Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

Did it take thousands of transitionals, especially considering the dead-end branches as it were, to create the evolutionary path, or not?Please answer the question.If the answer is yes, then why don't we see them in the fossil record?What percentage should we see?Basically, all you guys have is a handful of creatures that share some similarities.You have offerred no analysis showing what percentage of current whales have fossilized remains.You have offerred no analysis of what mutations would need to occur to effect this transition.You have simply dodged the evidence, and then have the gall to claim I am the one doing so.Where are the thousands of transitionals that ToE and Darwin predicts in this evolutionary path?If you say we just haven't found them, at what point will you admit that maybe they don't exist? It appears to me if we found no transitionals, ever, you would still be arguing they exist.But here is the truth. We have no fossils showing they exist?

Ah, the truth of the faith-based, or anti-faith-based nature of evolutionism comes out.

Did you see that randman, it went zooming by you, it was THE POINT. The point of the post was that the ToE is based on observable fact. What you are doing is taking your faith, deciding that ToE is not possible, then setting unreasonable goals. Then you decide because no one can answer you to your satisfaction that you must be right. Again, the adam and eve. It's like me saying that I would become a YEC if you could find me the fossils of Adam and Eve.

Hmmm...it appears from the evolutionists here that ToE is based on faith, or non-observable fact, namely that thousands of transitional species existed between land mammals and whales despite there being no actual data in the fossil record showing what these species were.That was my point. You claim I am operating out of ignoring facts and asserting faith, but no where on this thread have I done that.On the contrary, the faith assertions are all coming from the evolutionists. They believe the transitionals exist regardless of whether there are any fossils, right?How is that based on observable data?They proclaim their limited data is sufficient as if the hypothesis alone proves the theory, but ignore any arguments based on the real data, namely the comprehensive data in the fossil record shows nothing of the thousands of theorized transitionals except a few potential handful candidates, and even there, they resort to calling a fully land animal with hooves to boot, a whale.Not only is this not fact-based thinking on evolutionists' part, but it is farcical.

Stonewall, handwave, guffaw all you want.It dosn't make any of your demands more resonable.You didn't even bother to entertain this question: So, any answers?

Okay, since you ignore my points and attack the first sentance of each of my posts, let's move on. How many fossils do you think there should be. Make a hypothesis based on observable FACT about the frequency of fossilization. Then we can refine that hypothesis together, then ALL look at the available data. That seems like a better idea to me.*lurk more back on...really*

Maybe this can help some here focus on the thread topic. Let's say, for sake of argument, and I am not buying this, but let's say we have 5 solid examples of species that meet the qualifications of transitional forms between whales and land mammals.Why is this a convincing argument when there would have been thousands of transitional forms between land mammals and whales?If you say due the rarity of fossils, then back that up. Show some analysis of how rare fossilization is in the context of millions and millions of years, and do so, not based on non-existent data.For example, circular arguments such as claiming we only have a few transitionals and ToE says there had to be thousands is not a valid argument.Maybe comparing existing whale species with how many have fossilized remains would be a good way to determine the percentage of likely fossilized species in a transition we should find.But hey, that's just a suggestion. You can back up your claims with something else, but if you are going to claim rarity of fossilization, you need to back that up.

Same reason that if I photographed a track runner at the starting line, the middle of the track, and the finishline, I can rightly assume that he ran the race. Why do I need a film to prove it?

I am beginning to understand, Randman, that you are not engaged in an argument, but rather you are conducting a shouting-match on your part.It has been explained to you time and time again, what anyone with common sense and no expertise could figure out, that fossilization doesn't happen very often and even if it did happen there is no guarantee that we would find it. That's why only a few specimans have been found. That's the end of that subject.

Brad, first off, the claim of fossilization rarity was first made by evolutionists here so they should have to back that up.I would estimate that there would be at least a few thousand species, according to standard ToE models, that would have arisen between land mammals and whales.Of that number, I would think a high number of them did fossilize since we have fossils of existing whales, and of the numbers that fossilized, I think, based on the curve I linked to earlier, that we have probably found at least 90% or more of the major fossilized forms we will find.Ball-park numbers, my estimate is we should have found close to a 1000 transitional forms between land mammals to whales, if ToE were true.One way to provide some data ammo to this, and once again it is incumbent upon evolutionists to back up their claim, is to see how many cetaceans living today have fossilized remains.Do you agree that this would be a good method to determine how many whale-like fossilized species we should expect?This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 01:36 PM

Wolves and dogs can interbreed, and in the context of the more loose definition of species, given to help you guys have more leeway, they would be one species, although technically there are 2 species.So the question is somewhat stupid since if found at the same time, they would be considered genetically related because they are in fact related.Now, we insert via genetic manipulation, some canine genes into a cat, and somehow produce a hybrid between cats and canines, but no transitional forms in-between are found, or maybe a few, all pretty different, and then let's say you find a canine, just a few, thousands of years from now, and a cat and this hybrid or a few hybrids.Would that be evidence of evolution, or design?This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 01:42 PM

Can you back that up please?Please remember we are dealing with millions of years. Would you say if a species lives 10,000 years that we are likely to find fossil remains or not, for example?How about 2 million years?What is the threshold for mammal fossils?

Is this what you are proposing we see in whales?

Because we already know the track runner is the same guy. We don't know land mammals transitioned to whales. This is part of the data that suppossed to show that. It does not show that, however.You are using an assumption to prove the evidence proves the assumption, and that's circular evidence.Moreover, you have not explained why there are only 3 photos, why are there not more fossils.Also, if one of the photos showed a guy wearing a different shirt than at the beginning and end of the race, you would have to explain that.

Could you show your calculations? How many individual whales have lived in the past 50,000 years? How many whale fossils have been found from species extant in that 50,000 years?(we can start with a rough assumption perhaps? -- there were ,until we began to slaughter them, perhaps 20 million whales of all types alive at any one time )Could you define "major forms"? Your numbers are meaningless without that. Perhaps it is time for a taphonmy thread?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-05-2005 01:55 PM