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

Randman, you posted links to news stories about whale fossil discoveries. They are interesting, but they do not support your assertion. In fact, most of the stories concern a single find; ironically (in the context of this discussion), whale fossils are described as rare. Further, the decay process for whale remains is described, including the fact that everything, including the bones, is usually consumed.Even more ironically, the species found is described as unknown in at least several of the stories.I assume you assume the species ID will not provide a new (to science) ancestor (though one of your stories suggests that particular find may be just that).How many whale fossils have been found? Of which species? From what era? Where were they found and in what context?You are clearly still implicitly embracing your prior claim that most fossils that will be found have been found: can you show me the data on the pace of whale fossil discoveries? My subjective impression from the dates on my own google search is that the pace has picked up over the past decade or so...true, just as subjective as your impression--but then I didn't base any broad assertions on mine.There are many web links concerning whale fossil finds, for sure, but you have supplied no data to support your assertions.As it stands, your argument really is no more than, "I have a subjective impression that..." Subjective impressions can spark interesting discussions, but they do not support scientific assertions, nor are they valid grounds from which to falsify ToE.Don't tell me stories; show me data.

the point is whale fossil finds are so common that are routinely reported all over the world if a relatively complete skeleton is found....you can easily verify that whale fossils are "common in marine sediments", as I posted before on previous threads to you.How much evidence do you need? For example, how many news reports or other reports of whale fossil finds do you need before you would admit they are fairly common?

Well, considering some of those species are found together, and Basilosaurus has been found with Dorudon so close as to suggest Dorudon was it's prey, I am somewhat skeptical of your claims of the species being after Basilosaurus or transitional or something that evolved from it.For example, Basilosaurus is dated often as late Eocene not mid-Epocene. BBC - 404: Not Found So it doesn't seem your chronology fits as you state.

probably be next week, end of week

quote:

---

the point is whale fossil finds are so common that are routinely reported all over the world if a relatively complete skeleton is found....

---

If they are so "routine", why would they be reported as "news"? Does your paper have columns for public notifications like "Marriages", "Births", "Obituaries", and "Recent Fossil Discoveries"?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Finding a whole whale skeleton is newsworthy, and it is something that happens all the time. I live at the beach. If someone gets bit by a shark, as they did last week, it will be in the news even though it happens on the Florida coast a bunch of times every year. It is both common and newsworthy since it doesn't happen everyday and not in the same spot everyday.Whale fossils are common in marine sediments. The fact you guys are unaware of that is just evidence you have not taken the time to look into the data for yourself.

The fact fossilization is rare for most organisms does not mean fossilization is rare for species.Why is that a difficult concept for you?It's rare for any individual to be a Congressman, but it's not rare at all for a state to have Congressmen.

I'm certainly not claiming that these creatures evolved from Basilosaurus, although Dorudon is remarkably morphologically similar to Basilosaurus so it wouldn't surprise me if they were very closely related. OK, so if it really suits you:

quote:

---

BASILOSAURUS: mid-late Eocene
Prozeuglodon: late Eocene
Eocetus: late Eocene
Dorudon intermedius: late Eocene
Agorophius: Oligocene
Prosqualodon: Oligocene
Aetiocetus: Oligocene
Kentriodon: Miocene
Mesocetus: Miocene
MODERN WHALES: Late Miocene

---

And we have some overlap. These are still eight cetaceans which arrived between Basilosaurus and Modern Whales. I never gave a chronology, just a list of cetaceans and their associated age. I was not stating which ones came in which order other than the broader scope of passing of the ages.

It isn't a difficult concept. Let me replay the thread you are responding to: Its a perfectly simple principle I am more than capable of grasping. Now its your turn to grasp a simple principle:The fact that fossilization is less rare for some species does not mean fossilization is less rare for all species.For some species we see a lot of fossils. It could quite easily be that it is less rare for that species to fossilize. Or it could be that any number of the other factors we've been discussing for the past 200 posts or so that have left us with many fossils of one species and a dearth of another.That isn't a difficult concept is it randman?For some species we don't see a lot of fossils. It could be that it is more rare for that species to fossilize. Or it could be that any number of the other factors we've been discussing for the past 200 posts or so.This isn't too difficult a concept is it?

Now, by your own standard, answer the questions from Message 223: Is it really that hard to just answer these simple yes or no questions?Or do you just keep reverting to the same broken record posts?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ok, but we are talking about a much smaller range of development that all species that exist. Specifically, we are talking of land mammal to whales, also mammals. So we are comparing similar body structures, and once the process gets to water, fairly similar environmental conditions for fossilization.So in the context of this discussion, it doesn't fit that some forms are extremely well-represented whereas 99% don't leave fossils at all.

Yawn, asked and answered. It's not my fault if you are incapable of grasping the reality of the process that new features would have to arise and exist within distinct populations and no analogy is going to change that fact.

Prove it. Or withdraw this claim for the fallacy it is and then answer the questions.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You stated 8 species "between", but that is inaccurate. The reference between suggests some sort of chronology, does it not?The fact we see ancient whales does not alter the fact we don't see the transitions between ancient whales and their predecessors.

It's not my fault if you are incapable of grasping the reality of the process that new features would have to arise and exist within distinct populations and no analogy is going to change that fact.What part of the above statement do you not understand?