Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

Why are you insisting that this is out of line with the TOE? It is a strawman argument to say that this is a problem. You were correct when you said that evolution does not proceed at a constant rate. The environment does not change at a constant rate so why should organisms evolve at a constant rate? The fact that you don't "think" 10 million years is enough to go from land mammal to whale is not evidence. It is incredulity. Argument from incredulity is not a valid argument.On edit: I had suspected that your timetables were off here and that the "remarkable stasis" you were claiming was just your own characterization in an attempt to bolster your argument. Mick (msg 197) seems to have provided evidence on both points.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 12:28 PMThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 12:29 PM

Ok this is uncalled for. This is not debate. My main point was that you were setting up a strawman argument as well as arguing from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Instead of addressing those points you chose to resort to an ad hominum attack, which is against the rules of the board.As for there being no fossil evidence that could discredit TOE in my mind - well now that would be difficult since all of the fossil evidence thus far has verified the TOE which is not surprising since the TOE is based on fossil evidence as well as evidence from extant organisms. So I guess you've got me there. Sort of, anyway. So maybe I should throw it back to you. Is there any fossil evidence that would confirm the evolution of whales from land mammals (to get back on topic as well) in your mind?

More insults. Again, read the rules of the board.The strawman is that you are basing your disbelief upon the assumption the TOE says that it should take more time for whales to evolve from land mammals than for radiation to occur once whales have appeared on the scene. The TOE does not say that. That is why it is a strawman argument.You are also setting up another strawman argument in the number of transitionals that would be predicted. This one is a particularly specious argument in that you don't say how many there should be, just that we don't have a "reasonable percentage" (also undefined) of transitional fossils for the change to have occured.

Yes it would. Good point. Also I guess if Carl Baugh really had found dino footprings and footprints of man together in the same layer of sediment that would do it as well.

I don't have other estimates because I am not disputing the current land mammal to whale scenario. You are. So it is not up to me to estimate the "number of transitionals" needed or the "percentage of transitional fossils" needed. I am saying there is no set number of transitionals needed, or at least it is not a number we can know. We don't know how many genes control the the various features on whales and their land mammal ancestors, so how can we know the number of changes that are going to have to take place? Not only do we not know the number of genes, we also don't know what the phenotypic implication is of a particular gene change. I find the arguments for whale evolution from land mammals convincing because there is evidence of transitional forms and the homology between the land mammal ancestors, the transitional forms and modern whales is irrefutable. Here is one brief summary of what is known.http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htmIf you don't find it convincing the burden of proof is on you to say
why the transitional and homology data that have been found are inadequate.edited last sentence for clarityThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 03:20 PMThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 03:22 PM

Boy talk about a strawman. That is not what I said at all. I said it was not necessary to predict the number of transitionals. The prediction is that there will be transitionals and there will be homology among ancestors, transitionals, and modern forms. Those predictions are fulfilled in the fossil and extant form evidence. Yes, the thread is about fossil evidence - which I did not discount as unnecessary. I simply disagree with you as to what KIND OF ancestral and transitional fossil evidence is necessary. Big difference. When you misrepresent what people say it is quite easy to refute their arguments. That is why it is called a strawman argument - easy to knock it down.edited misspelling and to add missing word for clarityThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 04:20 PMThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 04:51 PM

For dancing? Sorry.It is a good question. I would guess that a creationist who believes God has a sense of humor could explain it.