Whale Evolution in the Fossil Record

So far we both agree that one cannot conclusively determine whether whale evolution has taken place or not. We both agree that evidence can be consistent with a particular model or it can invalidate a certain model. What we do not agree on, obviously, is that fossil evidence is consistent with whale evolution. You did not address the lack of a mechanism for evolution which undermines your whole argument. Second, you did not address my points about using homology as evidence of evolution. In my view, while you provided plenty of interpretations of the fossils, you did not demonstrate the veracity of your interpretations. I agree that finding true transitional forms would be consistent with the predictions of evolution, but you have not shown that these are indeed intermediate creatures on the way to evolving into a new organism. You say, " a transitional form is a life form that has traits characteristic of one taxa, traits characteristic of another taxa and/or traits intermediate between two said taxa. That's it. That's all that is necessary to confirm the predictions regarding transitional forms." Wow really? No wonder we both disagree. If that's all that was required to satisfy the resolution, I'm a believer! lol! But seriously, if that's all that is required, then all creatures can be seen as evidence for transitional forms. A platypus for instance has a beaver-like body, a duck-lick beak and webbed feet, and it lays eggs. Consider the possibility that God created creatures as basic kinds (i.e. dog kind, cat kind, etc.) with the genetic capability to change and adapt to their environment but with parameters set by its original genome (nothing "new" can be created that is not already coded for, only variations of traits). If this was the case, then God has made many creatures with homologous structures: pentadactyl limbs, two eyes, four limbs, one heart, etc. The best way to determine if evolution has truly provided these traits is to see whether there truly is a mechanism for evolutionary change to take place between major groups of organism (e.g. fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, etc.). If their was such a mechanism that was seemingly built into biochemistry, then the interpretation of such fossils as transitional forms would at least be plausible. It would gain even more points if such a mechanism was immediately observable in real-time (e.g. such as punctuated equilibrium). We of course have tested for such a mechanism with bacteria, but at the end of the day, bacteria always remain bacteria, nothing new, that is not already coded for in their genome, is gained. I will not repeat what I said about homology, other than that there is no biology to test with true fossils, so you cannot determine whether homologous structures are derived from homologous genes, as opposed to being the result of convergent evolution, and you definitely cannot observe whether such homologous structures follow homologous patterns of embryonic development. So homology alone is poor evidence both for evolution (common ancestry) and also for creation (common designer). You say, "I also reject the creationist 'historical vs observational science' construct. I have literally never heard a non-creationist use the term 'observationa science' and every single scientist I have heard discuss the topic, reject it." Then you must not be exposed to any honest scientists. It's a very simple concept. Observational science involves the scientific method in real-time where you should be able to observe, test and repeat. You cannot observe, test, or repeat the past. Historical science involves a forensic science type approach where you investigate past history with a certain model or hypothesis of what took place and then you examine physical evidence to determine whether it is consistent with the model or not. Ultimately you cannot conclusively determine whether a historical model is true, whereas in real-time observational science, you can. All the laws of science were developed based on real-time scientific investigation, including one which you probably dislike: the law of biogenesis (life only come from life). So while some scientists may dismiss the "construct" of observational vs historical science, the fact remains that both are two different types of science. Your last comment on genetic evidence can also easily be explained in the creation model: God created whales with the genetic capability of teeth, some exhibited them, some did not. The fact that some whales today have lost the physical development of teeth does not really help evolution. Now show me an example of a whale in real-time that has mutated and produced something it did not previously have. That would be impressive, but of course, it is impossible given that there is no mechanism for such types of changes. You did not defend your argument against my counter arguments. You used homology and the fossil record/geologic column as your main evidence, yet you did not defend those claims. I thank you for your time and your effort.