But there should be some sort of predictive analysis by evos of how many different strains of creatures with specific features would probably have evolved, and how many fossils there should be.
To date, we see nothing like this, and imo, ToE has failed miserably in predicting what we would find in the fossil record
In all my lurking, I see you bring up points like this one time and again. You seem fixated on the predictions that *you* think that ToE *should* be making on amounts of fossils that we should find, in comparison with what we do find. But it's been explained to you even more times that the fossil record is not the only, or even main, source of evidence in support of the ToE and that the ToE makes no predictions on fossilization rates.
Why should it? It's a theory about how mutation + natural selection affects populations over time, not fossilization processes. Why does this have to be explained to you over and over?
The nested hierarchy that all creatures found in the fossil record fit into is extremely powerful evidence in support of evolution. There is no reason to find this relationship if you throw out common descent. As the number of fossils we find increases, the evidential support of evolution - already rock solid - continues to grow.
What "gaps" there may be don't detract from evolution one bit, considering how special the conditions must be to get fossils at all.
Evidence like this, by itself, is powerful in favor of evolution. When you combine it with OTHER independent factors - such as radiometric dating, genetic analysis, and stratigraphy - it's dishonest to conclude anything other than evolution has almost undeniable evidential support.
Where are the comparitive studies of numbers of fossils in living whale families compared to numbers of their theoritical ancestors to show why we should not see fossils of their ancestors?
Why should there be studies of that nature? We find what we find, and we're lucky to find it. The data is always consistent with what evolution predicts.
™ Version 4.2