Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

How would you define a subsequent and prior species? How would you note them in the fossil record?Also, since speciation is directly related to genetic drift within a group, why should you expect different species to be in the same place?An example. Thousands of years in the future archeologists dig up a dog skeleton in europe and a wolf skeleton in america. First specimens of the kind ever found. How can those scientists prove those two were related without the imediate species before and after the dog?This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 11:02 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.

Maybe give some thought to why fossilization is rare. Normally, when creatures die they are pulled apart and eaten by scavengers, not leaving much to be fossilized. For a fossil to form, specific conditions have to be in place. Some examples, an animal falls into a tar pit, or sinks in mud, or buried by a landslide. Things like this tend to be in a specific location at a specific time. What was mud at one time may be solid rock a couple of thousand years later. So, if there is a relatively narrow window of opportunity for a specific fossilization event, I don't see it as strange that certain species may be more likely to be fossilized. Particular habitats and habits could easily put some creatures further 'in harms way' from a fossilization perspective that many other creatures.Food for thought?

---

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

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.

There is no such thing as a "speciation event." You are thinking in terms of "kind," and there are no kinds. A "species" is just a label we give for convenience's sake. You seem to be thinking that for a long time a pig (or whatever) is still a pig and then suddenly it becomes a whale. That is not what happens. There is no such thing as being "still a pig," except that we happen to call it a pig.You speak as if there were these eternal characteristics--pigness-- and then there were these other eternal charactersitics-whaleness. And you seem to think there is this sharp boundary where one changes into the other. That would be a "speciation event," but there is no such thing.All that happens is gradual changes--what you would call "microevolution," but what biologists call "evolution."Where is the point at which one "kind" turns into another "kind"? There is no such point, except as a matter of labelling for convenience. If we wanted to, we could label every minor change as a new species. If we did that, we would have a lot more species of butterflies, since there are many variants. Or we could decide to cut down on the number of species drastically, and label everything that flies as one species, and all those creatures that crawl around on all-fours as one species. Then we could really cut down on the number of species.The idea that we are going to call a species that which has an isolated gene pool, no matter what it looks like, is just another way of labelling. That way of labelling is also problematical. We call all dogs one species, but you don't see chihuahaus mating with great danes. We call dogs and wolves different species, and yet dogs and wolves have interbred. Why do we have this problem? Because it's a purely classificational matter, that's why. It's hard to label when one thing just blends into another--like a spectrum.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-04-2005 11:13 PM

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

If by speciaton event, you mean the point at which a group stops interbreeding with another group, then that could hardly be documented in a fossil. In a fossil, we see the phsyical characteristics. That's all we see.

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

"steps"? What steps? You could say a hundred, you could say a thousand, you could say a million. You speak as if there was this definite staircase of steps.

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.

What do you mean by a step? It could mean any change whatsoever; the slightest of changes is a "step." The beak of a bird being one millionith of an inch longer could be called a step. You can't find such infinitesimal changes in a fossil. But that is how evolution occurs.It's called microevolution.

You don't care? Then how can you complain about a lack of speciation event if you don't care how we define speciation? In that case, since you don't care, I claim all the transitional fossils found so far between whales and land animals are speciation events. One is quite justified in calling them that, since a "species" is just a label anyway.

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?