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

Hello, michah, and welcome to EvC.

quote:

---

I am interested in recieving information which might serve to either prove or disprove evolution on the topic being presented.

---

I'm not sure what you are expecting for "proof". The way the theory of evolution works is that we say, "If common descent is true, then we should see such-and-such." Then we go out and see if we actually do see such-and-such. If we do, then that counts a confirmation for evolution. If not, then we either have to explain why factors prevent us from seeing such-and-such, or we have to modify the theory. After repeated confirmation over many, many years, we can consider the theory "proven" in some sense -- this is how every scientific theory works. Predictions, then observation, then further modification if necessary.The remarkable thing about the theory of evolution is that common descent through natural selection of randomly occurring variations has been pretty well confirmed over the last 150 years. The only minor modification to the basic theory has been the recognition that neutral drift may also have a measurable effect on the evolution of species.-

quote:

---

Present at least a few decent facts or links to factual, studied evidence before pouring out your heart into an area you haven't even taken to research for yourself...

---

Why do you think none of us have studied this ourselves? Does the link I provided count as "decent facts"?-

quote:

---

are we unable, or incapable of presenting ANY SIGNIFICANT finds which would SCIENTIFICALLY prove that belief?

---

Why are you so concerned about fossils? The theory of evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence in many different scientific disciplines besides the fossil record. In fact, the fossil record was not very well known in Darwin's time, and scientists became convinced of common descent very quickly based on Darwin's collection of non-fossil evidence.That said, what do you expect to see in the fossil record? It is known that fossilization is a pretty rare process -- we are pretty lucky to have any fossils at all. That said, we do have some remarkable examples of transitional fossils that confirm the theory of common descent very well.What problem do you see with the fossil record, and why do you think it presents a problem?

quote:

---

NO FOSSILS COUNT AS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION...PERIOD.

---

Actually, they do count. Here is the way it works.Let us consider whales. Teeth are very diagnostic in mammals. You can often tell to which family and genus (sometimes even species) a specimen belongs just by looking at its teeth.It was noted that the teeth of whales (the ones with teeth) are similar to those of an extinct carnivorous artiodactyl called a mesonychid. So it was hypothesized that whales evolved from a certain branch of artiodactyl.So here is a prediction that can be made based on the theory of evolution: there used to exist species that were intermediate between these ancient terrestrial artiodactyls and modern whales. Note that there is no other reason to assume a priori that animals intermediate between artiodactyls and whales ever existed. Certainly, there is no reason to suppose that a creator created them. Maybe he did, or maybe he didn't -- there is no reason to assume that these creatures existed.But if the theory that whales evolved from ancient artiodactyls is correct, then these species definitely did exist. Threfore, if we find the remains of animals that have characteristics in between modern whales and these particular ancient artiodactyls, then this is confirmation for the theory that whales evolved from these creatures.And what do you know? Such fossils have been found!Now take bats. There are no fossils yet known of ancient bat precursors. We believe that bats evolved from a certain type of ancient arboreal mammal. Therefore, if this theory is correct, there must have been creatures that were intermediate between these ancient tree-dwelling mammals and modern bats. These animals might not have existed -- certainly the creator had no special reason to create them, he might have or he might have not -- but if the theory that bats evolved from this particular branch of tree-dwelling mammals is correct these in between species had to exist. So, if fossils of bat precursors are found that have characteristics in between modern bats and ancient arboreal mammals, evolution will have again be confirmed.

quote:

---

Okay, here's the only problem with your version of fossil usage...

---

Good. Then once we get this problem settled, you will accept that the fossil evidence is pretty good.-

quote:

---

You are determining the age of the fossils based on the age of the layer they are found in.

---

And the age of the layer is usually pretty accurately determined through radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is a very well understood science. We know which methods will work under which conditions, and we can identify the types of layers that will not give very accurate age determinations. When radiometric dating is used correctly, then we get some rather accurate age determinations. When different radiometric techniques are used on the same layers, different techniques that rely on very different radioactive decay mechanisms, they give very reliable, very consistent ages. And when fossils are dated in this manner, every single species is found only within a very narrow range of ages. In fact, the ages of fossil species are so consistent that we can then turn around and use the existence of certain species in a layer to give preliminary estimates of the ages of strata before radiometric dating can be done.Here is a evangelical Christian site that explains how well radiometric dating works.- Polystryate fossils were explained over a hundred years ago; it is known that thick layers of sediments can be deposited quickly, and that several layers of sediments can be deposited very quickly, one after another.-

quote:

---

My only point is, you have no way of determining just how old these fossils are, therefore, you cannot tell me that one came before the other.

---

Then you did not understand my point. I said that the very existence of these species are confirmation for evolution. These species did not have to exist at all; the theory of evolution insists that they did, and we have evidence that these species did exist.That being said, it turns out that we can get very accurate ages on these fossils. We do know which species came before or after which, and what do you think we find? The more primitive, more terrestrial species did occur before more derived, more whale-like species, just as you would expect if whales evolved over time from terrestrial artiodactyls.-

quote:

---

I will concede your point that fossils can be used PARTIALLY for evidence, but they are not the most important part.

---

You are exactly right. Fossils are not the most important evidence that we have. In fact, Darwin propose his theory of evolution, and scientists accepted common descent, before there was good fossil evidence. There is overwhelming evidence in a number of different disciplines, each relying on very different methodologies.

Hello, David.

quote:

---

So, if you cannot find fossils that show the transition of species, then there is a big hole.

---

Why do you say that, David? Charles Darwin developed his theory of evolution without relying on the fossil record. If you read Origin of Species and Descent of Man you will see that Darwin present quite a lot of very detailed evidence for evolution, but very little about fossils. There is a lot of good evidence for the theory of evolution without fossils.Of course, the fossil record actually is more good evidence for evolution, but I am curious why people fixate on the fossils, seeing how there is so much good evidence to be found by examining modern, existing species.

quote:

---

You seem fixated on the predictions that *you* think that ToE *should* be making on amounts of fossils that we should find, in comparison with what we do find.

---

Yeah, in general creationists tend to be quick about telling us what they expect to be confirming/falsifying evidence, but rarely are their opinions based on understanding the basics of the particular discipline, and often not even based on logic.My favorite (off-topic, sorry) is when people claim that it it not scientific to accept evolution until someone can explain the exact mutations at the exact times in the evolution of a particular species.-

quote:

---

The nested hierarchy that all creatures found in the fossil record fit into is extremely powerful evidence in support of evolution.

---

Uh-oh. Someone is going to think that I'm registered under two different names!

---

"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

What's funny is that his posts are exactly like what got him suspended before.

---

"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

Also, Gould and Eldredge have also acknowledged examples in the fossil record the slow, gradual change of traditional Darwinism. Their claim is that punctuated equilibrium describes some, maybe most, of the fossil lineages, but by no means all of it.And if I recall correctly, I thought I read an essay by Gould where he noticed, in the fossil record, the sudden replacement of one species of Cerion (his specialty) by another, clearly related species. He subsequently found a very small area where the slow, gradual transition from one species to the other was well documented. This positive evidence (not the alleged negative evidence) is what gave him the idea of punctuated equilibrium. But I could be mistaken about what I remember in this regard. Anyone else have more information?

---

"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

Would polar bear/brown bear be one of those blurry lines?

---

"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

quote:

---

And I pointed out where one of the leading researchers in the field in terms of whale evolution states publicly that Pakicitids are in the same suborder and are "whales" or cetaceans.

---

I still fail to see why you have a problem with the fact that Pakicetids were whales.

---

"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

You were already told that the Pakicetids share features in the inner ears as well as features of dentition with modern whales. These are features shared by no other mammal, therefore they count as "sitinguishing".To say "0%", therefore, seems to be a bit dishonest.

---

"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

quote:

---

Pakicetus does not actually have a whale-ear.

---

Which is not what I said.-

quote:

---

I offer a bit of logic.

---

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

---

"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

quote:

---

Would that not mean that it had partially formed whale features, so therefore can be thought of as a transitional?

---

"You cannot consider something a falling body unless it hits the ground."But that object just hit the ground."Now it's lying on the ground, so obviously it's not falling."What a maroon.

---

"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

I vote for the first one. randman is clealy a parody, trying to make creationists look ridiculous.

---

"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

quote:

---

I will try one more time to reason with you guys.

---

And then what?

---

"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

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