I think what you're trying to say here is that if the modern horse evolved from an evolutionary tree that included 28 ancestral relatives (not all living at the same time, of course) that the whale should have some similar number. This is not an unreasonable assumption,
Thanks for granting that's a reasonable assumption. Note that I did mention there needs to be studies to qualify and narrow the range of predicted transitional species, and I hear your reasons for considering possibilities for less.
Nonetheless, you are ignoring a major and huge issue. The differences between horse ancestors to the horse, and land mammals compared to whales are massive. Even if we grant that some sequences could happen as narrowly and quickly as possible, such that similar developments as a horse ancestor to a horse could take place with as few speciation events as any that have ever occurred, there would still be dozens of other transitional sequences.
So in reality, it is extremely unlikely that as low a ratio of 28 to 1 would occur. It is more likely to a far greater ration, based on just looking at the "distance" or range of evolution required. I would guess based on horse evolution, that it would be more like 500-800 to 1.
Obviously, we would need to examine other mammals with many preserved ancestors over a shorter range of development, like the horse, to see if this analysis holds up, but imo, it's a reasonable assumption, and I have not seen any evidence to date of evidence from evo studies that would challenge it.
That we do not know these things is why the rest of us belive you cannot estimate how many fossils of extinct whale-related species we should find.
This is somewhat baffling because it appears there are studies that try to estimate numbers of unknown species, and yet you guys seem to think estimating a range of what to expect is not possible.
Why do you think we should find more whale transitionals than we do?
It's pretty simple. Let's take 100 critical features in mammals, and compare the 2 suborders of whales. Let's call one A and another B. If A and B are 98% similar, and have 14 whale families between them, but if the nearest theorized transitional is, say, 70% similar, then is it not reasonable to expect 15 times more families to have existed in between or more.
I say "more" because it is likely more branches appeared, and then we get into using the horse example which includes those.
Now, of course, maybe some transitional sequences are not atypical, but we are talking of a massive level of change, and as such with many sequences involved. The idea of you guy's that this could happen with relatively few transitionals is just not substantiated in any way.
I have given reasons, albeit not peer-reviewed studies or complete analysis, but valid and reasonable assumptions that such a major transition from a land mammal to whales would entail a huge number of transitionals.
I have shown that there were thousands of fossils of Basilosaurus which was roughly approximate with the transitional era and thousands of fossils of the current whale suborders.
No one has offerred a credible reason for why thousands of some forms should be seen and yet nearly no transitionals relatively speaking.
You say, well, the process may not be typical of horses, and I grant you that parts of the process may not be, but it's unreasonable, imo, to claim the entire process produced thousands of Basilosaurus and yet none of the direct aquatic whale ancestors who would have occupied the same ecological niches.
Essentially what I hear the evolutionist argument consisting of is that if no transitionals were ever found, whales would still have evolved from land mammals, and if just a few were found, then the same argument is made, and that there is no real acceptance of the need for assessing the fossil record overall anyway. You are going to insist the fossil record substantiates evolution no matter what the data is because for evos, it is already a foregone conclusion, and there is no fossil data that can convince you otherwise.
So instead of really trying to assess how many transitionals there should be and compare that to how many should appear in the fossil record using statistical analysis based on comparitive studies of fossilization of aquatic and semi-aquatic animals, the evo argument is there is no need to do that.
Imo, that's not good science, and it's running away from the data and evidence rather than engaging it. Imo, you cannot claim the fossil record supports land mammal to whale evolution until such analyses have been done, and to do so is to make a massive unsubstantiated claim and overstatement.
Maybe when I have more time, I can dig around and see if estimates of the numbers of transitionals have been done. I feel certain some evolutionist scientist would have seen the need and would have done such an analysis, which you guys seem to claim is impossible.
But if I do find such an analysis, I suspect it won't matter because of the reasons mentioned above, the fossil record for the evos a priori supports the transition regardless of what is found there. It's sort of a matter of faith with you guys, imo.
™ Version 4.2
