Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

Actually, Yaro, this whole thread is one big moved goal post. Creationists have always said that they want to see some transitionals. Now we have some transitionals, now they need all the transitionals. And even if all the transitionals were found, complete with randman's asinine "speciation events" well marked, they'd want a complete geneology, which individuals begat whom.

quote:

---

You guys act like imbeciles.

---

Mr. Pot, I'd like you to meet Mr. Kettle.

Uh, because seals and dogs are less similar than dogs and wolves.Gee, is that all you've got?DNA is what makes creatures look and be like what they are. Species more similar are going to be more similar via DNA as well. That proves nothing in terms of evolution.Why can you not grasp that?Of course, seals and dogs are closer genetically than seals and plants. That's because they are closer anatomically.Duh!

In typical fashion, start a thread to discuss the data, and evolutionists run from it and start bashing creationists and other of their critics.Really pathetic.Can any evolutionists come up with any data on the fossil record relative to the questions posed?Can you substantiate why such answers and data are not available, other than arguing, hey, that's too hard, that's stupid, no fair, and we don't want to?

What are you talking about? It's true. Creationists used to snear because they claimed there weren't any transitional fossils. Now there are plenty of clear transitional fossils. Now you are saying that there aren't enough transitional fossils.

Read through your post again, and come back when you realize how circular that logic was.

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

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.

I have defended my position rather well. It is you who have failed to justify yours. If I decide to leave this thread it is because it has ceased to amuse/enlighten me. Your request for a speciation event is not only pointless but impossible to produce! Not only due to the rarity of fossils, but also because how can you tell from bones that the species can't reproduce outside it's group (per your request)? What do you want, a half-whale half-cow? What we have is what we have, a spectrum of less whale-like to more whale-like. What would you regard as a transitional? Sure:
http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlThat was posted earlier in the thread, did you bother to read it? What's the point? If I say 6 you'll balk and go Ah! Too little, you evolutionists are FOOLS! SHAM SHAM! LALALALAL CANT HEAR YOU!!!. If I say 2000 you'll likely say the same thing and demand their birth certificates.

Coming from the guy who regularly injects his "QM = proof of design/God/the past changing/a supernatural realm/anything you want" idea into any thread going this is hilarious. Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?
If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...
Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
True science" must include God?
Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
Rejecting Intelligent Design as Possibly Science
The Existence of Jesus Christ
Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?
Disabling Bacterial Resistanceand so on.Did I say hilarious. Sorry, I meant hypocritical.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

quote:

---

The topic is specifically tailored to avoid getting into useless diversions.

---

Discussing why your requirements are not good science is very useful, in my opinion. Discussing how science actually operates is very useful, in my opinion. Discussing what the evidence actually is seems useful to me.I realize this upsets you, but a discussion that does not end, "Oh, creationism must be true! Thank you, Jesus!" is not necessarily useless.

Your OP is exactly like my writing, "If Jesus were really the Son of God and rose from the dead, I would expect him to walk into my room and perform miracles for me."I would expect not a few Christians would feel the need to explain how my demands were unreasonable, and would try to explain to correct way to get to know God.

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