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

Mark, I already answered your questions. You ignored my answers so I am not bothering with your posts.If you do not understand something I have stated, and wish me to restate, I will be glad to do so.Please just state what part of my prior posts you don't get.

Mark, imo, you are the one not being truthful here. You even quoted me. What part of my answers do you not understand?Sure, cladistics and stratigraphical studies are PART OF a comprehensive analysis, but they do nothing to explain the absence of the vast majority of transitional forms. You are completely ignoring the debate here and trying to bring up a separate issue altogether.I went on to explain and will do so again, repeating my answers and contrary to your false accusations, not dodging your questions, that cladistics do nothing as far as speaking of the method of evolution or creation, nada.The simple fact is many evolutionary sequences, such as the land mammal to whale theoritical evolution, we do not see the vast majority of whale traits emerging. The fossil record does not show that.For example, if you were to look at the features that are supposedly whale-like in Pakicetus, that warranted some evos calling the fully land mammal, Pakicetus a cetacean or whale, what you find is that there were some similarities in teeth and the beginning of an expanded aural cavity.That's it.On that basis, Pakicetus is said to be a whale ancestor.Is that reasonable? Unless you are predisposed to accept Pakicetus as a whale ancestor, it does not seem reasonable to me. Other creatures also have the same similar teeth pattern, which could just as easily have been created of convergently evolved that way. Same goes for the increased cranial cavity. It is thought to be a precursor to whale skulls, but hey, it could just as easily not be.The evidence is so scant as to be farcical, but with a straight face such creatures are presented as transitional.Well, what about the other whale features? Why don't we see them evolving or present in semi-aquatic mammals? Evos like to draw pics trying to create similarities, but basically the vast majority of whale features just appear fully formed and suddenly in the fossil record.But let's say cladistic studies indicate a strong connection for a nested heirarchy.That still does nothing to prove ToE. It could just as easily be strong evidence of Intelligent Design, or directed evolution by an Intelligent Agent.That's the point you fail to grasp. Your evidence or comprehensive analysis supports ID perhaps more so than ToE.

And I pointed out where one of the leading researchers in the field in terms of whale evolution states publicly that Pakicitids are in the same suborder and are "whales" or cetaceans.Unfortunately, you are too obstinate to learn anything first time around, but here's the link. Note: Seals are not in this suborder. http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlCare to apologize for your tone and slander? Ok Yaro, I can tell I hurt your religious philosophy so you resort to absurd slander.have a nice life..

So you admit that a comprehensive analysis has not been done by evos?Good, now we are getting somewhere.My ball-park figures are based on the numbers of species per a range of similarities and differences with current whales, and with land mammals such as horses. For example, we believe at least 28 horse-like creatures, that could be called transitional (although still "horses" or horse-like) existed in the past, leading to although not all directly to one horse today.Now, that is a small range of differences yet a 28-1 ratio between existing forms and the prior forms leading up to it within that small range of evolving traits.Looking at whales, we can see within that range, something like 80 species, and they are fairly similar. The range of differences between Basilosuarus and current whales is much larger than horse ancestors mentioned above.The range is even bigger going back to land mammals.So let's say the immediate prior ancestors to the 80 whale species with just small differences would be, ball-parking, 80 x 28 (using the horse comparisons since it is another mammal). That equals 2240.Now, going back from there in similar ranges of differences, using those same ratios, to get back to Basilosaurus, would be at least 2240 x 28 which equals 62,720 species, and going back to a land mammal using these numbers would lead to well over millions of species.So I erred on the vastly conservative side and said let's just work with a few thousand "forms." Let's look at families of species to narrown it down, and assume for no good reason, to accept absurdly low numbers of a few thousand forms being needed.Even with that, all we have from evos is a paltry few, and imo, highly questionable, so-called transitional forms.Where are the fossils of the thousands of forms over millions of years it would take to evolve gradually in geologic terms a land mammal to a whale?Statistically, they are non-existent, which is why we have evos making wild claims that a hoofed animal, with barely any hint of whale-like features and arguably none at all, is, in fact, a cetacean.And you guys call such claims valid science?I am sorry, but as an ex-evo who once believed your claims before looking into it for myself, I just cannot make myself believe in such a wildly unsupported scenario.This message has been edited by randman, 10-21-2005 05:24 PM

I consider the fossil evidence extremely inconsistent with ToE and very strong, hard evidence against it.Quite simple, the fossil record does not show ToE models to have occurred.Cladistic studies and such just show "relatedness" in terms of similar features, but the whole notion that similarity equals common descent is an unproven claim, and as such, there is good reason to seriously doubt ToE and universal common descent.However, if universal common descent were true, it would still not be evidence of ToE since the fossil evidence indicates evo theories of the emergence of species is incorrect. In other words, if common descent is true, the fossil record suggests some sort of other mechanism at work than JUST observed natural mechanisms.

Name the distinquishing features of whales, the major features, and then list what percentage of those features are shared by pakicetus.As far as I can tell, the percentage is:0%Since i believe labels should correspond to reality, and not the wishes of evos, I think calling a creature with no major whale features at all a whale is farcical.

Chiropetera, what evos "tell" and what is the truth are often different.1. Pakicetus does not actually have a whale-ear. That's a totally false statement and a misconception, but something, as you pointed out, evos here have claimed (and pretend that I am ignorant). The creature has an expanded chamber not even close to a cetacean ear, but which evos believe (AND YOU NEED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE VERB "BELIEVE") is a precursor to a whale ear. Because evos want it to be a precursor, they in typical fashion overstate the case.2. You are also wrong in claiming no other creature shares teeth similar to Pakicestus and whales, but rather than just continue to show where the facts are different than what evos claim, I offer a bit of logic.Presumably, teeth evolved according to evos based on design for eating meat in the case of meat eaters. One could argue they were designed as well. Either way, we should expect and predict based on convergent evolution or conversely design that meat eaters would evolve similar teeth or be designed at times with similar teeth but absolutely no relation in terms of common descent passing on those traits.But hey, facts and logic don't matter here it seems to evos.A fully land mammal, hooved, not aquatic or semi-aquatic in the slightest is, by golly, a whale, because we say so!This message has been edited by randman, 10-21-2005 05:42 PM

Yaro, it is totally inconsequential to this debate that evos classify dogs and sea lions in the same suborder or order. Why you think that opinion has relevance, I don't know, but evidently you think it has merit.In terms of process, not man-made classifications, the relevant issue involves groups that can interbreed, which I will label species for this post (although current definitions of "species" can vary widely from that).So species in this context is relevant because all members can interbreed and thus "evolve" together.I would also add that if there are strong hints that in the past, 2 groups could interbreed, or came from one group that interbred, by the fact that certain "species" for example can breed in captivity or produce infertile offspring, then I think that is relevant particularly to a discussion on whales since some whales can interbreed and do interbreed across genera, which imo, suggests that really we are dealing with a polytypic species.But irregardless, the fact evos or anyone put different species into various groupings really does very little to change the fact that Pakicetus has absolutely no fully-formed whale features.Moreover, the whole nation that similarities automatically involves relatedness via common descent is just a large, and totally unproven assumption.

Mark, if you want to address my points, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, just typing a lot while studiously and completely evading my points while insisting that is what I am doing is just resulting in me not reading your post past about a third of the way down.Obviously, and as I stated before, similarities and stratigraphy appearing to match does absolutely nothing to counter the lack of fossils that should appear to detail the process you claim occurred, but which the fossils suggest did not.If species evolved, then they would appear not to have evolved in a purely natural manner, but hyper-evolved in a manner to leave no trace of the vast majority of species that would have existed.The reasonable options, in light of the fossil record, are either some sort of ID via aided evolution to assist creating major "jumps" in evolution or some sort of special creation.

Your post makes no sense. In typical fashion, you either ignore or did not or cannot comprehend criticism of ToE, but instead are responding to your preconceived notions of what you think such criticism is.Did I ever say anything about 6000 years?Nope.Have a nice life. I'm really not interested in talking to someone that makes up stuff about another's position.This message has been edited by randman, 10-23-2005 01:00 AM

What incredible nonsense! I wouldn't have to post anymore for the thinking and objective person after they read that, to illustrate the fantasy mindset of evos.Sorry buddy, but although the way the term "species" has been twisted may ceate some blurriness, but the simple fact is among sexually reproducing creatures, they can only mate within one group, which was originally called "species."Whatever the label and whatever propaganda you guys want to spout, there is clearly no spectrum of life, but discrete groups separated one from another. That's why a cat and dog cannot mate for example.

It's hard to maintain manners in such blatant misrepresentation and obfuscation by evos. Sorry if I responded too much in kind, but anyone that has read my posts enough to feel they can post an intelligent reply and make the kind of judgements you made would be aware that I did not claim a 6000 year old earth.Frankly, this is one of the biggest problems with evos. Educated people that reject ToE understand it often far more than evos themselves, but evos generally have no idea what the basis of their critics are and so continually argue with straw men of their own creation.At least, that's been my experience overall.

Mark, reasonable estimates of the number of forms, families of species, it would take to evolve a land mammal to modern whales is in the thousands. No reasonable thinking person would deny that.Comparitive analysis among today's mammals are one measure on how you can easily see this.For example, we know there are wide areas of differences between land mammals and whales. That area of difference is a range.You can then look at existing mammals, such as whales themselves, and compare the differences (the range) with numbers of species and families of species. With whales, there are something like 80 species.The fact is you are just trying to claim it is too difficult when it is not. It's pretty easy to see that a bigger range of differences encompasses a bigger range of species, right?Now, here is where you guys seem to not even understand evolutionary theory. According to evo theory, evolution proceeds in a bush-like manner. Remember how you guys claim that species that we know did not lead to direct evolution of today's species are nonetheless considered transitional by evos.Why?Because the form is considered transitional even if it did not evolve further at all because the theorized bush-like nature of evolution suggests that a variation of the form was evolving in a separate line of evolution. In other words, if we a form, we can generally infer there are cousins, aunts, uncles, etc,...proceeding.Why is this relevant?Because it shows the bigger the range of differences and time-scale in evolution, there is an exponential growth of species that must have existed.Let's look at another large mammal, modern horses. Evos currently identified via fossils, 28 horse-like creatures that existed prior to horses today. Not all are considered in direct line of horses, and all of these creatures might even be considered "horses" or part of a horse-kind for creationists. The point is the range is small.So going back a little with whales to the previous whale ancestors that must have existed, comparing mammals with mammals, it is not unreasonable to think there would be a 28 to 1 ratio of modern whales to the forms just before it. One should expect then there to be 2240 transitional species. Now, they would all be very whale-like, just as the prior horse forms were very horse-like.But going back within the range scale all the way to land mammals, there would be millions probably of transitional species.If you don't want to use horses, pick other large mammals and do comparisons for a range. Irregardless, to produce that level of morphological change, you are looking at probably millions of species.But let's cut this down to families of species, and assume best-case scenarios, etc,....you are still looking at thousands if not tens of thousands of transitional forms.Where are they in the fossil record?You guys present a handful you claim are good candidates. Let's say the handful are good candidates for sake of argument.Where are the other 99.999%Maybe they don't exist because they never existed?You claim fossil rarity as the excuse, but if fossilization was that rare, it would not be reasonable to expect to find multiple fossils of any one species, especially in different locations. Keep in mind that even the immediate ancestors and predecessors are completely unseen, no data in the fossil record for them at all.All of the elaborate thinking, imagination and twisted logic just cannot get around the fact that if evolution occurred as you guys claim, we would see an abundance of fossils for the process, and we don't. We see a statistically neglible amount of fossils that could possibly, with a lot of imagination and faith in ToE, be considered transitional.I prefer to go with the evidence, and the evidence to date suggest ToE models are wrong. The notion that the fossil record is not needed to support evolution, as if we would not see the process more documented, is totally unsubstantiated by evos.

First off, groups evolve, not individuals. So even asking a question such as the following shows a profound ignorance of ToE. As far as your other points, any exceptions to the rule just illustrate the rule even more. Life is not a spectrum because onyl discrete groups can interbreed, or reproduce.Are there very, very tiny exceptions to the rule, such as ring species? sure.Do they change the rule or statistically change the fact that groups can only interbreed within discrete groups?Not at all.I am sorry you guys are either too proud or ignorant to concede this point, but the simple fact is life is not a spectrum at all. For example, there is no other species humans can mate with and produce fertile offspring. Same goes for the vast majority of species, and even within the overlapping exceptions such as ring species, the general principle holds true. There is no spectrum, just discrete groupings.This message has been edited by randman, 10-23-2005 05:29 PM

You are using labels and language to blur reality. Take a step back and see how true and simple this is.Creatures can only mate or reproduce within a certain group. End of story.Humans have no near spectrum species or groups we can mate with. Same is true for the vast majority of creatures. We've gotten into the business of cross-breeding within these groups, and calling different aspects of these groups species when probably it would be better to label the whoel group species.If you define "species" as the group animals can interbreed with, you have very little overlap. The spectrum analogy is a myth obfuscating the facts.