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

MARK, none of your following questions are germane the discussion."What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;"The reason being is over geologic time, even though there is no evidence for the ansers to these questions for the vast majority of species evos claim since in reality there is no evidence the species ever existed in the first place, but we can look at known facts and do comparisons.For example, evolution involves the introduction of changes to lfie one earth, right?So we can view any range of differences within life and compare that range with numbers of species. Looking at whales, it would be appropiate look at the range of differences in living whales, and look to see if those distinquishing features are well-represented in the fossil record, which they are.Then, we can view other mammals such as horses with their known or considered to be known immediate transitional forms, or you can look at various other mammals. Looking at horses, we see a 29 to 1 ration between immediate ancestral forms within a very right range of similarity/differences to modern horses.Why are these type of comparisons valid?Because unlike most evo thinking, this kind of thinking compares actual facts and observed data with each other.So according to ToE models, there should be exponential growth of previous species the larger the range of differences. If it took a couple of thousand very whale-like species to lead to modern whales, it probably took a couple of million before that to lead to the 2000 forms, and this is because evolution is not considered to proceed as straight line but to many various dead-end branches.Evos want us to accept that it is reasonable that we see no trace of 99.9% of these branches, and yet see tons of fossils for the .01% of these branches.Another, more reasonable explanation is that using .01% of the data to demand 99.9% of the data never seen is an active demonstration of the human imagination, but poor science.

First off, I used the term reproduce or interbreed, but more importantly, I am not trying to engage in definitions and semantic arguments. The process is the process irregardless if words and definition exist at all.Take a step back and try to envision what occurs in reality instead of debating semantics. In reality, groups interbreed or reproduce within the same group.Certainly, there are LIMITED exceptions where, for example, one can breed various plants together, but even there, there is still a discrete group involved. There is just some exceptions within that group.I think if you were honest with yourself and took a step back to look at how groups of creatures are organized within different groups, you would see that the spectrum analogy is a poor one.For example, I know of no other species humans can breed with.Do you?If the spectrum claim was accurate, we should be able to mate with our nearest species.

It's amazing hearing this. Reminds me of someone that's been brainwashed.You admit that for the vast majority of species there is no "spectrum" taking place, and yet incredibly insist that based on a few exceptions, that the spectrum claim is accurate.Just amazing. Has it occurred to you that the vast majority of species are "exceptions" then to the spectrum rule. If most species don't follow the rule or claim put forth by you, how can you continue to claim it is accurate?Never mind.....I doubt you are capable of seeing the point.

jar, if the spectrum claim is true, there would ALWAYS BE close ancestors we can interbreed successfully with, which is probably why Yaro claims we can breed suceessfully with chimps. He recognizes the implications of his claim.My theory here is that if I or a creationist or IDer state humans cannot interbreed successfully (producing fertile offspring) with chimps, he would never accept it, but he will accept if from an evo because he figured that if an evo admits this fact, then this fact can be admitted to while maintaining faith in ToE.In other words, there is a knowledge and fact filter operating withint the mentality of evos.

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

jar, in the context of this discussion, the claim is that the spectrum analogy by definition means we can interbreed with our nearest relatives, and the reason is that the spectrum claim was given to refute my claims concerning speciation requirements to evolve different features to evolve a land mammal to a whale.Of course, the spectrum claim is wholly fantasistical without any factual merit at all.

Didn't bother with your whole post after the first 2 points since you seemed incapable of realizing that the fact that children are not identical to their parents has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that children of humans can only mate with other humans.You also appear not to realize that if it is illogical to claim an exception to the rule, that the vast majority of species then are exceptions to your claims and rule as far as a spectrum.You admit that most species can only interbreed with members of their own species, but then insist this fact is not true actually since all of life is a spectrum.Since you cannot seem to even take note that you hold to mutually contradictory positions, it appears your thinking has been damaged by brainwashing or something along those lines.

The context of this discussion is how new features would have to had evolved through numerous various species, according to ToE.You guys do not like the implications of the analysis and so try to obfuscate with fuzzy and erroneous claims that all of life is a spectrum, and thus claim no distinct species exist at all.Clearly, you guys are making wildly false claims, but you are so entrenched in delusion, that you cannot seem to admit that most species can only interbreed within their own species, and that ring species are exceptions to the rule, and that within the context of this discussion, ring species are totally irrevalent because we are talking different forms, and furthermore expanding those forms to include families of species.Are you guys now claiming species can breed across the family level?Are you saying across the family level that a spectrum of interbreeding exists?Why is it you cannot see simple truth? In the context of this discussion, why do you guys deny that many speciation events would need to take place with new species and new families of species arising for land mammals to whale evolution to take place?It seems to me evos have been so brainwashed that it really doesn't matter if a critic of ToE uses the exact same facts as they do, but the facts don't exist if a critic uses them, and they do exist if an evo uses them. That's been my experience with the evo community. Looks like brainwashing to me.

OK. Just a few posts above the conversation concerned humans, but I see what he was referring to now.I guess it's hard for me to take yaro seriously as he put forth the spectrum claim as a means to deny new forms via families of species needing to occur as real and viable concept to explain land mammal to whale evolution.To put forth ring species to deny the fact whole new families if not whole new suborders would need to have arisen smacks of thinking so deluded that it seems damaged by brainwashing and propaganda.

"I bet" eh?So the spectrum does not exist? Best you can do is claim it exists with "I bet" all the while there is no observed spectrum at all.I mean if the spectrum claim is true, we should be able to mate with chimps as Yaro believes.How many of you really believe we can mate with chimps?

Yawn. Not bothering to read it, Mark.If you want a real discussion, preface your post stating that and begin to deal with specifics of what I posted, showing you understand the points raised and why you disagree.Anything else will be ignored.

The vast majority of species, especially in the context here of whale evolution from land mammals, can only and do only breed with other's in thier species.That's a fact that I have repeatedly brought up, despite your claims I bring up no facts of examples, but irregardless, you and the other evos here refuse to accept this basic fact. My secondary point for any lurkers is that I have no doubt you and other evos would accept this fact if an evo was arguing it for evolution. It has been my experience that evolutionists can disbelieve the same facts when arguing against their critics that they later espouse and apparently do so without any hint of self-contradiction, just as you display.Sorry to be rude but that sort of thinking stikes me as the sort of distorted illogic that accompanies brainwashing.Clearly, most mammalian species are not some sort of fuzzy spectrum in terms of reproduction, but in general only reproduce within their own species. It is true, especially among whales, that sometimes across what are labelled different genera, reproduction takes place, but the argument there concerning wholphins and ligers generally is made in support of creationism than in evo arguments, and despite these notable exceptions, the vast majority of species cannot reproduce across genera, and I don't know of any though I could be wrong that can reproduce successfully across the family level.So whatever your imaginations, the facts of sexual reproduction are the same and so in analysing how many forms it would take to evolve a land mammal to a whale, the issues of some exceptions like ring species is not germane in the slightest in the discussion.The failure of evos here to see and admit that is telling.

Uh huh, but somehow calling that event a speciation event is wrong since it violates your spectrum claim, eh?Somehow, I doubt you guys would be arguing this point if an evo was using the same fact to argue FOR evolution.

I will try one more time to reason with you guys. Claiming that the spectrum analogy is somehow true, and that therefore speciation as I discuss cannot happen is one of the more absurd arguments by evos that I have ever heard since what I am doing is discussion your model of evolution, but nevertheless, I suppose it matters more to evos who is talking than what is being said.The standard concept within evolutionism is that speciation takes place in a bush-like manner, not a straight line as occurs within a spectrum. So it is possible, to use your analogy, that one "color" could only have a few species at that spectrum level with a few colors down having thousands of species having evolved into the new "color."Imo, the analogy is totally fallacious in just about every way, but I will use it for a little while just to illustrate the absurdity.Let's talk whale evolution. Most evos in the field now believe that Basilosaurus could not be a direct ancestor of whales, for reasons we won't get into here. But they still feel comfortable calling Basilosaurus transitional because he was aquatic with some whale-like features although more serpent-like.How can they claim something is "transitional" to whales when it was not involved in the transition to whales?The evolutionist claim is that this can be true because evolution does not proceed as a spectrum. If Basilosaurus was, prussian blue, with the next step down being, say, cerulean blue, or something like that, a move down the spectrum, the idea is that other evolutionary strains (sort of like cousins) would also be evolving prussian blue to cerulean blue, say whales.The idea is that Species A does not just evolve into species B, but maybe several species B, B-1, B-2, B-3, etc,....So the further the evolution, which is another way to say the further the new features must have evolved, there is an multiplied growth in new species.The Bs for example could evolve into 20 Cs, and so forth. There would be lots of dead ends, such as probably Basilosuarus or it's descendants dying out, according to evos.So there is this bush-like effect, not a spectrum effect, and by considering the real claims of evolutionism, that new features gradually arise via evolution, one can see that there would have to be tremendous process of evolution involving thousands of different transitional forms to evolve land mammals to whales.Why the evos here want to deny that is beyond me?

1. On the continuum of species change, the relevant issue for this discussion, as I see it, is that new features would need to have arisen, specifically the features whales have, and all of the whale distinguishing features not just a few pontential precursors.Those new features would undoubtedbly have existed within discrete populations, just occurs today.Is there really any constructive criticism that somehow lessens this point?2. On the nature of fossilization, I would like to see someone explain why a process so rare routinely has produced dozens, hundreds and thousands of fossils of just one species, and qualify what they mean by "rare." It is rare for some individual to win the lottery, but it is not rare that someone will win the lottery.3. On the data, we have lots of data. I would like to see why comparing living mammal species and known mammalian fossils is somehow discounted by suppossed lack of data? I don't see evos claiming lack of data when they create all sorts of scenarios from the molecular clock to how an individual trait must have arose. Imo, it is disingenious on the part of evos here claiming a lack of data.There is not a lack of data as much as there is a lack of willingness to admit that to evolve a huge change such as a land mammal to a whale would involve tons of speciation events developing many new features.I am willing to accept feedback, but only if that feedback is tied to the specific issues raised above, and not just thrown our willy-nilly.