Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

You expect a single organism to be an intermediate transition between two species?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Then, if we could ballpark an approximate average population size for each of those species, multiply the two together and divide the total number of known fossils by that product we would have the beginning of a idea of the rate of (found) fossils.Just for fun let's assume that the population size is the same order of magnetude as the number of fossils found to date. That makes the rate of fossilization 1 in 100,000,000.(Ignoring the bias of fossils towards species that lived in the specific places where we are finding fossils ...)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Just a note: Is false.FROM: Photons as light quanta (click)
So each quanta has a specific frequency.This is not to say that the analogy is a good one (there are problems with what represents generations and interelated species of frequencies).But in order to see the whole spectrum you need to have photons with different energy for the different frequencies.The reason that the analogy is poor is not related to what randman claimed in any way.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

At the time of this response I had read most, but not all, of the thread. I have now done that.I see no difference to what I have now read and my impression of the trend on this thread at the time of this post: the fossil evidence is rare, the claim that there should be more fossils of transitionals is fraught with misconceptions and erroneous thinking.The rate of change in species is not constant, but depends on the degree of saturation of the ecosystem as well as the ability of organisms to fit different niches.I used to have a link (now broken) of an almost complete (like 98%) record of the evolution of forams for over 65 million years.A section I have saved from the original site is: Note two things:One of these scientists was a grad student of Gould, and he showed the information to SJG, who then commented that it did look like gradualistic evolution (and not punk-eek) in this species (does not refute it occuring in other species).The other is that (information not in the above quote) at the 65mya extinction event there was also a massive die-off of the forams, and subsequent rapid speciation diversity until saturation was again achieved at which point it slowed down to the steady state of speciation.This is randmans biggest problem: the initial evolution into the ocean environment would be similar in nature to the post-extinction unsaturated environment, while extant whales are living in a saturated environment, and comparing them is fraught with several logical errors.ps -- if anyone can provide an updated link to the work by Parker and Arnold it would be appreciated.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Concession #1, thanks. It would be interesting to go back to Arnold and Parker and see if they have data on the numbers of each species and be able to compare the ones during the rapid diversity period with the others in the more static\steady development. Then you could look at the ratio of total members in a short-lived (as a species) small number transitional group (SST) with those in a long-lived (as a species) large number mature population group (LLM), and then you could begin to get an idea of an approximation of an estimate of the relative possibility of finding a fossil from an SST population compared to a LLM population. Without that you don't have any reason to expect finding any fossils from an SST group, because we don't even have any reason to expect finding any fossils from a specific LLM group (due to the very small proportion of specimens that become fossils).⁽¹⁾But there is some additional inferences that can be made from the data presented: 330 different species in over 65 million years, with "just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed" being represented in a record that "clearly reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted 'dead ends' -- varieties that lead nowhere -- and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes" and this clearly refutes your claim that: Because it is a longer period than the one you were concerned with and there were only 330 total found. While I would not presume to say that whales must also have only 330 species, you have not shown any conditions that would require a massive increase in a shorter length of time and in the same environment.Furthermore note that the Cretaceous Extinction Event 65 mya affected: Cretaceous Period End (click)
The large marine dinosaurs went extinct, leaving the {eco-nitch\opportunity} for large marine organisms (other than sharks and fishes) open for newcomers. This continued until the whale ancestors moved in and became the first species able to expand to fill this nitch. One could say that it is surprising that it didn't happen sooner (It is also possible that it did happen sooner and they just haven't been found yet).Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ paragraph edited. Recovered original wording after rebooting from lock-up.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*19*2005 09:05 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Perhaps you need to get out more ... As I recall there are trees (Pacific NW esp) that have fallen and branches become trees in their own right (what -- macro branching???). What was a branch with a horizontal orientation becomes a tree with a vertical orientation and grows new branches going in directions that would not happen on the original branch (horz orientation). Over time the original {branch} character is buried in the new {tree} character to an unrecognizable extent.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And it does, especially with quanta of light (photons) of different energies being like individuals in the course of evolution. But that's as far as this analogy can go. So you used as an analogy something you don't (fully) understand? Evolution is quatasized in individuals of species. Careful, I'm a card carrying equine necro-sadist ... Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Don't know where else to put this, but it does tie in to randmans rants on the {existence\non-existence} of fossils in the record ...Reasons for lack of fossils, from: How Complete Is The Fossil Record? (click)
"specific transitions" links to
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
in the original article.This has the article on the foraminifera transitions that I was looking for a while ago (old link broken), so this is a good find for me .Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.