Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

I think the biggest problem with your position is that a lack of fossils does not equate to a lack of transitional species.In this way the fossil record is not evidence contrary to evolution because you cannot make the claim of a lack of transitional species due to a lack of fossils. Absence of evidences does not equal evidence of absence.The evidence for evolution stands regardless of the fossil record and in no way have you delivered any substantial point to show that the fossil record refutes evolution.In order to show that the fossil record is contrary to evolution you must show that transitional forms cannot exist rather than what you are doing right now which is simply stating the tautology that they do not exist.Any claims to the contrary can simply and once again be dismissed by the fact that the ToE does not rely upon the fossil record as its main body of evidence.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Hey, I learn new things all the time. I don't know what the molecular clock is, if it proves your argument, I'll concede. Mick's article pointed me to some good research assessing the probability of hominid fossils. ToE predicts transitional forms. Assuming, by some luck of the draw, fossils never formed, none were ever found, the ToE would still predict transitional forms.The fact that fossils do exist simply provides an extra line of evidence that supports the ToE. Namely, it provides the evidence that transitional forms have existed. ToE would still predict it, weather or not those forms are ever found.Get it? Your opinion, and the vast amounts of evidence and research disagrees with you. Yes we do actually. Take a look at the Durodons and the Basilosaurus. They look pretty darn whale-like, yet have a real nasty bite.Now I got a question for you, because your argument hinges on the fact that so "few" transitional species have been found. Can you tell me why a modern whale hasn't been found in the same layers or area as Durodons and Basilosaurus? I say this because rates of evolution vary over time, species, and environment. I mentioned crocodiles before, they have exhibited very little change from their ancestors some 250 million years ago. Likewise, current montreams and marsupials are rather ancient mammals who have exhibited little change from their ancestors.It would be useless to simply draw a mammal species out of a hat and say, "Ok, lets see, mice have 2000 transitional forms, therefore whales will have 2000!". It just doesn't work that way.Read that great article mick posted. It demonstrates a study where several fields of science were used to model fossil distribution of ancient hominids. No, that they vary. Mutations in and of themselves are random. I don't believe it's a specific property of DNA but rather success of a population. The tendancy is the greater the population and the less isolated the less genetic drift. The smaller, more isolated, the population the more drift tends to occur.I can't give you specifics off the top of my head as to how it all works. I'm sure WK, mick, mamuthus, or mark24 can give you more details.Hear is a good talk-origins article on the subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html I'm not familiar with it not it's intricacies. I learned something new. However, I'm not sure the way you characterize it is accurate:
Molecular clock - Wikipedia ABE: I missread your origional post. See the exchange with Nosey below. Howver, I still don't understand what your point about it is...Can you explain how you intended to use it? Data for what? Current species being stuck in mudflows under the deep ocean? I'm not aware of any excavations in the deep sea looking for current species.I can tell you that mudflows that have risen to the surface over the millenia are rich with fossilized sea creatures. Check out the Cambrian fossil layer.Or do you want data on the varying environments within the worlds ocean? Your right, we never unearthed that pakicetus with the fluke you were looking for. Sorry.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-10-2005 07:37 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 08-10-2005 07:53 PM

This series of 3 lines leaves me just going "huh?". I was going to reply to the following lines of yours with:
It seems that my ability to write english isn't good enough to be able to convey the concept that I am trying to help you with. I've done about all I can so I think I'll let others with a better command of the language try to help.Now, having read the above lines it seems my ability to comprehend the language is even more impaired than my ability to write it since I have no idea why you would put those two lines of yours after my "constant mutations" line.

One difficulty is determining mutation rates is that for much of what we are talking about we are not measuring the mutation rates directly. I think, based on other parts of your post, you understand that.That is even if mutations were utterly random and of a constant rate the selection process would mask this. That is, mutations that interrupt the development of a fetus may not show up even if we are studying a living population because they may well abort at the intial few cell stage. This leaves some parts of the genome relatively constant not because they don't get mutations but because any change is a disaster.This comment of yours suggest you understand that: Randman said nothing about the column he was referring to long periods of time. You misread what he said. I am very sure that they way he characterizes it is inaccurate . Randman is mixing up the parts of the genome necessary to produce the phenotypical changes necessary for selection and, eventually, speciation with the parts used for the "clock". Since any part of the genome subject to selection could have it's apparent rate of mutation skewed all to hell (even appear to be effectively zero of very long times as noted above) they are not used.

Ah, yes. Thanks for pointing that out. Upon further reading the wiki, it seems that the molecular clock is not that accurate and that extra modeling has to be used to enhance it's accuracy. Pretty cool stuff, I never knew about it.

I hear what you're saying, but I hope you hear how that sounds as well?On the rest of your post, if you are admitting that the fossil record does not really "show" evolution, but may be consistent or may be inconsistent with ToE, depending on a proper predictive analysis of how many fossils "should" occur and be found, then isn't wrong for evos to continually suggest that the fossil record is evidence for evolution?You say I have not proved, via the absence of evidence, that evidence does not exist, but the other side of the coin is that evolutionists have not proved the evidence exists.So when we read and hear about how the fossil record shows evolution, etc, etc, etc,....besides at times presenting the slowly covered up bones process which is highly dubious but more germane to this thread, what we are really hearing is an unsubstantiated claim. Well, sometimes it's not clear on what data the ToE relies on. Fossils are certainly cited in presentations of evidence for ToE. Of course, so is embrylogy, but I've heard that's not the main evidence either.Sometimes I wonder if there is any "main body of evidence."But regardless, the fossil record is hard data, and to my mind, is the strongest data we have. So a proper understanding of both the data and what has or has not been determined is useful.How fossils form does seem to be studied, but perhaps misunderstood by evos or at least the public at large.I am not sure I have seen detailed, relevant analysis of how many transitional fossils we should see over specific transitions of larger vertebrates, and therefore there seems to be a good degree of unsubstantiated assertations, as far as evolutionary sequences in the fossil record and whether the fossil record overall does support ToE.

Actually, evolutionists do use the fossil record as evidence for ToE, but it appears have not assessed how many transitional forms should be present in the fossil record.Your reply dismissing the need for such an analysis and suggesting it is all "by luck of the draw" is telling.In fact, you claim the evidence in the fossil record disagrees with me, but avoid the topic altogether of how many transitionals should be present in the fossil record. Evos typically criticize others for just claiming there are "gaps" that are perfectly understandable, but that's an absurd overstatement. There are not so much "gaps" as no real steps in-between statistic-wise.It's like claiming that if you have one word on a page, and then 1000 pages later, you have a full page, you say we understand the story, but there are gaps.Heck, it's not gaps as much as you have barely little filled in.What percentage of fossils per life-forms among vertebrates do evos think is seen in the fossil record?1%? or .1%Please answer.It seems like evos are depicting the 1% at best as a pretty solid picture with just mere "gaps" in between.

I never said that they didn't, I said that the the ToE does not neciseraly predict fossils! Do you understand that? Or did I not make it clear?If no fossils were ever found, the ToE would still predict transitional forms! Capiche? Whether or not a fossil forms is a luck of the draw. Lots of variables and factors work into it. Read mick's article. "Look kids! There's big ben again."It's an irrelevant question, the fact that there are ANY transitional forms in the fossil record is proof enough for the ToE. So Whether we find six or a thousand, they are all supportive of the ToE. No one has a problem with this, we expect gaps. Big gaps in fact. No one has ever claimed an unbroken linage. LOL! please. Where did all the pakicetids go? And why are no modern whales in it's rock layer?Further, why the hell is durodon stranded in the middle of a mountainous desert? And not a sperm whale skeleton in sight.Why are they there randman? So why are there these strange species of whales no one has ever seen before, under tens of millions of years worth of rock, in the middle of a desert in Pakistan? The question is worthless for assessing the validity of the fossil record. For your ends, it deserves no answer. For a practical application of the question using actual data and findings refer to mick's post. So ya, I find 3 pages of Shakespeare's 3000 page play, I guess the play doesn't exist then.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-10-2005 08:34 PM

The topic of Basilosaurus, a clearly aquatic creature, was raised. While Basilosaurus does not advance the land mammal to whale theory as much, imo, that evos claim, it is an interesting creature and would be worthwhile to discuss facts concerning it.First off, can we all agree that this creature's fossils are very common and over a wide area of the world? http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Basilosaurus1.htmlAs an aside, the following is incorrect imo since most likely the bones are necessary for mating. http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Basilosaurus1.html Interestingly, it appears that whereas we have numerous fossils of this creature, we have no fossils of the species that evolved from it, or from a cousin of it to form the group of modern whales.Why is that?Someone awhile back used the spectrum analogy, well, where is the spectrum. Keep in mind this creature at least aquatic, but why would this creature have an abundance of fossils, and modern whale families have an abundance of fossils dating back to the Miocene period, but the in-between proto-whales have no fossils?Moreover, it's noteworthy that Basilosaurus is not considered an ancestor of whales and originally classified as a reptile. Page not found – National Corvette MuseumSo what we have here is a very large aquatic animal, not a land mammal, that is not considered a direct ancestor of whales, but evos want it considered as a transitional form. It's fossils are widespread, but the fossils of the non-observed theoritical aquatic ancestors of whales, the original proto-whales if you would, are non-existent for all we know.The serpent-like massive creature certainly is interesting, and that's about it.

Well, it's clear you are running from assessing the data, and that's to be expected. So here we have it. Damned be the evidence. The ToE is true irregardless.

1) You are MAKING UP A STANDARD OF EVIDENCE THAT NO ONE HOLDS. IT IS UNRESONABLE AND UNECESSARY. Your argument is a huge freaking STRAWMAN.2) You do not understand that the ToE does not rest on the fossil record alone! Blow up the whole fossil record and you still got DNA, genetics, Bioinfomatics, and so on and so on!3) Your demands are wholly based on YOUR PERSONAL OPINION of what the evidence should be. You are basically arguing from IGNORANCE/INCREDULITY.

I'll just put this out here since it has yet to be answerd.What is your position randman, What do you think happend all those years ago?Further, as I asked earlier:Why are there these strange species of whales no one has ever seen before, under tens of millions of years worth of rock, in the middle of a desert in Pakistan?

Yaro, clearly you have personal issues. I suppose I hit a nerve asking for actual data and analysis in the fossil record.If you want to discuss other areas besides the fossil record, there are threads you can take that to.I'm not going to be baited into the kind of discourse you seem to prefer and thus get banned.This message has been edited by randman, 08-10-2005 09:12 PM

How am I baiting? You basically sidestepped the entire post, avoided all the questions I posed to you, addressed none of the points I brought up, and basically blew me off.If you don't want to respond or address the points I made, that's fine. I know you don't have any answers anyway.Further, the last post to which you responded is a valid statement on your current possition. I will demonstrate:1) You are saying basically: "In order for the ToE to be true the fossil record must support it. I will disprove whale evolution and therefore falsify the ToE."This is wrong because it assumes that the ToE somehow NEEDS the fossil record. Which is false, it stands on many bodies of evidence.2) You posit that since there are so few whale transitionals then there is no proof of evolution. There needs to be thousands upon thousands of transitionals representing the species before and after in order to support the ToE.Again this is entirely false. Because it is an arbitrary standard of evidence. There is no reason to assume that thousands of transitional fossils exist. Further the existence/non-existence of those transitional fossils still does not disprove the ToE.What it boils down to is that it is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION that there should be thousands of transitional fossils. You just think that's the way it should be and you won't believe it otherwise.This is fallacious thinking. It is an argument from ignorance/incredulity.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-10-2005 09:28 PM

You will answer Yaro's post 57, while your at it you will actually discuss the issues he raises in 56.ABE -- and post 59. You will show that you understand the points he is trying to make and ask for clarification if you don't. You will then offer substantive replies with your reasoning made clear.The next thing that happens is you are suspended from the science forums since you don't seem to want to play that game or debate in good faith.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-10-2005 09:25 PM