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

randman, 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. 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.MarkThis 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, Er, I offered plenty of comments on the points you raised, but then you failed to actually refute why cladistics match stratigraphy at all, let alone to the striking degree that they do, so why you think your comments had any value whatsoever is beyond reason. You said, "every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE". Please explain what "comprehensive analysis" has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion.Who cares what YOU think what types & numbers of fossils are required? The salient point is that what ever the fossil record has, you want more, rather than actually looking at what the fossil record actually has. Regardless, looking at the fossil record as a whole we see stratigraphic flora & fauna being different over time. The whole fossil record isn't comprehensive enough for you? The 300 cladograms cited previously showing an "odds against" correlation of 5.68*10^323:1 isn't comprehensive enough for you? Clearly not, yet you will happily swallow medical drugs with far less evidence of their safety.You will have to forgive us, Randman, for thinking your argument is nothing more than wanting more than is ever available at any given time before you accept it. 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" (like the fossil record in its entirety & 300 cladograms isn't enough, anyway :rolleyes. Pah!Mark

---

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

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

randman,For the 4th time of asking: What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? 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! So what if they do. We know populations numbering in their billions leave no fossils, what leads you to insist that they should? 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? 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? Oh man, you gotta be shittin' me? ..... Proof positive creationists are endowed with evidence sensitive sunglasses. 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

randman, Specifically:1/ 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?MarkThis 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

AdminNosy, I don't use the word easily, Randman IS a liar. See below.I have asked him to support one of his comments no less than four times. Each time I asked him, I told him how many times I have am making the same request. I'm up to five now. Are you seriously suggesting he is merely mistaken & misunderstood in some way? If he is not reading my posts & pretending he has answered them, then that's lying.I have asked him three times now to comment on the nature of evidence (as per my post). Nothing. He missed it three times? If he is not reading my posts & pretending he has answered them, then that's lying.I have lost count how many times I have asked for a direct & forthright answer to the question, why is there a correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy? Again, nothing, lots of diversion, but no direct answer. And so on, & so on...I expect moderator support in getting some honest replies from Randman. If not, & since this thread is stalled anyway by his nibs, the thread loses absolutely nothing by me calling a spade a spade. Absolutely true. But pretending he has answered points when he hasn't is still lying.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-21-2005 12:31 PM

---

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

Admin, Does the "respectful treatment of others" extend to actually answering questions rather than merely saying you have? I mean, what's the bloody point of all this?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-21-2005 12:59 PM

---

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

Randman, I understand them perfectly. They just have nothing to do with directly answering the points I raise. And other questions have no attempted answers to even misunderstand. See below. Rubbish. YOU said that fossils contradict the ToE, I showed they didn’t. Why? Because this is predicted by the ToE, & is therefore evidence of it. It is actually falsifying the notion of taxa appearing by ID in the same way. Since you refuse to engage on my points on what evidence is, it is impossible to arrive on a consensus, & show you why you are wrong, & I am right. It must come as a big surprise to you, but this is exactly why this thread is [STALLED: RANDMAN]. That’s it? But the specific question that was posed was, “why does cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as it does?” Do you understand the difference between an evasive reply that fails to tackle the issue raised, as opposed to a valid answer that tackles the issue?Let’s break it down. In order to answer the question , “why does cladistics & stratrigraphy match as well as it does?”, it is logically imperative that you point to a causal link between cladistic results & fossil appearances. Any reply you make that fails to meet this standard, fails to actually answer the question. You may delude yourself that you are answering the question directly merely because you provide a reply, but a reply is not necessarily a valid answer to a question, or a direct & legitimate response to a point that has been raised. So, let’s break your “reply” down to see if it actually does point to the causal link that is required of you, in order for you to validly claim to have answered the question. Nope, just substance free evasion. Next two sentences: Nope, just substance free evasion. Next sentences: Nope, just irrelevant-to-the-question evasion.Note that at no point have you provided a causal link to explain the correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy as asked. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION, “WHY DOES CLADISTICS & STRATIGRAPHY MATCH AS WELL AS IT DOES?”, & HAVE JUST ENGAGED IN CHILDISH, SELF DELUSIONAL EVASION. The penny has to drop sooner or later, randman.So, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do, I'm not in the slightest bit interested as to why you want to evade this question (I already know), I just want an explanation of a fact. A fact that is consistent with evolution to a colossal degree. I understand perfectly, this is why I went to some length to establish what evidence is but you refused to engage on the subject, making it impossible to show that I do grasp your point, but it is in fact, wrong. See related question (summarised in point 4), posed for the fourth time below.Now, would you please be good enough to answer the following questions you are avoiding like the plague. You won’t catch atheism, I promise. Please answer them point by point. It's difficult to see what you are evading, otherwise.A summary of questions asked/points raised that are still lacking answers:1/ What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? (For the 6th time of asking).2/Why does cladistics & stratigraphy match the way it does? As explained above, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do.3/Why do you demand more fossils when you know a species that contained 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 never provided an answer.4/Your denial of what evidence is. I repeat the following for the fourth time."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."Agree, disagree, comment?I look forward to your direct non-evasional answers, but just so you don’t get your hopes up, I won’t be holding my breath.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-22-2005 12:14 PM

---

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

Randman,You do realise that the number of lurkers to participants is high, don't you? You therefore must realise that a fair number of people are seeing the evasion of creationism in action, don't you? The longer you refuse to actually engage the worse yours, & creationisms credibilty becomes. The longer we keep you refusing to engage, the more complete the final victory is, regardless of whether you honestly address the issues raised, or not. Keep it up! Firstly, I have addressed your point on fossil rarity, you see how easy it is for an intellectually honest person to demonstrate that they have in fact addressed their opponents points rather than the snide evasion you engage in? But then how would you know I have addressed your point when you only read 1/3 rd of what I write? What an idiotic admission, words defy me!I’ll elaborate on the reply, since you are unable to derive the correct logical conclusions from the cited post. You are attempting to construct an evidentially based logical argument without evidence or logic. In order to come to a sound conclusion it is necessary to have sound premises. In order to know that there aren't enough fossils between two taxa there are a fair number of variables that you need a knowledge of:What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;This will potentially give you how many fossils exist within the earth of any given species/morph, if any.You then need to know:What are the probabilities of these strata existing deep within the earth in the modern era?;
What are the probabilities that the fossils are metamorphosed out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that the strata are eroded out of existence?:
What are the probabilities that any given strata will be exposed on the earths surface, rather than beneath the sea?
Given that the strata is exposed at the surface on land, is it in a place where people who appreciate the importance of such fossils will bring them to the attention of the relevant experts?Now, these are the premises you require evidentially derived figures for, in order to plug into your equation & reach your conclusion & show evo models are lacking. As far as I can see, you are in possession of none of them. So, given your conclusion is based on an utter lack of factual information, your conclusion can only be as good as your premises, ie. totally vacuous.Your argument is analogous to person A telling person B they don't have enough fireworks for the show, without knowing how many fireworks person B had to begin with. How many they have just bought. How long the show is due to last, & what is the rate of firework expenditure when the show is on. In fact, your ignorance of your conclusion is far, far worse, you have many more variables you lack knowledge of. Another diversionary waste of oxygen on your part. You failed AGAIN to show the causal link between cladistics & stratigraphy as asked. Aren’t you getting embarrassed? You hold a thought for a few minutes, can't you?Now, would you please be good enough to answer the following questions you are avoiding like the plague. You won’t catch atheism, I promise. Please answer them point by point. It's difficult to see what you are evading, otherwise.A summary of questions asked/points raised that are still lacking answers:1/ What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? (For the 7th time of asking).2/Why does cladistics & stratigraphy match the way it does? As explained, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do.3/Why do you demand more fossils when you know a species that contained 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 never provided an answer.4/Your denial of what evidence is. I repeat the following for the fifth time."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."Agree, disagree, comment?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-23-2005 12:15 PM

---

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

halucigenia, It's already in there, see bolded: Just worded a bit different, that's all.Mark

---

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

Buzsaw,I disagree with Yaro, science does recognise the terms micro & macroevolution. I have a book on my shelf called Genetics, Paleontology, & Macroevolution by J.S.Levinton. The difference is that science does not recognise that microevolution is anything but lots of macroevolution, which I venture is where I agree with Yaro.For the record, Levinton defines macroevolution, "as the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank". As such, any species to species transition is purely microevolutionary. Even large mutational events such as polyploidy seeing large size changes (among other things) in a single generation is microevolution by this definition.Mark

---

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

Yaro, Hey, call me Mark , & yes, they do.Mark

---

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

Randman, Again, evader boy, that isn't in issue. All of your post evaded the fact that your premises are a fiction. You have laughingly said to others that you were being logical. Clearly you jest. A logical argument requires premises, from which are derived a conclusion. Obviously (to the higher primates), a conclusion is only as good as the premises. Given that ALL of your premises are creationist inventions, rather than facts, then it stands to reason that your conclusions are creationist inventions, too.The issue is the utter, & total, lack of evidential support for your premises. You can whine about it aaaaall day long long. But if your premises are fictional, then so is your conclusion.Bullshit premises = bullshit conclusions. And this is my point. It is YOU who is making the argument that not enough intermediates exist, it's up to you to show it. It's not our job to prove a false negative, but your own. You provide evidence for your own negative conclusion. Are you so ignorant of what a logical argument actually is? Without knowing how unlikely a fossil is, your pissing in the wind, god boy. Maybe because they never existed because they never fossilised, or they haven't been discovered? But given you can't show it either way, you're talking out of your arse. Again, you need to support the premises for your own argument.As per usual, you utterly & completely fail to address the issues that potentially could rescue your delusional fantasy.What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;This will potentially give you how many fossils exist within the earth of any given species/morph, if any.You then need to know:What are the probabilities of these strata existing deep within the earth in the modern era?;
What are the probabilities that the fossils are metamorphosed out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that the strata are eroded out of existence?:
What are the probabilities that any given strata will be exposed on the earths surface, rather than beneath the sea?Given that the strata is exposed at the surface on land, is it in a place where people who appreciate the importance of such fossils will bring them to the attention of the relevant experts?You can WHAAAA, WHAAA, WHAAA! as much as you like, I'll even call the WHAAAAAmbulance if you really feel that unable to be rational.However, in order to satisfy logical argumentation, you need to satisfy ALL of your premises with facts, or you fail to logically arrive at your conclusion. Why is this so hard for you? Why can't you face your logical deficiencies head on & comment on them rather than just repeating the same old, oft refuted bullshit?Now, would you please be good enough to answer the following questions you are avoiding like the plague. You won’t catch atheism, I promise. Please answer them point by point. It's difficult to see what you are evading, otherwise.A summary of questions asked/points raised that are still lacking answers:1/ What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? (For the 8th time of asking).2/Why does cladistics & stratigraphy match the way it does? As explained, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do.3/Why do you demand more fossils when you know a species that contained 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 never provided an answer.4/Your denial of what evidence is. I repeat the following for the sixth time."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."Agree, disagree, comment?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-23-2005 08:44 PM

---

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

randman, So how do you know that I haven't dealt with your "specifics", then? Silly boy creationist!I deal here with points you have raised to me. If your "specifics" are anything other than that, then you will need to make me aware of then in reply to me. Since you can't be bothered to read my posts that are actually replies to you, it would be hypocritical of you to expect me to not only read your replies to me, but others as well. I have discussed the specifics of what you posted, I have taken issue with your premises. But I get irrelevant, evasive & illogical responses to them.... So, back to basics... In this post I will comprehensively deal with your argument, & your response to it. I'll break it into three sections for ease of digestion. I will firstly establish what an argument is, second show why your response is logically invalid, & thirdly show what is required of your argument in terms of premises/evidence, & why your position of "not enough fossils" is evidentially vacuous.This meets your standard for continuing the discussion, so I will brook no excuses. I am dealing specifically with your points & showing why they don't meet the logically required standard in order to meet an evidentially supported argument. WHAT AN ARGUMENT ISGoogle any site, & they'll tell you the same thing. An argument is a three stage affair where you infer a conclusion from premises.For example:Premises: Amy is dead of a gunshot wound (the bullet is in the wound). A gun was found on the floor with Eric's fingerprints on it. The gun was found in the same room as Amy. A bullet of the same calibre, that matches the ballistics of the gun was found in Amy. Eric's semen was found in Amy.Inference & conclusion: Eric raped & shot Amy.See? It's easy! We use this form of argumentation & hypothesis forming on a daily basis without even realising it. But the conclusion is only as good as the premises. Consider.Premises: Amy is missing. There is no gun in evidence.Inference & conclusion: Eric raped & shot Amy.Clearly the premises do not allow us to infer the same conclusion as in the original argument. The premises are vacuous, so, therefore, so is the conclusion.Clearly, evidence is the premise of a scientific argument/hypothesis. We rack up the facts/evidence, & infer our conclusion. So, if we want to add premises to our argument to support it more fully, then we need data that is consistent with/or inferences can be made that lead to the same conclusion. So evidence of a theory/hypothesis/argument is evidence that is consistent with it. Note evidence isn't proof, it is supporting data.All of this is extremely basic logic & isn't (or shouldn't be) contentious.THE SPECIFICS OF WHY YOUR RESPONSE IS LOGICALLY INVALID I am pointing out that your argument lacks evidentially supported premises, & your response fails to address this, so your reply consists of the logical flaw: red herring. You completely fail to address the issue of your vacuous premises & attempt to divert criticism away from this. The existence of intermediates is neither here nor there to my criticism.So, despite your "reply", the fact remains that you have attempted to make an evidentially supported argument from premises that you cannot hope to know, therefore your conclusion is as vacuous as your premises. The criticism remains unanswered.THE SPECIFICS OF WHY YOUR "NOT ENOUGH FOSSILS" ARGUMENT LACKS VERACITYSo, drawing on our knowledge of what it takes to make a logically valid, evidentially sound argument, you need premises that are factual, or ultimately your conclusion is bunk, from an evidence point of view.As described in a previous post, the ananswered questions that you are assuming as your premises (whether you realise it, or not) are along the lines of:What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;This will potentially give you how many fossils exist within the earth of any given species/morph, if any.You then need to know:What are the probabilities of these strata existing deep within the earth in the modern era?;
What are the probabilities that the fossils are metamorphosed out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that the strata are eroded out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that any given strata will be exposed on the earths surface, rather than beneath the sea?;
Given that the strata is exposed at the surface on land, is it in a place where people who appreciate the importance of such fossils will bring them to the attention of the relevant experts?Now, these are the premises you require evidentially derived figures for, in order to plug into your equation & reach your conclusion & show evo models are lacking. As far as I can see, you are in possession of none of them. So, given your conclusion is based on an utter lack of factual information, your conclusion can only be as good as your premises, ie. totally vacuous.Your argument is analogous to person A telling person B they don't have enough fireworks for the show, without knowing how many fireworks person B had to begin with. How many they have just bought. How long the show is due to last, & what is the rate of firework expenditure when the show is on. In fact, your ignorance of your conclusion is far, far worse, you have many more variables you lack knowledge of.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-24-2005 05:11 PM

---

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

randman, Rare = Uncommon. It is a relative term, however.Some species potentially leave lots of fossils because they either:A/ Exist in huge numbers, making even the low individual chance of fossilisation likely;B/ Exist in excellent conditions for fossilisation;C/ Exposed fossiliferous strata of any given age are limited in geographical extent on the modern earths surface. So give us potentially biased glimpses into the past. ie. A species that is only locally common may be very well represented purely because its geographical location is exposed on the surface today.D/ Are geographically widespread, increasing the chance of being exposed on the surface in the limited locations that that era is exposed in today.The reason species won't leave fossils are because:1/ Fossiliferous strata were annihilated by metamorphosism, or were eroded;2/ The species existed in limited numbers;3/ The species existed in environments not conducive to fossilisation;4/ Exposed fossiliferous strata of any given age are limited in geographical extent on the modern earths surface. Species that lived elsewhere will be unavailable to us as fossils, no matter how many billions of individuals actually became fossils.5/ The species in question do not fossilise well.As such, it doesn't matter how abundant a fossil species is, if its ancestors & descendents meet the conditions 1-5, then we are unlikely to see them in the fossil record.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-25-2005 01:36 PM

---

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