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

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.

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.

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.

What do you mean by 8 species in between?

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?

From Scope | News

quote:

---

Dr. Brand found that the whale remains were blanketed by a thick layer of diatomite (silica remains of diatoms). These tiny creatures, known collectively as plankton together with dinoflagellates, are part of the food source for whales...

​

But why did the whales die in the first place? "There is more and more evidence that red tides--blooms of diatoms and dinoflagellates--produce toxins which can kill large animals and fish," he says.

​

Recently, it was discovered that several hundred sea lions off the coast of California were killed by toxins produced by diatoms. Other studies of these tiny organisms have found that increased levels of iron in the water greatly increase the rate of reproduction.

​

"Perhaps an increase of iron in the water, together with volcanic ash from the Andes--which provides silica--caused a bloom of diatoms to take place," Dr. Brand hypothesizes, "and the toxins produced by the diatoms killed the whales."

​

Falling to the bottom, he postulates, the whales were soon covered by the skeletal remains of the diatom bloom before decay and scavengers could damage and scatter the bones.

​

"We did not find evidence of the other animals which typically form the ecosystem around a decaying whale carcass," he details, "probably because whales were buried before those animals were able to colonize it."

​

Interestingly, sharks did leave their mark on the fossil whale remains studied in detail by the team, evidenced by both teeth marks on the bones and actual teeth left behind.

---

I thought that might be interesting to everyone. The other links aren't so interesting unfortunately.

randman, 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. Your question was: 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.MarkThis 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

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 Eocene
Prozeuglodon: late Eocene
Eocetus: late Eocene
Dorudon intermedius: late Eocene
Agorophius: Oligocene
Prosqualodon: Oligocene
Aetiocetus: Oligocene
Kentriodon: Miocene
Mesocetus: Miocene
MODERN WHALES: Late Miocene

I think exchanging feedback on these issues might best be accomplished in a chat format. When can you make it to the chat room?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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 | News
hundreds 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.html
skull, ear bones, vertebrae, and ribs, 1 specimen, baleen, no further identification, 3.5 mya, virginia. seems legit, light on details.Error
vertebra, 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.php
many dolphins specimens and other specimens, including an apparent toothed, baleen transition!! 10-35 mya. seems legit but hard to say, very light on details.Yahoo
umm, 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.

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.

quote:

---

these finds apparantly refute geologic history.

---

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

Set a time, whenever, that isn't during business hours eastern time.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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. -clark
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-25-2005 03:04 PMThis message has been edited by Clark, 10-25-2005 03:15 PM