|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Sorry, I can't enter the debate as moderator. If no one's interested in picking up the points I suggested, then that's the end of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
quote: So you are saying that based on population data gathered for present day species, we can try to determine population data for that species in prehistoric times?
quote: Hmm, I think that is indeed what you mean. Well, let's examine the process. We know whales are well represented across the fossil record. We also have the modern species to use as a reference for population values. What influences the whale population today? Predation, environment, food sources, human activity. Well, human activity wasn't around back then, so we have to remove that factor from our calculations - is that possible without introducing an unacceptable margin of error? Going back in time, we are forced to make a number of assumptions about environment, predation, and food sources for any one area. The nature of fossilisation is a massive drawback, as we have no organic tissue to work with. Again, we are introducing a high margin of error, this time because our information is very limited. We can take the modern whale population and examine the effects of predation, food sources and environment - but this is a specific timeframe that we have direct access to. If there is a question of the magnitude of the effect of predation on whales, say, we have the tools to go out and settle that question. For a prehistoric timeframe this is not possible - we cannot quantify the percentage of whales killed by mosasaurs, for example, or of the availability of food sources. Again we return to the number of fossils preserved as a bare indication of population at the time. In the end there are too many variables and too high a margin of error introduced. The final question we should ask here is whether this study is worth doing, considering that it cannot be used for the vast majority of fossilised animals and the final result is likely to be very inaccurate.
quote: The answer to the question is no, I believe, hence the analysis has not been done by evolutionists. I would like to point out also that evolutionsists have not demanded that their claims be disproved; as we all know, proving a negative is not possible in the realm of science. It's all very well to ask scientists to perform an analysis you feel is important - however, your language is dismissive and rude, and your assertion of "unsupported claims" blithely handwaves away the years that those same scientists have spent in reseach and hard work. Rest assured that those "claims" are in fact well-supported, and I would challenge you to show that they have no support or retract your comment. In summary, a layman demanding anything of a scientist while belittling their work is not likely to get their cooperation. FYI, if you would like to take up that challenge I will start a new thread to avoid off topic discussions in this one. I'm logging off for the night in the meantime. The Rock Hound "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
In terms of sexually reproducing species such as mammals, that just is not true. There is no continuum. We'll wait for the biologists for details but I'm sure you are wrong (again). What I don't know is if this is the less usual or more usual case. But even with the mammals there are blurry boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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. Wrong again. We see some of the transitions and some fine grained ones too. You may disregard this since I'm not going to bother backing it up. You ignore what you are given so it won't be worth while doing it. You might just take it as a hint that you shouldn't make statments when you don't know very much at all about the field under discusion. If you are lucky someone else will continue to try to help you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Would polar bear/brown bear be one of those blurry lines?
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
For the 4th time of asking:
every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion?
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. Are you aware how long true phyletic gradualism has been abandoned? See Mayr's publications in the '40's. In fact, even Darwin never insisted on it. But since you mention Gould & "Etheridge" [sic], their model is an "evo model", that you claim was inconsistent with the fossil record. But apparently "evo models" are now consistent with the fossil record, but you just don't agree with them. Will randmans real position on this please stand up!
I don't think it's reasonable to think the species 2-999 would not develop into larger species. So what if they do. We know populations numbering in their billions leave no fossils, what leads you to insist that they should?
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. Again, we know populations numbering in their billions leave no fossils, what leads you to insist that they should? What makes you think that a small population must become a large one in order to leave fossils, anyway, before begatting another small population? Most species exist in relatively limited numbers anyway, why can't one small population begat another small one, & so on?
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. I keep on addressing the issue only to be ignored by you, would be more truthful. As I point out a-fucking-gain, we KNOW that a population, that is, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL, but a population, containing billions of individuals has left not a single fossil, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY SHOULD?
Why is asking for evidence of fossil rarity PER SPECIES (not individual members) something you consider a near bannable offense? Oh man, you gotta be shittin' me? ..... Proof positive creationists are endowed with evidence sensitive sunglasses.
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. Yes, and? Oh, they should show something that you purport without evidence that should be evident? Well you will have to excuse Hennig et al. for not pandering to your personal evidential standard. But they also show that species are transitional forms. If they weren't then cladistics & stratigraphy wouldn't match as it does, would it? Cladistic correlation with stratigraphy is incredible evidence of evolution as it stands. Your unevidential insistence on more, more, more is utterly irrelevant to it. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Debate in this thread at your own risk. Moderator presence is not guaranteed.
Randman, until this thread is unstalled, please do not bring any issues from this thread to other threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Randman, if you're around, join us in the chatroom.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
But even with the mammals there are blurry boundaries. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Mark, I already answered your questions. You ignored my answers so I am not bothering with your posts.
If you do not understand something I have stated, and wish me to restate, I will be glad to do so. Please just state what part of my prior posts you don't get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Mark, I already answered your questions. You ignored my answers so I am not bothering with your posts.# If you do not understand something I have stated, and wish me to restate, I will be glad to do so. Please just state what part of my prior posts you don't get. Specifically: 1/
every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? (For the 5th time of asking). You claim to have answered all of my questions. You won't be aggrieved to be called a liar, then? 2/ Why does cladistics & stratigraphy match the way it does? You have never started a sentence with, "cladistics matches stratigraphy the way it does because..." All you have ever done is invent reasons not to answer the question. Please answer the question in an honest, direct way. I will be happy with a link where you directly answer the question rather than evade it, but we both know you can't provide, either way. Lying again. 3/ Why do you demand more fossils when you know billions of individuals (at any one time) leave no trace? Where have you addressed this? I have checked all of your posts since I raised the issue, & you have not addressed the fact that populations exist that possess billions of individuals yet leave no trace. Again, you claim to have answered all of my questions. You won't be aggrieved to be called a liar, then? 4/ Your denial of what evidence is. I repeat the following. "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 have never conceded this point, denied it, or offered any discussion whatsoever. Lying again? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 10-21-2005 04:27 AM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
quote: I note that you have ignored my point concerning your use of language. I have not called you "silly" or otherwise referred to your character; this being a reasoned discussion I will argue the point, not the person, and I request that you do the same. You want "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". I will repeat myself; we cannot know this with any degree of certainty, therefore why waste time and energy trying? Why would a highly inaccurate guess about the frequency of fossilisation be useful? I would point out as well - our only source of knowledge regarding the prehistoric world is through the fossils of the creatures and the rock they are found in. Assuming "the variables average out" considering how little we know about those variables is the height of bad science.
quote: A few points here - this is bare assertation without giving a reference to the study in question. In fact, without this reference it sounds very much like you are arguing from incredulity. Also, seeing as we know nothing whatsoever about the effects of predation on prehistoric whales (to the best of my knowledge as a geologist), saying "predation is not that significant of a factor" is nothing but another bare assertation. In summary, science does not deal in the kind of wild estimates you are suggesting, unless you can post something that would show they are not. I refer you to my previous post: "In the end there are too many variables and too high a margin of error introduced. The final question we should ask here is whether this study is worth doing, considering that it cannot be used for the vast majority of fossilised animals and the final result is likely to be very inaccurate." The Rock Hound "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
halucigenia Inactive Member |
OK randman I will help your argument along a bit - first you stated that
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.
Then you stated that
if there is only small change between species 1 and species 1000 in the evo transition, then my numbers are off.
(incorrectly I might add as DrJones said 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. And species 2 may only differ from species 1 in a feature that doesn't fossilize. , not between species 1 and species 1000 as you stated)But let's run with the figures anyway. Let's assume that you are talking about a gap in time between species A and species E in Percy's graph. This gap in time is finite because, from the fossil record we have species A appearing no later than a particular time and species E appearing no sooner than a particular time. Then as the graph shows we have species B to D in this gap. Now the hypothetical species B, D, and E have a limited range in time, as we do not see them in the fossil record along with species A and E. What you also state in a later post is that I don't think it's reasonable to think the species 2-999 would not develop into larger species. However what we are talking about is the species in the gap being in a direct lineage from A to E therefore none of these species exists, for very long geologically speaking, alongside each other, each species supplants, or out competes it's ancestor (if this did not happen, then in the present day we would see rather a large number of virtually indistinguishable species). You do seem to be confirming that you understand this by stating 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. Rightly so, each of these stages is more successful than it's immediate ancestor, so the line does not die out, it's just that this new species that starts to spread also gets supplanted by its more successful descendant. One point is that each species by necessity must start out as a small population size, as you say yourself I think it's reasonable that a couple, or very few "steps" or speciation events can occur within very small populations just keep those few speciation events coming in those small populations and one of those species being more successful and there you have it. Right - so you say that there are now 999 species filling this finite gap in time, not just 3, then, logically each of these species will exist for a shorter period of time, not being able to grow large in population size before being out competed by it's descendent. Then you say that, no there should be more like 100k, or maybe 1 million, (I'm not quite sure how to fit this many species into that finite timescale, maybe you mean 1million generations, no that does not work either unless these whale ancestors have very short lifespans, but let's run with it). Since you seem to want to predict fossilisation rates, does this make each individual stage more, or less likely to fossilise? You go on to sayThe 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. Of course it's not, not over the timescales that we see in nature, I presume you mean "at the present time". My point is that if it had been that way over geological periods of time what would you expect to see in the fossil record? ( hint - since you brought it up, PE)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024