Whale Evolution in the Fossil Record

"You state that predictions put your model to the test, which I agree with, but you gave quotes to begin your argument with which were from the 1800s." The purpose of the quotes were to demonstrate that the transitional forms were predicted by the by evolutionary theory to exist over a century ago before they were eventually found. This is very important in the scientific method. As the late Dr. Richard Feynman explained, the scientific method goes like this (I am paraphrasing): Make a guess. Derive and compute consequences of the guess being true. Go into nature or the lab and see if you observe those consequences. If you observe the consequences of the guess being true, then you have yourself a good guess. If you don't, your guess is false. This is not to say that the guess is therefore absolutely "true", but it shows that it can pass tests you put it through and is therefore not currently false. It may be falsified one day, but the guess is still tentatively true for now. Early proponents of the theory of evolution followed this formula: They guessed that cetaceans descended from terrestrial, quadrupedal mammals. They concluded that if this is true, intermediate forms must exist in the fossil record. They searched the geological strata for these intermediates. They eventually found these intermediate forms and so therefore the guess is tentatively true. It's not just enough to merely find the transitional forms and delude yourself into thinking "Of course! This is consistent with my model so it was predicted all along." That's not an actual prediction, but a post-diction, where you only think facts were expected only after they have been discovered. It's a form of confirmation bias. A true prediction is to explicitly assert the consequences of the model being true before the consequences have been observed, otherwise no test is taking place. And a test did take place by paleontologists and anatomists concluding that transitional forms between cetaceans and terrestrial mammals must exist in the fossil record and searched for them. For instance, here is another prediction by evolutionary theory regarding whale evolution: "Prof. Flower particularly directed the attention of the Members to the skeletons of Cetacea, of which the Museum contains a fine series. After some general remarks upon the characters of the Order, he pointed out that all the known species, both living and extinct, could be arranged under one or other of two primary groups-the Mystacoceti, or Whalebone Whales, and the Odontoceti,or Toothed Whales; and that at present no transitional form between these two have been met with." That quote is from 1879. Professor Flower is making a very explicit statement that transitional forms between baleen and toothed whaled had not yet been found. That's another prediction. It's a prediction because it shows that a consequence of the theory of evolution had not been observed at that point and potentially could (paleontology was in its infancy at that time). Aetiocetus weltoni was described in 1995 and it is a transitional form between baleen and toothed whales because it is a species of cetacean that had both baleen and teeth, among other traits found in both baleen and toothed whales. It tentatively confirms the hypothesis. As I stated at the beginning, 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. Intermediate forms are predicted by the theory of evolution, but the transitional/intermediate status of a particular fossil is in no way dependent on the theory of evolution. You can completely reject the theory of evolution and acknowledge that fossils have been found that meet the definition of a transitional form. Dr. Todd C. Wood, a young earth creationist, completely rejects the theory of evolution and rejects that macroevolutionary transitions took place, but he recognizes that transitional forms have been discovered as predicted by the theory. Kurt Wise also accepts that transitional forms exist in the fossil record, but is merely rejecting the term "transitional form" and prefers using other terms to describe the same fossils. His definition of "morphological intermediate fossil" is actually nearly identical to the definition I presented at the beginning (except he only focuses on morphology) and understand how they are predicted under the theory of evolution and not predicted under "traditional" creationism. Let me reiterate this: finding fossils that are morphologically and physiologically intermediate between terrestrial artiodatyles and cetaceans with traits found in both groups and/or traits intermediate between the two groups is not only consistent with the hypothesis that whales descended from terrestrial mammals, but predicted by the hypothesis. The terrestrial artiodactyl traits include the double-pulley astragalus and quadrupedalism (among other traits) and cetacean traits include marine and estuarine osmoregulation, reduced hind-limbs, the external nares positioned intermediately between the tip of the snout and the vertex of the head, with sigmoid processes, involucrums, three-fold reduced semi-circular canals and large mandibular foramens (among other traits). And even more so, these fossils form this highly striking series based on their appearance in the fossil record (which actually both Kurt Wise and T. H. Huxley would agree is very strong evidence for theory of evolution). "You say that these fossils confirm whale evolution, yet you have not conclusively shown that these are indeed transitional forms." Once again, I have conclusively shown that these are transitional forms as these fossils meet the standard definition as stated in the beginning of this debate. You can can completely reject the theory of evolution, but you cannot reject that transitional forms (as defined above) exist. These transitional forms were predicted by the theory of evolution and were eventually found. This shows that the hypothesis is tentatively true. P.S. 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. Whilst some genetic evidence for whale evolution was not predicted, some predictions were derived from the hypothesis and tested. For instance, geneticists predicted that toothless whales would have psuedogenes for the production of teeth and they were found (also toothless whales develop tooth buds during embryonic development but don't develop teeth).