PandasThumb continued:
"This popular creationist quote is also discussed by Don Lindsay. As a matter of fact, what Ridley is refering to is that with so much superior data avialable demonstrating natural selection and common descent, the academic paleontology argument whether gradulism or "punctuated equilibrium" are superior explanations of the fossil record no longer held significance in the discussion of evolution theory. This was true 23 years ago. An easily available discussion of genetic analysis of common decent by Wesley R. Elsberry is Sequences and Common Descent: How We Can Trace Ancestry Through Genetics. And another good genetic article avialable on the web is Compelling Data for Common Descent from Matching Redundant DNA Sequences by Steve Hinrichs. There are of course millions of pages of texts in thousands of journals that demonstrate the validity, and utility of evolutionary theory today.

I'll give Ridley the last words on this topic, 'The theory of evolution is outstandingly the most important theory in biology.' Evolution Boston: Blackwell Scientific, 1983."
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/stones_bones_an.html

John [mis]quoted:
"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97[83][84] "

John, I really think that you sould read the text from this one. This quote mine is particularly dastardly.

From the Quotemine Project: Quote #60
"The first sentence, and the first part of the typically chopped up second sentence clearly focuses us on the truth of evolution. The second half of the second sentence (the part most often quoted by creationists) is obviously a criticism of the plant fossil record. And from what we know about Corner's career, and from his next paragraph, we know that his criticism is particularly directed at the fossil tropical record. This is not the understanding that professional creationists try to force on us. The second paragraph completes Corner's criticism and makes his meaning crystal clear: the Botanical establishment's focus on European plants and paleontology can not provide the answers to the (then) important issues in plant evolution. Corner's answer is that the tropical ecologies, and paleontology where the answers were and that textbooks and field work should be revised accordingly.

There are two really irritating things about this abuse of Corner's work. First, the professional creationists waited until near Corner's death before they started to misuse his then 35 year old book chapter, which denied him the opportunity to defend his work. Just think about it, in 1961 not even one gene had been sequenced. Second is the way that the professional creationists habitually misrepresent the facts in their effort to bail out their sinking literalist ship."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

Jeez, after only a LITTLE Google searching, I found not only the quote from Gould in question, but a nice analysis of HOW its used out of context.

So, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html...
(NOTE, JOHN, HOW I AM LINKING TO MY COMPLETE SOURCE HERE)
=====
A more correct and complete citation is:

Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16.

This is the same article as:

Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

It shouldn't surprise those familiar with Gould's books that an article for the magazine Natural History would show up in one of his essay collections, but it is surprising that it has a different title and that there are some differences in the body of the article. And so, it's now obvious why the last sentence in the above is also in Quote #14 of the original Quote Mine Project. They both refer to the same article, and in fact appear in the same pages in "The Panda's Thumb" (pp. 181-182). John Wilkins certainly did more than an adequate job of clarifying Gould's beliefs in that entry, but a slightly different claim is being made here, so I'll do what I can.

A more complete quote would be as follows (words in square brackets ([]) appear in the "Panda's Thumb" essay, and not in the original):
---
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

<> (this is the subquote from darwin -ed)

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.
---
So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.
=====

Gould is obviously talking about puntuated equilibria versus gradualism, not the validity of the theory overall.

You're not alone here in trying to take Gould's quotes out of context. There's TONS of these on this web page. I had no idea that people desired to so misrepresent Gould as to search so hard for quotes like this and misrepresent them.

You seem to be unable to understand even the simplest concept with any kind of clarity, but since you cannot grasp even a few words and yet have put up all of those paragraphs, I will focus in on a few key words and phrases. And even though you have elevated obtuseness to an art form, other readers will no doubt see exactly what I am talking about. Gould:

"The EXTREME RARITY of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Do you know what the phrase "extreme rarity" means? It means that not only are any forms that can be construed to be transitional RARE, they are EXTEMELY RARE!

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the EMBARRASSMENT of a record that seems to SHOW SO LITTLE OF EVOLUTION DIRECTLY."

Hello--are you awake? Do you know what the word "embarrassment" means? The fossil record was so embarrassingly bereft of any evidence to demonstrate gradualism, that Gould had to admit this:

"I wish only to point out that it [gradualism] WAS NEVER 'SEEN' IN THE ROCKS."

Is that clear enough? Evidence for gradualism was not even rare, it was nonexistent! "...it was never seen...." The man had labored personally in the field and the lab for decades, trying to find justification for gradualism in the fossil record, and he had to conclude that the evidence simply was not there!

That is why he came up with punctuational change. This was not a discussion of the differences in the two theories, it was a frank admission of the inadequacy of gradualism, and his lame attempt at an alternative explanation.

My reading of the passage is exactly correct. I added nothing and I took away nothing. I misquoted nothing and your charge is completely unfounded. I also did not get any of this from the Internet, because I have the actual book.

If you say that Gould had no problems with the fossil record, you either cannot even read simple English, or you are just not being forthcoming.

Anyone with an honest, unprejudiced mind will see exactly what Gould and Darwin were plainly saying. Darwin was saying that his theory was bust without abundant transitional forms, and Gould was saying that the fossil record shows no evidence of gradualism.

My observations are true and correct.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Jeez, after only a LITTLE Google searching, I found not only the quote from Gould in question, but a nice analysis of HOW its used out of context.

So, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html...
(NOTE, JOHN, HOW I AM LINKING TO MY COMPLETE SOURCE HERE)
=====
A more correct and complete citation is:

Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16.

This is the same article as:

Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

It shouldn't surprise those familiar with Gould's books that an article for the magazine Natural History would show up in one of his essay collections, but it is surprising that it has a different title and that there are some differences in the body of the article. And so, it's now obvious why the last sentence in the above is also in Quote #14 of the original Quote Mine Project. They both refer to the same article, and in fact appear in the same pages in "The Panda's Thumb" (pp. 181-182). John Wilkins certainly did more than an adequate job of clarifying Gould's beliefs in that entry, but a slightly different claim is being made here, so I'll do what I can.

A more complete quote would be as follows (words in square brackets ([]) appear in the "Panda's Thumb" essay, and not in the original):
---
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

<> (this is the subquote from darwin -ed)

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.
---
So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.
=====

Gould is obviously talking about puntuated equilibria versus gradualism, not the validity of the theory overall.

You're not alone here in trying to take Gould's quotes out of context. There's TONS of these on this web page. I had no idea that people desired to so misrepresent Gould as to search so hard for quotes like this and misrepresent them.

===
You seem to be unable to understand even the simplest concept with any kind of clarity, but since you cannot grasp even a few words and yet have put up all of those paragraphs, I will focus in on a few key words and phrases. And even though you have elevated obtuseness to an art form, other readers will no doubt see exactly what I am talking about
===

My goodness! Let's take the personal attacks out of this, shall we? You're coming off as a little gruff, if not defensive.

===
"The EXTREME RARITY of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Do you know what the phrase "extreme rarity" means? It means that not only are any forms that can be construed to be transitional RARE, they are EXTEMELY RARE!
===

I certainly understand what "extremely rare" means. What you miss is that is does NOT mean "does not exist". There are "extremely rare" precious metals on this earth - that does not mean they do not exist.

Give me time to read the book and get back to you on this debate. I see how you are interpreting these quotes, but I really believe you are misunderstanding the message of Gould, and I *know* you are misinterpreting the message of Darwin.

But I'd also like to know, and I think you owe me an answer on this one (as I have asked many times), is of the support for evolution that has been found SINCE the publication of the book in OTHER sciences... the DNA evidence for example. Why do all these sciences support the theory?

Also - what is your alternate conclusion for what is seen in the fossil record? Certainly we must have SOME explanation.

Ah jeez, this answer is WAY simpler than I thought.

I looked up a few more examples of punctuated equilibrium, and I now understand much better what Gould is talking about. It makes a lot more sense to me now.

But what this explanation does is make you look even more disillusioned, because the idea of punctuated equilibrium doesn't refute Darwin's theory, it simply stands alongside, and in fact requires it's rules in order to work itself. It's simply a way of describing better what is seen in the fossil record. It's rather elegant, actually.

This description helped me a lot:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_o_0/punctuated_01

I don't understand how you can claim that via Gould's PE that he was attempting to deny evolution works as Darwin describes. I think you're looking for what you want to see in Gould's and Darwin's words and making too-obvious points about it.

===
Anyone with an honest, unprejudiced mind will see exactly what Gould and Darwin were plainly saying. Darwin was saying that his theory was bust without abundant transitional forms, and Gould was saying that the fossil record shows no evidence of gradualism.
===

Well, I would agree that both of those are true, if taken literally and perhaps a bit extremely.

However, TAKEN IN CONTEXT, they don't mean what you are apparently thinking they mean, and you're applying a false conclusion.

Pretty simple really.

In Darwin's time the fossil record was scarce, but with the millions of examples we now have, it is clear that there are no "interminable varieties" by which connections are made to transitional forms between species.
======
Really? The paleontological community seems to think otherwise. Where are you getting your information? Please be specific.

=====
The few that do seem to exist, are but the straws the drowning-in-truth materialists clutch at to keep Darwin's faulty premise from going the way of, well, the dinosaurs.
=====
That's some really nice poetry, but doens't have any bearing on reality.

=====
Microevolution is a physical fact, Macroevolution is faith-based. Evolutionism and Creation are both belief systems, but believers in Creation are honest about their foundation, while Evolutionists want their followers blinded by "science."
=====
Well, let's see if you can explain the difference between micro- and macro-evolution to us, and perhaps what the barrier between them might be. Please be specific.

Evolution is not a belief system, it is science. What conjecture are you using to conclude that evolution is a faith?

Also, why is science "blinding"? Or are you just quoting the Thomas Dolby song for dramatic effect?

=====
Darwin gives you permission to reject his views based on the geological record, which we now know is sadly lacking in evidence. Please consider doing so.
=====

Darwin didn't know about the DNA evidence that has been found that corroborates his theory. Darwin didn't know about radiometric dating. Darwin wasn't THERE for the 150 years of further research that does nothing but CONFIRM the theory.

Anyone who rejects the theory cetainly can't intellectually do it based on scientific evidence, they would have to do it for other reasons. I can only imagine what that reason might be. Please be specific.

There are plenty of tranistional forms that have been found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The fossil evidence for macroevolutionary change is strong, but it is not the only line of evidence. The one thing that has become more obvious is that many other areas of science have come together to substantiate the truth of the evolutionary theory of the development and diversity of life. For example, up until the last couple of decades, creationists would crow about the lack of whale precursors. They riciculed the theory that whales came from earlier land mammals. Then scientists like Gingerich and Thewissen started finding whale intermediates.

Biochemical evidence from studies in the 1950's in the form of protein similarities indicated that whales were most closely related to ungulates. By testing a variety of mammals scientists concluded that cows shared more proteins in common than the other non-ungulate mammals. More inclusive studies along this line concluded that hippos were the closest related to whales of the ungulates. Genetic evidence recently has confirmed that affinity within ungulates.

Recent fossil evidence shows that ancient whales shared a peculiar ankle arrangement with artiodactyls, or even-toed ungulates. The atragalus of one of the early whales, pakicetids is shared with all artiodactyls. This confirms earlier lines of evidence from both protein and genetic evidence.

First, as seen on this board, when I ask evolutionists to pick just ONE of these 'transitional forms,' the board gets suddenly silent.
Pick one, and we'll go through it with you and when we are finished with that one, we will have you pick another. (It must have slipped your mind, Arneson.)

Secondly, we encourage everyone to go to the postings specifically covering the 'walking whales' folly. It's a very sad indicator of what is considered 'science.'(The postings are a couple of pages back.)

Thirdly, evolutionists have yet to see a quote from their peers that they like. So, instead of providing evidence that contradicts the damaging quotes, they cry 'quote mining' and try to put the attention on silly 'out of context' accusations.
It's really a bad strategy, guys, but go ahead and keep using it if you think people actually take you seriously.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There are plenty of tranistional forms that have been found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The fossil evidence for macroevolutionary change is strong, but it is not the only line of evidence. The one thing that has become more obvious is that many other areas of science have come together to substantiate the truth of the evolutionary theory of the development and diversity of life. For example, up until the last couple of decades, creationists would crow about the lack of whale precursors. They riciculed the theory that whales came from earlier land mammals. Then scientists like Gingerich and Thewissen started finding whale intermediates.

Biochemical evidence from studies in the 1950's in the form of protein similarities indicated that whales were most closely related to ungulates. By testing a variety of mammals scientists concluded that cows shared more proteins in common than the other non-ungulate mammals. More inclusive studies along this line concluded that hippos were the closest related to whales of the ungulates. Genetic evidence recently has confirmed that affinity within ungulates.

Recent fossil evidence shows that ancient whales shared a peculiar ankle arrangement with artiodactyls, or even-toed ungulates. The atragalus of one of the early whales, pakicetids is shared with all artiodactyls. This confirms earlier lines of evidence from both protein and genetic evidence.

WiYC said:
"First, as seen on this board, when I ask evolutionists to pick just ONE of these 'transitional forms,' the board gets suddenly silent.
Pick one, and we'll go through it with you and when we are finished with that one, we will have you pick another. (It must have slipped your mind, Arneson.)"

You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.

WiYC said:
"Secondly, we encourage everyone to go to the postings specifically covering the 'walking whales' folly. It's a very sad indicator of what is considered 'science.'(The postings are a couple of pages back.)"

Yes, read how very specific characteristics of cetacean (whale) ears were present in terrestrial ancestors. These characteristics persisted as the whale ear evolved to a system better adapted for life in the water.

Read how these terrestrial whales shared a specific ankle structure (the astragalus) that is common to even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls). Note that this structure persisted even after whales became marine creatures.

Other morphological characteristics correspond with the changing lifestyle of these creatures from fully terrestrial to obligate aquatic animals. Legs, hips, spine, and skulls all evolve to forms more suitable to aquatic life. Note that the teeth provide further evidence of this change in oxygen isotope ratios. These animals moved from land out to sea and the elements in their teeth document this occurred.

Note that protein and genetic evidence also pointed to an artiodactyl ancestory of whales. Also note that the age of the fossils corresponds with the geological changes in the eastern end of the Tethys sea where these early whales evolved.

Finally, notice that WiYC can't explain any of this evidence and finally drops each and every point.

Where, oh where, are the transitional forms? They do not exist, which relegates your fanciful musing to the "mere speculation" junk pile. You have zero physical transitional fossil evidence for your assertions, and that is not hard science, because science sooner or later demands proof, and you have none. Worse, you require hard evidence from others, yet you have none yourself, thus breaking the very rules you claim to live by. Hypocrisy on parade, and desperate at that.

Oh, wait. Could you possibly be referring to Darwin's whale bears? Yes, your comments would fit right in with Darwin's "Just So" story, about How the Whale Learned to Swim. (I will share that story at another time. It is hilarious!)

Interesting, but more fit for a child's storybook.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"Secondly, we encourage everyone to go to the postings specifically covering the 'walking whales' folly. It's a very sad indicator of what is considered 'science.'(The postings are a couple of pages back.)"

Yes, read how very specific characteristics of cetacean (whale) ears were present in terrestrial ancestors. These characteristics persisted as the whale ear evolved to a system better adapted for life in the water.

Read how these terrestrial whales shared a specific ankle structure (the astragalus) that is common to even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls). Note that this structure persisted even after whales became marine creatures.

Other morphological characteristics correspond with the changing lifestyle of these creatures from fully terrestrial to obligate aquatic animals. Legs, hips, spine, and skulls all evolve to forms more suitable to aquatic life. Note that the teeth provide further evidence of this change in oxygen isotope ratios. These animals moved from land out to sea and the elements in their teeth document this occurred.

Note that protein and genetic evidence also pointed to an artiodactyl ancestory of whales. Also note that the age of the fossils corresponds with the geological changes in the eastern end of the Tethys sea where these early whales evolved.

Finally, notice that WiYC can't explain any of this evidence and finally drops each and every point.

John said:
"Where, oh where, are the transitional forms? They do not exist, which relegates your fanciful musing to the "mere speculation" junk pile. You have zero physical transitional fossil evidence for your assertions, and that is not hard science, because science sooner or later demands proof, and you have none. Worse, you require hard evidence from others, yet you have none yourself, thus breaking the very rules you claim to live by. Hypocrisy on parade, and desperate at that."

Not desperate at all. There is a very solid record of transitional fossils for whales. I will assume that you are simply unaware of the science. You can start with this article. It should give you an idea of what I am talking about. I wouldn't expect you to accept this without evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

It lists only a fraction of the whale transitional fossils that have been found. It is far from zero as you claim. These fossils share a number of characteristics that clearly make them part of the transition from land to water for these creatures. The last couple of decades have been very exciting in the area of whale evolution. Little fossil evidence beyond Basilosaurus existed before Gingerich's finds in Pakistan, but new species have been found hot and heavy since then.

John said:
"Oh, wait. Could you possibly be referring to Darwin's whale bears? Yes, your comments would fit right in with Darwin's "Just So" story, about How the Whale Learned to Swim. (I will share that story at another time. It is hilarious!)

Interesting, but more fit for a child's storybook."

Nope. This is a bit more to the point than the last link. I hope you find both informative.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

Darwin was working with very little of what we understand now about whale origins. He also didn't have many of the branches of science that provide more support for the transition than just fossil evidence. Although his supposition that whales came from bears was incorrect. He was correct that they did come from land animals.

WiYC said:
"Thirdly, evolutionists have yet to see a quote from their peers that they like. So, instead of providing evidence that contradicts the damaging quotes, they cry 'quote mining' and try to put the attention on silly 'out of context' accusations.
It's really a bad strategy, guys, but go ahead and keep using it if you think people actually take you seriously."

This example should give an idea of what WiYC considers evidence, how we respond to it and how she slinks away when called on it.

"The ear of Pakicetus was adapted to a terrestrial lifestyle, yet is had several characteristics that are only shared by other whales. The unique 'S' shaped sigmoid process is used to identify whales. Pakicetus has this characteristic. Later, more aquatic whales evolved ears that share the other adaptations to life in the water you mentioned.

Yes, we have been through this before. So perhaps it is time that you took an honest look at the paper you quote.

WiYC posted the following under the title "We've been through this how many times? Repeat a lie long enough and people will believe you":

"After this, go ahead and have last word because I am not interested in such repetition.

The ears of Pakicetus are those of a whale?

'Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... '

'It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ead is in contact with the ground...'

'Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ...'

'Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir.'

From 'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com"
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/716865/

Here is my response:
"In contrast to the debate about the cetacean sister group, the relationships among Eocene cetaceans and the content of Cetacea itself are not controversial. All phylogenetic studies indicate that pakicetids are more closely related to living cetaceans than to artiodactyls and mesonychians, and that pakicetids share the cetacean synapomorphies of the ear. Pakicetids are followed by ambulocetids in the cladogram, and modern cetaceans (toothed and baleen whales) are closely related to Eocene basilosaurids and dorudontids."

Yes, pakicetids were terrestrial, but they were clearly whales. You had better come up with evidence and analysis that refutes "all phylogenetic studies" done on these whales. You haven't done that. You have merely cherry picked quotes that don't really support your position. This has been pointed out to you many times. So it is long past time to come to terms with the evidence and stop making spurious unsupported claims that others are lying. It is unchristian and unbecoming of a mature woman. I will pray for you."
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/716870

A lie, plain and simple. Almost every single fossil we find can be classified as a transitional of observed species. The fossil record is indeed very fractured, but is still a strong supporter of evolution.

Macroevolution is defined as a change in species, which has been observed.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

-Charles Darwin, as quoted by S J Gould, in "The Panda's Thumb," page 181.

In Darwin's time the fossil record was scarce, but with the millions of examples we now have, it is clear that there are no "interminable varieties" by which connections are made to transitional forms between species. The few that do seem to exist, are but the straws the drowning-in-truth materialists clutch at to keep Darwin's faulty premise from going the way of, well, the dinosaurs.

Microevolution is a physical fact, Macroevolution is faith-based. Evolutionism and Creation are both belief systems, but believers in Creation are honest about their foundation, while Evolutionists want their followers blinded by "science."

Darwin gives you permission to reject his views based on the geological record, which we now know is sadly lacking in evidence. Please consider doing so.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply.