Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

Randman,Do you accept the earth is old, ie. do you accept radiometric dating?Mark

---

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

Can you cite any relevant conclusions to the studies?

Are you asking me, after writing such long posts, to address and make sure others address the specific factual issues, that I should ignore responses from people?That would seem a little disingenious on my part?The short post is simple. The actual fossil evidence includes thousands of fossils from Basilaurus and from whales, but nearly nothing from the thousands of transitional forms that would have needed to occur to create a transition from land mammals to whales.Evos claim fossil rarity on this thread but offer near no actual analysis to explain how some species can have thousands of fossils and other aquatic and semi-aquatic species, thousands most likely, apparently never fossilized or we have none.Taken as a whole, the fossil record in this proposed transition appears to be evidence against and not for ToE, and irregardless, statements that claim the fossil record supports ToE do not properly address why these thousands of transitionals are absent.The argument critics are merely arguing a God of the gaps or some such is not accurate because the reality is there is not a significant percentage of theoritical "steps" shown to even suggest what we have are indeed just "gaps."These are the basic issues and points, and imo, have never been properly addressed, at least not with scientific arguments and facts.

If you have read those statements, you have heard my arguments, and you know I am referring to extant whale families and how they are well-represented in the fossil record.Do you agree with that?You are now trying to force me to back up a claim I specifically reject and have never made, which is to try to argue that all theoritical whale ancestors, the archaeocetans, are well-represented when that is the exact opposite of what I have argued.Why is that so hard for you to grasp?Clearly, I am saying Pakicetus is not a whale, and at least one other person here agreed. Part of my argument in the previous thread is that calling such a land based mammal a whale when it shares no major specific anatomical traits with living whales that are common to all whales is a farce and indeed is evidence how out of whack the claims of evolutionists are in this arena.At best, Pakicetus could be an ancestral form to whales, but imo, that is highly dubious, but the debate is really about the degrees of fossilized forms found compared to how many should have existed and how many should have been found.So take some time to think about what I have said here, and if you want to rephrase and ask me to back up a statement I have genuinely claimed, I would be glad to do so.

Yaro, you need to take some time to educate yourself before asking dumb questions, and in a tone uncalled for considering your level of ignorance.Pakicetus is not an aquatic animal. I am sorry if you got that impression because evos have called it a whale, but in terms of what whales are thought of as being, Pakicetus shares none of those features. It is actually a 4-legged, hooved, rat-like or creature.Why wouldn't we find such a creature in the mountains of Pakistan?Basilosaurus and dorudontids have been found in the US primarily in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, and overseas in Egypt and Australia. I guess you didn't know that.Rodhocetus, first of all, is not found in the same numbers as Basilosaurus, and is considered to be transitional by evolutionists because it shared a whale-like ear with whales and an ankle like even-toed ungulates. Interestingly, this discovery illustrates how little actual fossil evidence for evo claims exist since just this one find overturned their prior theory on how whales must have evolved. http://www.masterliness.com/a/Rodhocetus.htmIn answer to your question, it was found in an area they believe was a wet environment based on the rocks, at the time this creature existed.I would suggest you take some notes from the following article to get a better picture of the evo-side of things, and then come back with a relavant and educated question or comment. Palaeos: Page not found

That's a wholly unsatisfactory answer. Let's say most animals don't fossilize means that 99% don't fossilize but 1% do. That would make fossilization quite common from the perspective of the species as a whole.You need to explain and define "rare." Specifically, in what context is fossilization rare. Something can be "rare" and "common" at the same time depending on the context, and things that are "rare" per tens and hundreds of years can become common in the context of millions per years.The fact it is rare for an individual member of a species to fossilize is actually an excellent argument that it is not rare at all for the species as a whole to have numerous fossils.Please define and explain what you mean by "rare."This message has been edited by randman, 08-13-2005 02:04 PM

Percy, I just got to this so maybe my recent posts should not have been made.On point 1, you are right in one respect. Although I do think fossilization is rare for individual members of a species, I don't think over very long time periods fossilization is rare for species, or more germane here, imo, families of species.One argument is the simple fact we see sometimes thousands of fossils, such as with Basilaurus, and statistically we should not see the vast majority of the whale transitional families of species with no fossils at all, and then one with thousands.What are the chances, for example, of one person winning the lottery, which is a rare event? What are the chances of winning it twice? Well, with such a rare event, what are the chances of winning it a thousand times?You see my point.On point 2, that's not really the case. I can accept that speciation can occur via the accumulation via small changes, but ToE nevertheless posits a branching effect. So imo, we should see the accumulation of these small changes in the fossil record, every one of them, not just a possible hint with an ear bone or ankle, but all the features, and we should see the branches, and we don't.I would not expect all of the "steps" to be seen, which is one reason I changed my initial language to discuss transitional forms at the family level. Specifically, a family of species is more or less one form, and we don't need to quibble over how many species per see, and I would not expect to see all of the species represented.Thus far, from my reading of representation of the families of whales in the fossil record and the tremendous numbers of fossils of the aquatic creature Basilaurus, I would think every family of the suppossed transition from land mammals to whales would be represented in the fossil record, but they are not.

Wow! Nice. Good one. Now how about answering the question? ABE: Rodontocetus AND Basilosrus AND Duradon. The later two are found all over the world. Some of their skeletons are found as diverse places as luisiana and Egypt. No where near water.A wet environment? HOW ABOUT OPEN OCEAN!The fact is, these species apear in areas that are drasticaly different from the environments they once were. My question to you is, do you belive in an Old Earth or not? Do you belive millions of years have elapsed, tectonic activity has taken plase, climet change, etc.do you belive that?If you don't, it naturally follows why aren't other whale species found in the same areas?Why aren't the sperm whale skeletons in the middle of luisiana, or Pakistan or egypt? Why do we find ONLY ancient whale skeletons in such far flung reaches of the world where ocean has never been in recent times?Further, if you belive that there has been millions of years, are you suggesting that modern and ancient whales lived side by side?This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-13-2005 04:18 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 08-13-2005 04:20 PM

Hi Randman,I'm going to do something that long experience has taught me is almost never successful: spend some time explaining to you where, in my opinion (one of the one's that counts around here), you are going wrong, in the hopes that it will allow discussions in which you participate to proceed more smoothly and constructively.I said: You replied: If this is assent, I can't tell. Most people upon seeing such a message from a moderator would reply along the lines of, "I was trying to be sure I didn't ignore any responses, but I can see where replying to posts near the thread's beginning might be confusing." It raises moderators concern level a great deal when you respond to requests with what appears to be argument. Rather than explain and explain, which as I've said almost never works, now we just suspend and suspend. This is a point which needs to be explored more thoroughly. Others in this thread believe you are dismissing what they're telling you based upon nothing more than personal skepticism. Your tendency to often restate your conclusions without having settled this point makes it seem to people that you're not listening.Moving on to your next message, Message 124: I would make the same point as before: to people here you appear to be dismissing their counterarguments while frequently repeating your conclusions, which are based upon an unsettled point. Again, it makes it seem like you're not listening.If you keep insisting you're right and then moving on while the issue is still in dispute, then this thread has little chance of success. I can tell by your tone that you think your reasoning sound, but the actual test of sound reasoning is that it make sense to other people, not just to you.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yaro, why the mods have not suspended you for repeateded board infractions, as they have others, I can't figure out, but your posts here are not reflective of someone that has taken any time to understand the issues. Uh, first off, are you familiar with Louisina, or the Nile? "No there near water", eh?Pure ignorance on your part as is your claim these 4 species were all discovered in Pakistan and were all aquatic. Most of these fossils were not found in Pakistan. 2 species or families of species were, and one was not aqautic or semi-aquatic, and the other, contrary to your claim, did not live in the "open ocean."So if you want to correct yourself, and your false claims based on your ignorance, then we can move to a different subject and I can deal with more questions.But first, can you now admit that none of the species you listed as whales in the open ocean were found in pakistan, and that the 2 species you mentioned being found in Pakistan are not in fact species that lived in the open ocean?This message has been edited by randman, 08-13-2005 04:24 PM

I dunno, I must be doing something right. We are not talking about river dwelling animals here. Basilosaurus is found all over the world. Some of his fossils were found in Pakistan, Egypt, and in Luisiana. He was 18 meaters long! How is a creature 18 meters long gonna live in a river?Further, why the hell are we finding these creatures in areas that USED TO BE UNDER THE OCEAN? Never made such a claim. Pakicetus was found in Pakistan, Rhodontocetus was also found in Pakistand. I never made any specific claims as to where basilusaurus and duradon where found. My previous post said:Pakicetus, Duradon, Basillosaurus, Rhontocetus. These crits are found in places where whales don't live. How the hell did these creatures get into the middle of huge deserts, high atop mountains, and everywhere else whales don't swim? The question still stands. Basilosaurus and duradon are definetly not a river dwellers. Never made such a claim. Read the post. Rhodontocetus is not the issue for open ocean, though the area where he lived was costal marshes at that point. Now, it is nowhere near being a costal marsh. You never actually answerd the question. Do you belive in an Old Earth? No. My question was general, applying to all known whale ancestors, why the hell are none of them found in places where to day there is ocean?This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-13-2005 04:34 PM

Percy, I was at a loss on how to deal with your post concerning sowing confusion. It had already been done, and as you pointed out, maybe it was too late. So did that mean, after posting demands from people to respond, that I should now ignore them if they do, and thus be disingenious?There was no motive to sow confusion, and if that has been done, I apologize. I guess I see it the other way around. The claims I am basing my stance on nothing but personal skepticism is, in fact, just personal skepticism on the part of those making that claim. I wind up repeating myself because, in fact, I am not merely repeating conclusions but reasoning, data, and arguments they refused to ever address in the first place.In other words, as advised, I am trying to hold their feet to the fire. I present specific data, and specific arguments, and pretty receive general responses more or less based on a smear of my character and integrity, and often only after painstakingly forcing the issue, will an evo in this debate offer some piece-meal of evidence on their side.That makes it frustrating, but honestly, most of this is just trying to even get an acknowledgement of what has or has not been discovered factually and how to interpret that, and I engage in quite a lot of data and arguments, and then receive nothing but more or less, we think you are doing this because blah, blah, blah...Take Yaro's recent posts. I posted specific information detailing the facts about the fossil record in the 4 species he discussed, how 2 were never found in Pakistan, and the 2 that were are not "open ocean" creatures at all. These facts are not even debatable.But since evos here will often not even concede on non-debatable factual claims such as where fossils were, and no mod forces them to do so, it makes it extremely difficult to carry on a conversation with them.Yaro, in fact, reiterated his misconceptions which no scientists anywhere holds to on any side of this debate, and proceeds to attack my belief system...are you a YECer or not?Might as well be screaming "Heresy" and "Recant"! We know you are not orthodox.Never mind I the subject of old earth versus young earth is not the topic, nor the fact I have never characterized myself as YECer, and am not a YECer.I will say this, contrary to what evos claim, it seems to me the more I hear evo arguments compared to YECer arguments, the closer to YECers I become, and think they are often more credible in certain areas than the evos.Now, my beef with YECers is I think there is some evidence for a very old earth and that Genesis does not require a 24 hour interpretation of the word "day", but YECism is not the subject here.So, as an example, Yaro meets my posts on specific and verified fossil data with insinuations and an attempt to move the thread to my beliefs overall.To be frank, considering such responses as his are not censured, but somehow I am accussed of merely restating conclusions, despite usually posting more data and information than my critics, I have to assume the problem is not with me, but with their refusal to admit a reasonable person can look at the evidence and disagree with them.For me, the lack of transitionals is the primary evidence and very strong evidence against ToE, and I started a thread to discuss not the ToE overall, but to narrowly focus on what the fossil record does show, in terms of actual fossils, first of all, and then to speculate what it should show in terms of numbers and examples of fossils for transitionals.Others basically want to argue that it doesn't matter, that such an analysis is not needed, because they insist the ToE is true irregardless. I don't see their position as relying on the facts, but as more ignoring the facts that don't agree with their conclusions.This message has been edited by randman, 08-13-2005 04:52 PM

Percy, on the comment on Pakicetus, I specified earlier and often that even though I do not see Pakicetus as transitional to whales, the point I was raising would be unaffected either way.If we grant the 4-5 theoritical transitionals are all good candidates, for sake of argument, for land mammal to whale evolution, we still have the same issue.So it's not really germane. However, on the first thread, I did discuss Pakicetus in some detail.The issue I raised which is being ignored is even if you think you have a few transitional forms, shouldn't there be a whole lot more?On what basis have evos determined that only a few such forms should be found in a process that undoubtedly produced hundreds if not thousands of forms over millions of years.I offerred statistical analysis based on the fact we have an abundance of fossils of other aquatic species either whales or related to whales, and ask what happened then to the ones we don't see.

Ancient whales did indeed swim the open seas:Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence Further, to comment on this: I am not trying to move the thread anywhere, I am trying to establish where YOU stand on the issue? Basically you have no position as of yet as to what you belive the evidence points to.You have made no position for yourself. You just stand back and deride other peoples claims/evidence/research etc. with out ever presenting a counter argument.Do you not think it is fair to establish where you stand on an issue before even having a discussion about it?

This is where you lose me. How can a lack of evidence - real or imagined - be "the primary evidence" against ToE?It seems to me that we have to look at the evidence that we do have and draw conclusions from that. What positive conclusions do you draw from the evidence that we do have? How do your conclusions differ from the ToE and why are your conclusions better?You can't just throw out the mainstream conclusions without proposing something better to replace them.As an interested bystander, I'm having the same problem with you here that I had with Tranquility Base in the Recolonization thread: you keep charging ahead without explaining what it is you're trying to say. You tell us what you think the evidence doesn't show, but you never really tell us what the evidence does show. (I may be wrong, but I think that's sort of what Yaro has been driving at.)As Admin said:

quote:

---

... the actual test of sound reasoning is that it make sense to other people, not just to you.

---

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.