Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils

The web-site claims point blank that is the first whale.Now, anyone can see that it is not a whale at all. It may be a forerunner of whales or not, but it's not a whale and to call it a whale is to engage in a bit of propaganda, which evolutionists seem fond of. Sort of like you are doing in raising the issue of "kinds" in an obnoxious and false manner. Probably if you were a creationist acting that way towards an evolutionist on this board, you would be censured and maybe banned for a day.But it's just par for the course it seems for evolutionists.

No, it dosn't. No one can know what is the first whale. It says that it is a very early whale. Tell me, what is a non-whale doing with these fetures? Of cource, the real clencher is it's hearing aparatus:http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Hearing.htm Whining gets you no where.

And are those similar creatures called whales?On answering questions, you have dodged most of mine, and you falsely accuse me of not answering.In terms of determining if a species were the immediate ancestor or immediate subsequent species, one would expect the following:1. occuring very near the same time, if not overlapping, with the species it evolved from or to2. Only small changes as would be expected for a new speciesOf course, we don't see any examples of this in the whale evolution story, not one. So your trying to argue the finer points of how to determine if a species immediately evolved from a prior species is a moot point since you've got no species to discuss as candidates. Can you back that up?This guy claims they are cetacaens, commonly known as whales, including porpoises too. http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlOf course, I agree that it is farcical to call such a land animal a cetacean, but that's the sort of thing that happens among evolutionists in stretching the data to try to force something to fit that does not.

I clarified that in the response to robinrohan:http://EvC Forum: Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils -->EvC Forum: Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils So basicaly your saying:You: "What's your evidence for whale evolution?"Me: "Well, here is a fossile of a creature that has distinctly whale like-features and artiodactyl-like fetures. Surely it is some transitional species."You: "But look, it has artiodactyl-like features. Thus it's not a transitional! Whales don't have legs!!!"Me: "WTF?"EDIT: fixed "artiodactyl"This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-05-2005 11:15 AM

You erroneously claimed. But this is what the web-site says. http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlAs far as a very tiny level of traits, you consider intermediary evidence, the bottom line is they are small, and the much-vaunted differences in the auditory area relelative to the skull are overblown.But for purposes of this thread, what it does matter if the creature fit perfectly as an intermediary. One creature? Where are the thousands of transitional species in the fossil record? What if all you are doing is stretching evidence from similarities and trying to make a wolfish creature on the surface appear to be a whale?Sorry guys, but this is like the Emporers new clothes. That 4-legged creature is not a whale.Care to retract your statement now and admit you were wrong.

Do you mean artiodactyl?TTFN,WK

LOL, ya sorry My spelling has allways been pretty bad. Especially in heated debates where I don't rush it thrugh a spell check.

What is so hard in understanding that they have several typically cetacean features, such as those already listed, and also the typical artiodactyl feature of even toes. Gosh a mixture of features typical of both one group of land mammals and cetaceans, sounds transitional to me.TTFN,WK

I take issue with the sites phrasing then. It should be: "...earliest known cetaceans."As the wiki phrases it: Pakicetidae - Wikipedia Right. It only happens to be one of the key fetures endemic to cetaceans. As stated earlyer, we give you one, you ask for more. Then more, then more. It's a moved goal post, right here, plain as day. LOL! Oh please.

TalkOrigins is a joke. That's a bald-faced distortion if I've heard one. The distribution of fossil whales has failed miserably to match the predictions of the many thousands of transitional forms predicted by evolution. Evolutionists are straining to create, by a huge stretch of the imagination, even a few theorized intermediate forms, and even there, they cannot document the speciation event that created these forms, and they cannot adequately explain why the thousands of theorized fossilized species do not show up in the fossil record.In fact, they should say "extreme rarity" but offer no comprehensive analysis whatsoever to explain the fact of no actual fossils showing transitions, not one speciation event shown.Moreover, as I linked to, but don't know how to do the graphic from that page, the mathematical curve showing more fossils being found, but fewer and fewer species indicates that contrary to many evolutionist arguments, the fossil record is fairly complete in the sense that we are probably not going to discover that many more species comparitively. We've probably found 98% of the fossilized species, especially larger species, that we will ever find.So once again, we have to ask ourselves why with millions and millions of years, we don't see the many thousands of transitional species predicted by evolutionary theory.

Calling it a whale is absurd. If you want to call it a transitional form, fine, but calling it a cetacean strikes me as the kind of propaganda that typifies evolutionism and sets it apart from real science, but that's a digression.The real point on this thread is not to debate the dubious or not so dubious claims of a handful of transitional forms, but to first try to see how many transitional species there should be, how many fossils of such species one should expect to find, and then see if the data matches.Imo, the data does not match evolutionist claims in terms of the fossil record.I would suggest an analysis like this. Look at living whale species and see what percentage of those have fossils that can be found. Try to determine if some were not around for a long time, and the ones evolutionists think have been around for a long time.Among the older forms of species, how many of those species have fossils? Let's say it's 50% for sake of argument.Then, I would say ToE should predict 50% of the transitional species between land mammals and whales to be found, or maybe you arbitrarily reduce that by half since the other species are older or something, then make the number 25%.Heck, not even 1% of the many transitional species are found, even if we assume every evolutionist claim on the half a dozen species they claim are transitional are thrown into the mix.So it appears the fossil record is strong evidence against ToE.

Wrong and a bald-faced lie on your part. I never asked for one. I asked how many speciation events would need to take place so we can assess how many transitional species there should have been. I would estimate in the thousands.Then, we can assess whether, judging how many older species we see living today, how many of those have fossils, what is a reasonable percentage of fossils that should be found.All of you completely dodged that question.Let's say 80% of living whales have fossilized remains. We should then expect to see 80% of the transitional species's fossils, but we don't.As far as speciation, I did say we don't see even one event documented in the fossil record and I laid down the parameters of what I meant by that, specifying seeing the immediate predecessor of the species and immediate subsequent species so we can actually have some fossilized documentation of a speciation event taking place.We don't see that, do we?Sorry, but no one is moving the goal-posts. You guys are claiming the fossil record in terms of whale evolution is what ToE predicted.That's wrong because the ToE predicts thousands of transitional forms, and we don't see them, and there is no credible reason why we don't see them in the fossil record.Keep in mind that it's not like we see half, or 30%, or even 10%. Maybe with 10%, you guys could make an effective argument. We don't even see 1%. We see a number that is so low as to be negligible.We see, at best and that's giving evolutionists a lot of leeway, maybe .025%.That's a miserable and major predictive failure of ToE, and for me, conclusive evidence based purely on the data, that ToE is wrong.

Why are there not thousands of transitional forms between land mammals and whales shown in the fossil record?If you say because fossilization is such a rare event, then where is the study indicating the degree of rarity given millions and millions of years.A good start would be to consider how man hippo and whale fossils are there related to current species?Let's say we can find 50% of the current species in fossilized remains, then would it not be reasonable to expect to find 50% of the fossilized transitional species? Keep in mind that there would be branches that died out, accorind to ToE, so there should be thousands of transitional forms, not a few here and there and with significant debate on them.

Your charactarization of the evidence that is required is a: The questions in your OP are a:

Why are there not thousands of transitional forms between land mammals and whales shown in the fossil record?Please answer the question.