Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

You have asked for the definition of "rare" (which you have been given more than once). You toss things like "huge numbers" etc. but I have yet to see any quantification of this or a series of logic, assumptions and calculations to arrive at any quantitative answers.You started by claiming that there are too few fossils found. You have yet to produce a number that you believe should be found and backed it up.

A small note, you misread the first sentence there.You claim they should not be rare. Then you say that we claim they should be. Then you say we don't back it up. Then you say the fossils are too rare. Then you say they aren't there. Well, if we are right and they are rare then there won't be many found will there. Since you agree that there aren't many there is some suspicion that they may actually be rare.Then you claim that they should NOT be rare. We have given references to some taphonomic sites (which ONLY, IIRC, deal with fossilization NOT fossil preservation and finding) that suggest they should be rare. You have never, that I recall, commented on those.You use Basilosaurus (without numbers) as support for your idea that the transitionals of 10 million years earlier should not be rare because there are a lot of (whatever a lot is) fossils of this genus. However, it was pointed out to you a long time ago that this isn't the same as a population undergoing the changes expected of the transitional.I've forgotten now how long Basilosaurus was extant -- was it 5 myr? That is the sort of time that a large population NOT undergoing rapid evolutionary change might hang around. It is about the total time that the transition from land to water is understood to have taken. Therefore we expect a much smaller population undergoing rapid change in a localized area. Only after the transition was fairly complete to we get a chance for a world wide distribution of the population like Basilosaurus.This kind of thing has been pointed out to you several times. You have yet to incorporate it into any of your posts. It is becoming tiresome and appears that you are not going to learn anything. This is, perhaps (there are lots to pick from), as ridiculous a statement as you have made yet.If the palenontologists idea that whales did evolve from a land animal is correct then there MUST have been a land animal that was very, very unlike modern whales. This makes it hard to connect the earliest forms to modern whales. But there is evidence to do so. You have disregarded but not dealt with that evidence.ABE Why, exactly, do you keep calling something the size of a middle sized dog "rat-like". It is, of course, not rat like in size or anything else. There is, that I am aware of nothing about it's bones that suggest a close affinity to rats.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-14-2005 01:45 AM

Hi Randman,Here are some interesting statistics. This is the number of posts from each contributor to this thread: You have more than twice as many posts as the next closest contributor. You've written more than 1/3 of all the posts in this thread.If you'd like to remain here on a more consistent basis then you'll have to do more listening and less talking. The sheer volume of your posts is obfuscating the issues. I don't think those who respond to your every post are helping, either. While the intentions may be good, I think the effect is just contributing to the delinquincy of a member. Also, many posts in a short period of time usually indicate that much more typing than thinking is going on.In Message 120 I suggested that the focus should be on two issues: the likelihood of fossilization, and how gradually one species becomes another. The suggestion wasn't an idle one (see rule 1 of the Forum Guidelines), because I think your mistaken views on these topics are having a strong influence on what you think we should see in the fossil record of whales.I also want you to be more tentative in your approach. Ask more questions, make fewer declarations.I'm restoring your privileges early because since I'm working today I can check in periodically. I'm not writing this because I like to see myself type. I expect to see some indications that my suggestions are having some influence.Lastly, do not under any circumstances respond to this post. We're not having a discussion. I'm moderating, you're being moderated. Capice?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I have a question. If Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, and other whale fossils had never been found, how would our understanding of the origins of whales be changed?I think that we could still figure out that they had evolved from the other lines of evidence, for example, the genetic similarities between various modern species of whales, or the vestigial organs possessed by some whales which link them to four-legged ancestors, or the embryological similarities with four-legged mammals. Going by the genetic similarities, we could probably even estimate roughly when they broke off from other mammals from the rate of mutation, and we could find out how closely related they are to other modern animals.Does anyone have any other thoughts?

That's a good question. Other than that whales are undoubtably mammals and clearly descended from some terrestrial mammal, their affinities were conjectured solely on fossil evidence, I believe -- without fossils, there would have been little data to determine when and whence whales arose.Now I think that genetic evidence has fingered the hippo as the whales nearest extant relative.

Admin has addressed the need for a consensus on the following. As such, I am not free to comment on the many areas some posters have wanted me to.I think it is reasonable to compare differences in extant species within the current whale families as a means of estimating the numbers of families or perhaps suborders that would likely have occurred and that I have seen evo papers that discuss this type of analysis.To elaborate a little more and address Ned's point, imo, there would need to be more transitional forms, greater families of species, not less to create the forms and families we see today. The image Ned seems to use is the branching tree, as if a species breaks into a few families and then more families and so on, until we have 14 whale families and 2 suborders today.Imo, a more up to date view of evolution would use a bush as an image instead of a tree. We see this issue discussed with horse evolution, according to evo assumptions, and with ToE in general. Retired Site | PBSPlease note that the link above shows that there were far greater species of horses or horse-like creatures in the past than are present now, just as I am claiming should be the case if whales evolved from land mammals. The ratio is actually 28 to 1, meaning 28 prior forms to create via evolution modern horses.Although I am not in agreement with evolutionists on human evolution, the following link indicates the same move from the tree concept to the bush concept is something evolutionists have moved to to explain the data they see in that arena.http://www.txtwriter.com/...nce/Articles/humanevolution.htmlIn the following, we see the "bush" image used to describe the definition of cladistics and how cladistics are indeed used to predict species that "should be there", which is something that has been challenged here, as if impossible. http://www.findarticles.com/..._qa3966/is_200011/ai_n8923791What I see here then is that we should see far more transitionals than we do current whale families. I proposed that studying the ration of similarities to differences between whale families should give us an approximation of the numbers of families to expect within that range of similarities and differences along the proposed evolutionary path, and consequently we can compare current whale families to the nearest proposed ancestral forms and estimate the numbers of families that should have appeared in between.Obviously there would be some need to qualify and do more analysis to make better predictions and narrow the range. For example, we could study the number of changes, or the rate of evolution, for whales, and by whales I mean not the pre-whale forms called whales, but studying how far back the 2 current whale suborders go and what sorts of changes we see in the fossil record. That would also be helpful.From what I have read, both of these approaches are problematic for proposed evo models, one because the rate of evolution has been too slow with far less changes for the current suborders than would have been needed in the 10 million years to evolve a land mammals to a whale of the current suborders.The other problem is that there should be far more forms, based on the horse/bush example I gave above and based on analyzing the range of differences, between the current suborder of whales and their proposed land mammal ancestors.These are the issues I raised, and am glad to "listen" and answer questions and entertain ideas on these issues, if anyone cares to address them.When I first raised these issues, a good number of responses were that such analysis were either unnecessary or impossible, and then demands were made for me to address material not related, imo, to the points above. So it's somewhat hard to have a good conversation without first getting some agreement on things like what evos actually propose, the bush paradigm as oppossed to the older tree paradigm for instance, and what fossils do or do not exist.The following is an abstract in which the whole article is not available to non-subscribers including me, which discusses the use of molecular and fossil evidence. My reason for mentioning it is just to point out that such concepts are not absurd concepts put forth here by me, but are areas that should be ascertained via the scientific method to determine a range of what types of species we should expect to find, their number, etc,...If anyone can point to some valid science to show how this is being done, it would be appreciated. [qs] Here we document from the primary literature minimum and maximum fossil age estimates of the divergence of whales from artiodactyls, a commonly used anchor point for calibrating both mitogenomic and nucleogenomic placental timescales. We applied these reestimates to the most recently established placental timescale based on mitochondrial rRNA and several nuclear loci, and present an attempt to account for both genetic and fossil uncertainty. [qs] Calibration and Error in Placental Molecular Clocks: A Conservative Approach Using the Cetartiodactyl Fossil Record | Journal of Heredity | Oxford AcademicAs a reference, the following links detail a creationist perspective on these issues.http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm#new
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i11f.htmThis message has been edited by randman, 08-14-2005 10:42 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-14-2005 10:48 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-14-2005 10:52 PM

Actually, my suggestion was that these two issues need to be resolved before discussion can move on, not that those should be become the topic for the thread. Right now this thread is repeating this pattern: I'm trying to break the thread out of this pattern. Spending some time discussing the rarity of fossilization and the nature of transitionals should permit more productive discussion of the fossil record for whale evolution.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

In Message 159 I quoted a post by Ned in another thread which referenced this link.This claims that we have fossils for roughly 0.1% of extinct animal species. The basis for this figure is as follows: Do we all accept this as a working starting point or has someone got a better supported etimate?Edit: Add this comment! Previous edit was to add the final line ("Do we all...") and to change the subtitle from "Rarity of..." to "Likelihood of...".This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 08-14-2005 10:59 PMThis message has been edited by MangyTiger, 08-14-2005 11:01 PM

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Not to jump in too quickly, but as the only non-evo on this thread, maybe it would be helpful to hear some dissent on using that.First off, when discussing "forms", the more narrow definition of species may not be as helpful in the context you are seeking to use it within.The reason is, for example, let's say we find a new frog species, but in reality the frog already closely resembles another frog such that if we saw their fossils, we might group them together as one species, or perhaps one form.Imo, the great many undiscovered living species probably do not represent a great many undiscovered forms, if we were to view them as fossils. That means the ratio proposed would not be useful for this discussion.Furthermore, we are discussing mammals, not all species and living things. So we need numbers based on mammals. If someone can state the estimates of undiscovered mammals, it might be useful but even then, imo, it would not be based on the points above.It certainly is not relevant to discuss numbers based non-vertibrates, plants, bacteria, etc,...and apply them to what we should expect to see in mammal fossils.Would you not agree?This message has been edited by randman, 08-14-2005 11:09 PM

Could you elaborate more on this? You seem to be suggesting that the undiscovered forms will be too similar and we will not see them as separate species when found. Why doesn't this apply to the discovered 100,000 which do show a lot of bizarely different forms?Basically I do not understand you objection to the ration supplied? Please show much more detail about how you arrive at it and what ration you would arrive at.Note: Your opinion just doesn't cut it. You have to offer some input assumptions, reasons for them and the conecting logic.Is there any reason why you think the mammal ration would be very different?It is, btw, clear that the input assumptions to that ratio do NOT include bacteria or most (if any) of the insects and I suspect none of the plants either (but it gets less clear). Estimates for extant species run from about 10 million to about 100 million. I don't know if bacteria are in any of those estimates.ABE
I found a site with numbers of species. It appears that the number does include insects but not plants or bacteria.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-14-2005 11:17 PMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-14-2005 11:19 PM

Ned, this is sort of a problem because if I don't respond to you, you will accuse me of not responding and seek to ban me.If I do respond to you and to everyone that posts to me, I will be accused of posting too much on one thread, and admin will ban me.It would be better if instead of each time you asked me to add more on one or 2 points that I have made, if you go ahead and address the reasons you think the ratio is valid, don't ya think?My reasons otherwise are clear.1. The ratio involves non-mammals and even non-vertibrates and thus is not germane to mammal fossils or mammals in general, and I suggested an alternative, though I would not necessarily agree with it, of using a ratio of estimated non-discovered mammals.Are you asking I come up with peer-review studies to show why creatures with bones are more likely to fossilize, and why larger creatures are more likely to be seen?If so, don't you think you are wasting time quibbling over something that is not challenged by any side?2. My other point is I don't see any material to suggest the nature of the undiscovered species, of whether they are expected to represent new forms, and would be seen as such if found as fossils, or would not, as I suspect. If you and others want to insert your opinion as correct, that they represent new forms, fine. You may do that, and probably I'll just drop off the thread as we would be discussing the matter in a paradigm based on you guys' opinions, and not factual details, or you could alternatively offer some claims of what the unknown species are thought to represent.I based my statement on anecdotal evidence, namely the few numbers of species I have heard biologists discover have been a "new worm" or a "new" this or that.If you want to dismiss my point as mere opinion on this second point, fine, but please hold yourself and others to the same standard.What evidence do you have that the undiscovered species represent new forms if they were found in the fossil record?Perhaps though we can dismiss with the second point and just go with the first since I don't think you are challenging the concept that non-mammals and species without bones are germane in discussing land mammal to whale fossils?This message has been edited by randman, 08-14-2005 11:27 PM

I don't understand this sentence. Could you define the term "form" you have introduced (just to make sure we are all talking about the same thing) please?When you say 'the more narrow definition of species' what do you mean? More narrow than what?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

I just spotted this. What are you talking about - where did the 'great many undiscovered living species' appear from? The great many undiscovered species being talked about in the link I posted are fossil species.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

You are, I think, highly oversimplifing. You suggest that large, boney creatures are more likely to fossilze. Sure, no argument.But you have, again, forgotten that it isn't the likelyhood of one individual fossilizing that counts. It is the probability of fossilizing time the number of individuals.Howeve, let's drop that because, I do agree it makes our estimates more suspect. The .1 % is obviously a rough estimate only. It is of course a quantified estimate which you have yet to provide a single one of. I do think it is getting to be your turn.Let's try to make an estimate for vertebrates:From: http://www.zhb.gov.cn/...ish/SOE/soechina1998/biod/biodd.htmI arrive at about 45,000 extant vertebrates. They have been around for about 500 Myrs. The longest species exist that I am aware of is about 5 My. (I don't know how many of the 100,000 species listed are vertebrates but I'll come back to that.) The survival time of species suggests that there have been about 100 "turnovers" in biodiversity so the total number of vertebrates would be about 4.5 million.To continue I'll pick (out of the air) 50% of the 100,000 species listed are vertebrate (but I think this is high). That means we have about 50,000 vertebrate fossil species. This produces a "found" ration of about 1%. That is 10 times bigger than the .1 % but still leaves a lot of missing fossils. (note that is all the 100,000 are vertebrates we still have only found 2% of them)Your second point doesn't enter into this. The above calculation suggests that the 99% unfound will be, not worms, but more vertebrates. YOu have introduced this new thing called a "form" perhaps you can be clearer on what that is.

Mangy, I was misreading it then.Can you explain the numbers then. We have estimates on how many species should have lived, and then comparing them with fossils?That's pretty interesting and the kind of thing I was looking for.If evos can estimate the total numbers of species, then it seems that estimating the number of species in the land mammal to whale transitions could be done as well.