Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 304 (252808)
10-18-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
10-18-2005 3:26 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2005 3:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2005 4:00 PM randman has replied
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2005 4:03 PM randman has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 77 of 304 (252809)
10-18-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
10-18-2005 2:58 PM


Negative falsification.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 2:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 4:00 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 304 (252811)
10-18-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by BuckeyeChris
10-18-2005 2:14 PM


a nation of straw-men
quote:
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.
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:
The nested hierarchy that all creatures found in the fossil record fit into is extremely powerful evidence in support of evolution.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by BuckeyeChris, posted 10-18-2005 2:14 PM BuckeyeChris has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 79 of 304 (252812)
10-18-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
10-18-2005 2:00 AM


Ak! what are you doing back here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 2:00 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2005 4:41 PM Yaro has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 304 (252814)
10-18-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Parasomnium
10-18-2005 3:41 PM


Re: Negative falsification.
oh well...we all make mistakes....you get the point nonetheless

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Parasomnium, posted 10-18-2005 3:41 PM Parasomnium has not 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

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 83 of 304 (252819)
10-18-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
10-18-2005 4:00 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2005 4:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by robinrohan, posted 10-18-2005 4:31 PM randman has replied
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2005 6:03 PM randman has replied
 Message 88 by mark24, posted 10-18-2005 6:42 PM randman has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 304 (252825)
10-18-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
10-18-2005 4:08 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
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.

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 85 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 4:39 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 101 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2005 10:22 PM robinrohan has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 304 (252827)
10-18-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by robinrohan
10-18-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by robinrohan, posted 10-18-2005 4:31 PM robinrohan has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 304 (252828)
10-18-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Yaro
10-18-2005 3:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Yaro, posted 10-18-2005 3:59 PM Yaro 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

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 88 of 304 (252842)
10-18-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
10-18-2005 4:08 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
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

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 90 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:06 PM mark24 has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 304 (252896)
10-18-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Modulous
10-18-2005 6:03 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2005 6:03 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Thor, posted 10-19-2005 6:07 AM randman has not replied
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 10-19-2005 8:55 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 90 of 304 (252898)
10-18-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by mark24
10-18-2005 6:42 PM


Re: Do it yourself!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by mark24, posted 10-18-2005 6:42 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by mark24, posted 10-19-2005 4:49 AM randman has not replied
 Message 94 by Admin, posted 10-19-2005 8:59 AM randman 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