Whale Evolution in the Fossil Record

Thank you for your response and your affability. So far you seem to insist that the homologous structures shared between cetaceans and its "ancestral cousins" are evidence of whale evolution. Since you did not address my point on a lack of a demonstrable mechanism for evolutionary change, we must concede that your interpretation of these fossils as ancestral to whales cannot be taken seriously. If I told you that I could evolve into the Sun given enough time, you wouldn't be so concerned with possible transitional stages as you would be about the mechanism for this change (if I was claiming it could be scientifically understood). You also did not address my point on the selectivity of homology in evolutionary practice. I share many homologous structures with bonobos, orangutans, etc., but this does not prove that I am their cousin. In order to take such an idea seriously, you would need to explain a possible mechanism(s) for such change to be feasible and then you would need to put it to the test and make observations which demonstrate its veracity. I believe mountain gorillas and silverback gorillas are part of the same created kind despite their being separate species. The mechanism for this type of change-within-a-kind is well known and observable, namely natural selection. Natural selection, though, only works to select from what is already available in the genome, it can add new genetic information. So wolfs can become Chihuahuas with a loss of information but Chihuahuas cannot become wolfs because they would need the introduction of new genetic information. Given these issues, I will address your round 2 argument below. You begin by sharing two highly biased evolutionary quotes basically affirming the case for whale evolution yet without providing "conclusive" evidence and making unfounded claims (such as whales having vestigial legs).You first state, "Before any cetacean transitional forms were found (except for Basilosaurids), anatomists concluded that the modern forms must be derived from terrestrial, quadrupedal mammals." You mean they assumed evolution to be true before they had any conclusive evidence, which is fine by the way, as long as we recognize that evolution is an axiomatic model which was not initially based on any conclusive evidence (and I would argue that it still has no such evidence).You say, "It is impossible to conclusively determine whether or not this the case, but there is some evidence that indicates that it is not an example of convergent evolution." This highlights the nature of the type of historical science of which we are arguing. We cannot conclusively determine whether your interpretation is true because we cannot observe past history, hence the accurate classification of this forensic-style science as historical science. You will find that creationists never (or should never) argue against observation/operational science because that is something you can observe, test and demonstrate in the here-and-now (e.g. natural selection). The best anyone can do to determine if a certain model of past history is true or not is to see if the observable evidence is consistent with the model, which you are attempting to do. I say all this for the sake of the reader, but I digress. Your first proposed evidence of ancestral relationship is the geologic column/fossil record. Your second evidence is gradual, continuous "transitional" characteristics. I will address these two evidences you give below. The Geologic Column / Fossil Record You cite the geologic column/fossil record as evidence for your position but you do not provide any evidence to support it. The geologic column, as it is taught in textbooks, does not exist in its entirety anywhere on the planet; it is very fragmentary and piecemeal. "It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunal succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year"s worth of depositions. The global "stack" of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted"clearly circular reasoning" (http://creation.com...). Since you did not provide any evidence to support your claim of the fossil record, I will simply provide another quote. "When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period. Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in "wrong" places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day. And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence. Furthermore, extension of stratigraphic ranges occurs not only for individual fossils, but also for presumed grade of biologic complexity (that is, so-called stratomorphic intermediates) . . . extension of stratigraphic ranges is the rule and not the exception. This is even more remarkable when we remember that there is the ever-present evolutionary bias which tends to cause overemphasis of minute differences in fossils located in different horizons of strata, and hence the proliferation of questionable taxonomic names for essentially the same organism found at different stratigraphic horizons" (http://creation.com...). "Transitional" Characteristics Again, homologous structures do not bring one to the conclusion that they are cousins without having an evolutionary model as one's basis for interpreting these fossils. When you state things such as the "migration" of the nostrils, or the "reduction" of the semi-circular canals, you are already interpreting these fossils as transitional. Otherwise, all the location of the nostrils would tell you is that these creatures had nostrils at different locations. To jump to the conclusion that they are then related requires an interpretation based on a certain model. If I took the fossils of a pigeon, a turkey, and a condor and lined them up in that order, I could loosely make a case that these creatures are a series of evolutionary change, but I would of course be wrong. These creatures also share many homologous structures, yet this does not prove that they share a common ancestor. Using homology as evidence of a shared common ancestors a logical fallacy: 1) If organisms X and Y have a common ancestor, they will have homologous structures; 2) X and Y have homologous structures; 3) X and Y have a common ancestor. This demonstrates that it is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The conclusion is not proven"the homologous structures could be due to a shared common Designer rather than a common ancestor. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati highlights the problem with using homology as evidence for evolution: "Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program. But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans"the human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds. This argues strongly against the "common ancestry" evolutionary explanation for the similarity . . . assuming the truth of Darwinism as "evidence" for their explanation is begging the question. There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be made, and the organism would die"so once a code is settled on, we"re stuck with it" (http://creation.com...). Conclusion 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. Did they now about the genome back then? I don't think so. So "post hoc," they rationalized the evidence from genetics. Since you cannot study the DNA information and embryonic development of fossil creatures, you cannot demonstrate that any given homologous structure is evidence for common ancestry as you do not know if such structures are derived from homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryonic development. As for your given quote of Dr. Kurt Wise, it should be noted that he states at the very beginning of his abstract that fossil evidence can be understood to support evolution when INTERPRETED as transitional forms. He also says, "Even at this early stage of development [of creationist paleontology] and with significant challenges as the whale series, the creation model appears to have potential for developing a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which is superior to that of evolutionary theory" (http://web.archive.org...). You say that these fossils confirm whale evolution, yet you have not conclusively shown that these are indeed transitional forms.