Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

Omnivorous, as I am unlikely to get a straight answer from randman, ould you please provide a link to the graph.

First off, I think - but am not sure - this falls within the thread remit. If I'm wrong Mr. Hyde (sorry, AdminNosy ) just let us know and we can take it up elsewhere.Second off, thanks to randman for introducing me to the concept of a collectors curve - it's not something I've come across before so I had to do a quick read up on them.Now on to the meat... The picture you linked to from the IDEA Club at UCSD is great as an idealised representation of a collectors curve - but that is the limit of its value.When I were a lad back in the 1970s I remember a teacher telling us that a graph with no scale on the axes and no data points is just a pretty picture. Except as an illustration it serves no purpose at all. That pretty much describes the collectors curve you linked to huh?So actually the question is where is the data on that collectors curve. The answer seems to be there isn't any. This is simply an unsubstantiated claim. It may be wrong or it may be right, I have no idea (and I suspect in reality IDEA have no idea either ).Actually doing the work to be able to produce the curve would probably be an enormous undertaking. Back in October 2004 I started a Is there a paucity of fossils ? thread. Adding together the collections of 8 large collections gives more than 22 million fossils.Until randman can come up with some actual numbers either for either specific species (or phylum, genera or whatever the right terms are all the way up to all fossils ever found) we don't know where we are on the collectors curve.P.S. Omnivorous - I know I'm basically just saying what you did but I wanted to drive the point home a bit further so randman couldn't get away with his non-answer.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Sure:UCSD IT Service Portal - Information TechnologyScroll all the way to to the bottom.Edit: No problem, MangyTiger.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 08-07-2005 07:29 PM

The article it's taken from is here (almost at the bottom).OOOPs - sorry I didn't think Omnivourous was still logged on when I looked (must be late over here ).This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 08-07-2005 07:29 PM

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

randman, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dahlanistes, Rhodocetus, Tekracetus, Gaviocetus, Remingtonocetids, Protocetids etc.Duane Gish made exactly the same error you are making, he asks, "where are there transitionals?". They are pointed out to him, & he wants to see the transitionals of the transitionals or he won't accept that the originals are transitionals. If they are provided, he wants to see the transitionals between the transitionals of the transitionals. This has become known as the Gish Number. It is an intellectually bankrupt debating device because it can never be satified.Evolutionary theory expects fossil forms that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa, namely transitionals.They exist. Whether you like it or not, they exist. In the same way you can't show motion in a snapshot. Evolution predicts something that has whale-like properties, what's your beef (pun unintended - artiodactyl in-joke)? It wasn't going to be more than that. This is a sad attempt at playing down a borne out prediction. Would it? Why couldn't individual features evolve fairly rapidly? And as you well know, the actual number of cetacean genera known is relatively low with millions of years between finds, so you are going to see "jumps" in characters. Such a flick-book scenario would only exist if the sampling of the fossil record were amazingly good, which it isn't.So we are left with the fossils we have rather than the ones you think we should have, which alone suggest an artiodactyl-cetacean transition. We have the phylogenies derived from morphology, amino acids, & DNA that also suggest the same thing.Why are you not addressing the congruency of the data? As pointed out before, it's typical creationist head in the sand tactics. If you don't address the congruence you can pretend to live in a world of infinite coincidence where all correlating data that opposes your view (which you laughingly declare to have arrived at evidentially) is dismissed out of hand with a, "c'mon guys *insert irrelevant objection here*".Fortunately the rest of science doesn't work that way. We have four different datasets suggesting the same thing, it is therefore a perfectly reasonable conclusion that the data is a "signal", & that signal is derived from the evolution of cetaceans from artiodactyl ancestors.Pretending that there should be more fossils is not a rebuttal.
Ignoring multiple correlation is not a rebuttal.
Asking, "when did he lose his hooves" is not a rebuttal.
Asking, "when did he develop a tail" is not a rebuttal.
Asking, "when did he start birthing underwater" is not a rebuttal.
Splitting hairs over what we can call a whale, or not, is not a rebuttal.
Repeatedly asserting that four congruent datasets pointing to the same conclusion is making a, "mountain out of the slightest seeming evidence", is most certainly a triumph of wishful thinking over reason, but most definately not a rebuttal.Rebut the correlating evidence, or give it up.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Remember, ALL of the topics we discuss are linked to ALL others either tightly or loosely. We can discuss the fossil finding curve separately -- in fact I think it should have its own topic but in the fossilization topic is at least somewhat separated out. It will have value in discussing a lot of other topics than whales.Remember that every single topic gets discussed over and over after a few months. Having them organized in a way which makes finding and referenceing them easier might save time in the future.When that is resolved (however unlikely that is) we can bring the answer back here.Meanwhile we can discuss other issues which randman has brought up.

You have been asked for support for your numbers for several days. It is time to step up and supply them or retract your claims.If you do neither you will start to receive suspensions to encourage you to do so. This will start within 24 hours after your next post.

Since we have been at this awhile I'd like to attempt to summarize your arugument to date. If I miss anything please fill it in for us.You seem to have two points:1) There are very few fossils that are claimed to be somewhere related to the hypothosized whale ancestry. You claim this is a greater problem than might otherwise be because a large fraction of all fossils have been found.2) The earlier examples you claim are not whale ancestors or related to them because they aren't whales.Have I missed anything?Now where are we?You have shown very little to support number one. I'd like to see that supplied in the fossilization process. You are the one to has suppled a numberic value. You have yet to support it with numbers.You supplied the discussed curve but have shown no numbers to back it up.2) Neither of us is in a position to judge the quality of analysis done on the ear bones or any other anatomical features. We will have to discuss what is said in great detail by those who have brough expertise to bear. Where are your references to this?As noted by many others; it is expected that there will be only slight changes when a particular branch is starting to "go it's own way". You have not discussed why you think it should be otherwise.As noted by my evil twin -- time to support your arguments.PS my evil twin likes picking on anyone he can. If you think there are unsupported arguments please point them out.

I've provided data. You may bash away at the curve all day long, but I don't see you providing any data at all to refute it, and as such, it is the only hypothesis around.In some respects I agree that it is incomplete, but what you guys don't seem to able to appreciate is that evos apparently have no evidence to back up their claims of fossil rarity.The argument, it appears, goes something like this. We know ToE is true and there are millions of transitionals so because we cannot find but a potential few candidates, the fossil record must be incomplete.But where is the data and analysis showing that fossilization is so rare that we should not see these transitionals.Ned here actually demands I provide the evidence for you guys. LOL.He apparently thinks that's fair.Well, why evos here ignore my analysis? For example, I posit that we can compare fossilization rates with known whales to determine a good measure of the percentage of whale transitionals that should be seen.No one answers back.Why is that?You say this curve is weak. Maybe so, but I see no evo curves out there in this manner of analysis.Why is that?Where is the evo evidence of fossilization of whales and whale transitionals being rare?

As we are already at post 294 (if non-one gets in while I'm typing!) is it worth getting the dark one to create the continuation thread now so we can follow the real argument in a single thread?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

The curve is a presentation of data. What is being asked for is the data that is being presented in this form. Sometimes it is possible to read the underlying data off a curve. For that to be the case there has to be specific values given for the axes. There don't seem to be any.Until you supply the data the curve is useless for coming to any conclusions. With data it might very well be interesting. Because you have put forward the current claim. The curve is not weak - it is without any content at all. Supply the data and it may be analysed.If you would like a rough envelope-back analysis I think I can have a go at one. I'll post that in the fossilization process thread.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-07-2005 09:21 PM

The curve does not need to be refuted because it has no scale on the axes and no data points! IT CONTAINS NO DATA.You could relabel the axes on that graph with anything you like and it would be a great illustration of what a collectors curve for that subject would look like. It would nothing more than convey a concept though. Here is an example of a meaningful example of a collectors curve.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Ned, first off the thread is about trying to assess what the available evidence is. All the evos here have wanted to do is ignore the larger picture of the fossil record and focus on a few so-called transitionals and completelt dodge the main points of the OP.Now, I have engaged, imo, quite effectively to someone of an open-mind and honest objective opinion the claims, particularly the absurdity of claiming a land mammal with hooves and maybe one or two whale-like potential features in minutae is a whale, but that's evolutionism for you.But I object to your tone.First, the claim of fossil rarity is an evolutionist claim, but not subtantiated. I repeatedly proposed means of trying to substantiate that such as comparing fossilization rates with current whale species and using that basic percentage to see how many whale transitionals should be available and have been found in the fossil record.Why do you and the evolutionists not engage this point and show why it is correct or fallacious?In fact, it appears there is no evo research at all along these claims, and thus one could reasonably conclude that evolutionists rely on a totally unsubstantiated claim, and moreover, you are biased and unfair in your moderation by not insisting that evolutionists here either back up their claim of fossil rarity with such studies as I suggest, or admit the claim is unfounded and mere speculation.Will you do that?Next, you are asking me for how I arrived at numbers. Well, once again you are distorting the record here. I asked point blank in the OP for what the numbers should be. How many transitionals should there be?You agreed it was a worthy and interesting question. However, no evolutionist rose to the challenge.So you asked me why I think there should be thousands of transitionals, and before answering that, let's think about the absurdity of evolutionists asking a non-scientist to do their research for them because in all these years, they have apparently studiously ignored the question.Why is that?Is it not reasonable to expect evolutionists to have assessed with some range how many transitionals forms it would take to evolve a land mammal to a whale?How, for instance, can anyone claim that the fossil record shows any transitionals if this sort of analysis has not been completed?Think about it.You guys are focussing on a few creatures, and saying the fossil record indicates evolution, claiming they are snapshots of the process.But on the face of it that is a totally unsubstantiated claim. The reason is you would need to assess how many such snapshots should be seen in the fossil record, and then examine if such predictions are borne out before one can safely assume that any so-called snapshots are indicative of evolution at all, at least you would need to as far as the fossil record.So it appears evolutionists are making unsubtantiated claims on the fossil record because no analysis has been done to predict accurately within a range the degree of fossils we should find, and the number of transitionals it would take to evolve a land mammal to a whale.So here we have proof that evolutionists are dodging the data rather than engaging it.On why I said transitionals, I trust the assessment of the esteemed British scientist and biologist, Douglas Dewar, whom I quoted. Specifically, with the auxilliary branches involved that would most likely exist (the evolutionary bush), and the number of changes, I would expect, for example there to be families of species grouped around every single change, or maybe every few changes, and considering the large degree in changes in morphology, inward bones, losing hair, reproductive changes, etc,....I cannot myself see less than 2000 transitional forms.Can you explain a better estimate?For example, let's take the issue of Pakicetus ears and teeth. Here we have a family of species or a species (not exactly clear on the claim there) that is distinct based on very small similarities to whales.I would think that if, for example, Pakicetus evolved a bumb on it's back as a precursor to the whale fluke, that would be a new transitional, and the same with just about all the changes needed.Considering there are hundreds of changes, a guestimate based on my limited knowledge, and each change or few changes would undoubtely produce many different branches, I would estimate a few thousand transitional species.But here is the kicker Ned. Let's say you disagree, but cannot show any studies to show what the number should be.That shows the evolutionists have probably not done the studies. They have not backed up what their predictions are, and thus they have no way to make a reasonable claim that the number of transitionals is what we would expect from the fossil record.Moreover, they are thus then making unsubstantiated claims on whether these are whale transitionals or just some species that share a very few similarities with whales.

There you go again. Tell the truth here. You guys are making the unsubstantiated claim of fossil rarity, totally without any analysis of rates of fossilization for known whale or land mammal species.Since evolutionists are making that claim, should you and they not have to support it?Where are the numbers?So I look around to try to find some valid research into YOUR CLAIMS. I find this claim illustrated with the curve.It could well be wrong, but it's something.Where is the evolutionist data?

see Message 15If your 1,000 species is correct and the numbers given above of 1/10 of 1% is correct then we should find 1 of them. We seem to have 5 or 10?This suggests both that we have done pretty well with this lineage (but it is big and somewhat recent) and that we would expect there to be many more. I agree still that it is a good question. As you point out we have not done a great job of supplying estimates. However, you did supply numbers. We are asking for back up for that. That is the difficult thing about supplying numbers; you have to support them.Why are you not doing that? I've now given a light shot at numbers and given the source for my inputs. Please respond with yours now. We have spent a long time trying to get you to tell us what one of these things we are counting would be. You have, in this post (maybe previously given a bit of what you think). From that definition it makes sense that there would be 1,000 of 'transitionals' since you want rather small changes to count. I don't have a huge problem with the number.You then asked where they are and gave you estimate of the number their should be. However, you did this out of total ignornance of the taphonomic questions.To say that the studies don't exist because I or other amateurs can't find them is a bit premature. I've given you an estimate that says that if there are 1,000's of interesting steps we should find 1 out of each of those 1,000. We are in the right ballpark if those numbers are true.You have suggested that we should find 100's of times more species. You have given no reason why fossilization success should be that high.The total number of species found is very small compared to what would have existed if ecosystems were anything like as diverse as today. This is one strong hint that we are NOT finding 90% of them.