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

randman, The reason you allegedly refused to engage was also tackled, you refused to "engage" that as well.I repeat:"A single fossil that is consistent with evolution is evidence of it, because it is a fact predicted by a logically valid scientific theory. There is no arbitrary evidence value line-in-the-sand that must be surpassed before we can accept that evidence. The only standard that logically valid evidence must meet is that it is a logically derived prediction made by a logically valid hypothesis. YOU don't get to sweep anything away for no other reason than you don't like it & you want "more"."Your personal requirements for evidence are irrelevant. Cladistics does indicate common descent by dint of the correlation between it & stratigraphy.What's this "less actual fossils" nonsense? Passenger pigeons we know numbered in their billions are not represented by a single buried skeletal example, fossil or otherwise. Doesn't this indicate fossilisation is unbelievably rare? I think it is indicative of your dishonesty that you choose to extrapolate from a species that exhibits the largest number of fossil examples that you can find. Why not choose the least, ie. zero?Secondly, you mention that not enough fossils are found according to evo models. This is simply baloney. Evolution occurs faster in smaller populations because the probability of allele fixation is much higher, larger populations "resist" change. Moreover, most evolution, according to evo models, occurs in populations that are isolated from parent populations for one reason or another. These population isolates are also more likely to find themselves in different environments where a higher selective pressure would be operational, further driving rapid evolution. Either way, according to evo models these species are restricted in both time, numbers, & geography.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.It all adds up to the fact that we are much, much more likely to find fossil representatives of two numerically large, related, & geographically widespread taxa that are morphologically different. But not the small geographically isolated & time limited transitional species, according to evo models, of course.Juxtapose all of this against the fact that we can't find a single fossil of an organism that we know numbered in their billions at any one time. Why would anyone write a paper merely summarising population genetics, taphonomy, palaeontology, modes of speciation, geology, tempo of evolution, etc.? The information is there, you are just going to have to learn it the hard way like the rest of us. Please support the above quote, this is the third time of asking. What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-20-2005 12:00 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Randman,Discussion in this thread is stalled. It appears to me and everyone else that it is stalled because of your reluctance or inability to address the points being made to you, such as evidence supporting the rarity of fossilization, probability arguments based on the sizes of populations, and cladistics. You can chalk your difficulties up to groupthink or a conspiracy of minds if you like, but discussion in this thread is still stalled, and if you're not going to attend to moderator suggestions (find a buddy; rethink your logic; reconsider your evidence) then you're going to have to find your own way out. Otherwise, sometime soon I'll designate this thread as stalled.This message has been edited by Admin, 10-20-2005 09:32 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Percy, did you not understand my point on fossil rarity and a more comprehensive analysis.While cladistic studies are comprehensive, they do not address the mode by which the different species came into being. Per this discussion, they do nothing to dispel the point that we don't see any fossils of the vast majority of in-between forms.The answer evos give is fossil rarity, but then again, as you can see by some references to fossil rarity for individual members, that has not been addressed, as you claim that it has.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.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.Have you seen any evidence given by evos here? If so, please point it out.My evidence that fossilization for species is not that rare is the simple fact some species or families of species, we see an abundance of fossils for in many different places in the world. Certainly, you are not arguing that for those species or families of species that fossilization is "rare" because their numbers indicate otherwise, that they are common.Moreover, I try repeatedly to limit the discussion to a more narrow group such as whales so we can discuss a more limited ecological environment which is considered to be favorable for fossilization, semi-aquatic and aquatic habitats.But evos here also ignore that, and falsely assign motives of incredulity when in reality it is more appropiate to limit the scope to a more narrow area for discussion.Not once have I seen you rebuke or censure the evos here for avoiding the topic, avoiding the points I raise, or anything like that.Why is that?Why is asking for evidence of fossil rarity PER SPECIES (not individual members) something you consider a near bannable offense?Are evos not required to back up their contentions on this board?Hmm...

Gould and Etheridge proposed solutions to the fact the fossil record exhibits:Stasis
Sudden appearanceThey felt the then current gradualistic explanations did not fit well with the evidence in the fossil record.Do you dispute that?Creationists had long pointed out the exact same things, that most species appear fully formed and stay that way for a long time, and we don't see the forms preceding or following the species for the most part, and perhaps never I might add.But evos denied the facts because they wanted to deny creationist conclusions. Only when evos found a way to admit the facts of stasis and sudden appearance within an evo context would they then accept the facts.A reasonable conclusion, imo, is that ToE is more conclusion-based, or faith-based, than factually-based.

It has been addressed. Time and time again. 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. The evos position, as I and mark have pointed out is: and me, in Message 93

1. You and others claim most species live in habitats not conducive to fossilization. Can you substantiate that?2. Moreover, can you claim that species in the theorized land mammal to whale evolutionary process lived in habitats not conducive to fossilization over geologic time periods?3. Can you offer analysis why we see large numbers of whale fossils and other fossils such as Basilosaurus if such habitats are not conducive to fossilization?4. You claim most evolving species are going to be small. Can you substantiate that?5. More importantly, and I asked this repeatedly and all the evos did was ignore it. If the claim is species evolving are very small in numbers, then are we to assume that the new forms are to stay small in numbers? I can accept that some small group separates and evolves, but to think that for something like several hundred or even thousands of groups separate and evolve all the traits necessary, which are the vast majority of the traits for whales for example, without ever growing to considerable size is not logical.Indeed, if that is the case, as you guys argue, then that would be very strong evidence for Intelligent Design as natural processes would suggest a successful species would often proliferate into large enough numbers to fossilize.You completely and repeatedly ignore that point.Is that because you do not understand it?

You mean, I'm sure, small populations.This is one point that may not have been touched recently. Population genetics shows that if the population is large then it will not change very rapidly.The rest of your comments have been covered too many times to make it worth doing again.

Land creatures are not generally quickly buried after they died. So land habitats are not conducive to fossilization. Oceans are bad places for fossilization (either the remains are eaten or rot before they get near the sea floor which can remain in stasis for a long time) . I imagine the best bet is probably in the shallows of a river. Most organisms don't live under these conditions. Most creatures live in a habitat filled with predators or scavengers.This is not the only claim in this area. The next problem is that not only do they have to undergo permineralization, but they have to
a) survive to this day
b) survive in a location convenient for discovery. You are making the claim that there should be more fossils, can you back up your claim that these transitionals should exist under such conditions? The only claim we are making is that the ToE can be used in conjunction with paleontology to predict that transitional species should have existed, and that these species' fossils are later found. There is no reason to suspect these fossils would exist without the ToE. This is a succesful prediction for ToE. The only thing we have agreed has large numbers of fossils is Basilosaurus, and you have yet to provide any figures. I believe the explanation given to you was that Basilosaurus seems to have existed in an environment more conducive to fossilization than other species in such numbers as to explain the numbers that were fossilized. I haven't claimed that but I believe that is basic population genetics. Generally these populations aren't 'small', but are instead an isolated subset of the main population (thus are not small in number but rather limited in geography allowing alleles to become fixed easier). Why would the new forms necessarily stay small? They may stay in isolated groups smaller than their parent group. If our daughter group develops the ability to compete with the parent group in all niches, rather than its current niche, then it will probably expand.I don't understand your objection though. Can you re word it to be clearer? If this is your central point you are going to need to clarify it. As far as I am aware the evo prediction is that a succesful daughter species may only be successful in its niche. If it later is able to be successful in its neighbour niches as well, it will proliferate and expand, becoming large enough to stand a fairly good chance of its members fossilizing and those fossils surviving x million years and those surviving fossils being located in places that are now accessable to paleontologists. If the above does not address that point then indeed it has been ignored. It may be a good idea if you stick to just your main point and attempt to find a way of communicating this succesfully to your audience. Either:1: We don't understand it
a) Because you aren't making your point clear
b) Because your point is nonsensical
c) We are stupid
d) We are deliberatly ignorant
e) some other reasonor2: We understand it and you don't understand our responses.Perhaps you can break your point down into a selection of premises and conclusions so that we may isolate where the disagreement lies?

Nosy, then is the converse true, that more survivable and stable populations tend to be bigger?Imo, it is absurd to argue that the vast majority of transitional forms remained small. Sure, I can go along with the claim that probably the groups that would evolve would be smaller in population, but some would be successful and grow big in numbers.You and the rest of the evos are asking us to believe that 95% of the transitional forms remained extremely small in numbers, that they evolved into one form, very small in numbers, and then another, and then another, etc, etc,....without statistically hardly ever reaching larger numbers.If that is the case, it does not fit with what we know about nature and suggests something else at work.

Moderators facilitate discussion, not participate in it, but I obviously agree with everyone else that your points regarding fossil rarity have been answered, yet you continue repeating them in their original form instead of addressing the answers.I can tell that you feel the fault lies with everyone else, which is why I suggested finding another tack (i.e., other ways of making the same points) or find a buddy to participate with who could bring fresh insights and perspectives on how to make these points. But you can't expect something different to happen if you're just going to continue doing the same thing.Of course, I have similar advice for everyone else participating in this thread, which is that Randman has an established history of not being able to move beyond his initial point, and continuing in a dialogue with him while expecting something different to happen probably isn't reasonable.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Modulous, let's stick with whales and their ancestors for context.1. You say the oceans are not conducive to fossilization, but all whale families have numerous fossils.How do you explain that?2. You admit shallow rivers would be good places for fossilization. OK, would not this be the exact area for whale-like traits to emerge and leave fossils. But we don't see 90% of the traits that whales share that are distinctive in suppossed predecessors that were land mammals or semi-aquatic.Why is that?3. You claim that time is a major factor, and yet we see tons of Basilosaurus and tons of whales, but nothing in between.Why is that?For example, Basilosaurus is older than whales and yet we see so many fossils of Basilosaurus. Now, you could say he lived in shallow waters, although he probably lived in the oceans too, but irregardless, we see plenty of whale fossils so the habitat argument here, as far as being different, does not hold up.The age difference does not either since we see both, but nothing in between.Heck, with Basilosaurus, it is sort of whale-like so based on your assumptions, this should be an area with well-documented transitions, but they just aren't there. We have plenty of whale fossils and plenty of Basilosaurus fossils. That's backing up the claim quite well.Why should there be nothing between the different forms?Note: I am making it easy for you, and ignoring the larger transition which has very, very little evidence, from land mammal to aquatic mammal, and just asking for the transitions between 2 aquatic mammals.

Hi Randman,One of the things I used to do when I first began moderating the board was suggesting areas of focus, and it worked out pretty well sometimes, so I'll give it a quick try in this thread. The comments that follow are not to you, but to everyone else.Hi all,Here are a few observations/comments I have that might help focus the discussion onto fruitful areas: This comment makes it clear that Randman understands the relationship between population size and the rate of evolutionary change, but he seems to be missing the point that change that occurs while populations and geographic extent are small is unlikely to be recorded as fossils. Perhaps a graph showing population size over time of an evolving series of species with the population being very small during periods of change would help make the point, maybe something like this:

P    10e11    |-                ----------------                --------------
o    10e10    | \              /                \              /
p    10e9     |  \            /                  \            /
     10e8     |   \          /                    \          /
s    10e7     |    \        /                      \        /
i    10e6     |     \      /                        \      /
z    10e5     |      \    /                          \    /
e    10e4     |       \  /                            \  /
     10e3     |        --                              --
     10e2     |_________________________________________________________________
Species        A     B C D E           E             F G H I           I
                                      ===>  Time  ===>

Only species A, E and I would be likely to be recorded in the fossil record, because they existed in large numbers over long periods of time. A diagram like this, just not so primitive, may be helpful. It might also help him understand where he goes wrong in his next point: Moving on, I think Randman should be asked to substantiate this next point, because it indicates that he may have a misunderstanding of how nature really works. He may be under the impression that some of the answers that have been provided somehow violate physical or probabilistic constraints.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A lot of what Gould and Eldredge proposed seems to have been absorbed into what people are currently presenting as neo-Darwinism. Or at least that is my impression.

Also, Gould and Eldredge have also acknowledged examples in the fossil record the slow, gradual change of traditional Darwinism. Their claim is that punctuated equilibrium describes some, maybe most, of the fossil lineages, but by no means all of it.And if I recall correctly, I thought I read an essay by Gould where he noticed, in the fossil record, the sudden replacement of one species of Cerion (his specialty) by another, clearly related species. He subsequently found a very small area where the slow, gradual transition from one species to the other was well documented. This positive evidence (not the alleged negative evidence) is what gave him the idea of punctuated equilibrium. But I could be mistaken about what I remember in this regard. Anyone else have more information?

---

"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

I was referring to deep oceans where the bodies of the dead are undergoing decay by the time they hit the bottom. Whales often come into shallower water, which I am led to believe is more conducive for fossilization. We don't see 90% of the traits that whales share in supposed predecessors? Can you list the traits that mark whales for what they are and then indicate which of these traits we do not see? If you have done this, perhaps link to the post? Did I? I thought that point three was me saying:

quote:

---

The only thing we have agreed has large numbers of fossils is Basilosaurus, and you have yet to provide any figures. I believe the explanation given to you was that Basilosaurus seems to have existed in an environment more conducive to fossilization than other species in such numbers as to explain the numbers that were fossilized.

---

Which doesn't mention time. Of course, the longer these organisms were around in conducive areas, the more of them there were, and the more fossils are likely to have occurred. You'll need to show us that the daugter species of 'Basil' lived in the same habitat as 'Basil' did, in similar numbers over a similar period of time (How long was Basil around, 5-10 million years?). What about, Prozeuglodon?
Eocetus?
Dorudon intermedius?
Agorophius?
Prosqualodon?
Kentriodon?
Aetiocetus?
Mesocetus? Why should there be? What is wrong with the explanation that between Basil and Aetiocetus there were a group of isolated daughters one of which became Aetiocetus? Perhaps there was another major group that simply had the lack of 'fortune' to have any members fossilized.How many species (You can stick with marine mammals here if it makes things easier) that have ever existed have failed to leave surviving findable fossils?Until you can answer the above, your position is very weak.Since you cannot answer the above, your angle has is futile. You cannot know how many major groups left surviving findable fossils compared to those that didn't. You are assuming that because two major groups (basils and modern whales) left fossils, that all major groups should leave fossils. This position is groundless don't you see?Not only because it is one hell of a leap, but because transitions are theorized to occur in smaller, more isolated populations which, if they evolve to be successful will then grow into a larger population. This is borne out by the number of smaller groups of post basil pre-modern whale appearing fossils found in the stratigraphy immediate between the two.