Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

Uh, really? Care to back any of that up?But irregardless, Louisiana and the Nile have created more land mass as the rivers spill out into the ocean. Maybe you didn't realize that? So an ocean dwelling creature would be more likely to fossilize in an area like that. Moreover, you claimed "no where near water", which was clearly ignorant on your part.However, I would not be surprised to find Basilosaurus more inland and perhaps that's the case in Eqypt. Can you verify any Basilosaurus has been found in Pakistan, and all over the world? I did not see any references cited to show that on your part, and the references I quoted did not state that.Perhaps you are wrong here? is there a point to this rant? If there is one germane to the thread, I don't see it. Maybe you could elaborate? Well, can you cite some evidence explaining how you think Louisiana, for example, as desert? Or just explaining what the heck you are trying to say?You do realize we find evidence of marine life, not just whales, on mountain ranges sometimes. This in no way contradicts any of the points I have made on this thread. Are you suggesting otherwise? That's because it's off-topic completely and not germane to this thread at all. It's not that I am afraid of expressing what I believe, but it is off-topic and I don't want to get baited into taking the thread off-topic and give Nosey a reason to ban me. Furthermore, to explain what I personally believe would entail discussion of physics principles Nosey warned me not to discuss on Biology threads. How is that germane to the general discussion in the thread. First off, I don't know that to be true, but it's likely that most fossils are found on land, and thus most fossils may be found where the ocean is no longer.On the other hand, the theorized transitions from land mammal to whale species should entail land mammals and we probably should not expect to find them under the ocean as much as we would on land.But irregardless, it appears the only aquatic species you mentioned are especially prevalent in Louisiana which is very close to water, contrary to what you claim.

The positive evidence is of far fewer species than evos claim. Evos are saying the lack of evidence is in fact congruent with evidence, and then telling me I am the one making an argument from lack of evidence.I am sorry, but let's just break this down.The fossils are not seen for 2 reasons: one is what you guys claim, that fossilization is so rare we should not expect to see them.I don't see any evolutionists showing how that can be true in light of the huge numbers of some species we do find that would have shared the same habitat. All I hear are claims of "rarity" with no definition of "rarity" that is applicable.The alternative to why we don't see the fossils is that the creatures never existed in the first place except in the minds of evolutionists. Now, you say that is unreasonable, and I say the fossil evidence does not show them so it's unreasonable to claim they exist when the evidence we do have shows them not existing.Spin this any way you want, but that's the whole debate.I have offered reasons and rationale for why we should expect to see those fossils, and you guys have offered near nothing and have ignored my arguments rather than engage them.

Quick Google, first hit:Philip D. Gingerich"Continued work on the east side of the Sulaiman Range in Pakistan yielded many additional archaeocetes, including Takracetus simus, Gaviacetus razai, Dalanistes ahmedi, Qaisracetus arifi, Andrewsiphius sloani, Babiacetus indicus, Basilosaurus drazindai, and Basiloterus hussaini (Gingerich et al., 1995, 1997, 2001)."

---

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

But a shortage of evidence is not evidence in itself. You are the one who claims that they should not be rare. You need to back that up and explain why there should be more transitional whale fossils and how many you think there should be and why there should be that many. But there are fossils of extinct, whale-like creatures. You need to explain the fossils that we do have, not complain about the ones we don't have. Why do we have some fossils that "look like" transitionals if the ToE is incorrect? Again, a shortage of evidence does not show that something doesn't exist. And you still have given no plausible non-evolutionary explanation for the transitional fossils that do exist.

---

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

randman,I ask again, "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

No one is saying Basilosaurus did not live in the open seas, but neither am I saying he did not also occupy rivers in coming in from the ocean, sort of like Tarpon and Bull Sharks, or Manatee, do today.The point is none of the species found in the dry desert areas of Pakistan were open ocean creatures, as you seemed to suggest. I also do not see any examples of Basilosaurus being found in Pakistan as you claimed.Moreover, the fact Basilosaurus is so prevalent and whales suggests to me a high incidence of aquatic vertibrate mammal fossilization.Are you ever going to deal with that issue? Wrong. I have made my position abundantly clear. I think we only see a handful of even potential transitionals because they never occurred, or if they did, they occured in a manner not like what we have posited, and highly suggestive of aided means that would leave no trace of fossils as normally would be expected, especially for aquatic creatures.

Then why do you guys argue otherwise in claiming the transitionals are there even if we never observed them. Sorry but that's a factual error. It is evos claiming fossil rarity, not me. No, they need to back that up because it is their claim, not mine. I am not the one claiming there should be transitional whale fossils. I am saying there is no record in the fossil record of them so it's likely they are not there.In terms of why they would be in the fossil record if they ever existed, I showed already and repeatedly and not one of you has answered how that thousands of Basiloraus have been found and thousands of whale fossils, and sometime in between and also before, there should be thousands likewise of the transitionals, but they are not.Why is it not reasonable to conclude they are not there because they never existed? Because one can do a lot with the human imagination, especially when you don't have to rely on the evidence, but can assume before examining the fossils that the ToE is true regardless. So even if there are very tiny similarities amidst overwhelming differences such as hooves, being a land mammal, etc,...an evo can and do take the scantest of evidence and proclaim a rat-like creature if a whale, as is the case with Pakicetus, who I showed shared not one single distinquishing major feature of modern whales.Can you list the top 30 distinquishing features of observed whales, as we see today, and tell me which ones Pakicetus shares?

Accepting the earth is old and radiometric dating are not synonymous as you suggest. Neither are they the thread topic, and I have been advised not to stray from the thread topics, and considering I ma being threatened with permanent banned status, I don't consider it wise to engage you in that discussion.If you want to start a new thread on radiometric dating, I suggest you do so.

Glad you could show that some Basilosaurus was found in Pakistan. Thanks for citing links to evidence. I had only seen that Basilosaurus as found in the southeastern US, Egypt and Australia. It appears then to have an extremely wide range.Wonder what happened to it?

Ringo posted a link where it states that indeed Basilosaurus was found in Pakistan as well. Not only that, they were also found in dry, arid, egypt.What does this mean to you? What issue? I think you have a problem conciving of the factors involved. Why don't we find Modern whale fossils in the same areas we find Basilusaurus? You need to establish what you think the evidence MEANS. What alternative hypothesis do you offer to explain the evidence?Say all the evidence is false, thats it, you won, it's all wrong. Now, what replaces our conception? What theory are you putting forward that adresses that evidence and "interprets it" apropriately?

randman,What I'm saying is that there are fossils which "look like" transitionals between land animals and whales. All you're doing is waving your hands and saying they're not transitional.Your only "reasoning" seems to be that there should be a lot more steps preserved in the fossil record. You need to explain how all those transitionals - if they existed - would have been preserved. And you need to be a lot more quantitative in what proportion of them would have been preserved.(You also need to have an alternative explanation for why the fossils that we do have seem to be transitional.)Your whole approach seems to be that mainstream science needs to answer to your satisfaction every objection that pops into your head.On the contrary, mainstream science has explanations for the evidence. If you don't like the explanations, it is up to you to provide an alternative explanation.

---

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

Ringo did a good job showing where Basilosaurus also was found in Pakistan. Wish you had done so yourself. All of the links and literature I had read indicated fossils were found in the southeastern US, Egypt and Australia.In terms of the significance, my first reaction is that it was a very wide-ranging species. Wonder what happened to it, and why we don't see what evolved out of it, and did anything evolve out of it?Now, in terms of finding this species in strata dated older by evos, I would suggest a couple of things; either whales were created, evolved, or were designed after Basilosaurus, or evo dating methods are flawed.Before posting on this forum, my position was more of an IDer and I rejected YEC, but since posting here, I have found some arguments from YECers persuasive when researching this stuff, and have come to doubt more and more the reliability of what evos claim, in terms of the factual data.As of this date, I am still more an old earther and see no problems with very old dated fossils, but I do see a problem with the mechanisms posited by evos in the sense it has not produced a corresponding gradual depiction in the fossil record.My beliefs which I feel more certain of, concerning the physical time-line, have been ruled out of being discussed on these threads for Biology, but if I were allowed to delve into that, I could better explain why I think the evidence says what it does, and what conclusions we can draw from it.In general though, I am not of the belief that one must have the right answer before being able to discern a wrong one, and that is my general philosophy in this area.Some evos have asserted otherwise, and that indicates to me a plausible motive for the many overstatements used in teaching and promoting evolution. I can see how if one cannot abandon an old paradigm until a new one is sufficient, that this could cause some to cling to a faulty paradigm and overstate the evidence because they assume it is the right thing to do, and thus ignore and ridicule evidence contrary to the established paradigm.

Just a clarification:As I said, it was the first link that I found. It took less than a minute to find it. Your claim about "all of the links and literature" you had read is not very impressive.Since you were the one who was claiming that Basilosaurus was not found in Pakistan, it was up to you, not Yaro or me, to do the one-minute research project. Your failure to do so does not strengthen your other assertions.

---

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

I did. The talk origins thread clearly mentions southern Asia. My claim was never that Basilosaurus was found in pakistan, my question is simply what the heck are it's fossils doing far outside of the ocean?I apologize if I didn't make this clear, but the question still stands and I'm not about to start splitting hairs over it. Say nothing evolved out of it. Say your right. Why don't we find modern whale species in the same manner we find Basilusorus? Why don't we find a dolphin skeleton stranded in a desert for example? Say they are flawd. Are you suggesting that modern whales were specialy created and "inserted" into the world to fill Basilusorus' niche? So, where did all the old species go? Are you of the mind that somehow all current species lived at the same time, and along side, all extinct species for millenia? Sure, this is interesteing in and of itself. You should open a thread where we could discuss it, if you do, I would rather listen than argue. As peoples belifes are interesting in and of themselves. That's not what I am saying. Evidence has to point somewhere, as of now the evos have the evidence pointing in one direction. Wether wrong or right, it's suitable enugh to explain the evidence. If you say it dosn't, then you need to explain what you think it DOES point to.If you think it points to ID or something, it would be helpfull if you explained why you think it points to ID.Otherwise, your basically saying throw everything out and leave a vaccume. And don't fill it with anything.That's a silly idea. Im not interested in the vast evil, atheist/evolutionist, conspiracy, I'm more interested with what you propose the proper interpretation of the evidence is.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-13-2005 07:03 PM

Hi Randman,Trying to explain things to you isn't working, so I'm going to be very brief this time. Yes, I know you do.I'm trying to help you escape a pattern of repeated suspensions, but I'm not sensing much interest on your part. I think this could be a very productive thread, but you have to be willing to give some consideration to what people are telling you. I've exhausted the time I have available to help you, so I'm going to suspend you for 24-hours again.I'm on your side, really I am. I can see that you're working hard, but I feel like the football coach who screams at the player who just recovered the fumble, "Run like hell," which the player does, but toward the wrong end zone. You have to admire the effort but question the presence of mind.See you tomorrow night.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director