Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 304 (245166)
09-20-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by michah
09-19-2005 1:24 AM


What we see is what we should see
I am interested in recieving information which might serve to either prove or disprove evolution on the topic being presented.
The theory is open to falsification, but it is not really something which evidence can prove...no theory is in this position - it can only have supporting evidence.
Present at least a few decent facts or links to factual, studied evidence before pouring out your heart into an area you haven't even taken to research for yourself...
There are quite a few people on this forum who work in evolution related fields. In many threads peer reviewed literature is referenced, however due to the nature of internet debates much of the literature needs registration to view in full and only abstracts are possible. Still, there are plenty of pdfs online and they are often linked to where necessary.
If, as "assumed" by evolutionary scientists, the world is some billion years old
If my memory serves me, evolution initially required an older earth that was thought at the time of its devising. So evolution doesn't assume an old earth, it predicts one. If the earth was as young as the YECers would have us believe then evolution would be falsified. However, independent sciences (cosmology, nuclear physics, geology etc) have all concluded that the earth is old which agrees with evolutionary timescales...indeed the dates given by an entirely seperate science of radiodating coincide astonishingly accurately with molecular biological clocks.
Its not really an assumption, it has a lot of supporting evidence. Indeed it is much stronger evidence than would convict a criminal of a capital offence.
and we, as non-designated species are in constant transition, with projected THOUSANDS of stages within our develpement, with a fossil record beyond belief to "supposedly" support such and ideal, are we unable, or incapable of presenting ANY SIGNIFICANT finds which would SCIENTIFICALLY prove that belief?
Each generation is a 'stage' and not each generation is preserved in the fossil record. What we see is a fossil 'A' and a fossil 'G' and in between these fossils we find fossil that look a little bit like fossil A but a tiny bit like fossil G, this is fossil C. Above fossil C, but below fossil G is a fossil that looks a bit more like G than C, but less like A than C - this is fossil E
Whilst it seems that there is no fossil B, D or F that dose not mean that C and E are not transitional. The fossil record is not complete, but it strongly points towards transitions.
Evidence: The Coelacanth has existed on Earth for the last 70million years without leaving a single fossil which was later discovered. The fossil record can and does skip millions of years.
And even if we do have a few scraps, why, if we are in constant transition, including the staggering collection of fossils stated earlier, are there so few in contrast?
I'm confused by this. If we only have a few fossils, and we have a lot of fossils why do we have so few fossils? I can't make sense of it.
Shouldn't there be THOUSANDS of such fossils, just, if not better preserved than their respective ancestors and decendants?
Why should there be? What is the rate of fossilization? How many species *should* be fossilized. The answer is any where between none of them to all of them. Of those that are fossilized, how many of them should survive millions/billions of year? The answer: all of them to none of them.
In short, the number of fossils we see, is exactly the number of fossils we should see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by michah, posted 09-19-2005 1:24 AM michah has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 304 (245199)
09-20-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 12:45 PM


It is impossible for ANY fossil to count for evidence of evolution. Why? Because scientists, historians, or anybody for that matter, cannot prove that those fossils had ANY kids, let alone kids who were different than their parents.
Straight from the Book of Hovind right? I'm sure, word for word, I've heard him say this on at least three seperate occasions.
What we can say is "there is good reason to believe that given the rarity of fossilization there was once a population of entities that resembled this one", further investigation would reveal what the chances of that entity being the last of its kind, or whether the population had significant allele frequency change as time went on.
I saw a Uniformitarianism thread earlier and I would just like to bring up that if we don't see these transitions now, even to a very small degree, then why should we expect there to have beeen transitions in the past?
Each organism is a transition between its parent and its child. We also see speciation which is the reproductive isolation of two populations of organisms, the first stage of major divergence.
If evolution is true, geologists and biologists should expect to find all kinds of transitional forms, and not just for a few changes, but for every change.
There is direct evidence which demonstrates conclusively that not all organisms fossilize when they die. Thus your statement is false. There is evidence that the fossil record can skip as much as 70 million years.
And I also cannot believe that the link posted showing the reptile-to-bird transitions actually included Archaeopterix (sp?). That was proven false years ago!!! Some Chinese farmer dug up a fossil and glued a piece onto it and sold it to National Geographic for thousands of dollars!!!
You are thinking of archaeoraptor, the organism archaeopteryx is a genuine fossil.
How do we know that if Archaeopterix is the only one that people have lied to the public about?
We can never know (indeed other forgeries have been made) however, these forgeries are uncovered with the merest hint of testing...they only fool people before they undergo the rigorous examination of skeptical scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 12:45 PM Eledhan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:42 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-20-2005 2:40 PM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 38 of 304 (245217)
09-20-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 1:42 PM


evidence
Good response. Although it still fails to answer my biggest question... have we ever observed these changes?
Has anyone observed the divergence of organisms? Yes. However, bear in mind that the changes you are asking about occur over millions of years. This isn't a figure of convenience, it is a number derived from the evidence. Thus: It is impossible for a human being (average life expectency over the past million years probably around 35-40 years) to have observed even a fraction of the massively epic change in evolution.
The chimp/human divergence occurred millions of years ago. They look very much like us, not massive change (certainly less than a dog/cat transition), so humanity is unlikely to ever observe this phenomenon.
However, we can and do observe a bunch of evidence which we can draw conclusions from. We can then make predictions using those conclusions.
And I am sick and tired of people using the changes of hair, eye, and skin color (along with others). Any geneticist knows that these are not additions to the gene code, but simply different genes playing more dominant roles. I want to hear of an example for the theory of Evolution that has been observed.
How about, we can read the genome itself and mathematically deduce how long ago it shared a common ancestor with another organism. In almost all cases these mathematical predictions coincide accurately with what we find in the fossil record. This is the kind of evidence the theory has.
There is no case where we have observed massive change occuring within a few generations, since that would basically go against the theory which discusses allele frequencies in populations gradually propogating and undergoing selective pressure.
Essentially I am asking for the impossible, and I know that. That's my whole point. We could not observe the entire process, so therefore we are left to guessing.
When we convict someone of a murder when there were no witnesses, would you accuse the police detectives 'got their man' through guessing?
Which is fine, until someone tries to guess that God started it all, and then all of a sudden, it's not okay anymore.
If I claim that my wife was murdered by a Djinn when confronted by the police, but the police have a bloody knife with my fingerprints on it...which is okay?
Let me make something clear. It is perfectly okay to say God started it all. This is clearly different from saying "The theory of evolution is wrong because of [insert misconception here] and [insert dangerously misleading science] and of course [insert mathemagics]. If you want to believe God did x, that is fine. If you want to teach your religious belief, or your superstitions, your folklore or whatever to children in a science class...that's when it becomes an issue since saying that 'intangible entity x did something, but left no evidence of it' is not science.
The problem is not saying "God did it", but saying "God did it 6,000 years ago therefore all science that would indicate creation as older than 6,000 years old is wrong." and then using lies, tricks, frauds, manipulation, rhetoric, strawmen, sewing misconceptions and politics to influence the less academically minded people is where people have the problem.
If you don't believe the theory, that is fine.
If you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, that is fine.
If you believe that there is no evidence for evolution, you are wrong
If you believe that it is founded on frauds, you have been mislead.
If you think it is against the laws of thermodynamics, someone has bamboozled you.
If you want creation taught in science class, you need to show that it is a science.
If you want to learn the wonderful theory and what it actually says, stick around, ask questions and post in threads. I've learned a heck of a lot since joining here.
And so on.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 20-September-2005 09:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 1:42 PM Eledhan has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 304 (252744)
10-18-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
10-18-2005 2:00 AM


Modulous, you guys keep dodging the problem, saying we don't see the fossils due to fossil rarity and stuff like that, but then say, well, we do see some so our predictions hold.
We don't see ALL the fossils due to the rarity, however we predict we'll see fossils that are transitionals between land mammals and whales. We then find these fossils. Prediction -> Prediction confirmed.
That's not dodging the problem, that is using the Theory to predict history, and then finding evidence that history is the same as the Theory predicted.
We see all sorts of species or basic types of creatures, particularly in whales, with numerous fossils for them, but we just don't see the transitionals.
What about the transitional that was discussed in the post you are replying to?
Is it logical to keep thinking one creature can have thousands of fossils, but we don't see any of it's immediate ancestors, nor the creatures that evolved from it?
According to the Theory, what would an immediate ancestor look like?
Question: How many of the following fossils have been found?
  • Himalayecetus subathuensis
  • Pakicetus inachus
  • Protocetus
  • Dorudon atrox
  • Zygorhiza
  • Basilosaurus cetoides
  • Prosqualodon
  • Squalodon
  • Eurhinodelphis
I'm having difficulty finding references, help me out?
In other words, if fossilization is so rare, then why do we see numerous examples for just one species or family of species?
Its a good question, I know that you know that there are two possible answers to that question. One is that it is just the way the cookie crumbled, the other was discussed by Gould.
The fact is a comprehensive and logical view of the fossil data is that either species did not evolve, or that some other mechanism is involved to explain evolution than is presented by evos.
If they didn't evolve, someone is messing with our heads Maybe some other mechanism is involved, new ideas are being had all the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 2:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 1:25 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 60 of 304 (252767)
10-18-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
10-18-2005 1:25 PM


predictions
Modulous, I would suggest that the predictive aspect of ToE needs more precision with respect to the fossil record, specifically that if you are going to claim ToE predicts such and such, then there should be predictions of specific quantities of fossils of species relative to specific traits.
The ToE should not make any such predictions. If we plug in the idea of 'common ancestor', the ToE will say that between any two fossils there would have been an organism that is transitional between the two. The ToE makes no predictions on fossilization rates, nor should it. Why should it? There are too many unknowns to attempt such predictions. You should be criticizing Taphonomy for its perceived failures.
Otherwise, evos could just be finding a group of creatures with perhaps very, very small similarities, such as a tooth and cranial cavity expansion, that is similar due to other reasons, but because it "fits" with what you guys want, the claim is erroneously made that it is part of the evolutionary chain or related to it, when it may not be at all.
People who sort out the natural history may well be doing this, if their claim is not contradicted by the ToE it is not contradicted by the ToE. You may be right, any given organisms might just coincidentally fit into the chain when it shouldn't really. I doubt they are all coincidences, since then we are entering the twilight zone.
Each feature would have to evolve, right?
Perhaps sometimes a couple of features evolved together. I can grant that.
But there should be some sort of predictive analysis by evos of how many different strains of creatures with specific features would probably have evolved, and how many fossils there should be.
To date, we see nothing like this, and imo, ToE has failed miserably in predicting what we would find in the fossil record.
Why on earth would ToE do this? The ToE states that populations change through time, such that after a sufficiently long period of time new taxonomic orders will be required, it provides some mechanisms for how this can happen. Paleontology/natural history uses this theory, and its mechanisms to try and piece together a timeline of life on earth over time. Since some aspects of the mechanism are unpredictable, and other aspects require knowledge we cannot possess (the precise nature of the environment, the conditions in organisms female reproductive elements, all the possible predators and prey, the exact weather cycles, etc etc etc there is simply no way to predict to the level of detail you suggest.
It's like a historian claiming a major battle took place in a certain place, and after much looking, there is one or 2 bullets, and he says, hey, we predicted this, but in reality, no, you predicted much more than this would be found, and you offer no analysis explaining based on data why it is not found, and even more absurdly claim critics who dare ask for this data and analysis, that they must explain why the data is not there.
Different situation though. We know that the remains of major battles don't decay away to nothing unless an unusual event occurs, much of them do, but its a far cry from fossilization rates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 1:25 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 62 of 304 (252772)
10-18-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
10-18-2005 1:25 PM


Do it yourself!
But there should be some sort of predictive analysis by evos of how many different strains of creatures with specific features would probably have evolved, and how many fossils there should be.
Another thought - you have all the same information as the rest of us, why not do this analysis yourself? Do a good job of it, and you might get it published.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 1:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by robinrohan, posted 10-18-2005 2:18 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 71 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 3:06 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 70 of 304 (252798)
10-18-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by robinrohan
10-18-2005 2:18 PM


Re: Modulus
I figured a good place to start would be to have the number of...I don't know, T-Rex's that ever lived and the number of T-Rex's that fossilized.
We could compare this ratio to, lets say, 100 other vertabrates, if so we can then use this ratio to predict how many fossils of other organisms we should find, assuming we know how many of them in total were alive throughout time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by robinrohan, posted 10-18-2005 2:18 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 3:07 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 73 of 304 (252802)
10-18-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
10-18-2005 2:58 PM


Well, first off, you are wrong. Darwin in fact did predict the fossil record should show ToE, and went on to say it was a means of falsifying ToE.
Actually, no. Darwin said
Darwin writes:
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants
That was his prediction, which has borne out.
Darwin writes:
One other consideration is worth notice: with animals and plants that can propagate rapidly and are not highly locomotive, there is reason to suspect, as we have formerly seen, that their varieties are generally at first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and supplant their parent-forms until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree. According to this view, the chance of discovering in a formation in any one country all the early stages of transition between any two forms, is small, for the successive changes are supposed to have been local or confined to some one spot. Most marine animals have a wide range; and we have seen that with plants it is those which have the widest range, that oftenest present varieties; so that with shells and other marine animals, it is probably those which have had the widest range, far exceeding the limits of the known geological formations of Europe, which have oftenest given rise, first to local varieties and ultimately to new species; and this again would greatly lessen the chance of our being able to trace the stages of transition in any one geological formation.
So from a layman's perspective, it appears to me that since the fossil record now negatively falsifies ToE that evos claim it was never important in the first place.
Great, so now laymen have authority as to what falsifies a theory? The fossil record is great, its important and useful in constructing our history. The ToE can be employed in a construction of Natural History, if we assume common descent. The ToE is not falsified by the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 2:58 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 304 (252803)
10-18-2005 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
10-18-2005 3:07 PM


Re: Modulus
Hey, it's your paper, if you want to start with the total number of pakicetus' that ever lived by all means go right ahead. Doesn't matter to me, when you draw up the figures, post em up if you'd be so kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 3:07 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 75 of 304 (252806)
10-18-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by randman
10-18-2005 3:06 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
Modulous, first off, I am not a scientist, and secondly, I have little confidence that evo journals would publish such a study if it contained criticism of the basic evo paradigm.
If you aren't a scientist I suggest you stop trying to insist what predictions scientists should be able to make from theories.
Furthermore, the claim that the fossil record supports ToE is an evo claim so evos should have to back up their claim with such studies, but to date, I have never seen any comprehensive studies along these lines.
The paleontologists use the Theory to predict that transitions between two certain organisms would be likely to have existed. They cannot predict whether such an organism both fossilized and that fossil survived to this day. That is all that is claimed, that is all that is found. Nobody claims that the ToE can make the predictions you state, so nobody needs to back that up. New fossils are found which conform to the actual predictions that can be made from the ToE, which means that either the ToE is a good Theory to describe nature or an enormous
coincidence occurred.
That, coinciding with the genetic evidence we have discussed is what is referred to when people say the fossil record confirms ToE.
I am not sure all of the numbers though are so readily available, but perhaps they could be obtained and garnered with a team working on the project.
Maybe if the scope and methodology is determined, it could be a joint study including some evos in the project, and that could perhaps assist in getting published in a journal, but even with that, I am doubtful.
The point I'm making randman, is that the data needed to make such calculations doesn't exist and there would be a lot of conjecture and guesswork. Whatever the result of the project, there will be massive debate over its significance which would acheive precisely nothing. If you think I am wrong, then do the study, if not I suggest you stop making demands of those who have the training and the knowledge to design realistic and meaningful projects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 3:06 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 3:38 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 304 (252815)
10-18-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
10-18-2005 3:38 PM


bleurgh

This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 18-October-2005 09:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 3:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 4:08 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 82 of 304 (252817)
10-18-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
10-18-2005 3:38 PM


I'm ignoring your points?
Modulous, maybe there is no need to keep talking as I have made my point clear, and yet you ignore it.
If your point is clear, I've responded to it. Perhaps you are not happy with my response? Perhaps you aren't being as clear as you think?
The fossil record should be considered in toto, and a comprehensive view of the fossil record does not show macro-evolution occurring. That is just a fact.
Of course it doesn't! No more than a copy of the The Gettysburg Address shows Abraham Lincoln giving a speech. It is evidence that a man named Abraham Lincoln gave a speech.
The fossil record shows that life on earth has changed over time. Disagree?
The evo explanation is that it can be considered consistent with ToE due to massive fossil rarity
No. The evo explanation is that every fossil uncovered is so far consistent with the ToE. Agree or disagree? If the ToE was true, the fossil record is consistent with that, yes? This is in spite of the rarity. The 'evo' position is to then make a prediction - any new fossil that is found will also be consistent with the ToE, and will be able to fit into the Natural History.
but there are no studies I am aware of that comprehensively show what that would mean, the degree of fossil rarity and if existing fossilized species are congruent with the claims of fossil rarity.
There are no studies because evos don't make the explanation you gave but that fossils are rare is a self-evident truth isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 3:38 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 87 of 304 (252839)
10-18-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
10-18-2005 4:08 PM


How many fossils should we see?
Disagree. Every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE.
Interesting.
Specifically, if fossil rarity was to the degree you guys claim, then we should not expect thousands of fossils of some species in an evolutionary chain, but see nothing for the many, many stages after and before them.
Fossils are as rare as they are. I don't understand, how often do you think fossilization occurs? Based on probability we'd expect see more fossils of those that had more living members. Not a concrete rule, but a good rule of thumb.
The reason is self-evident. If something is "rare", but we see thousands of that rare event occurring, then what is called "rare" could also be called "common" with equal force.
OK, so some fossils are dead common, you ask me for figures, your turn. I put this to you earlier, let me expand: how many times did the following organisms fossilize?
  • Himalayecetus subathuensis
  • Pakicetus inachus
  • Protocetus
  • Dorudon atrox
  • Zygorhiza
  • Basilosaurus cetoides
  • Prosqualodon
  • Squalodon
  • Eurhinodelphis
Evos have failed to define or quantisize the term "rare" which is why the prior thread fizzled out. No one was willing to define the term rare in a meaningful way that could be applied to the situation.
How many of those above fossils were found? How many of those organisms ever lived? I don't know. Let us say that 7 Pakicetus fossils were found, how many Pakicetus' ever lived? 300,000? I would say 7 out of 300,000 is rare. But since I have no idea how many ever lived in total, and neither do you, we can't really put figures on the rarity can we? Of course, your problems with taphonomy are pretty irrelevant.
Rarity means 'not the thing that normally happens'. I know you want exact figures but they don't exist...why don't you give us some figures and use them to demonstrate the falseness of Natural History and/or ToE
You claim we should not expect to see more transitions due to fossil rarity
Horse crap. I make no such claim, nor do 'evos'. This is what I said: pay attention,
quote:
The paleontologists use the Theory to predict that transitions between two certain organisms would be likely to have existed. They cannot predict whether such an organism both fossilized and that fossil survived to this day. That is all that is claimed, that is all that is found. Nobody claims that the ToE can make the predictions you state, so nobody needs to back that up. New fossils are found which conform to the actual predictions that can be made from the ToE, which means that either the ToE is a good Theory to describe nature or an enormous coincidence occurred.
That, coinciding with the genetic evidence we have discussed is what is referred to when people say the fossil record confirms ToE.
We don't see more transitionals than we do, but we might see them in the future. Natural History uses ToE to predict that any future fossil find will be a transitional fossil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 4:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:03 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 304 (252976)
10-19-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by randman
10-18-2005 11:03 PM


Re: How many fossils should we see?
Basilosaurus seems to have thousands of fossilized remains as it was fairly common in Mississippi and Lousiana, but whole specimens are much more rare.
Source for the thousands of remains? Can you quantify this rarity?
The point of claiming fossil rarity for evos is to claim it is very rare for a species to leave any fossils at all
No, it is rare for an organism to fossilize, if a given species lives in an area not susceptable to fossilization or said area has since eroded away or if there were only a small quantity of said species we may well find less or no fossils.
But the fact we see thousands, it seems, of an extinct family of creatures like Basilosaurus suggests that FOR A SPECIES, FOSSILIZATION IS NOT THAT RARE AT ALL!
Assuming we have thousands, then you might be right. Some species may be more likely to fossilize due to their habitat, or their fossils are more likely to have survived due to how their habitat has changed or there were many of said species. The larger the population, the more chances for a fossil to form exists.
That's the point. The claim of fossil rarity is meaningless if you are claiming, as you did, that 7 fossils per 300,000 members of a species is rare. In the context of what we are talking about, 7 fossils per 300,000 members would make fossilization common, not rare.
I'm not claiming that, I was pulling numbers out of my ass because you have not provided them.
quote:
But since I have no idea how many ever lived in total, and neither do you, we can't really put figures on the rarity can we? Of course, your problems with taphonomy are pretty irrelevant.
You don't think a 1 in 40,000 shot makes something rare and that's your opinion since rare is a relative term. Compared to the number of organisms that didn't fossilize that is rare. If only 40,000 members of a species ever existed, that makes that one fossil unique in the world...which is rare.
When somebody says "fossilization is a rare procedure", they mean 'it doesn't happen very often, and when it does, it is even more rare for that fossil to survive for millions of years and be discovered'. If you dispute this, I expect you to back up your assertion that fossilization is a common event with figures.
For the third time:
  • Himalayecetus subathuensis
  • Pakicetus inachus
  • Protocetus
  • Dorudon atrox
  • Zygorhiza
  • Basilosaurus cetoides
  • Prosqualodon
  • Squalodon
  • Eurhinodelphis
Define for me how many of the above creatures existed. How often did they fossilize? How many of those survive to this day? How many have been discovered?

In summary: Fossilization is rare. It does not happen after the great majority of deaths. Certain species live in areas which may increase the fossilization frequency. Certain species have many more members than others and thus it is likely that more will be fossilized.
We see transtional fossils. We don't see all transitions. The transitions we do see are consistent with the Theory. If there were less, the ones that we find would be consistent. The prediction: If more are found they would be consistent.
Evolutionists do not assume the chances for fossilization are the same for all species at all times in all places. If you are trying to demonstrate the holes in natural history by arguing from taphonomy you're going to have to understand the actual position, then you are probably going to have to produce some figures to back up your assertions about distribution of fossils through the record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:03 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 110 of 304 (253364)
10-20-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by randman
10-20-2005 12:23 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
For example, just because fossilization is rare for individual members, as many have pointed out here, does not mean fossilization is rare for species as a whole. You and the other evos continually ignore this, over and over again.
It has been addressed. Time and time again.
Pointing out that fossilization is rare for individual members is not germane at all to the discussion. We are not talking about whether fossilization is rare for individuals, but for species as a whole, and no evo here has ever given any scientific evidence to back up their claim for fossil rarity for species as a whole.
This has been dealt with time and again. It depends on what species. Some species have more fossilized members, there are reasons for this which have been given. When you address these reasons the discussion can move forward. So far you have not indicated that you have even read thse reasons. Try addressing Message 106.
Are evos not required to back up their contentions on this board?
The evos position, as I and mark have pointed out is:
mark writes:
So, given most of planet earth is not conducive to fossilisation at all (at any given time), & most evolving populations are going to be small according to evo models. Therefore, the chance of any evolving population actually existing on one of these "conducive" areas at all, let alone at the point of death, is low. The ones that do still have to be permineralised, which is in no way guaranteed. Then the strata they exist as fossils in must not be buried by hundreds of meters of younger sedimentary strata, not be metamorphosed to destruction, not be eroded to destruction, & against all the odds, be handily exposed at the surface on dry land in places reachable by men.
and me, in Message 93
mod writes:
Evolutionists do not assume the chances for fossilization are the same for all species at all times in all places. If you are trying to demonstrate the holes in natural history by arguing from taphonomy you're going to have to understand the actual position, then you are probably going to have to produce some figures to back up your assertions about distribution of fossils through the record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 12:23 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 1:00 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024