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

The Nat |
One specimen, a skull, baleen, mysticeti, species unknown, may be "new to science". from 2-3 mya, found in san diego. the article seems legit, but doesn't have much detail.Scope | News
hundreds of specimens in one location, balleen, no further identification, from 1.8-23 mya, peru. seems legit, but light on details.http://dml.cmnh.org/1996Jul/msg00127.html
skull, ear bones, vertebrae, and ribs, 1 specimen, baleen, no further identification, 3.5 mya, virginia. seems legit, light on details.Error
vertebra, neck, fin, sholuder, 1 specimen, baleen, no further identification, 8 mya, maryland. seems legit, very light on details.http://www.washington.edu/.../paleontology/marine/whales.php
many dolphins specimens and other specimens, including an apparent toothed, baleen transition!! 10-35 mya. seems legit but hard to say, very light on details.Yahoo
umm, these seems to be the specimens already under discussion. the fossils in the fossil phylogeny of whales.http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html claims that 3 whales specimens have been found in michigan, a sperm, finback, and right whale. it is a creationist site, these finds apparantly refute geologic history.

Very interesting but NOT on topic here. Please start a new thread on the "misplaced" cetaceans

That link says that according to standard geologic history, there hasn't been an ocean in Michigan for 290 millions years, therefore something is wrong because modern whale fossils have been found there.i agree it is off-topic and have no intentions of defending the claims of creationists sites anyway. -clark
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-25-2005 03:04 PMThis message has been edited by Clark, 10-25-2005 03:15 PM