randman writes:
Their both mammals. You haven't really established they are not comparable. I admit I am not a working evolutionary biologist, but at least I am offering data.
You're mistaking an argument for data. You're assuming that horse and whale had similar fossilization histories because they're both mammals. This is an argument, not data.
That they are both mammals is slim support. Many, many creatures are mammals, yet few, if any, have as complete a fossil record as the horse. That the horse fossil record is cited so often is because of its unusual completeness relative to other creatures.
Additionally, whales evolved in different geographic regions, different environments and different geological periods, and they were, of course, prey to different species and microbes.
Do you or anyone else here have data on other mammal evolutionary sequences that contradicts what I am saying?
As I said, you don't have any data for your point of view, unless you consider the fact that "they're both mammals" is data. And I don't have any data, either, but unlike your argument that "they're both mammals", the fact that few fossil histories are as complete as the horse and the fact that all the conditions under which they evolved were different argues strongly against the simplistic "they're both mammals, so they should have similar fossil representation."
That's correct. I am being overly conservative when in reality the situation may be far worse as far as the other side. There may well should be far more species than the fossils found. So the ratio could be 50 to 1, or 100 to 1, or even 1000 to 1, of transitional forms to "final product" of living species.
How are you going to conclude anything numerically useful with a range from 50:1 to 1000:1? If I asked if you could drive over to my house tomorrow and you asked me how far it was, and I told you between 50 and 1000 miles, that wouldn't help much, would it? Numerical answers that span orders of magnitude usually aren't very useful.
Ok, so how many ecological niches do we think existed in the land mammal to whale evolution? If we don't know, then producing a range for an estimate is better than one number.
I wouldn't even venture a guess. You can venture a guess if you like, but it would just be a guess and not very useful.
Certainly though, we can estimate based on fossils of proposed mammal evolution that we do know about, and widening the numbers should give us a good range of what to expect. We can also look at existing amphibious and semi-aquatic and aquatic species today.
You continue to keep restating this conclusion in contradiction to the facts. By your own guestimate (not one I necessarily accept, by the way, I'm just sticking with figures you accept for now) the ratio of total species to fossilized species ranges across a couple orders of magnitude. You can get some outer bounds on the problem, perhaps, but nothing approaching a solid answer.
Have evos done any of this to support their claims of land mammal to whale evolution?
It is the fallacies you accept that lead you to believe asking this question makes any sense. Evolutionists would not make any estimates of the number of fossils that should be found across so broad a range of geography and time. It would be a fools errand. Fossilization is too serendipitous a process.
You are once again drawing false conclusions based upon your erroneous assumption that fossilization is common. You can't keep jumping ahead to your conclusions until you settle the discussion of how rare or common fossilization is.
This is why I am encouraging you to seek some consensus about the likelihood of fossilization.
I have repeatedly tried to do this by offering real data based on fossil finds, namely the fact of so many whale and aquatic mammal fossils indicates a fairly high rate of fossilization in terms of basic forms. Specifically, the 2 whale suborders are well-represented. So we see a fairly narrow range of similar traits, compared to land mammals and whales, very well represented.
You cannot generalize like this. The good representation in the fossil record of one group cannot be used to extrapolate that all groups should be well represented, even of similar creatures. For example, many creatures are known by only one or a few fossils, and in some cases by only a tooth or toebone.
So considering these creatures are well-represented, why would the many transitionals, even between these 2 forms not be present and in large numbers and with great range?
As I mentioned in the
Where are all the missing links? thread, one possible reason is that evolutionary change is more rapid in small populations, which because of their small numbers are much less likely to be fossilized and discovered. And there are other factors I mentioned in that thread, which I won't repeat again.
I also question what you mean by "non-continous". I have showed:
1. Rates of evolution can change and that the transitions between land mammal to aquatic mammal had to have had occurred over an approximate 10 million year period.
2. That ToE posits a bush-like branching effect, and thus is not continuous in the sense of one species just slowly evolving in toto not branching off at all.
Do you disagree with points 1 and 2?
Neither point is relevant. Evolutionary change is continuous. Our modern classification categories are imposed upon the current evolutionary state of living species, a mere snapshot in time. But this is the classification system upon which we view fossil history, though the categorization of fossil species into modern categories can often be problematic.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
