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

The taxanomic system (Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species) are a human imposed classification system ranging from general to specific which evaluates a creatures position in the spectrum ().The criteria, overall, does not capture all the intricacies in variation, reproduction, divergence, etc. but rather provides a rough outline of a creatures relatedness.Therefore, there is no true, 100% applicable delimiter for what you call a "speciation event". Further, the notion that there is ONE solidly definable event where one species BECOMES another is idiotic.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-24-2005 08:33 AM

I don't understand what you mean by this exactly. Are you saying that you would expect a whale precoursor to have a blowhole and fins? Like, suddenly a land mamal gave birth to a dolphin?Seriously, could you explain this question a little more. Ah, that's an easy one. It boils down to quantity and environment.We have tons of fossils of trilobites and other Cambrian fauna because they were incredibly abundant, and luckily enough, they lived in a sediment filled environments. Couple that with easy to fossilize hard shells, and continental uplift (pushing their burial grounds up above watter where scientists can study them), you got a creature that turns up a lot in the fossil record.Now, consider a creature like the whale. It's populations are relatively small, and wide ranging. Most whales live in deep ocean watter. Furthermore, whales haven't been around for very long so we can't really rely on much tectonic activity to reveal any deep ocean burial sites to us.In any case, while the probabilities are higher given many factors, there is never a 100% guarantee. Just because something fossilizes it doesn't mean 1) it will last the millenia 2) will ever be found. Again, I'm not following. Are you talking about fossilization rates between extinct and non-extinct critters? If you are, then the fallacy of that logic is evident.You can't account for the millions of years time difference. Not to mention the myriad other variables involved.

Rule #5: Please cite aspects of the articles you tink are relevant and/or wan't to discuss.

Yes, I suppose some species of ancient whale are. Like Basilosaur for example. But "well represented" is a relative term.For example, compare the amount of whale fossils we have to the amount of trilobytes. You see what I mean?We may have a few dozen basilosaurus fossils, but we have several thousand (guessing here, may be wrong, but the number is up there) trilobites. Well, we have looked at the data.....Let me put it to you this way randman.Say your friend Joe goes to the casino every week to play roulette. Joe goes in on monday and wins himself $1000 dollars. Now you want to use the data gathered from that win (the squares he played, the amount he wagered, how many times he gambled before making a win) to assess what joe won (if he won at all) last week.How are you gonna do that?I mean, you can callculate the odds of winning based on the amount of squares joe played this week, etc. But you can't guarantee Joe played any of the same squares last week, or how much money he wagered, or any other specific info for that matter, so the point is moot. All you know is that Joe played last week and that's it.

Ah! ok. You should add that too the post.The reason I say this is that folks, like me, are given to just pass by a laundry list of bare links. If you explain that the links are short descriptions of finds, people will be more inclined to click on them.

Sorry. I don't see that number. Here, I'll give you an accurate number on those Trilobites:Trilobite - Wikipedia And a great site here A Guide to the Orders of Trilobites:As it turns out I was wrong. There are litteraly millions of trilobite fossils found! It is one of the most common fossils. The cambrian erra was known as the age of the trilobite. They are an incredibly common find.My apologies.I read thrugh a few articles on Basil (from the last time we were on this marry go round) and I don't see a specific number I may be wrong. But, taking your number at face value, how does that compare to the trilobite?This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-25-2005 02:04 PM

No it's not. Because joe may have bet all black today. And last weak he only bet on number 11. Do you see how there are many more variables that work into his odds?