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

You are opperating with a number of serious misunderstandings. Perhaps this post will help with one of them:
Message 161

Perhaps you should jump into this thread here:
Message 260It has been quiet for awhile.It might help if you defined what you would consider as evidence. Frequently those not knowledgable in the field haven't thought this through very well.Also: it doesn't matter too much what someone assumed 150 years ago when we have lots of evidence of new species. In fact, a lot of creationists have agreed that new species and new genera arise. In fact, they think they arise much faster than even very radical evolutionists do.Perhaps you should know what those in your camp are saying as well as knowing a bit about evolutionary biology before making statments that are too strong?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-29-2005 12:37 AM

This belongs in the whale thread. In that thread you did NOT establish what we would expect to see. In fact, you left it unfinished.

This was explained more than once in the "whale" thread. Perhaps you should go back over that.

Perhaps you could make clear why you think the ToE could be expected to predict this? Your analogy fails in that it isn't one or two bullets but 100,000's of samples. What you are asking for is that the theory predict how many bullets would have been fired in the battle, how many weren't recycled later, how many survived a century or two of weathering and how many of those would be found while only doing a surface search.This is not a flaw of evolutionary theory at all since taphonomy is a separate issue. You were shown some references suggesting that the expected fossil preservaation was hugely less than you had guessed. You neglected to retract your guess and continue to base comments on 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.

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.

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.

I agree with you Mike. The terms have been used by biolgists (apparently) to distinguish between changes that stay within a species and those that separate spieces.However, in some contexts that can be misleading. The size of the changes and the nature of the changes are (I think) in general exactly the same. That is, the genetic changes that mark different individuals within a species may be in no way especially different than changes that support a speciation event. It just depends on the details that might force a population into two OR, more importantly, if populations are separated the accumulation of many similar "micro" changes will finallly produce a speciation event. Once we have a speciation the two genetic pools can go on to very, very large accumlation of changes to produce higher taxa.However, all the changes ALL of them, are micro (well almost all and there are details but the main point is true).The way in which non-biologists use the terms micro and macro are NOT the way in which biologists originally used them. So while you are right for practical purposes in this context so is Michah.

You were asked clear and specific questions. You don't have a clue about an answer do you?

Modulous, I think you need to make it much, much simpler for randman.He thinks there is a conflict between the bush analogy and the spectrum analogy. Anyone that thick will need to have it made very much simpler. You assume too much in: He'll need very specific help in seeing how the sprectrum behavior can produce a bush. I can't think of a way of taking the explanation down to the 3rd grade level of English but maybe you can.And your first paragraphs are repeats of material that randman has been given before. He hasn't figured any of it out yet so it's going to have to be made simpler yet.I'm not at all sure it is worth the effort. It seems pretty darn clear and simple now. Do you really think he is capable of understanding?