Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

I'd suggest focussing on this point alone and come to some resolution on it, since it is narrowly defined and could be dealth with on a single thread.If we get into point 1, basically we are going to be dealing with a rehashing of the entire ToE, including genetics, mutation rates, maybe abiogenesis, embrylogy, biasness in evo-evidence (knowledge filter), catastrophic sedimentation, etc, etc,...But we could realistically assess how many transitional forms would be needed between land mammals and whales, how many fossils should be found of these forms, and whether we see those fossils or not.

I think however it should be done for whale families or other closely related semi-aquatic families. I initially felt fossils of species would be the way to go, but really to be fair, some whales can breed across genera, and if evos can show the numbers of whale transitionals at the family level needed, that would be good enough.Plus, we are likely to find more data documenting whale family lineages than mere species. So it may be too difficult to do this at the species level, not because the data is not there, but it may not be organized at the species level per fossils.Another approach is to quantify the range of differences and view particular traits as they appear in the fossil record. For whales, we could identify whale similarities and the differences in whale traits that create the range of current living cetaceans. Then see how many fossils per this range appear.Presumably, if we are to include then a much wider range of traits, which would be exhibited in the transitionals, then we should see a wider range and number of fossils.This message has been edited by randman, 08-08-2005 10:05 PM

The spectrum analogy misleads rather than illustrates, and here is why:1. The spectrum is generated by a single quanta of light, correct, and the frequencies do not evolve into another, but the light photon instantly includes all frequencies at once, and is thus the antithesis of evolution.2. The spectrum analogy, if accurate even in the misconception of one form bleeding into another form so to speak, suggests one single life form that gradually in toto evolves into new life forms. If this was the process of evolution, there would be no branches, but just one long single line of evolution. This is not, in fact, what we see in current species or in the fossil record. If what you are claiming is ToE, then it never happened.3. What you are ignoring is that in the context of this discussion and in general, evolution for sexually reproducing species occurs within discrete groups.4. You claim species evolve in a manner where it is difficult to draw a line where one era of the mammalian species could not mate with it's ancestors, and thus it is difficult to determine when a speciation event takes place.Can you back that up and show studies of mammals, preferably whales, that show that?

It doesn't matter jazns.My definition is given so we can discuss species as a viable concept within the context of evolution. If a great Dane cannot mate with a Chihuau as you say, then they cannot produce fertile offspring and thus their union cannot produce evolution.Why is that so hard for you to understand?For the context of this discussion, if years from now we see species evolved in the fossil record from great Danes and Chihuaus, then we should probably count the Great Danes and Chihuaus as speciation events in the context of this discussion. Certainly, their forms would be vital to creating the new species that evolved from them, and as such they would represent and be transitional forms.What we are after here is not quibbling over difficulties with certain situations in classifying species, but how many different transitional forms should be evident in the fossil record.This message has been edited by randman, 08-09-2005 06:37 PM

Not necessarily over a long period of time. For example, you could compare living mammals with fossils of them over the past 30 million years or so, and get a pretty accurate picture of the range of evolution within those mammal families of species, and the degrees of differences that could occur, assuming ToE assumptions about the geologic record, etc,...If this has not been done, then evos are not being honest in claiming the fossil record data is supportive of ToE. They have not done the analysis necessary to make that claim. the molecular clock is not a scientifically viable concept? aquatic or semi-aquatic geology? More challenging, but examining a wide range of mammals, particularly aquatic and semi-aquatic species, ought to be a reasonable approach to establishing a range of potentials that could be used for analysis. Well, if scientists have not done this, they have no right to claim the data is supportive of evolution, and we therefore have evidence of evos making wild, unsubstantiated claims about the data.

I am backing up the claim. If you have not done an analysis of how many transitional forms should appear in a theorized evolutionary sequence and then an analysis of how many such fossils should appear in the fossil record and have been discovered, obviously giving a significant range considering the variables, then claiming the fossil record is supportive for ToE is an unsubstantiated claim because it would well be that such an analysis would predict a far higher number of transitional fossils to such a degree that the fossils on-hand are below that range, and thus indicate current models of ToE are inaccurate, and that the fossil record overall does not support the land mammal to whale evolutionary path according to those models.Until you have done the analysis, you cannot make such claims concerning the fossil record, and it appears the analysis may not have been done.Btw, I said nothing about motives, just that wild, unsubstantiated claims appear to have been made, if this type of analysis has not been made and factored into those claims.Edit to add that I did use the word "honest" and I apologize for the wording. It may well be they are being honest from their perspective, but it does not change the fact such an analysis should be done before one claims the fossil record indicates current ToE models are correct.This message has been edited by randman, 08-09-2005 07:08 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-09-2005 07:10 PM

So essentially what you are saying is that threads discussing the fossil record are not germane because we already know ToE is true, eh?Seems like that is generally you guys' argument every time. Refuse to acknowledge the data, and claim it says a certain thing because "we know ToE is true."Looks more like a faith-based ideology than real science.For Jar, I say that because here we have evos that make an argument that the fossil record indicates the ToE is true, and then argue that the fossil record must show ToE because "we know ToE is true." So you are now claiming no modern forms mixed in with the old, eh? Please prove that or retract. Uh, did you ever bother to study what you were being told to see if the facts they told you about really were facts?Unlike you, I don't have an ideology based on gross overstatements and exagerrations to defend.Once again, where are the thousands of transitionals? Why do we seem for example, ample evidence of current whale families dating back to the Miocene era, using evo assumptions, but we don't see the land mammal to whale transitions?Where are they?

No, it was introduced by evos and defended by NoseyNed and is amply evidence he does not even understand the process of ToE.Evolution is not considered to be strictly a linear process. It occurs with discrete groups and forms branches according to standard ToE, and therefore produces nothing like the spectrum analogy at all.

Admin, it seems in general you are asking for unilateral disarmament, so to speak, on my end.There are all sorts of false accusations, absurd posts, etc,...levelled at me, but I am not allowed to respond in-kind.OK, since that is the case, can you censure Yaro here?

Admin, if I am not allowed to defend myself, will you please censure Mangy for this unfounded and false accusation upon my integrity and character?

Ned, you and I know that the claim here is that this is not possible.Why you would misrepresent me here is beyond me.Let me just say that speciation is a common idea accepted within biology. It does occur, and contrary to what you seem to have said, speciation did have to occur between land mammals and whales.If you are having difficulty with the concept, maybe you could start another thread to discuss it, instead of using your difficulties in grasping the concept to ruin a legitimate thread.

Yaro, I don't want to get banned so I am ignoring your posts as I think they are generally unnecessarily inflammatory and usually not germane to the discussion anyway.Furthermore, you have a habit of never answering my questions, and then trying to move on in attack mode while avoiding the substance of what I am talking about.If you want to discuss topics with a critic of evos, I suggest you find someone else to talk to about it.

OK, I'll give you a response written yesterday. Please look up the molecular clock before responding back, and be man enough to admit when you have learned a concept you had believed in was not quite right.There's a lot of errors in thinking in your last post. What are you trying to say here? It makes no sense because fossils are evidence, and ToE models do predict forms of which the fossils are evidence for or against. Well, they appear to be evidence against ToE, side occurence or not, and the reason is we don't see in the fossil record the types of gradual evolutionary changes predicted by ToE. Why not? We are talking mammal to mammal evolution. So looking at mammalian families of species living today and looking at the fossil record's evidence of change over millions of years of those exact same species ought to give us an average and a range of what to expect for theoritical non-observed mammalian families of species that evolutionists claimed existed. Can you back that up? Are you saying over a long period of time, millions and millions of years, that mutation rates are random?What properties of DNA cause faster and slower rated when averaged over very long time periods? The molecular clock is a theory used by evolutionists to predict mutation rates, and basically makes the claim of a predictable rate of mutation over geologic time periods. If that's the case, we should expect data on current species that is congruent with that claim. Where is the data?It really seems like evos have not tested their claims in this area.Btw, fossils are a fact, and so is the fact they don't illustrate a gradual evolving process from land mammals to whales.

I hear what you're saying, but I hope you hear how that sounds as well?On the rest of your post, if you are admitting that the fossil record does not really "show" evolution, but may be consistent or may be inconsistent with ToE, depending on a proper predictive analysis of how many fossils "should" occur and be found, then isn't wrong for evos to continually suggest that the fossil record is evidence for evolution?You say I have not proved, via the absence of evidence, that evidence does not exist, but the other side of the coin is that evolutionists have not proved the evidence exists.So when we read and hear about how the fossil record shows evolution, etc, etc, etc,....besides at times presenting the slowly covered up bones process which is highly dubious but more germane to this thread, what we are really hearing is an unsubstantiated claim. Well, sometimes it's not clear on what data the ToE relies on. Fossils are certainly cited in presentations of evidence for ToE. Of course, so is embrylogy, but I've heard that's not the main evidence either.Sometimes I wonder if there is any "main body of evidence."But regardless, the fossil record is hard data, and to my mind, is the strongest data we have. So a proper understanding of both the data and what has or has not been determined is useful.How fossils form does seem to be studied, but perhaps misunderstood by evos or at least the public at large.I am not sure I have seen detailed, relevant analysis of how many transitional fossils we should see over specific transitions of larger vertebrates, and therefore there seems to be a good degree of unsubstantiated assertations, as far as evolutionary sequences in the fossil record and whether the fossil record overall does support ToE.

Actually, evolutionists do use the fossil record as evidence for ToE, but it appears have not assessed how many transitional forms should be present in the fossil record.Your reply dismissing the need for such an analysis and suggesting it is all "by luck of the draw" is telling.In fact, you claim the evidence in the fossil record disagrees with me, but avoid the topic altogether of how many transitionals should be present in the fossil record. Evos typically criticize others for just claiming there are "gaps" that are perfectly understandable, but that's an absurd overstatement. There are not so much "gaps" as no real steps in-between statistic-wise.It's like claiming that if you have one word on a page, and then 1000 pages later, you have a full page, you say we understand the story, but there are gaps.Heck, it's not gaps as much as you have barely little filled in.What percentage of fossils per life-forms among vertebrates do evos think is seen in the fossil record?1%? or .1%Please answer.It seems like evos are depicting the 1% at best as a pretty solid picture with just mere "gaps" in between.