where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]

Over time, millions and millions of years, the differences in the hit or miss affair would average out some, right?What we know is that a whole bunch of features would have to had evolved if ToE is true. We can do anatomical comparisons to whales with their nearest land mammals, and quantize the number of differences that exist and new features that would have to develop, right?It's not exactly rocket science here. The question then becomes what is reasonable in terms of expecting a new trait to survive, what sorts of stages and dead ends would develop.One way to think about that is to compare the same differences in existing whale families and see the range of life present within that small range. Extrapolating that range out further and assuming a branching bush effect, evos could have made some fairly good predictions about the various stages of evolutionary change relative to specific traits needing to arise.I have never seen any evo studies determining that.Then, if evos had done that, they could have then examined fossilization rates of creatures thought to occupy the same habitats and come up with specific numbers of fossils relavent to specific numbers of these stages that they should expect to find over time.Only then would evos had made a reasonable prediction of what to find. As a layman, based on numbers I have thrown out here ad naseaum, I would expect thousands of fossilized species to have been discovered, but they have not been.You guys claim ToE has made an accurate prediction relavent to the fossil record. Imo, that is a false claim. Looking at the fossil record comprehensively, it appears to me to be very, very strong evidence against evolution.But irregardless, since evos to date have refused to actually tackle the rigorous process I outline above to make a comprehensive prediction within a range, the best we can say is evos are ignoring the fossil record as a whole, and claims it is supportive of evolution have not been rigourously supported by a comprehensive study of the data which includes estimates of the number of fossilized forms we should expect to find.

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.

In all my lurking, I see you bring up points like this one time and again. You seem fixated on the predictions that *you* think that ToE *should* be making on amounts of fossils that we should find, in comparison with what we do find. But it's been explained to you even more times that the fossil record is not the only, or even main, source of evidence in support of the ToE and that the ToE makes no predictions on fossilization rates.Why should it? It's a theory about how mutation + natural selection affects populations over time, not fossilization processes. Why does this have to be explained to you over and over?The nested hierarchy that all creatures found in the fossil record fit into is extremely powerful evidence in support of evolution. There is no reason to find this relationship if you throw out common descent. As the number of fossils we find increases, the evidential support of evolution - already rock solid - continues to grow.What "gaps" there may be don't detract from evolution one bit, considering how special the conditions must be to get fossils at all.Evidence like this, by itself, is powerful in favor of evolution. When you combine it with OTHER independent factors - such as radiometric dating, genetic analysis, and stratigraphy - it's dishonest to conclude anything other than evolution has almost undeniable evidential support. Why should there be studies of that nature? We find what we find, and we're lucky to find it. The data is always consistent with what evolution predicts.

What kind of numbers do you figure one would need to do such a study?

Perhaps you could make clear why you think the ToE could be expected to predict this? Your analogy fails in that it isn't one or two bullets but 100,000's of samples. What you are asking for is that the theory predict how many bullets would have been fired in the battle, how many weren't recycled later, how many survived a century or two of weathering and how many of those would be found while only doing a surface search.This is not a flaw of evolutionary theory at all since taphonomy is a separate issue. You were shown some references suggesting that the expected fossil preservaation was hugely less than you had guessed. You neglected to retract your guess and continue to base comments on it.

IIRC, The Paleontological Research Institution in NY has over 2 million fossils and shells just in it's own collection. I seem to remember that there were six or more institutions in just the US that also had collections as large or larger. It appears we're not talking about hundreds of thousands of examples, but rather tens or hundreds of millions of fossils that are in collections today. And new examples of both fossils and new current species are being discovered daily.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Heck, I personally used to have hundreds of fossils that I picked up on the stony shores of Torch Lake and Lake Michigan and various stone/sand pits as a kid. If I still live there I would have thousands!

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.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.That's why I keep coming back to it.

"Perhaps you could make clear why you think the ToE could be expected to predict this?"I already did that. Read the following paragraphs in the post. If one is to make a claim about the fossil evidence, then it must be considered in toto with a comprehensive analysis, not just picking out piecemeal some species that can be a "token transitional" while ignoring the fossil record as a whole.To date, I have never seen evos, despite their funding, ever even attempt to do such a comprehensive study as I described to verify their claims.Have you?If so, I would love to see it.This message has been edited by randman, 10-18-2005 03:01 PM

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.

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.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.It may be one day, I would be interested in funding and participating in such a study.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.

Modulous, my recommendation is to stick with a more specific theorized major evo process such as the theorized land mammal to whale evolution.

Actually, no. Darwin said That was his prediction, which has borne out. 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.

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.

If you aren't a scientist I suggest you stop trying to insist what predictions scientists should be able to make from theories. 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. 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.