Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

So what you are saying is that a predictive analysis of what the record should state is not necessary to state the fossil evidence is supportive of ToE.I disagree, but here's the kicker. If you feel that way, why are you on this thread at all?This thread, to my knowledge, is about that fossil evidence, of which you discount as unnecessary and perhaps even impossible to assess in terms of the record overall in this transition.

Their both mammals. You haven't really established they are not comparable. I admit I am not a working evolutionary biologist, but at least I am offering data.Do you or anyone else here have data on other mammal evolutionary sequences that contradicts what I am saying? That's correct. I am being overly conservative when in reality the situation may be far worse as far as the other side. There may well should be far more species than the fossils found. So the ratio could be 50 to 1, or 100 to 1, or even 1000 to 1, of transitional forms to "final product" of living species. Ok, so how many ecological niches do we think existed in the land mammal to whale evolution? If we don't know, then producing a range for an estimate is better than one number.Certainly though, we can estimate based on fossils of proposed mammal evolution that we do know about, and widening the numbers should give us a good range of what to expect. We can also look at existing amphibious and semi-aquatic and aquatic species today.Have evos done any of this to support their claims of land mammal to whale evolution? I am not confusing them, but both are essential to properly assessing whether the fossils we see are indicative overall of the process theorized by evolutionists. I have repeatedly tried to do this by offering real data based on fossil finds, namely the fact of so many whale and aquatic mammal fossils indicates a fairly high rate of fossilization in terms of basic forms. Specifically, the 2 whale suborders are well-represented. So we see a fairly narrow range of similar traits, compared to land mammals and whales, very well represented.We also see Basiloraurus well represented such that it's quite common for people in Louisiana to have found pieces of these aquatic creature's fossils. Basiloraurus dates back to 40 million years ago.So considering these creatures are well-represented, why would the many transitionals, even between these 2 forms not be present and in large numbers and with great range?What about the transitions from land mammals to fully aquatic mammals? We see a possible handful. We don't see the majority of the traits gradually arising.Imo, evolutionists just dismiss the fact we don't see them with a waive of the hand, and declare it's unnecessary. No, I don't claim the fossil record is complete. I list specific examples of ranges such as the current suborders, that have thousands of fossils, and as such offer data that regardless of the meaning of "rare" or "complete" or "incomplete", the reality is whatever fossilization rates are, they are sufficient for thousands of fossils to occur and be discovered of Basiloraurus and the current whale suborders. So any claims of rarity need to incorporate the fact of thousands of fossils occuring and explain why something "common enough" to create thousands of fossils of these forms left no trace of the vast majority of forms needing to occur to explain land mammal to whale transitions.I also question what you mean by "non-continous". I have showed:1. Rates of evolution can change and that the transitions between land mammal to aquatic mammal had to have had occurred over an approximate 10 million year period.2. That ToE posits a bush-like branching effect, and thus is not continuous in the sense of one species just slowly evolving in toto not branching off at all.Do you disagree with points 1 and 2?This message has been edited by randman, 08-15-2005 04:12 PM

The oldest aquatic mammals theorized to be in the whale line and caleld whales by evos, although they are not necessarily, but are fully aquatic and massive, up to 60', date back 40 million years (basilosaurus).That's a 10-12 million year period for that transition to take place, and less if you date some finds of Pakicestus later, as some have.

Ned, I am taking a day or so from this thread so as not to be unduly heated in debate, but I want to note something.Basiloraurus is considered to be part of a family, Basilosauridae. I am not sure if this is sort of a tacit estimate of the type I am looking for or not, but the concept of a form being represented by this species is interesting, and it appears the evo standard here is to classify this form as cetacean, but as a distinct family.I wonder if it should not be considered a separate suborder. Certainly, the 2 current suborders are far closer to each other than to Basilosauridae, and in fact, one wonders if there should not be suborders and families in between.Tomorrow, I will think about how to do an analysis as you suggest, of individual population levels. Imo, as you know, this is not my approach. My approach is to look statistical ranges for similarities and differences in forms, defined as either species or families of species and suborders. Estimating actual population counts is not something I see as necessary.The point is there are lots of Basiloraurus fossils and lots of fossils of the 2 current suborders, but few to none in between, and very few prior. Once again, I do think estimating ranges of differences is valid, and that there should be multiple forms between Basiloraurus and the current whale suborders, and many more multiple forms between land mammals and Basiloraurus.

Nosey, you missed the point entirely. I am not saying there are separate groups, and really am not sure what evos claim. It seems sort of vague. Maybe this is a genera, but which evos place in a theoritical family since it is so unique and different.That was my point, and my suggestion is that it is so different that it seems to fit more as a separate suborder.In terms of calculations, maybe you see it as an easy thing, but estimating populations would need to be based on numbers prior to man, and I am not sure what that number is.Since you think it is so easy to know, maybe you can do the calculation?Also, do we estimate this as the same as one whale species, or more likely, as I suggest above, more along the lines of a suborder.I'd say it is more likely to be more similar in numbers to one of the whale suborders before man began to hunt whales.If you know that number, I'd venture a guess it's the same, except maybe less since Basiloraurus are so big. So I'd say more like a quarter of the numbers of one of the whale suborders.The more I think of it, I'd say probably even less than that because whales have been around a lot longer and had more time to become well-established.I am also unfamiliar with the proposed range of Basiloraurus. Is he an open sea or estuary type of creature?That question needs to be addressed first.This message has been edited by randman, 08-16-2005 02:04 AM

That analysis is fine to illustrate a point. Btw, I was still working on an edit on the other post. I was trying to find out if studies had been done to suggest whether or not Basiloraurus was an estuary type creature or more open ocean. Maybe bone studies suggesting marine versus tidewater salt levels?But the .1% figure, or even less, is the percentage of individual members of species that fossilize and the fossils having been found, right?That's not the same as trying to figure out rates for species as a whole fossilizing and the fossils being discovered, but if it were, let's just say it was more like .0001%.We would then still most likely have every species or genera represented because out of every 10,000 individual members of a species, we would have one fossil for that species, and don't you think over thousands and millions of years, there are more than 10K members of species on average?This message has been edited by randman, 08-16-2005 02:13 AM

Let's make this more realistic. Let's up the population to 100,000, which I think is not a bad estimate for just guessing, and the multiply that times 100,000 as you suggest.That is 10,000,000,000 species that ever lived.You may be surprised but from the accounts of plenty of just regular people having and using these fossils, as lamp-posts and what-not, I think 100,000 fossils though not full forms is reasonable.So the ratio of species that ever lived to a fossil being discovered would be 10 million to one, right?So let's take a relatively small population of 1000 species with a life-span on average of 10 years, and they live for 2 million years. They are not as successful as most. So there would be 1000 species times 200,000 generations. That would leave 200 million species, right?Let's say they live a little longer, 20 years on average, and they only last 2 million years, that would be 100,000 generations times 1000 species and give us something like 100 million, correct?Let's say that they are not as likely to fossilize and be discovered so we cut that in half, and come up with 50 million.We should still then see 5 fossils, right?My point is we seem to find a lot of fossils for some, but often no fossils of the many species and/or genera/family that should be there. Based on these numbers, it's hard to imagine, except by plain bad luck, that a family or genera if not species would not be well-represented. Sure, we can discount some due to loss of the terrain they lived in, but we are not seeing hardly any.It doesn't add up.Don't you agree, at least based on your numbers and mine which give more leeway to the evo side of things.This message has been edited by randman, 08-16-2005 02:43 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-16-2005 02:47 AM

Ned and others, I am not abandoning the thread, but I've got to work as well. I'll come back to this later. Edit to add that the 1000 species per generation probably is way too small, but we can do some research and get better numbers.This message has been edited by randman, 08-16-2005 02:35 PM

Ned, still have no time to respond in-depth, but I obviously meant individuals, both times. I recognize that we are talking about individual members. Just a typo, but unfortunately, I'll have to get to all this later tomorrow evenining probably, maybe late.

To all, I've been very busy and need to do some research into whether there are actual estimates of polution size, what habitats were, etc,...and so while I've made a few comments on the EVC forum in the past day or so, I could do those with not much time and no research.These numbers are interesing (and seem to work in my favor :cool, but can be narrowed down I suspect. Estimates of population size and habitats should help.

You misread my high estimates. I never referred to most members of a species fossilizing, but that we see a high number of whale families and genera fossilized and in large numbers.Based on my numbers here, it looks like we should expect fossils of every major transition. Remember that one fossil makes that 100% for that species.Also, we have not run out of ways to resolve this at all since now we are engaging in real estimates. First, we can look up theoritical habitats, which I will do if no one else does, and secondly, come up with estimates of population within species of mammals occupying those habitats, and narrow down the numbers for a clearer picture, of which I am confident will support my case even more.So give this some time for me or someone else to look up these specifics.This message has been edited by randman, 08-17-2005 09:17 PM

Still don't have a lot of time, but here are some facts on Basilosaurus.1. Not considered a direct ancestor to modern whales which might be worth investigating why not. BBC - 404: Not Found 2. Large number of fossils (no specific numbers yet. BBC - 404: Not Found http://geowords.com/lostlinks/f10/3.htm3. Habitat was warm, shallow waters and seas, swam at or near surface. BBC - 404: Not Found One deduction might be that species that live in shallow waters or are semi-aquatic or live near water and wetland areas prone to flood are more likely to fossilize than species in some other habitats.I think the general idea is the land mammals that evolved into whales fed on fish and lived in wet areas as well, and that semi-aquatic mammals developed from that. Imo, there is reason here to think that the likelihood of fossilization for all of these species was very similar to Basilosaurus.I haven't gotten around to finding actual population estimates, but will keep looking.

A term ill-defined is useless. In what way do you mean continuous? If you mean it continually occurs, fine, but that adds nothing to the issues here.If you mean it has a semi-constant rate, that would be interesting to consider?But really evolution is not characterized by continuous gradualism. As you admit to above, often is thought to occur within smaller groups of a species, for example, and in general proceeds at a strange and varied rate (if macro-evolution occurs at all).But it's interesting to hear the continuous claim because we don't really see it in the fossil record. We don't, for example, have any cases of large populations of a species undergoing a gradual, total transition into a new species. We don't really see that kind of thing at all.We see species that must have dozens if not hundreds or thousands of species left out of the evolutionary sequence, and then a whole new species way, way down the line.But we see tons of the former species, and tons of the later, and rarely anything in between. Assuming the species as a whole evolved, why did a species with very slight changes stop showing up in the fossil record?Take Basilosaurus. It's fossils were so common that people used them to prop up houses and porches and for andirons. I cannot find any definite estimates but I think tens of thousands of more is likely from the accounts written.Likewise, we see lots of the current suborders of whales, but we see nothing in between.So there is evidence that the former forms fossilized and are found in great numbers, but it's immediate predecessor changed so much that it left it's habitat and quit being a good candidate for fossilization?That appears what evos would have us believe, but what habitat exactly? Whales have an abundance of fossils. Basilosaurus in shallower waters have an abundance of fossils. It seems to me that any other large aquatic mammal that arose in between would likewise have an abundance of fossils.Is that not reasonable to consider?But we don't see anything.Now, I know evos now have come around to admitting Basilosaurys is not a direct ancestor, but the issues remain the same. What we know about large aquatic mammals is they are good candidates for fossilization and to be found in large numbers.But the theorized ancestors are no where to be found.

Well, let me add that the creature being so large probably had less numbers than a smaller species. It's range for feeding was a little limited, but maybe there were tons more fish.It's thus very hard to determine actual numbers. It appears to have lived for 4 million years.100K species with 25 year lifespans/generational turnover and 4 million years is 16 million, I beleive. Counting partial fossils, fragments of individual species, I really think 100K for an estimate of how many fossils have been found is not a stretch considering they are so common people used them for andirons and to prop up cabins and tons more have been found in Egypt.So the ration would be one fossil per 160,000 species, and if a 20 year lifespan, then one per 200,000 species, if I did my math right this late at night.It'd hard to imagine a species not being found with a fossilization rate and discovery this high, and though there should be exceptions, we should, imo, see tons more fossils of the transitionals, especially since they all would have lived near water in a fairly similar habitat in that regard.Edit to add a little more thinking.Since whales had to have had evolved fairly quickly, let's estimate some of the transitionals as having a shorter lifespan, thus enabling more generations to evolve and only one million years and in a smaller population size, say 5000.5000 species with a 10 year span and one million years is 5K times 100K, which is 5 million species. Instead of one per 160K, let's say 1 per 250K.That is 20 fossils per species for the shorter lived transitionals.Considering the braching effect and gradual nature of evolution, we should have perhaps thousands of such species for the whole transition and certainly hundreds, and regardless of the estimates, we should literally see every single aspect, every new feature evolving, in the fossil record, not just a few "clues" we intrepret for ToE.We should see the features morphing, not with big differences, but every major little step along the way.For example, we may not see some branches as clear, but since at any given time, the nearest relatives have similar features, at least the features or the forms as represented perhaps by family of species, should be evident.But they are just not there in the fossil record.This message has been edited by randman, 08-19-2005 02:35 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-19-2005 02:45 AM

Percy, neither I nor anyone has claimed evolution is not gradual in one sense, that the adapted changes would be very small, which is why I think there should be more evidence of fossilization.My point, and something you seem to dodge every time, is that the species as a whole does not exhibit gradual change, for the very reasons you point out.So what we have is a branching effect, and from the species as a whole, it is not a continuous change. Sometimes, species don't evolve for example.There is selective and varied theorized evolutionfor groups that create a varied branching effect as I showed with horse evolution.Frankly, I don't see why this is such a hard concept for you and some others to grasp, and ironically, you seem even say the same thing at times when you admit that large species don't typically change because the changes would be swallowed up, but rather smaller groups exhibit changes.Now, the point for this area of discussion is that one would not expect for this new group, considering how evolution "per that group" is gradual and not characterized by "spurts, stops, branches, etc,...", that the new group would by the gradual nature of the change only exhibit very small changes from the parent species.So examining the level of changes needed to transition a land mammal to a whale, one can posit a great number of such "speciation events" defined as new species splitting off and developing, and considering the branching effect that usually takes place, once again see the horse evolutionary story which you dismiss but I still see no reason why, we should expect in the thousands of transitional species to have arisen in this transition.Now, you and Ned may not like my data or reasoning, but at least I have offerred some, and I see no good reason to reject any of it.You yourself say the evolutionary changes would be very small and gradual, but just add up over time.You admit they would need to occur within a smaller population and not the larger population as a whole.Even with a far, far smaller level of change required, we see a branching effect via horse evolution. There is absolutely no reason to not expect therefore that per the level of change in horse evolution, we see a similar level of branching.You say the horse example is not germane?Then what is, percy?What, if anything, from the fossil record could convince you that land mammal to whale evolution should follow the normal theoritical route claimed for other species?Do you really believe horse habitats were more varied than the land mammal to whale transition, as you seem to have offered as a reason to reject the use of horse evolution?It looks to me you guys just don't want to accept the data and analysis out of mere prejudice.