A Whale of a Tale

You remember the part of an earlier post where I said we're people just like you who aren't perfect? Well, guess what? I was right, I'm not perfect. Though I held the thought correctly in my mind, it was not correctly expressed when it reached my fingers. I understood what you said, and I intended to capture it accurately, but it somehow just didn't come out that way. What I should have said was, "You seem to think it rare, almost miraculous in fact, that many species would have a small population and limited range, but that is the case for most species alive today." I don't know how "many" became "a", I can't explain it.What is it in your heart that sees evil and ill-intentions in every difference of opinion? Faith is the same way. Give it a break, will ya? We're just people, not evil conspiracists. That's nice, but this is still an argument from personal incredulity, plus your list of possibilities is incomplete. For example, creatures from upland regions are almost never preserved as fossils, the conditions are not conducive to it. This provides huge regions that would have accommodated many large populations (and small, too, of course) over long periods of time with nothing whatsoever being recorded in the fossil record.You seem to take as an imperative that the fossil record be complete, but it isn't an imperative. Not only is fossilization a dodgy kind of thing, erosion can wipe out millions and millions of years of fossil record (I forgot this one in my earlier list). Finding fossils is also a kind of spotty thing, since we can only find what happens to appear near the surface, in other words, what geological processes have happened to erode down to. I know this was a long, long time ago, oh, maybe an hour or two ago, but do you remember that list I presented? Twice? The one you claimed you had never seen before? Check out Message 147 for the most recent message where this list appears. Your question about "where are the transitionals" that you keep repeating has been addressed. Multiple times. Please respond to the points in this list. Oh, and if you could mentally include the point about layers with their fossils eroding away with the other items in the list I'd appreciate it. Thanks! But there was not necessarily something similar occupying the same habitat. Sometimes this will be the case, sometimes not, and how often which is the case you more often than not cannot ever find out. The habitat might not have existed before (plate tectonics, uplift and subsidence, environmental and climatic factors, etc.). The new species might arrive from a neighboring region. You're constructing a single scenario and then sticking with it as if it were the only possibility, and then your drawing conclusions that anything inconsistent with your favored scenario is impossible. But your scenario is only one of many. I couldn't even begin to list all the possibilites. There are more things in heaven and ocean, Randman, than are drempt of in your philosophy. You have no way of knowing that there were no reasons for the pre-whale population to remain isolated and small. Perhaps it was limited to certain depths and temperatures. Perhaps the type of food it required was limited to a small region. Perhaps there were predators in other regions. Perhaps they weren't isolated and small, we just haven't found the fossils yet. Or maybe the fossils are gone now, subducted away. Keep in mind that species divisions are classifications man places upon nature. In reality the population would evolve in a continuous rather than species-step-wise fashion. Sure. Why not? Any number of reasons. Perhaps Basilosaurus was better adapted to that niche. Perhaps there was an isolating continent or isthmus or current of too warm or too cold water. Perhaps predators. We don't know. Your mistaking abruptness in the fossil record for abruptness in the event itself. In reality the transition probably took thousands of years, although certain catastrophes can upset the balance of things and cause species distributions to change quickly. No, Randman, you are wrong. You are offering no facts that support your views, only arguments based upon misimpressions. These misimpressions have been called to your attention many times. Oh, good grief. I say, "Follow the rules,", so you reply, "No, you follow the rules." Could you get off your tit-for-tat kick and just focus on the topic?--Percy

I suggest you go back and examine the discussion thread. You will discover that you jumped out of context. That you can remove my statement from it's context and quote a mere five words to make it seem like I was saying something else is no surprise. I suggest that if you want to be listened to when somebody does it to you that you not do it to others. Golden rule and all that.Since I know you won't actually go back and read the discussion and concede your error, and since I already know you don't care how much of other people's time you waste, in order to defend myself against your false charge that I was saying something that wasn't true and which I wouldn't say anyway since I already know it isn't true (and I have posts here at this forum over the years that make this very clear), here so that everyone can judge for himself whether I was correct to characterize you as having lost the context is all of the relevant dialogue:Percy in Message 51: Randman in Message 60: Percy in Message 101Randman in Message 107: Percy in Message 124: Randman in Message 125: Percy in Message 145: Randman in Message 146 making it seem that I'm saying something I wasn't by quoting a tiny portion out of context: There it is Randman, for all to see. People can make up their own minds who stayed with the subtopic of discussion and who took things out of context.--Percy

No, Randman, I was replying to a passage from you that was not "talking strictly aquatic creatures at that point". I was replying to your general statement from Message 150 that I quoted when I replied to it, and that I quote again more fully this time to make clear that you were speaking generally: You were questioning whether it was reasonable for a species to have a small population and range for long periods of time, and I responded. Clearly I was not responding generally to specific comments from you about whales. You are again wrong.Please stop forcing me to waste time correcting the record. I grew tired of being called a liar, I grew tired of being accused of making false statements, and now I'm growing tired of correcting false characterizations. Just stick to the topic and stop lecturing everyone about the many trespasses they commit against you. You always detect 17 of every 2 trespasses anyway, so there's no point to it except to emphasize your extreme sensitivity, of which we're already well aware. There is no such requirement. The evolution could have occurred elsewhere, and when chance and happenstance resulted in a species capable of competing successfully against the current inhabitants of the ecological niche, they took over. There could have been an extinction followed by incursion of an opportunistic species into the empty niche. A period which lacks fossils could indicate absence, or it could indicate conditions were prevalent that didn't favor fossilization, or perhaps some breed of scavanger became prevalent that left few remains, or perhaps a period of predation greatly reduced populations. Who knows? Some of the story we may be able to eventually tease out, but most of it likely not. When there's not much left but bones it's really hard to reconstruct what happened in the past. Maybe one didn't evolve at that time. Maybe it did and left no fossils behind. Maybe a "functional mammal" (whatever that is) evolved, but wasn't suited to fill the entire niche. Perhaps it evolved in an isolated sea, or some temporarily cut off part of the ocean. I agree that it is unlikely that an aquatic mammal fully capable of outcompeting the current occupier of an ecological niche and with full access to that ecological niche would just sit on the sidelines for millions of years. But you are the only one who has expressed this possibility. No evolutionist is saying this is what happened.But there are many other possibilities that might have happened. During much of its time in approximate isolation this evolving population might not have had the competitive oomph to outcompete the current occupiers of the wide oceans. Or maybe it did, but the isolation wasn't approximate but absolute because they evolved in an inland sea with no connection to ocean appropriate for them to migrate to the oceans. Or maybe there were other factors keeping them from taking over, such as vulnerability to an ocean-going virus that eventually became less a factor, or a predator that preferred their taste but eventually went extinct.There are so many possibilities it almost makes no sense to even try to begin discussing them. For you to pick one possibility and insist that it's the only way it could happen just makes no sense to anyone. But the evolution didn't necessarily take place there. It might have taken place somewhere else where erosion did later take place and wipe out the fossil record. Don't get this confused with PE. Populations evolve in continuous fashion, I was saying nothing more or less. There is no step-wise species evolution. No organism ever gives birth to a different species (excepting polyploidy and hybridism and some other exceptions). Organisms give birth to offspring that possess very similar genetic makeup to themselves, but not identical because of copying error and allele recombinations, and this process of gradual change goes on for generation after generation. In effect each offspring is a genetic experiment, and the environment selects which offspring are the successes.--Percy

If you're trying to replace evolutionary theory, then you must advance a theory with greater explanatory and predictive power. Your reluctance to provide any specifics about how ID accounts for the origin of species is fatal.My comments about the success of a theory not being a function of the poverty of its competitors was made in a different context. A bad theory does not become the "winner" just because all the other theories are worse. Scientists don't create successful theories by badmouthing other theories. They do it by demonstrating the theory's explanatory and predictive power.I said this in the context of creationism, which doesn't conduct any real science, but rather just tries to contrive convincing sounding arguments against evolution in order to cast doubt about it in the public mind. That's why creationism won't replace evolution if evolution is ever falsified, because creationism isn't really science and has no explanatory or predictive power. If creationism is ever to become successful scientifically then they have to cease putting all their efforts into the "badmouth evolution" bucket and start putting them into scientific research. Real scientific research, not the kind presented at creationism conferences.--Percy

Before claiming that I am contradicting myself, why don't you instead quote the part that you think is saying one thing, then quote the part that you think is saying the other thing. As you've provided me nothing to go on, I can't even imagine how you could arrive at such a misinterpretation. All I can do is repeat my explanation in different terms, but I will quote precisely what I am responding to. This is not exactly wrong, but it's not exactly right, either, and it's also not what I said. I said that in order to replace evolution you have to produce a theory which has greater explanatory and predictive power. To quote myself, I said, "Scientists don't create successful theories by badmouthing other theories. They do it by demonstrating the theory's explanatory and predictive power." I never said any such thing. Please quote the part where you think I said that. And I've been able to support my views with facts while you haven't. Even the Discovery Insitute disagrees with you. Their wedge strategy openly concedes that ID doesn't fit within the accepted scientific framework, which is why they want to replace methodological naturalism with their own definition of science. What are you bringing this up here for? Evolutionary fraud is not the topic of this thread. I suggest you focus on the topic of this thread, which is whale evolution. It has been described for you in detail in a number of recent posts that your views on whale evolution and the fossil record are incorrect. I think you should reply to those posts.--Percy

Randman, people are getting sick and tired of your accusations. No one is expressing false charges. No one is expressing dishonesty. No one is smearing you. Everyone is just expressing their opinions. If you cannot tolerate a difference of opinion while maintaining civility, then please just go away. Otherwise, just stop with the accusations and focus on the topic.I just have to stand in awe at the chutspah it must take to fling about baseless charges of abuse while at the same time abusing all who disagree with you. You jumped all over Jar for explaining that we hold creationists to lower standards, claimed it was an insult, then you come here and demonstrate why we have to do that. Were we to hold you to the same standards we hold evolutionists, you would have been suspended long ago.Randman, please stop acting like a child. You wouldn't behave this way in public, please don't behave this way here. Keep your attention focused on the topic. Stop accusing people of lying. Stop accusing people of dishonesty. Stop accusing people of false charges. Just stop all accusations. Period.Now, getting to the issues you mentioned, no one is trying to turn this into a thread on ID. We're just trying to fill in the blanks because you refuse to. This explanation that you just gave tells us nothing at all: The question we've been asking is that if you believe evolution is not responsible for the origin of species, in this particular thread for the origin of whales, then how do you believe they came about? Ned's post was poking well-deserved fun at you for refusing to answer this simple question. I suggest you respond to the substance of his post and tell us how you actually think this happened. As I said before, your unwillingness to provide an explanation for the origin of species is fatal to your theory.--Percy

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! You have done no such thing. There are a raft of posts from yesterday alone on this very point where you either did not respond to the post, or if you did you ignored the issue altogether. Your misunderstandings and misimpressions were carefully described. Many possibilities that you failed to consider were listed.Randman, the discussion does not start from scratch at the beginning of every day. This discussion has a history that you are having a very hard time remembering. Please stop this behavior and begin contributing constructively to discussion. This is off-topic. Please keep your contributions on-topic. No one is keeping you from discussing evolutionary fraud in the right thread. This is not that thread.--Percy

If you do not quote the "reasons or excuses" we provided and explain why you do not find them valid, then there's nothing we can do but repeat what we've already said. I feel I've explained this enough times and won't repeat myself again. If you'd like to go back to one of the messages where I explained this, quote what I said, and then explain why it is insufficient or invalid or incorrect, then I might be able to respond in a helpful way. As it is, you've once again given me nothing to go on.Discussions cannot move forward if every new day the discussion begins from square one. We're not trying to imitate the movie Groundhog Day here. Every discussion has a context that moves along from day to day. As I have recommended to you many times, you should quote what you're responding to. That way you can have the text you're responding to immediately above your own response, and you'll be better able to avoid the constant repetition of your initial assertions that typifies so many of your posts. No, Randman, this is not true. Nothing like this has occurred in this thread, you have merely repeated this baseless charge again and again. If you really think you have a message in this thread where you were specific and no one responded then I suggest you find it and provide a link to it. Please see my Message 171 that you still haven't responded to. When you respond, please quote something I said so that I can put your response in context and so that you can keep your response apropos to what I said. You are mixing two separate topics. You're refusal to provide your explanation for the origin of the cetacea order is unrelated to the fact that one cannot answer questions for which there is insufficient evidence. If you think you know how such studies could be conducted, then please explain how.--Percy

No, Randman, you are again wrong. In this post you say: This point has been responded to many times explaining why this isn't possible, and you have ignored it every time. Instead of responding to our explanations you have instead just rejected them out of hand without explanation while repeating yet again that we're ignoring you.Let me repeat the explanation again, but this time I'll use a little math. Keeping this simple, the fossilization rate (call it r) for a given whale species is equal to the number of fossils preserved (call if f) divided by number of whales (call it w) that have lived during a given time period. The equation would look like this: Obtaining values for f over a meaningfully large timeframe might be possible. It depends upon the accuracy of the dated layers and how broad a range of the time period has been exposed to us through erosion. But we have no way of obtaining a value for w, the number of whales that lived during that period. Because we cannot determine w, we cannot calculate r.Your subsequent argument begins like this: But it is of no value because your initial premise, that we can determine the fossization rate, is false.When you reply, please quote what you are responding to. Thanks!--Percy

You have once again taken things out of context. That conversation was not about "a species" versus "many species". You had accused me of responding generally to comments from you that were specifically about whales. I showed that your were wrong by quoting speaking generally. And I responded generally. The focus of that part of the discussion was on whether you had been speaking generally or specifically. Again, please stop forcing me to waste time correcting the record. I already understand that. I said as much in Message 157: Moving on: You've said this exact same thing before. And it's been responded to before. The series of species may have remained small all during its history before the big "breakout" into the big time. Or it may have developed in a region of the world where fossilization wasn't favored. Or in a region which either hasn't been eroded down to the right layers yet, or which has since subducted and been destroyed forever. It is possible that some in the series of species had periods of extraordinary success as measured by population and range, but in a region of the world where fossils from have not yet come to light. There are many possibilities almost too numerous to even think of.In order to rebut the above and demonstrate that there had to have been intermediate species recorded in the fossil record that we've had opportunity to discover had they been present, you have to show that none of the possibilities is really possible. And that no future possibilities that might one day be uncovered are possible, either. Only when you've completed that exercise can you reasonably conclude that evolution could not have been responsible. Wow, you're quoting actual points I made and responding to them. Be still my heart! Thank you, Lord, for you have given me a sign! Sorry, pardon the sarcasm, but it was just so unexpected I couldn't help it.Yes, I'm speaking in generalities. It usually isn't possible to know the ranges and habits and so forth of extinct species from millions of years ago because of the incompleteness of the fossil record. In the absence of evidence we can only speculate. No one can magically create evidence where none exists.Your original question was why no intermediate species are recorded in the fossil record between one "aquatic mammalian species" (see your Message 164) and whales. The short answer is "We don't know." The longer answer involves any number of possibilities. You mention an additional one that I didn't with fresh water habitats. I mentioned inland seas cut off from the ocean. Some or all of the intermediate species may have been very small in population or range. They may have preferred certain environments such as the shallows in regions of the world where this era of life's history is not available to us geologically. I also mentioned predators and disease. There's also the type of preferred food and its range. Temperature variations can isolate populations when ocean currents are too warm or too cold. The continents are constantly moving and changing accessibility. But conditions keep changing. Perhaps fossilization wasn't favored for millions and millions of years, or perhaps it was and something else is responsible. Perhaps one species of the series ballooned into great success during a period when fossilization wasn't favored, or in places where fossilization wasn't favored. I also mentioned scavengers. Perhaps for millions of years there were species of scavengers that caused the survival of bone long enough to be buried to become very unlikely. Given the name that one can make for oneself with new discoveries, the likelihood that evos could find this missing evidence but just don't want to is ludicrous.Further, we're not making unsubstantiated claims. We're saying we don't really know for sure, but there are any number of things that could have happened. If I dig up a rock in my backyard, I have no way of knowing for sure how it got there. But I can think up a very large number of possibilities.And that's all we're doing here. We're not saying that we know this possibility happened or that possibility happened, though expert paleontologists can probably narrow down the possibilities far better than I can. All we're saying is that there are many, many possibilities, and your claims that evolution could not possibly be responsible for the whale fossil sequence cannot stand up until you address the possibilities and show how none could ever have happened for whales. And that no one will ever come up with a reasonable possibility.In a way you've set yourself an impossible task. You're arguing that the evidence doesn't support a conclusion of evolution, but there's so little actual evidence and such a huge number of degrees of freedom that finding a contradiction that would rule out natural processes is highly unlikely. I think you miscontrue what paleontologists are doing. When they research species ancestry they're not really constructing scientific theories. What they're doing is constructing reasonable scenarios based upon evidence interpreted within an evolutionary framework. As more is learned the picture of evolutionary history changes. The same happens with human paleontologists. Each new discovery changes the picture we have of human ancestry, and there's a lot of disagreement and animosity in this field. But everyone agrees on the evolutionary interpretive framework. I don't think we know at this time. We may never know. Maybe nothing in the cetacea order took its place, with the niche being filled by a non-mammal. Maybe conditions did not favor large cetaceans for a while. Who knows? That's a valid, though informal, answer when there's insufficient evidence. I enumerated some possibilities that evolutionists would actually consider in the following paragraph. In this paragraph I was merely pointing out that you were critiquing a possibility that evolutionists wouldn't consider. If you could watch them actually evolve through time by way of some kind of time-traveling camera, sure! But all we've got is the sporadic and unreliable fossil record.--Percy