|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
randman writes: 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. I am glad that you at least agree that the fossil record does not positively falsify the theory of evolution. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 18-Oct-2005 08:49 PM "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah, in general creationists tend to be quick about telling us what they expect to be confirming/falsifying evidence, but rarely are their opinions based on understanding the basics of the particular discipline, and often not even based on logic. My favorite (off-topic, sorry) is when people claim that it it not scientific to accept evolution until someone can explain the exact mutations at the exact times in the evolution of a particular species. -
quote: Uh-oh. Someone is going to think that I'm registered under two different names! "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6523 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Ak! what are you doing back here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
oh well...we all make mistakes....you get the point nonetheless
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 18-October-2005 09:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The evo explanation is that every fossil uncovered is so far consistent with the ToE. Agree or disagree? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
How about if we count up all the known fossils in the world and divide that into the number of species known to have ever existed? We could come up with a ratio--the number of known fossils per species, on average.
It might be a chore counting up all the fossils, of course.Also, there's the problem of identifying a new species. What one person might call a distinct species, somebody else might not. But I suppose one could ignore that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What's funny is that his posts are exactly like what got him suspended before.
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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?
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Disagree. Every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE. Care to support this? Different fossil floras & faunas are evident at different stratigraphic points. The appearance of various taxa in those strata shows an overall congruence with the phylogenetic appearance of said taxa as derived by cladistics, which is stratigraphically independent. This is evidence of evolution, & is most definately not inconsistent with the ToE.
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. Yes you have, I cited one, but those evidence sensitive sunglasses went on, & hey ho... But even if I hadn't, the basic observation that one generation begats the next, coupled with the fact that different periods have different flora & faunas leads to the perfectly logical conclusion that morphological change takes place over successive generations. That fossils exist which exhibit a suite of character states between an earlier taxon & a later one is also evidence that evolution occurred. That we can derive a phylogeny from morphology, & then compare favourably the appearance of taxa in the phylogeny with the stratigraphic appearance of said taxa is also evidence of evolution. Your refusal to accept that perfectly legitimate conclusions are being derived from perfectly good premises is your problem, no-one elses. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 10-18-2005 07:06 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024