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

Percy, I repeat myself because not once has the issue I raised been addressed. For example, one poster here brought up cladistics, which is a fine point and does address one aspect of the fossil record in toto. I refused to engage the point though because it is irrevalent to the specific point and issue I raised, which has to do with viewing the fossil record in toto relative to specific numbers and frequency of fossils discovered relative to what we should expect based on transitional forms that must have occurred.It's the same point, over and over again, yep, but only because there is abject refusal by evos to tackle it in any meaningful manner.For example, let's say that cladistics, for sake of argument, indicate that species did "evolve" or came to be in the nested order claimed, but at the same time, there appears to be less actual fossils than should be present assuming observed natural processes produced changes according to evo models.Assuming that was the case, the fossil evidence in toto, even with the cladistics, would be evidence of ID not ToE because the evidence would suggest a much more rapid form of evolution, and continually so, that massive numbers of transitional forms did not occur, and thus left no fossils.The issue is thus the same irregardless of much of the material others post. I spent lots of time addressing many of those issues, but honestly, why should the evos not have to address the issues I have raised here?Is it not reasonable to expect evolution proponents to back up their claims on "fossil rarity", which is given as an explanation for why the vast majority of species that supposedly lived leave absolutely no trace whatsoever. If fossilization is so rare, then why do many species leave so many fossils in so many different parts of the world?If it's a matter of ecology, then why don't see their immediate and subsequent ancestors, or even most of the species that lived in the same ecology?Where are the studies justifying evo claims in this area?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Percy, that's a good graph, but here's the fallacy in evo thinking. Let's use your graph and assumptions.Species A and E have fossils (but not B,C,D), and that would be OK.But the evo claim is more like species 1 is seen, and then 2-999 is so small it leaves no fossils, and then species 1000 is seen.If all we were dealing with were gaps as your graph suggests, the claim would be reasonable, but it's not even close, especially as you consider the branches that would have spun off in different directions and gone extinct.

nwr, you are correct on that, which is more evidence for my point that there were facts on the record, for decades, as far as the fossil record which evos refused to admit to, until Ethridge and Gould used those same facts to help advocate ToE models.When facts were used to denigrate ToE, those same facts were denied as being true at all. All you ever heard from the evo camp was how the fossil record substantiated evo models when, in fact, the fossil record did not substantiate the gradualistic models, as Gould and Etheridge pointed out the need for a correction in the models to try to account for stasis and sudden appearance.

In terms of sexually reproducing species such as mammals, that just is not true. There is no continuum.There are discrete bunches that sexually reproduce with each other, and not with other species (other discrete bunches of creatures). To continue to pretend this is not the case is the height of arrogance in the face of facts, imo, and although you perhaps are just echoing other people's arguments, I do think anyone continuing to claim species transitions is a continuum is denying the reality of how species reproduce.Moreover, the claim is isolated groups, too small to leave fossils, are the vast majority of species that evolve. If large species genuinely did transition as a continuum, then we should expect to see fine-grained transitions in the fossil record, not just the evolution of all of the major features. It is noteworthy though that we see neither.

Dr Jones, if there is only small change between species 1 and species 1000 in the evo transition, then my numbers are off.It should be species 1, followed by species 100K or maybe 1 million or something like that seen with all the species in between not seen at all.

I don't think it's reasonable to think the species 2-999 would not develop into larger species. I think it's reasonable that a couple, or very few "steps" or speciation events can occur within very small populations, but that it is likely one of the species to be more successful and spread, and without that process, it is more likely that the line of evolution would just die out.The idea that rapid speciation one species after another for hundreds of speciation events is not supported, that I know of, by what we see in nature, at least for mammals.

I disagree. We can determine, for example with whales, which whale species or families of species since some whale "species" do interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and then look at the fossil record, going back in time, and see how they are represented. The reading I have done indicates every whale family is well-represented in the fossil record going back millions of years.So for that time-frame, we can estimate whether whale fossilization is "rare" or how "rare" it is. Since all whale families are well-represented, it can just as easily be said, in context, that whale fossils and whale fossilization is common. Terms like "rare" and "common" by themselves are meaningless unless placed into a specific context.Now, the next step would be to consider the fossilization process. Where do we think these whales fossilized?Then, we consider that before whales, it is likely that some other creatures occupied the same habitats, the precursors to modern whales, and we can see how well-represented they are in the fossil record.For example, do we find more whale fossils or more Basilosaurus fossils? Do we find the same numbers? It may be that the differences in fossilization rates and finds for the period 1-30 million years ago are basically the same for 30-45 million years ago.That's the type of analysis evos should make BEFORE THEY MAKE THEIR CLAIMS instead of making unsupported claims and demanding they be disproved.

Rock Hound, don't be silly here. Of course, there are variables, but what we are after is just trying to see if it is reasonable to expect 99% of all whale ancestors not to leave any fossils, but for whales to be well-represented. Many of the variables average out over time and so despite being a range and estimate, it would be very useful to do such an analysis.A quick study, in fact, indicates that because whales are so well-represented that it is unreasonable to think there was a massive process of evolution leaving relatively no fossils. Predation is not that significant of a factor.

Care to name any? The simple fact is any blurriness is far outweighed by the simple fact that all mammals are separated into different groups that can mate within the group but not outside the group.That's something so basic it is hard to imagine you are contesting or questioning it.Moving on from that point, if 2 creatures cannot mate, they cannot produce offspring, and thus cannot evolve via their mutual offspring. Mammals exist not as one big continuum, but as discrete groups that mate with one another, and thus can be agents for evolution, but not with other groups.

Chiroptera, bears and whales may interbreed with other bears and other whales, but not with dogs and cats. There is clear discreteness, not a continuum.The fact of difficulties with man classifying creatures does not change the fact that all mammals are separated into distinct groups that can only mate within those groups. There is no blurriness outside of the group they can mate with. In fact, this is by definition and by reality.Now, it is true we sometimes label one of these groups more than one species for various reasons, but our labels cannot alter the fact that only within discrete groups can mammals mate.This message has been edited by randman, 10-20-2005 09:51 PM