Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

Ned, after this post, maybe it would be better for me just to use the general reply post and address more than one reply in order not to dominate the post count on this thread, since I am the only non-evo.What do you think?Note my reply to Mangy.In response to your analysis, it seems you are saying according to evo assumptions, we have found only 1% of the species that have lived. That's a good start because it estimates the numbers of species relative to the fossil record that we have found.Am I reading that right?Now, of course, this is based on hypothetical numbers assuming already that ToE models are true. I think it's relevant because it shows, at least crudely, that such estimating of how many species should be there is not an alien concept to evolutionists.It would be good to take that to the next level and consider how many species should appear over a certain time-frame, and also to see if that has occurred with whales. I think what we would see is that whales have exhibited remarkable stasis, at least the 2 suborders we see today. I don't believe if, for example, you extrapolate the rate of whale evolution for the past 40 million years, that the previous 10 million years were sufficient to produce the land mammal to whale transition, and that's a common complaint about the theory.Of course, the evo answer back is that evolution does not proceed at a constant rate, and that the land mammal to whale transition occurred very rapidly. It seems to not be enough time to me, but I haven't delved into all the debate in that area.Maybe someone can provide the evo answer to why whales haven't changed so much for 30-40 million years or something like that, but land mammals were able to evolve into whales im 10-15 million years?Back to your point, assuming a 1% fossilization rate based on accepting evolutionist assumptions about the numbers of transitionals begs the question, which is that you cannot use an analysis to prove A that contains the assumption A is already true.In other words, the 1% is the prediction of evos, but is not based on comparing observables, which could be done by comparing living species, or better yet, living families of species (if we can get estimates of families of species that are in the fossil record) with fossils of their remains.If evo assumptions are true, would it not be reasonable to expect only 1% of current whale species to have fossilized remains?

I think you've been given this several times. If you haven't gotten it by now maybe you should do some of the work yourself. There's a tonne of well written books on the topic as well as a lot on the web.You should note that we've seen other changes of similar magnitude in similar time frames. Remember that the closest thing to a human extant 10 million years ago was a fair distance short of a modern chimp.There is, that I can see, no evolutionary assumption in the numbers. Without saying if one species actual gave raise to another we can see that the extant species at any time have changed and changed in time frames of a few million years. That is all we need to estimate how many species their may have been over a given time period.These calculations are completely compatible with directed ID, alternative ToE and reoccuring creation. (not compatible of course with one creation burst as in a literal genesis but that is obviously a non-starter). That is, there is, that I see, no evo assumption built into the figures. Just using the discovered fossil sequence without saying how it arose.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-15-2005 12:41 AMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-15-2005 12:42 AM

Maybe I am not understanding you and Mangy then?Going back to Mangy's post. It appears, and I misread it a little earlier, that what is being compared is the number of total species that have lived with fossils and/or observation.Is that correct?The estimate of the total number of fossils assumes that ToE models are correct. They observe current species and then estimate how many non-observed extinct species there should be based on evolutionary models.If for example, there was recurring creation, then the estimates of the numbers of species would be far less since the new species would not have had to evolve from the older ones.Is that not correct or am I missing something?This message has been edited by randman, 08-15-2005 01:03 AM

Could you describe why you think it is based on an evolutionary model. All I see it based on is the fact that we have a change over in the species existing. As I said I don't care how they changed but we have the evidence that they did.Why would recurring creation reduce the number of species? The average lifetime between extinctions and new creations is as we see anyway.

You're missing something big time.There are three key numbers to understand.The first is the guestimate that there are 1,000,000 animal species alive today. This is based on simple observation plus some guesswork regarding how many unknown species there are in places like the Amazon rainforest (factors such as rate of new finds are used to calculate this). There is no evolutionary assumption in this.The second is that there are 100,000 known fossil species. This is based on counting the fossils in the museums, not evolutionary theory!The third is the biggest guestimate of all, that there 100,000,000 species have existed and gone extinct. This seems to be a bit of a stick your finger in the air number based on the number of species currently alive and how long ago animal life appeared. Again, this isn't based on evolutionary theory.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Ned, it's not my link or claim. Here is an excerpt from the claim. http://www.madsci.org/.../archives/aug97/871343510.Ev.r.htmlYou tell me. I don't even know if the number of living species is correct. How did they arrive at that?But going on from there, how did paleontologists estimate the number of extinct species compared to living species?I don't see how they did that in the link.Your point in the "change over" in the species existing is not clear because how do we know change over rates have been constant? And I'd like to see the actual data on the change over claim.In the idea of recurring creation, we would have another mechanism besides natural selection on existing species. So with recurring creation, we could see large-scale rises of numerous species within a relatively short time-frame, and then maybe 50 million years with far less change over, and so estimating a constant rate applied back over geologic time would be erroneous.Btw, I am not as closed to YECers as you are and don't consider many of their arguments invalid, such as Indian claims to have seen a large reptilian bird or sailor reports of sea serpents. We have found fossils matching their descriptions, which I think would cause an open-minded person to wonder if perhaps these creatures did co-exist with humans. But let's don't get off track on a non-topic.Do you see my point on assuming a constant change over rate?

Then, what is this number based on? Sticking your finger in the wind is not clear. A YECer sticking his finger in the air might conclude only 2 million species, for example. Isn't the finger in the air guestimate based on an evolutionist using evo assumptions?

I've got to go to bed now but I'll answer you later today I hope.I think I know where they got the number from (and the numbers to derive are almost all in the link if you think a bit laterally) but I'll try and check it up a bit more.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

randman, post 151 please.Mark

---

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

Yes, and the questions in this post as well:
http://EvC Forum: Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II -->EvC Forum: Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part IIIf you can get to them.

Ha. Still the randman of old, eh? Waiting for replies? Is hell about to freeze over?Thought not.Plus a change, plus c'est la mme chose...

Really? Just another assertion which you have plucked out of the air with nothing to support it?Now for a reality check. Again the cetacean taxonomy page provides the hard data to show your assertion to be rubbish. I know you have problems dealing with Sub-Order Archaeceti, so let's just stick to the remaining two extant sub-orders. Look through the page. How many species in those sub-orders are extinct? Some whole families are extinct and are only known from their fossilised genus and species. Some families are entirely recent. Some families have some species in the fossil record and some extant species.Remarkable stasis? Not if anyone cares to do a little homework rather than sprout rhetoric.

I'm not sure drawing a distinction between bush and tree is helpful. I've heard this analogy many times, but look at the characterization you quoted: If there's something about a bush that is analogous to "starts and stops and major jumps", I'm at a loss. I trim both trees and bushes around my yard all the time, and this description doesn't ring any bells for me at all. I doubt it does for anyone else, either, except perhaps the author of this description.In my view, the distinction between tree and bush is tiny. You shrink a 100 foot elm down to 3 feet high and it would look like a bush. If some people find the bush analogy more helpful than the tree analogy then I think that's fine. What they're actually trying to do is emphasize the fine graduated changes that happen in evolution, which is what we've been telling you all along. I think what you're trying to say here is that if the modern horse evolved from an evolutionary tree that included 28 ancestral relatives (not all living at the same time, of course) that the whale should have some similar number. This is not an unreasonable assumption, but you have to recognize that there are many other factors to take into account:

• There is no way to know if horse evolution is typical. Only by examining the evolution of many different species could we arrive at some kind of relationship or general rule for the number of species expected to be represented over time.
  ​
• We can't know how complete our record of horse evolution is. It may be very complete. On the other hand, 57 additional varieties of horse may have evolved and left fossils in a region of the American west that has since eroded away and no longer exists. Or they may be buried in geological strata that are still buried a mile underground. We can't know what's in the missing or unreachable strata. This is part of why the fossil record is so serendipitous, so unpredictable in what gets preserved or discovered.
  ​
• Speciation rates are a function of the stability of ecological niches. A stable ecological niche should not produce much, if any, speciation. Rapidly changing niches should cause a great deal of speciation. In making comparisons between horse and whale you have to factor in the relative rates of change of their ecological environments.

That we do not know these things is why the rest of us belive you cannot estimate how many fossils of extinct whale-related species we should find. So I think we all pretty much disagree with you when you say this: Why do you think we should find more whale transitionals than we do? You can much more reasonably argue that more whale transitionals existed than have been found (a pretty safe bet, I'd say, given the rarity of fossilization), but it makes no sense to insist that they must be found, or even further, to insist that since they haven't been found that they therefore never existed.--Percy

It is understood that in a one-on-many debate that the one will have more posts. A large number of posts is fine as long as the discussion is constructive and focused, which seems to be the case now.I appreciate the effort you're making. The goal is to actually resolve issues and not just sit in our respective corners restating our conclusions to each other. Useful conclusions develop from concise reasoning from quality evidence.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A tree shrunk down to 3 feet high (.9xx m) would not look like a bush. The reason for the bush analogy is a bush has no main stem. A tree looks like it is "going somewhere". The branchs are there of course, but they are generally clearly preripheral to the main stem (conifer I guess) and it appears to be heading to a pinnicle.A bush (once above the very base) is a tangle of branchs no one of which seems to be dominant.