Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
573 online now:
AZPaul3, Parasomnium, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 568 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,950 Year: 6,062/6,534 Month: 255/650 Week: 25/278 Day: 25/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
Yaro
Member (Idle past 5807 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 271 of 304 (254729)
10-25-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by randman
10-25-2005 1:40 PM


Re: So show us the data, already!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:40 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 272 of 304 (254731)
10-25-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by randman
10-25-2005 1:47 PM


EIGHT
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:55 PM Modulous has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4210 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 273 of 304 (254732)
10-25-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Yaro
10-25-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Getting back on track
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Yaro, posted 10-25-2005 1:32 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Yaro, posted 10-25-2005 2:03 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4210 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 274 of 304 (254733)
10-25-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Modulous
10-25-2005 1:54 PM


Re: EIGHT
What do you mean by 8 species in between?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 1:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 2:15 PM randman has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 5807 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 275 of 304 (254734)
10-25-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by randman
10-25-2005 1:45 PM


Re: Getting back on track
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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

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 http://www.trilobites.info/:

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:45 PM randman has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 5807 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 276 of 304 (254735)
10-25-2005 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by randman
10-25-2005 1:54 PM


Re: Getting back on track
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:54 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 277 of 304 (254736)
10-25-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by randman
10-25-2005 1:12 PM


Some answers for you
From http://www.llu.edu/news/scope/sum00/fossils.html

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:12 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Clark, posted 10-25-2005 2:25 PM Modulous has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 4506 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 278 of 304 (254738)
10-25-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by randman
10-25-2005 1:47 PM


Re: Getting back on track
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:47 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 279 of 304 (254740)
10-25-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by randman
10-25-2005 1:55 PM


Re: EIGHT
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 4:32 PM Modulous has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 280 of 304 (254742)
10-25-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by randman
10-25-2005 11:55 AM


Re: Getting back on track
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?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 11:55 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 2:47 PM Admin has replied

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 304 (254744)
10-25-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Modulous
10-25-2005 2:05 PM


Re: Some answers for you
http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/whale.html
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.

http://www.llu.edu/news/scope/sum00/fossils.html
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.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/30/whale.fossil.ap/
vertebra, neck, fin, sholuder, 1 specimen, baleen, no further identification, 8 mya, maryland. seems legit, very light on details.

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/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.

http://hometown.aol.com/ksmith9526/WhalesSearchingFossils.htm
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 2:05 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 2:48 PM Clark has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4210 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 282 of 304 (254747)
10-25-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Admin
10-25-2005 2:20 PM


Re: Getting back on track
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Admin, posted 10-25-2005 2:20 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Admin, posted 10-25-2005 3:01 PM randman has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 304 (254748)
10-25-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Clark
10-25-2005 2:25 PM


Re: Some answers for you
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Clark, posted 10-25-2005 2:25 PM Clark has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Clark, posted 10-25-2005 3:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 284 of 304 (254755)
10-25-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by randman
10-25-2005 2:47 PM


Re: Getting back on track
Set a time, whenever, that isn't during business hours eastern time.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 2:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 4:42 PM Admin has not replied

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 304 (254756)
10-25-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Chiroptera
10-25-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Some answers for you

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 PM

This message has been edited by Clark, 10-25-2005 03:15 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 2:48 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022