Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

Yes, would you care to adress them? I will rephrase it here in case you didn't understand the first time around.Through analysis of whale bones, biologists had already theorized that whales were descended from even-toed ungulates.This is not so far fetched. I assume you would agree that dogs, wolves, coyotes are related? And indeed, if we only had their skeletons we could infer their relationship from those skeletons. In fact dogs make up the suborder Caniformia. This suborder includes bears, weasels, foxes, and strangely enough Seals!Many of these taxonomies were created by biologists by simply examining the bones and morphological characteristics of the various species. After DNA analysis hit the mainstream most (if not all) of these classifications held tight. As it turns out Seals are very closely related to dogs!What does this tell us? Well, basically that the science involved in comparative anatomy, and the analysis of morphological characteristics, is a proven tool! Not only does it give time tested, accurate results, but is now also corroborated by one of the most airtight things you could ever ask for: DNA evidence.That's right, the same stuff that can prove you are related to some long lost family member, or that you did/didn't commit that crime, can also demonstrate what other creatures in the animal kingdom you are closest to. So what does this have to do with whale bones?Quite a lot. Although we have only found a handful of different extinct whale species from the past, the fact that they are related to whales is not in dispute. Through the same proven comparative anatomy that links dogs and seals, we can link these ancient extinct lines of whales, to modern whales, and other even-toed ungulates.This was theorized quite a while ago as Chiroptera rightly pointed out. The fact that using modern DNA evidence we can show unequivocally that the Order Cetacea is directly related to the Order Artiodactyla does nothing but solidify the validity, and effectiveness, of comparative anatomy and morphological analysis.So, to say that you need some sort of fossil that documents a speciation event in order to prove speciation, is an unreasonable request. Not only is it unreasonable, but it is also impossible. Even if we had all the fossils of whales that ever existed, how can we infer from a fossil whether or not the animal could reproduce with others outside it's group? (as per your proposed line of species demarcation)Further, all the points I have made in this post are more than sufficient to show that we don't In fact need many transitional forms to prove a linage. As I have show, dogs and seals are closely related, yet can you show me all the intermediaries between the two? Of course not, nor do you need to.Please take the time to read this post and adress the points within it.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 09:40 PM

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

1. What fossil findings would demonstrate a speciation event?

​

I have already provided a proposed way to demonstrate this. Now, it could be wrong, but for purposes of this thread, what I asked for were fossils showing the immediate prior species that evolved into the theorized intermediary and the immediate subsequent species.

​

In other words, to actually document a speciation event in this transition.

​

2. How would one determine reproductive compatibility or lack of same between two contemporaneous fossil forms?

​

That's a good question I would hope evolutionists, but for purposes of this discussion perhaps we can start off with are there any credible candidates of this in the fossil record. In other words, if we have nothing even close, then the question is a moot point, which I suspect that it is.

---

In other words, you have no criteria with which to identify or rule out the phenomena you insist cannot be found.

Yawn. Are you gonna answer my questions or not. Proclaiming and asserting victory, "not in dispute", etc,...is a waste of time.\In terms of DNA evidence, can you show me the DNA evidence of the theorized intermediaries so we compare them, and maybe see how many mutations are needed to mutate that DNA into modern whales?As far as your evidence, all you have shown is that there are some similarities between whales and other creatures, and guess what? The DNA is likewise similar.Big deal. That's what one would expect with or without ToE. It means nothing, and more to the point does nothing to answer the questions and issues raised in the OP.Sadly, you are not even aware that theorized land mammal to whale transitions are in dispute and have changed, but irregardless, your argument consists of claiming the fossil data, the questions I asked, is immaterial, and then you want to use the fossil data.It looks like another evolutionist sham to me.

quote:

---

Without the theory of evolution, there is no reason why we should expect that these animals existed;

​

Wrong and increbily arrogant as well, but it doesn't really matter here since it is not germane to the thread.

---

Actually it is correct and it is very germane to the thread. The evidence that you ask for in the OP is an unreasonable red herring, and it is germane to discuss what scientific evidence really is.

I just listed the type of analysis needed.Too bad you are so partisan you want to dodge the evidence.Sadly, the fossil record appears not to document land mammal to whale evolution so now you guys are resorting to trying to change the topic. Pathetic.But I'll try again.Just how many specimens of these so-called intermediaries are there?Are we dealing the multiple specimens or what?

Why can you evolutionists not stick to a scientific discussion? It amazes me.The subject here is the available data in the fossil record. Get it?That is the subject. I have tried to narrow down the thread material so we can have a valid discussion about what the data is, and you guys just won't come clean about it.Let's try again. Is there any evidence of how many specimens have been found in these so-called intermediaries?Are they purely fictional? Or are there actual bones? If there are bones as you guys claim, then how many specimens for any one of these theorized intermediaries have been found?You can pick the one most well-substantiated if you want. I am looking for some actual fossil evidence, and you guys basically want to run from the fossil record, which is telling.

Wrong, you would only expect it with the ToE. There is no reason to expect any fundamental relatedness between any creatures without it. That's what makes it so compelling.You basicaly handwaved everything. Including the most important bit: That seems to be your tactic in alot of threds. Handwave, call something a sham, then demand some ludicrous evidence that's not even required anyway.

Actually, that's 100% wrong. The fact that species live in the same physical, chemical and ecological environment means it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to share similar qualities in DNA, irregardless of how these species came to be here.Sorry, but you lose on that one.

quote:

---

The subject here is the available data in the fossil record. Get it?

---

Oh, yes, we are discussing the available data in the fossil record, and why it confirms the theory of evolution. Sadly, you don't seem to get it. Here is another article, nicely written, about the significance of these transitional species, although I don't expect you to get it either.-

quote:

---

Are they purely fictional?

---

Ha ha ha ha. Oh, you're on to us! Yes, they are all fictional. None of them exist, just a bunch of random rocks and photoshop.

All I am asking for is the nature of the available fossil evidence and the analysis done.Obviously, since there is such scant evidence, you guys resort to arguing it doesn't matter anyway.That's OK. We can just conclude by agreeing that the fossil record does not document evolution and that evolutionists have not done the types of comprehensive analysis to show what sort of process would need to occur, in detail, but have in fact offered very little data and analysis because there apparently is such little data.The reasonable conclusion ought to be that the fossil record is not something exclusively, and perhaps not even generally, supportive of ToE.

That's because everyone can see through your pathetic little trap. You set up a stupid standard of evidence, demand everyone meet it, when they can't, you stand back, call names, and throw tomatoes at them. People are just cutting to the chase.whether you like it or not, we are going to have to defend the fossil record and explain to you how it works. How DNA corroborates it, how taxonomy does, and how comparative biology does.No one is running, we have just seen these tactics before. Your request is at best disingenuous, at worse willfully deceptive.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 10:16 PM

quote:

---

All I am asking for is the nature of the available fossil evidence and the analysis done.

---

Go to TalkOrigins. Use search to find whale evolution. On the pages it brings up, it will list the actual peer reviewed, scientific literature on the subject. Note the references, go to a university that has a decent research quality library, and look up the references. The scientific papers will very carefully discuss the analyses done.

Really? Then if there is no speciation why on earth would seals and dogs show such close genetic similarities? Further, why would dogs and wolves show even CLOSSER genetic similarity?Further, why would plants be less geneticaly similar to dogs, than say, bears?There is no reason for this other than the fact that we are GENETICALY RELATED. And the only way things can be GENETICALY RELATED is if they reproduce, and the only things that reporduce are, you guessed it, living things.

You guys act like imbeciles. Are you really that incapable?Maybe you don't grasp the reason for asking for the number of specimens found. Basically, I started to try to do your argument for you.The only argument you guys have, concerning this thread, is that the reason we cannot find the transitions is because the fossils are so rare. At least that's the only plausible explanation I can think of that you could advance, to explain why the fossil record does not show the actual transitions.Of course, none of you seem that willing to tackle that issue.So I asked how many individual specimens of any one species there are.Hopefully, you can imagine the utility in knowing that. If you don't know that, you have no basis to make a claim on the rarity of fossils.Can you answer that? Even a guestimate?

Yaro, if you want to bow out of the thread and admit you have no answers, fine.Otherwise, if you are saying we cannot answer the questions in the OP, can you answer why?Specifically, why don't we see the transitions in the fossil record?Are you claiming fossilization is so rare? If so, are you going to back up that claim with some actual analysis of whale fossils?I would suggest a good start is to see how many specimens of whale species, any species to start with, have been found.