The Nature and Significance of Fossil Intermediary Forms

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel:
The "most things that die don't fossilise" argument is the famous, but not very scientific, theoretical salvation of gradualism.

---

ummmm..... most things that die, don't fossilize. If they did, you'd be crunching bones everytime you take a step. This isn't hard to figure out. Why is it hard to swallow?

quote:

---

It can't be demonstraded, just like the possibility that God did it all can be proved.

---

Would you like to share that proof with us?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Why are you even bothering? You're arguing against someone whose understanding of evolutionary theory amounts to a strict gradualist strawman that no biologist on the planet subscribes to and whose principle evidence consists of "ye olde creationist quote mine". (As though Eldredge - the guy who wrote "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism" - is going to deny the evidence he has spent his life amassing...) I do so wish creationists would come up with new material once in awhile.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Why are you even bothering? You're arguing against someone whose understanding of evolutionary theory amounts to a strict gradualist strawman that no biologist on the planet subscribes to and whose principle evidence consists of "ye olde creationist quote mine". (As though Eldredge - the guy who wrote "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism" - is going to deny the evidence he has spent his life amassing...) I do so wish creationists would come up with new material once in awhile.

---

Yeah, I know its pointless. I've gotten into a tussle with PeterB too. There must be something wrong with me.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miguel:
Man, you are obcessed with the "necessary level of intermediate" question. What do you want, a graphic display, a complex equation. Read the quotes of Niles Eldredge.

---

And? Does Eldredge claim that there is an insufficiency of fossil intermediates, & therefore Darwinism is insufficiently supported as a theory? I think not. We all know there are gaps in the record.You made a positive claim that there was an insufficiency of transitional forms to justify Darwinism. I think a "put up or shut up" type of comment is fair at this juncture.Your claim, not mine. OK?

quote:

---

About Mr. Benton, i see he is your favorite scientist. We all have our references.

---

For the record, I pointed you to DATA, not quotes, that show that shows an overall trend of improving correlation between stratigraphy & cladistic analyses, as the regards the RCI.

quote:

---

The "most things that die don't fossilise" argument is the famous, but not very scientific, theoretical salvation of gradualism. It can't be demonstraded, just like the possibility that God did it all can be proved.

---

I think you will find that the opposite can't be shown either. This is precisely why I am asking you to support your claim that the fossil intermediates, or lack thereof is fatal to evolution. If you can't quantify how many intermediates you expect to find, you can't tell me how many we're short, now, can you? And if you can't do this, you don't have an argument regarding intermediate/transitional fossils. I, however, can back up my claims that there is a correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy, providing positive evidence in favour of evolutionary change over time.But, just so I know, do you think clades were created (not that you have identified yourself as a creationist) at roughly the family level? (Since you make a point of pre-familial gaps) If not, what?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

So, the genetic difference between say, a Bantu tribeman and a Swede is negligible, all from the same species.No argument from me there.But, where are the intermediates?

"If you are discussing 'transitional fossils' why are you
concerned with the 'number of mutative steps' to get from
one to the other?Are you suggesting that for every pair of 'transitionals' there
should be another intermediate?That being the case no wonder creationists are never satisfied,
after all you can divide by two ad infinitum!"
--No, read the article, I explain this:

quote:

---

Whether there exist transitional forms in the fossil record has become the trunk of the tree from which few other questions may branch forth. But this is not necessarily what should be the focus of the argument. It is the transition[or lack of one], not the transitional which allows us to delve further in these queries not provided by the latter. It is possible to induce a nearly endless argument if one is arguing if there exist transitionals. If a transitional is provided, it may be further argued that there is required a transitional between the provided transitional and the ancestral phylogeny in question.

---

--What would need to be found is not a couple of transitional fossils, but a good transition. If the phylogenetic jump in evolutionary history is indicated by the sequence 1, 2, 3,... 100[1 being the first population the 100 being the resulting population], and we have fossils 1, 69, 85, & 100 then we do not have a significant transition. What is further indicative of the lack of a good transition is if these fossils are available in large quantities for each of the phases. Another thing to consider is what the transition is for. If this is the transition for reptiles evolving into Mammals, this is a problem, though if it is a transition from a crawdad into a lobster, this is a pretty good transition. Furthermore, what should also be considered is the time it took for this transition to take place. Longer time spans demand more transitionals, while shorter ones demand few, still shorter a transition may indicate there was no transition at all."Do you think that is likely with fossilisation?
Even if you had all the bones how much difference
would constitute a 'change' rather than 'natural variability'?"
--It isn't just as simple as saying 'well fossilization is rare, so just having a few transitions for the reptile to bird evolutionary chain isn't a problem'. What should be expected of the populations morphology in between the noted transitions should be considered as well. In the reptile to bird scenario for instance, it should be shown that the resulting product was more likely to be fossilized than the preceding population morphology. Unless of course you want to argue that it just happened too quickly. But then that would have to be explained as well. Reptiles arent just going to transition into birds in a couple thousand years.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-19-2002]

bump....Miguel, post 25 please.....Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]

Miguel,

quote:

---

Miguel in response to Mammuthus: However i don't have doubts that live evolved through common ancestry, but i don't think things are so linear like you say.

---

As linear as who says? Mam doesn't lay claim to a strict gradualistic approach, neither does modern evolutionary theory. But, if organisms didn't evolve as "linearly" as apparently Mam says, then where are the transitional fossils? If speciation wasn't a pure saltational event, that is. Are you a saltationist? If not, then you have a lot of explaining to do regarding all those missing fossils .Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I think I see what you are saying, but what is a good
transitional?If something appears to provide a link between two other
time-separated specimens on morphological grounds, how close
do they need to be to satisfy the proposition of evolutionary
relationship?Look at supposed horse evolution (although I guess that's
covered by the acceptable speciation) ... if one accepts
that fossil evidence (perhaps you don't?) then why not
others?

--I've posted a new updated version of this article:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...ose/transitionals.htm--Little has changed, though there has been a lot of editing the syntax and such for clarity. This is less a draft and more of a complete essay, though it is a "Preliminary Concerns" version of a possible future project.-------------------