fossil data actually documents or fails to document these transitions.

Ned, this is an example where I am appealing to you as a Mod to censure Robin. He has repeatedly brought up the subject of kinds and made false, unsubstantiated claims about me on this thread in this area, and has done so with virtual impugnity, never giving any data or scientific back-up to his claims.Here, his comments are less of a violation than in prior posts, but nevertheless, he continually misrepresents the thread and the evidence.For example, In fact I am thinking specifically in terms of species, and not "kinds" on this thread, and robin offers no evidence that there is no such thing as species and speciation. In fact, species is a well-established way of classifying creatures as well as speciation is a basic claim of ToE, namely that new species emerge as the result of natural selection.Throughout this thread, robin has refused to provide any scientific documentation for his claims, whatsoever.

Ned, note the following complaint on robin which I also listed prior addressed to him.Ned, this is an example where I am appealing to you as a Mod to censure Robin. He has repeatedly brought up the subject of kinds and made false, unsubstantiated claims about me on this thread in this area, and has done so with virtual impugnity, never giving any data or scientific back-up to his claims.Here, his comments are less of a violation than in prior posts, but nevertheless, he continually misrepresents the thread and the evidence.For example, In fact I am thinking specifically in terms of species, and not "kinds" on this thread, and robin offers no evidence that there is no such thing as species and speciation. In fact, species is a well-established way of classifying creatures as well as speciation is a basic claim of ToE, namely that new species emerge as the result of natural selection.Throughout this thread, robin has refused to provide any scientific documentation for his claims, whatsoever.I also object to Yaro's claims that species and speciation (the emergence of species) does not exist. He offers no scientific evidence at all, but erroneously claims biological life is like the spectrum. Or, Here Yaro claims that species are not measurable, and cannot be determined, clearly wildly overstating the fact that in some specific cases, classifying some species can be challenging.This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 06:34 PM

Please define "kinds" and why you think the concept of "species" and "speciation" does not exist.Are mammals not grouped together into species? groups that can and do interbreed?Obviously they are, and hence you are wrong. The blurriness with some species or subspecies that occurs is an issue, but it's not germane to this thread because we can eliminate all such blurriness by defining species, for the context of this thread, more broadly as individuals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.That may actually make a few iffy "species" such as the pseudorca and bottlenosed dolphin the same "species" despite being classified as different genera, but it suffices here.It is a clear line of demarcation, something real, contrary to what you claim, and something we see in nature today. It is an observable.So how many such speciation events where groups that can interbreed with one another and not with other groups have occurred or would need to occur to transition a land mammal to a whale?Please answer the question.

That's a fallacious argument on 2 points.First, some species don't fossilze well, such as sharks. Basically, we tend to have sharks' teeth, but no bones because they have cartilage instead of bones.So in terms of this discussion, we need to be talking about land mammals, semo-aquatic and aquatic mammals and most importantly whales. The fact some worm or plant or bacteria is not fossilized, or we have not discovered them is not germane to the discussion.The second point is that "species" defined more narrowly is probably not a good bench-mark. We need to stick to a broader definition of species, basically groups that could interbreed, and the reason is that we are more likely, contrary to what you guys claim, be able to estimate from fossils the broader term than we can define species as we do more narrowly.To apply these points, we should talk of how many mammal species there are. Next, we should be careful not to count species that share near identical bone structures but are counted as separate species for other reasons. This should be obvious since we are examining fossils, and if we looked at identical bones, we would assume 2 different species.So what's the number of "species" today for cetaceans, and for mammals in general, and what is the total number of mammals discovered in the fossil record and living today.That would be a good start, if anyone knows.Then, we could discuss fossilization rates.