where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]

I doubt that this has ever been observed. The theory of evolution does not claim that this will ever occur. What it claims is that an early ancestor of cats was also an early ancestor of dogs. But that early ancestor might not have had any distinctive cat features or characteristics, nor any distinctive dog features or characteristics.

No, that is not what I am saying.Did you actually read my earlier post, and read it all the way to the end?I'll repeat, with a little more detail.The theory claims that there was an early species which was a predecessor of cats. This early species probably had no cat-like distinguishing features. That early species evolved into different species. Some of the successor species acquired cat features through a number of evolutionary steps. Other successor species acquired dog features.As you can see, I am talking about a species evolving into one or more successor species. But there is no requirement that a cat evolve into a dog.

The same principle applies. Evolution does not claim that any modern species will evolve into any other highly different species. It claims only that there were common ancestors.I don't expect any of my children or grandchildren to resemble any of your children or grandchildren. But, as far as I can tell, we did both have a common ancestor. And I suspect that even you agree on that. Rahvin has given you some examples in Message 31.

If creation is a scientific theory, it ought to make some predictions. So what predictions does it make, and how will we test those empirically?

Hi randmanThis has been expained to you before. I'm not sure why you don't get it.Here are some ways that a species can evolve: There could be several variations of the second mode. In some cases the parent species might persist, while in other cases it might go extinct over a number of generations.What you are seeing in the fossil record, is that the second mode of evolution is the more common.

Where do I admit that? It seems you are misreading.What I actually wrote and you quoted, was: It isn't guaranteed that a population will ever grow large enough to have a good chance of leaving fossils. Some species occupy small niches, and never develop large populations. There could be many successive transitions during a period of low population, and later environmental changes are such that the population blooms.Gaps in the fossil record are a problem for those attempting to reconstruct natural history (see Science vs History - a source of equivocation?). It isn't a problem for the theory of evolution. ToE does not predict that there will be fossils. It only predicts that when fossils are found, they will turn out to be consistent with the theory. Why would we expect this? It isn't obvious to me. Some of the new features might even be exaptions - side effects of the strong selection pressures that a small group went through. The populations of intermediate species might have been quite small, occupying narrow niches. I'm glad to hear that you are not demanding them. But now you are demanding them.It isn't obvious at all as to why we should expect this. The fossil record is not time lapse photography.I'm not a paleontologist. I don't have detailed knowledge of the fossil record for whales and their ancestors, so I can't comment on those kinds of specifics. Perhaps someone else will. No, I don't theorize that, as I explained above. In the case of whales, they did eventually grow to a decent population size. But many ancestral species might have remained small. And even if a large group, it isn't certain that there will be many fossils - that would likely depend on the kind of niche that they are in.The question of the history of modern whales is, technically, a question of natural history. If you think that the history has been wrongly constructed, then you should come up with an alternative and see if anybody can punch holes in your alternative history.

A lot of what Gould and Eldredge proposed seems to have been absorbed into what people are currently presenting as neo-Darwinism. Or at least that is my impression.

Most evolutionists (in the sense of those who do research in evolutionary biology) are working in genetics, biochemistry, reproductive biology. The theory of evolution is mostly derived from what is observed in these studies. The fossil record was never the basis for the theory. These evolutionists can be excused for not noticing the details of the fossil record until paleontologists pointed it out to them.That they adjusted the theory, by paying more attention to likely environmental conditions for speciation, only shows that they are concerned with evidence. What is repeated being brought up by creationists has only a weak evidential basis and does not refute ToE. If creationists come up with solid evidence that is inconsistent with ToE, they will get a lot of attention. Thus far they have only come up with evidence that they don't even understand ToE.

I'm not sure what is your point here. Would you prefer that it be identified as an invisible pink unicorn?Jaws and teeth have often been used in identifying fossils. Maybe the evidence was scant. The people who attempt to identify fossils have to do the best they can, even when there is only scant evidence available. As more fossils are found, the evidence will increase. That will allow more accurate classification. Perhaps the initial classification will eventually be found wrong. Scientists don't claim to be perfect. They do the best they can with the evidence available. You are missing the main point. This is not the major evidence for ToE. It is supporting evidence for ToE, because it is consistent with the theory. That's about it.There was very strong evidence for ToE before the Pakicetus fossil was found. There is very strong evidence for ToE after the fossil was found. It would seem that the fossil isn't very important (exactly as others have been telling you in the past).The fossil is valuable for reconstructing the natural history of whales. It has little importance with respect to establishing ToE.Sure, it might be taken as evidence of ID among those who do not apply scientific standards. So what? You are the one failing to grasp.Show me an actual intelligent designer in the process of designing a biological creature, and you will have the beginnings of some evidence of intelligent design. At the present the only evidence for intelligent design is in the imagination of ID proponents. By contrast, evolutionary biological processes are routinely seen.(edit: change subtitle)This message has been edited by nwr, 10-21-2005 04:15 PM

Do the analysis. If you can demonstrate extreme inconsistency, you should have no difficulty getting it published. That's hilarious. But I guess you don't see that it is extremely inconsistent.

I don't know of any evolutionist who would disagree with that. That's why similar structures are sometimes credited to parallel evolution, rather than common descent.

From that, with a simple application of logic, I can only conclude that For it is quite obvious that randman has an extremely poor understanding of ToE.(edit: to change subtitle)This message has been edited by nwr, 10-23-2005 04:08 PM

quote:

---

yes, definetly.
ABE: That is, the farther away we are the more different the color.

​

Is this sort of a revival of racism? just asking.

---

Wow! How could you jump to that conclusion?The spectrum was being used an an analogy. The term "color" is obviously being used here for colors of the spectrum in the analogy, not for skin colors of people.At least that seemed very obvious to me. I don't know how you could possibly see racism there.