Those reasons are missing the point. Explaining why some species are more likely to have fossils than others is not what I am asking.
Excellent, then you concede that I have explained why some species are more likely to have fossils than others.
I am asking for definitions within a context of rarity. Fossilization is not that rare for many species, and we are asked to assume it is incredibly rare for something like 99.9% of species or maybe families of species.
Referring you back to
Message 93,
Message 87,
Message 110 and of course,
Message 259, all that is being proposed is that the vast majority of organisms that die do not fossilize. You accept (above) that populations can be favourable to discovarable fossilization. There are reasons that have been given why some species have many more fossils than others. Notably in the very post you replied to. Let me go over them again:
quote:
* high quantity of living members of the population
* population existed in an area highly conducive to fossilization
* population existed globally, including areas highly conducive to fossilzation
* population existed in a similar state of affairs for a long period of time
* population existed in areas which have had a high fossil survival rate
* population existed in areas which have had a high fossil discovery rate (ie are accesable to humans in a practical manner)
The populations of species that we see many accounts of probably existed under some combination of the above conditions. The populations of species that we do not see many accounts of probably existed under different combinations, such as existing in an area which has no surviving fossils due to erosion, or existing in areas that inaccessable or existing in areas that were high in predation or any number of counter scenarios to the above list.
On your definition of rare, that is once again a weasel answer.
Sorry for giving you a weasel answer, but it is the honest answer, so I assume you should deal with it.
quote:
Most organisms do not fossilize and those that do are usually destroyed by geological processes or they never surface for examination
Source
quote:
Most organisms lack substantial hard parts and rarely fossilize. The fossil record in its entirety is estimated to include only from 3% to 13.6% of all species that ever lived. The vast majority of described species are living ” only 8.7% of those described formally are fossils.
Source
The fact most organisms don't fossilize means nothing.
I contend that it means something. I contend that it means that most organisms that die do not fossilize.
100% of species could fossilize and fossils of all species be extremely common, and your definition be true
You mean 100% of all species could have at least one member fossilized and my definition still be true? Yes, one could argue that. It would still be a rare event.
but obviously species fossilizing would not be rare
Indeed.
The question is how rare, and back this up with quantized analysis not just mere claims, is it for species or families of species, specifically mammals, to have fossils that we have found?
Well, in order to make this kind of analysis we need data. Data that we are missing, the kind of missing data is discussed in
Message 237 (and in just about every other post in this thread). Nobody is making any mathematical claims based on rarity so exact figures for each species is not necessary. If you want to quantisize, let's try for just one species. Basilosaurus:
Answer me this: How many times did Basilosaurus fossilize?
We'll need to know this, and we'll need to know:
How many Basilosauruses have ever existed.
Then we can calculate, for that species, how rare fossilization was.
Of course, we cannot do this calculation. If you can actually demonstrate
why a quantitive figure is needed for certain conclusions to be reached, then do so.
I'm going to paste your quote again:
The question is how rare, and back this up with quantized analysis not just mere claims, is it for species or families of species, specifically mammals, to have fossils that we have found?
It is rare for any organism that dies to fossilize. That refers to individuals.
True or False:
* low population species are less likely to have an individual represented in the fossil record.
The answer to your question is: It depends. It is rare for a small (quantity) species living in an area ill-conducive to fossilisation, with high predation living alongside scavengers which only exist for 5,000 years to have one of its members fossilize.
It is less rare for a highly populated species living in ideal fossilization areas, little predation or scavengers which exist for 10,000,000 years to have a member fossilize.
Where are they in the fossil record? So where are the large numbers of other aquatic species that evolved into whales?
They either didn't fossilize, haven't been discovered or have been since destroyed.
So we see that creatures occupying the whale's habitat fossilize. Answers that.
Modern Whales and Basilosaurus are known to be global, long lasting and highly populace species. Can you tell me that the intermediate species were also global, long lasting and highly populated? Also note, I believe I have listed at least 8 found transitional fossils between Whales and Basilosaurus.
We see that time is not an issue because we see an abundance of fossils from before and after the period of time we are discussing as far as immediate whale ancestors.
It is the length of time given transitionals stuck around, and how populace they were.
So why don't we see any of the whale's immediate predecessors?
We do, several of my posts have documented eight cetaceans between basilosaurus and modern whales.
™ Version 4.2