fossilization processes

Would species such as shellfish that were sea dwellers and bottom dwellers be a larger percentage of the number found.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ned, that's a totally fallacious approach. You assume evolution up-front in the analysis.Let's stick with observables. You say we have 4500 species of mammals. That's an observable if correct.How many of those show fossilized remains?Also, in terms of whale evolution, what percentage of the aquatic and semi-aquatic species or perhaps we should stick with genera or families have fossils?That's comparing observed species with observed fossils. That, imo, is real science.Now, how many species should there be, assuming ToE is true, is a valid question, but you need to consider the assumption.My guess is that with such strong evidence, based on statements of fossils found of all whale families, if not all whale species, well-represented in the fossil record, that fossilization per mammal family at least is not that rare, and occurs at such a rate that we are likely to have seen all mammal families represented, or most, and that we even find multiple examples of each.What would be interesting is to compare numbers of fossils per species or per family and see what the average number is.If the average number is greater than one or 2, then that to me suggests fossilization is not as rare as evolutionists claim.

While Googling to find info on this topic I found this.A 2005 PhD project at the University of Bristol here in England entitled "Collector curves, study time, and the quality of the fossil record".Not sure how much I can copy but I think this is fair usage: So all we have to do is wait for some clever chap or chapess to get their shiny new PhD and we'll have a better idea of whether randman is right or not. Sadly there's no mention that Cetacea are going to be studied specifically See you in three or four years

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Does that mean semi-aquatic species should have a high percentage of fossilization?

Well, they do float. Whale fall | NatureI suppose the question is do their bones sink, as the article suggests, and does the carcass sink intact regularly.If so, then we really ought to be able to find just about every theorized step in whale evolution, imo, since semi-aquatic and aquatic species should create an abundance of fossils.

You're missing one factor in forming your guesses (I think). How old are the fossils of the modern whales relative to the supposed fossil ancestors?Frequency of fossilisation and subsequent finding of those fossils in gelogically recent time is somewhat meaningless. How many of those fossils would still be found say 50 million years from now? The answer is neither of us has the slighest idea.Do not underestimate the power of subduction, erosion and the dark side.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

I did? In what why? All I am working with is that there were very different forms of mammals around at different times in the past? I didn't say how they got there or changed in the next snapshot. Do you have a problem with that? That is strongly biased in two ways:
1) more recent species will have some recent remains thus biasing the sample to show a larger percentage.
2) it may be that NONE of the samples are fossils that could be expected to survive even centuries talk about millionso of years thus biasing the answer to very low percentage of preservation.Since it is clear that there have been totally different forms of life at different times we must use an estimating technique that allows us to consider the time frames and conditions. now you are guessing and working with families. Does that mean your previously supplied numbers are in the dust bin?I agree that the whole thing is interesting. We should continue to try to dig up what we can find.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-07-2005 10:42 PM

You are making what may be unwarrented assumptions about preservation rates here. The relative rate for aquatic and semi aquatic may be high but the rate for dry land based forms is dammed near zero. This means the aquatic rate doesn't have to be that high.Simply stating that is is high means zip. We need to dig a bit more to see what evidence there is.I await your reasoning for why the 0.1 % number is not a good place to start working.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-07-2005 10:56 PM

It appeared to me you were starting with a number of species not based on observed species, but on an assumption based on how many species there should be, including most which are not observed.Curiously, btw, this same analysis is lacking on the whale thread. But maybe I am missing something here? Except that the most recent species have had less time to fossilize. So that may off-set the effect of erosion in balancing out more recent fossils with older fossils.

Mangy, good point, but that may be off-set some by some species today presumably being so young that they have not had time to fossilize?But the point is a good one.It would seem like before evolutionists could draw any definite conclusions on whether the fossil record supports creationist claims (lack of transitionals) or their claims, acceptable level of discovered transitionals, that such an analysis would have been done and the subject of much discussion and research, decades ago.The fact it does not seem to be done suggests to me evolutionist scientists are making unsubstantiated claims.

Any studies, data, etc,...backing that up.What are the rates of fossils to known existing land mammals? What do you mean "doesn't have to be that high"? Are they high or not, and I am not getting the "doesn't have to be" part?

What if the theorized .1% number is actually 90%?How can you tell if the discovered fossils are the whole picture, most of the picture, or .1% in terms of mammals fossils?It still seems to me that if whales and semi-aquatic larger creatures have a near 100% rate, at least with families and/or genera (skipping the species idea since you guys have claimed such a difficult time determining species), then claiming only .1% is absurd.

LOL, , of course! Do you miss the whole point of the collecter's curve. We are sampling something with an unknown number of different items. We are attempting to estimate the nature of the population from that.There have been, so far, a couple of ways of getting there presented here. One is the collector's curve and the other is based on assuming biological diversity something like todays.The collector's curve has yet to be shown to be applied to any fossils that we have discussed yet. You have just shown the basic concept.Someone already noted that for dinosaur's the collector's curve says we are still a long way from finding most of the samples. Since almost all whale-thingies have been found in the last decade or two it appears we are also a long way from the flat part of that curve too. But then we don't have numbers so we are just guessing on that. For most people it isn't very interesting -- they are much more interested in finding the next exciting specimen than worrying about how many their are left.You have been making your own assumptions about how many species there "should be" from post 1. Why do you object to trying to come to as reasonable estimate as possible instead of just guessing -- which is all you have been doing so far? Got a better way of arriving somewhere? I don't understand this. Care to explain more fully? You didn't answer the pair of my points just sort of this one.As I noted the very most recent remains will almost all not be "fossils" at all. So there are none that are recent. But we then have to define what the heck we mean by "fossil" for that to make sense.

You have about 23 hours to support your 90% number to at least the level that the .1 % number is.If you also wish to attack the .1 % number please offer details of why it is wrong not just "what if".

You are confused. The curve should be built from real numbers, comparing actual numbers of fossils found with the number of new species found. The idea is there is a law of diminishing returns, that with more and more new fossils we find less and less, eventually, new species.Inserting a hypothetical assumed number of species into the curve is a misuse of data, and not an accurate approach.Moreover, since you have no problem estimating the number of species it toto, why could you not estimate the number of transitionals needed to evolve a whale from a land mammal?Why avoid totally that question?Could it be that evos are afraid to admit to the actual numbers because they have such a lack of data in the fossil record?On younger species, presumably the current number of species have an lived on average, at best considering the extinction and depopulation rate due to man particularly with whale hunting, only half of their "normal" geologic time as a species on earth.Right?That's because, presumably, macro-evolution is on-going.So even if some species are far older, they will in general have lived out their complete geologic time on the earth.So let's say we estimate due to erosion, etc,...that fossils from 120 million to 30 million years ago have been reduced in half via erosion, but had on average twice the life-span of species from 30 million to the present.Is that reasonable?If that was the case, then we should expect equal numbers of fossils for ancient pre-whales that we would expect for the crop of current whales.Right?This message has been edited by randman, 08-08-2005 12:30 AM