Why do we only find fossils?

Let me repost what I wrote:

quote:

---

and you are now using the argument

​

'We don't see organisms x in the tar pit because it might not have existed at locale y in significant numbers'

​

even though there is evidence that organisms x did exist in that locale in significant numbers.

---

You rejected it when you said: In Message 33No you didn't. Nor did I say you did. I said that you are using the argument 'even though there is evidence that organisms x did exist in that locale in significant numbers'

I guess they went to the same place as all the 99% of transitionals never materializing.

Rather than go into this, how about you actually address the point? I really don't care to go into this. It makes no difference to the point of my post. If you wish you can replace that statement without the mention of 8 transitionals. Maybe some other time we can talk about these 8 fellas? Is this relevant? Please address the actual post, thanks.

Modulous, I will try once again. If dinos had died off or were declining, one would not expect to see them, right?Let's think of it this way. You have Xbillion members declining to either 0 or maybe Xmillion members. That is a declining scale. That does not mean that they do not exist. That is my point.But considering whale ancestors, supposedly and whales, we have presumably a more constant, Xbillion. So since there is no decline, we should expect to see this group well-represented at all points in aquatic environments.So there is no excuse to claim thousands of species existed in the "tar pits" of aquatic environment without any evidence they existed.Do you understand the point now?

Nice dodge, but the point still stands. Please answer Message 54There is alot you MUST account for enlight of this clinching evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old and that biology on earth goes thrugh drastic changes.

Solnhofen Limestone - WikipediaThe solhofen limestone are most famous for archyopterix, however it is important to note that it is a huge Lagersttten (fossil repository). It used to be an anceient lagoon where things died and were fossilized into limestone due to silt build up.Over 600 specieas have been identified from this late Jurassic site, many small dinosaurs, extinct insects, fish, and other things. However not a single mammal of any kind.The Solnhofen Limestone of Germany
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/...ofen/Solnhofen_Lagerstatt.htmThis message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 03:36 PM

Agreed. I agree. Haven't disagreed with this point. I believe I said:

quote:

---

Conclusion: Dinosaurs were not abundant in area x at time b

---

That's a fairly large presumption isn't it? But let's go with this, see where its going... Unless of course that at the areas which have fossils surviving, these organisms didn't exist in significant numbers, or their fossils did not survive, or the area became temorarily unconducive to fossilization, or... Well, I started to address this in Message 71. Perhaps you can go back to it and address the points (tell me where you agree and disagree and why as I have been doing with your posts). If, after addressing that post, you feel there are other issues that need raising, then we'll get to them, OK?This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 10-November-2005 08:40 PM

Yaro, I don't have to answer because I am not claiming to be a YECer. In fact, you know full well I stated I accept an old earth.I pointed out areas that I think you guys need to deal with, not the other way around.What's your problem? The fact life has changed in the earth is not inconsistent with any paradigm out there, whether ToE, theistic evolution, ID, or creationism.

Mod,I appreciate the discussion you are having, but it seems this is gonna turn into anothe whale thread, and I really would rather keep the heat up on randman to adress the issues raised by the fact of La Brea.This is giving him an out to do a little symantic dance and it could easaly eat the 300 post limit. Hows about it?

That could be a possibility if there was some way for the transitional species to occupy a different habitat other than aquatic, but unless you are claiming they could have evolved back onto land and then back to the water, it is a moot point.I thought you would have seen that.Can you address the fact that the necessity of aquatic habitats is a limiting and defining factor, kind of like La Brea tar pits.

I understand and I am not saying you are a YEC. But, you are anti-evolution, so you must account for a whole bunch of problems now:1) Where did all the animals go?2) Where are all the new species comming from?3) If all species coexisted at some time, how on earth did they survive without eating each other out of house and home? Im granting you that evolution never happend. It didn't happen, I conceed.Now explain how you account for the diversity in the fossil record. It is if you dispute evolution. Less you wanna say god snaps his fingers and introduces a new species every 100k years or so.They gotta be comming from somewhere because clearly:1) They never coexisted.2) They COULDN'T have coexisted. The ecosystem wouldn't take the abuse.Agreed?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 03:52 PM

Excellent, you accept that it is a possibility, if the transitional species was to occupy a different 'habitat'. We're close to agreeing, I can almost feel it.'Aquatic' is not an area. If basilosaurus existed in area 1, and some of the population drifted to area 2. The populations may stop breeding, speciate and go on to form some of our transitionals.So far so good. Now what if area 2 was rubbish for fossilization? What if it was an area whose fossils did not survive to our age? What if all the other things we've discussed? Then we wouldn't find their fossils would we?

---

Any chance of going back to Message 71 and actually addressing it?

Please actually address the post by telling me where we agree and disagree. That would really help this discussion move forward, I feel. The points you raise here are identical to the points you raised in Message 82. Why did you raise the same points to me twice in a row?Anyway, for the readers, I dealt with this in Message 87

No worries. I made a promiseI'll P an NT

Couple of corrections. First off, there is reason to think more animals could coexist together than do today, including mega-fauna, and the reason is the earth was not as populated by people and destructive development so the regions for populations would be much bigger, and certainly with more prey, that means more and larger predators would be able to be supported. The YECers have a perfectly valid point there.I think evaluating extinction rates compared to rates of observed new speciation is another fact demonstrating the same point. We see plenty of species going extinct and next to none forming anew. If extinction rates were constant, that alone disproves ToE models.On to the next point, some IDers propose a progressive creation and/or aided evolution. It appears at this juncture to me, that the evidence most backs ID models of one form or another. We see species seeming to emerge anew, although it is possible perhaps some of them existed prior as the creationists argue, but let's stick with the maxim if we don't see it in the fossil record at a given time, it probably wasn't there. Can we do that?So that suggests species emerged somehow as you suggest. Well, just being consistent with this maxim, if they had evolved or emerged for the most part based on ToE mechanisms, not ID mechanisms, we should expect to see the transitional forms present in the fossil record.We don't so that suggest ToE is wrong, and points to some sort of ID mechanism, or perhaps to metaphysics, which we will leave off for now.