<< Are you trying to say that the
Whale transition is not a major (or would not be a major) transition from one
group to another? Most creationists and evolutionists agree that it is a
major change of morphology. It is attested to by a fairly complete sequence
of fossils each only a small step from the previous one.>>
You're wrong, according to Wise, who states: "None of the stratomorphic
intermediates have intermediate structures." (TCH p. 227).
Thus, your "fairly complete sequence of fossils" assertion, leading to large
morphological change, is so far coming only from you, not "most" creationsists
and evolutionists.
Glenn again: << Does the whale {series, fossils,
skeletons, mineralize-calcium carbonate endoskeletons, thingies, do-bobs, dead
matter, or bvskdhfishdkfhj} (take your pick!!!!) constitute a valid
transition???>>
Since we lack the step-by-step intermediates that would support such a
conclusion (see Wise, above) why would we call this a transition at all?
Do-bobs do create strange assumptions.
You ignored the Wise assertions, but did manage to take on Johnson, viz., that
"useless legs went away by a Darwinian process." Just that easy, eh? So, as the
prescursor took his early dips, he found himself more and more useless on land,
but DID survive the transition without any problem, at the same time his complex
adaptive package just happened to be mutating conveniently in perfect harmony.
Pardon me if I take this with a good deal of skepticism.
<< How many fossils do you beleive are necessary to prove a transition. The
answer Johnson is giving is boiled down to its essence. "Just one more."