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

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.Take a step back and look at the evidence with an open mind.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.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?In other words, if fossilization is so rare, then why do we see numerous examples for just one species or family of species?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.

And it has been explained to you and others ad nauseum why either of these modes would leave more fossils, due to acheiving at some point significant size, but you still "don't get it."Specifically, note where you state that:"Because the group size is small during the transition, there is a good chance of no fossilization. It is only after the successor group has become well enough adapted, and its population begins to enlarge, that the likelihood of fossilization starts to increase."You admit that at some point even with this type of evolutionary mode that the population will gain a significant size in adaptation.The problem is that within the lines of theorized evolution, say of whale evolution, we would expect to see most of the significant new features occuring in fairly large and well-established groups, according to your scenario, but we don't.It is likely we would not see a fine-grained change, but no one is demanding them.But we should see fossils of every major new features present in the fossil record, and we don't.For example, with whales families, we see every new feature present in the fossil record going back 30 million years according to evo dating.We see something like 75 species in 2 suborders within a fairly narrow range of differences.The differences between these suborders and the suppossed whale ancestors are massive; so much so that we should expect to see several different suborders between them.We don't see that though.You theorize that small isolated groups evolved leaving no fossils, but even you admit they would eventually grow to larger groups of species.Where are the larger groups of species identified with every new whale-like feature?You have a handful, and those are problematic, and they don't come close to identifying the vast majority of emerging new features that should have been there.Are you proposing that the vast majority of these whale features, something like 95%, occurred all with one small barely making species evolving into another barely making, etc,....?Heck, if that scenario was true, it would be evidence of Intelligent Design because it does not fit with what we know of unaided, observed natural processes.

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.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.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.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.This, imo, is a major flaw in evolutionary theory, and frankly, cannot be overcome with arguments. There has to be detailed analysis of data explaining this, and there just isn't.Where are the comparitive studies of numbers of fossils in living whale families compared to numbers of their theoritical ancestors to show why we should not see fossils of their ancestors?

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.

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

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.

Modulous, maybe there is no need to keep talking as I have made my point clear, and yet you ignore it.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.The evo explanation is that it can be considered consistent with ToE due to massive fossil rarity, 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.As such, evo claims are unsubstantiated in this area.

oh well...we all make mistakes....you get the point nonetheless

Disagree. Every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE.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.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.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.All you guys do is assert vagueness in this arena.You claim we should not expect to see more transitions due to fossil rarity, but offer no real studies to explain why such a rare event produces "common fossils" such as whale fossils which commonly appear in marine sediment layers.

It's too big of a task, and also too wide a scope. Lumping bacteria in with vertibrates, for example, is probably putting apples and oranges together.Imo, a good place to start would be mammals, and preferably something along the lines of land mammal to whale theorized evolution. My thinking is that at some point, the ecology will be at least semi-aquatic and thus a little less range in assessing fossilization rates within that ecology.We could start with known aquatic and semi-aquatic species or families of species, since with fossils it's hard sometimes to know if something was a separate species but easier to place in the same family, and then see what the rates are, and whether and to what degree going back in time increases, decreases, etc,...those rates, and that sort of thing.But here's the thing, such a quantitative comprehensive analysis should have been conducted and should be conducted before evos make claims of the fossil record being congruent with ToE.

Basilosaurus seems to have thousands of fossilized remains as it was fairly common in Mississippi and Lousiana, but whole specimens are much more rare.But you are missing the point on "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, and thus they claim the fact we don't see fossils for the vast majority of species, even the vast majority that must have evolved in the land mammal to whale evolution, is consistent with the ToE.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!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.You need to take some time, not to argue and try to win some debate, but understand the criticism here, and answer it honestly.

I've already answered in detail, and you completely ignore it and offer not one comment on the points I raised.Sorry, but if you want a conversation, I suggest you read my posts detailing exactly the type of comprehensive analysis which would need to be done to consider if the numbers and type of fossils do or do not support ToE.

Gould and Etheridge did not challenge the basic evo paradigm. What they did was very interesting. They used facts that creationists had used for decades but which evos steadfastly denied were true because creationists used these facts as evidence against ToE.Gould and Etheridge were able to use these same facts to support the evo paradigm, and only then were they admitted by the evo community at large, which is very, very telling imo.