|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Yaro, he is asking for whale fossils, to show how common they are. As such, the links are self-explanatory. They show whale finds in many different areas of the world. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Mark, can any of you guys explain how in the same area, we see whales and Basilosaurus, but none of the species that supposedly are in between. I'm not Mark, but I'd like to point out for at least the third time that we see at least eight species in between.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yaro, the specifics don't really matter. If know Joe played in the casino for 2 weeks, and won 1000 hands (fossils), then we can reasonably say it's not that rare for someone to win a hand in the casino.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What do you mean by 8 species in between?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Yaro, take some time to learn the data. Try to engage it instead of trying to make an argument. We have thousands of Basilosaurus fossils. They are so common in Louisiana and Mississippi that people used them for various things around the house and to prop up houses. If you had at all taken the time to seriously look at the links I provide on these threads and my posts, you would know that. Sorry. I don't see that number. Here, I'll give you an accurate number on those Trilobites: Trilobite - Wikipedia
Trilobites are well-known, possibly the second most famous fossil group after the dinosaurs, and are the most diverse group of animal species preserved in the fossil record, consisting of eight, possibly nine, orders and over 15,000 species. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
From Scope | News
quote: I thought that might be interesting to everyone. The other links aren't so interesting unfortunately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Mark, can any of you guys explain how in the same area, we see whales and Basilosaurus, but none of the species that supposedly are in between. Er, I will, right after you respond to my direct reply to your specific questions. On second thoughts, what would be the point? You'll only ignore the answer like your doing now.
Engage the specific areas and specific data, not generalizations about why some species may not have fossilized. Your question was:
randman forgets writes: 2. On the nature of fossilization, I would like to see someone explain why a process so rare routinely has produced dozens, hundreds and thousands of fossils of just one species, and qualify what they mean by "rare." It is rare for some individual to win the lottery, but it is not rare that someone will win the lottery. You never asked me why Basilosaurus & whales were in the same area. Why would I try to explain that? Jesus H. Christ, what an idiot! You will however note that I define "rare", as asked. I also explain why some species fossils are relatively common, & others are nowhere to be seen, as asked. Now, did point 2 of post 257 ask anything else? Have a look... No it doesn't. I replied to your point 2, as requested, now respond to the answer & stop being such an obtuse fuckwit. Good grief. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 10-25-2005 02:28 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Back in Message 120 I fired off eight species that evolutionarily come between Basilosaurus and Modern Whales, these were found with a few minutes of searching so there may be more.
BASILOSAURUS: mid EoceneProzeuglodon: late Eocene Eocetus: late Eocene Dorudon intermedius: late Eocene Agorophius: Oligocene Prosqualodon: Oligocene Aetiocetus: Oligocene Kentriodon: Miocene Mesocetus: Miocene MODERN WHALES: Late Miocene
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
randman writes: I am willing to accept feedback, but only if that feedback is tied to the specific issues raised above, and not just thrown out willy-nilly. I think exchanging feedback on these issues might best be accomplished in a chat format. When can you make it to the chat room?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
The Nat |
One specimen, a skull, baleen, mysticeti, species unknown, may be "new to science". from 2-3 mya, found in san diego. the article seems legit, but doesn't have much detail. Scope | Newshundreds of specimens in one location, balleen, no further identification, from 1.8-23 mya, peru. seems legit, but light on details. http://dml.cmnh.org/1996Jul/msg00127.htmlskull, ear bones, vertebrae, and ribs, 1 specimen, baleen, no further identification, 3.5 mya, virginia. seems legit, light on details. Errorvertebra, neck, fin, sholuder, 1 specimen, baleen, no further identification, 8 mya, maryland. seems legit, very light on details. http://www.washington.edu/.../paleontology/marine/whales.phpmany dolphins specimens and other specimens, including an apparent toothed, baleen transition!! 10-35 mya. seems legit but hard to say, very light on details. Yahooumm, these seems to be the specimens already under discussion. the fossils in the fossil phylogeny of whales. http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html claims that 3 whales specimens have been found in michigan, a sperm, finback, and right whale. it is a creationist site, these finds apparantly refute geologic history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Percy, I don't know honestly. It's bad timing. Maybe tonight, and maybe next week. I am about to leave town for a week, maybe less, and won't be around a computer until late at night in all likelihood.
But I can log onto the chat area for a few minutes now, but probably will get a phone call and have to go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: How so? They don't even seem to refute Modulous' post. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Set a time, whenever, that isn't during business hours eastern time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
Very interesting but NOT on topic here. Please start a new thread on the "misplaced" cetaceans That link says that according to standard geologic history, there hasn't been an ocean in Michigan for 290 millions years, therefore something is wrong because modern whale fossils have been found there. i agree it is off-topic and have no intentions of defending the claims of creationists sites anyway. -clarkThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-25-2005 03:04 PM This message has been edited by Clark, 10-25-2005 03:15 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024