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

Yaro,1. In other words, the whole spectrum issue is not germane. Ay any given point, life presumably would have, according to evo assumptions, be somewhat similar today in certain respects. The vast majority of species and features would exist within discretem populations of species that interbreed within that group solely (talking of land mammal to whale evolution). So the spectrum idea is meaningless in terms of this discussion.2. The problem is that whale fossils are not rare but very well-represented and fairly common. That's the whole point, and something I have been trying to get across to you guys. You, for example, felt obviously that whale fossils are fairly rare as evidenced by your post, but they are not Yaro. Look at the doggone data instead of analogies and semantics.3. Look at the data. How do you know there is not enough data if you won't look at it.

Modulous,1. Those reasons are missing the point. Explaining why some species are more likely to have fossils than others is not what I am asking. I am asking for definitions within a context of rarity. Fossilization is not that rare for many species, and we are asked to assume it is incredibly rare for something like 99.9% of species or maybe families of species.That doesn't make sense that we would see an abundance of many species all over the world fossilized, and yet none of the vast majority of other species even those occupying the same habitat. The evo argument is that a lack of data is data, and I think the fact we don't see all these fossils may indicate that the species never existed in the first place.3. On your definition of rare, that is once again a weasel answer. The fact most organisms don't fossilize means nothing. 100% of species could fossilize and fossils of all species be extremely common, and your definition be true, but obviously species fossilizing would not be rare. The question is how rare, and back this up with quantized analysis not just mere claims, is it for species or families of species, specifically mammals, to have fossils that we have found?Can you answer that, please?4. Where are they in the fossil record? Whales are abundant in the fossil record, and going back further in time (evo assumptions) so are other creatures not considered direct ancestors of whales, such as Basilosaurus.So where are the large numbers of other aquatic species that evolved into whales?The data is there, namely:1. abundance of whale fossils
2. abundance of fossils from aqautic species like Basilosaurus that predates the immediate ancestots of whalesSo we see that creatures occupying the whale's habitat fossilize. Answers that.
We see that time is not an issue because we see an abundance of fossils from before and after the period of time we are discussing as far as immediate whale ancestors.So why don't we see any of the whale's immediate predecessors?

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html
The Nat |
Scope | News
http://dml.cmnh.org/1996Jul/msg00127.html
Error
http://www.washington.edu/...collections/paleontology/marine
Yahoo
The Valley of the Whalesjust for starters...lemme know when you want more whale fossil finds...there are thousands, btw

Yaro, he is asking for whale fossils, to show how common they are. As such, the links are self-explanatory. They show whale finds in many different areas of the world.

Yaro, take some time to learn the data. Try to engage it instead of trying to make an argument.We have thousands of Basilosaurus fossils. They are so common in Louisiana and Mississippi that people used them for various things around the house and to prop up houses. If you had at all taken the time to seriously look at the links I provide on these threads and my posts, you would know that.You didn't know that because you are just trying to win debates without ever seriously considering the criticism of ToE, which is something I have noticed with most evos. They never really looked into the data for themselves, but just parrot the party line as it were, which is why they are usually incapable of discussing any data that does not seem to agree with ToE.Conversely, if an evo provides a way for them to view the data within the scope of ToE, they can do that. ToE serves as an ideological knowledge filter.Wake up and look at the data for yourself!

Mark, can any of you guys explain how in the same area, we see whales and Basilosaurus, but none of the species that supposedly are in between.You can't because there is no good explanation. Engage the specific areas and specific data, not generalizations about why some species may not have fossilized.

Yaro, the specifics don't really matter. If know Joe played in the casino for 2 weeks, and won 1000 hands (fossils), then we can reasonably say it's not that rare for someone to win a hand in the casino.

What do you mean by 8 species in between?

Percy, I don't know honestly. It's bad timing. Maybe tonight, and maybe next week. I am about to leave town for a week, maybe less, and won't be around a computer until late at night in all likelihood.But I can log onto the chat area for a few minutes now, but probably will get a phone call and have to go.

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

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.

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.