Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
104 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 103 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,087 Year: 6,199/6,534 Month: 392/650 Week: 162/278 Day: 2/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 286 of 304 (254764)
10-25-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by randman
10-25-2005 1:12 PM


Don't tell me stories.
Randman, you posted links to news stories about whale fossil discoveries. They are interesting, but they do not support your assertion. In fact, most of the stories concern a single find; ironically (in the context of this discussion), whale fossils are described as rare. Further, the decay process for whale remains is described, including the fact that everything, including the bones, is usually consumed.

Even more ironically, the species found is described as unknown in at least several of the stories.

I assume you assume the species ID will not provide a new (to science) ancestor (though one of your stories suggests that particular find may be just that).

How many whale fossils have been found? Of which species? From what era? Where were they found and in what context?

You are clearly still implicitly embracing your prior claim that most fossils that will be found have been found: can you show me the data on the pace of whale fossil discoveries? My subjective impression from the dates on my own google search is that the pace has picked up over the past decade or so...true, just as subjective as your impression--but then I didn't base any broad assertions on mine.

There are many web links concerning whale fossil finds, for sure, but you have supplied no data to support your assertions.

As it stands, your argument really is no more than, "I have a subjective impression that..." Subjective impressions can spark interesting discussions, but they do not support scientific assertions, nor are they valid grounds from which to falsify ToE.

Don't tell me stories; show me data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 1:12 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 4:27 PM Omnivorous has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 287 of 304 (254768)
10-25-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Omnivorous
10-25-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Don't tell me stories.
the point is whale fossil finds are so common that are routinely reported all over the world if a relatively complete skeleton is found....you can easily verify that whale fossils are "common in marine sediments", as I posted before on previous threads to you.

How much evidence do you need? For example, how many news reports or other reports of whale fossil finds do you need before you would admit they are fairly common?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Omnivorous, posted 10-25-2005 3:45 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 4:57 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 288 of 304 (254769)
10-25-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Modulous
10-25-2005 2:15 PM


Re: EIGHT
Well, considering some of those species are found together, and Basilosaurus has been found with Dorudon so close as to suggest Dorudon was it's prey, I am somewhat skeptical of your claims of the species being after Basilosaurus or transitional or something that evolved from it.

For example, Basilosaurus is dated often as late Eocene not mid-Epocene.

The warm coastal waters of the Late Eocene epoch were much like modern tropical oceans with one crucial exception. Eocene seas were home to an unusual and gigantic form of early whale called Basilosaurus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/seamonsters/factfiles/basilosaurus.shtml

So it doesn't seem your chronology fits as you state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 5:15 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 289 of 304 (254772)
10-25-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Admin
10-25-2005 3:01 PM


Re: Getting back on track
probably be next week, end of week

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Admin, posted 10-25-2005 3:01 PM Admin has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 304 (254776)
10-25-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by randman
10-25-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Don't tell me stories.
quote:
the point is whale fossil finds are so common that are routinely reported all over the world if a relatively complete skeleton is found....

If they are so "routine", why would they be reported as "news"? Does your paper have columns for public notifications like "Marriages", "Births", "Obituaries", and "Recent Fossil Discoveries"?


"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 287 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 4:27 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 5:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 291 of 304 (254777)
10-25-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Chiroptera
10-25-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Don't tell me stories.
Finding a whole whale skeleton is newsworthy, and it is something that happens all the time. I live at the beach. If someone gets bit by a shark, as they did last week, it will be in the news even though it happens on the Florida coast a bunch of times every year. It is both common and newsworthy since it doesn't happen everyday and not in the same spot everyday.

Whale fossils are common in marine sediments. The fact you guys are unaware of that is just evidence you have not taken the time to look into the data for yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2005 4:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 292 of 304 (254778)
10-25-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Modulous
10-25-2005 1:24 PM


Re: Please address these simple points
The fact fossilization is rare for most organisms does not mean fossilization is rare for species.

Why is that a difficult concept for you?

It's rare for any individual to be a Congressman, but it's not rare at all for a state to have Congressmen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 1:24 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 5:23 PM randman has replied
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 5:51 PM randman has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 293 of 304 (254779)
10-25-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by randman
10-25-2005 4:32 PM


Re: EIGHT
Well, considering some of those species are found together, and Basilosaurus has been found with Dorudon so close as to suggest Dorudon was it's prey, I am somewhat skeptical of your claims of the species being after Basilosaurus or transitional or something that evolved from it.

I'm certainly not claiming that these creatures evolved from Basilosaurus, although Dorudon is remarkably morphologically similar to Basilosaurus so it wouldn't surprise me if they were very closely related.

For example, Basilosaurus is dated often as late Eocene not mid-Epocene.

OK, so if it really suits you:

quote:
BASILOSAURUS: mid-late 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

And we have some overlap. These are still eight cetaceans which arrived between Basilosaurus and Modern Whales.

So it doesn't seem your chronology fits as you state.

I never gave a chronology, just a list of cetaceans and their associated age. I was not stating which ones came in which order other than the broader scope of passing of the ages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 4:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 6:09 PM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 294 of 304 (254782)
10-25-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by randman
10-25-2005 5:14 PM


Re: Please address these simple points
Re: Please address these simple points
The fact fossilization is rare for most organisms does not mean fossilization is rare for species.

Why is that a difficult concept for you?

It isn't a difficult concept. Let me replay the thread you are responding to:


randman writes:

100% of species could fossilize and fossils of all species be extremely common, and your definition be true

You mean 100% of all species could have at least one member fossilized and my definition still be true? Yes, one could argue that. It would still be a rare event.

randman writes:

but obviously species fossilizing would not be rare

Indeed.

Its a perfectly simple principle I am more than capable of grasping. Now its your turn to grasp a simple principle:

The fact that fossilization is less rare for some species does not mean fossilization is less rare for all species.

For some species we see a lot of fossils. It could quite easily be that it is less rare for that species to fossilize. Or it could be that any number of the other factors we've been discussing for the past 200 posts or so that have left us with many fossils of one species and a dearth of another.

That isn't a difficult concept is it randman?

For some species we don't see a lot of fossils. It could be that it is more rare for that species to fossilize. Or it could be that any number of the other factors we've been discussing for the past 200 posts or so.

This isn't too difficult a concept is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 5:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 5:55 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 299 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 5:59 PM Modulous has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 295 of 304 (254786)
10-25-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by randman
10-25-2005 5:14 PM


When did this become {Whales} again?
randman several posts ago writes:

If you want a real discussion, preface your post stating that and begin to deal with specifics of what I posted, showing you understand the points raised and why you disagree.

Now, by your own standard, answer the questions from Message 223:

Let me repeat -- do you deny:
(1) that variation between individuals exists within the populations of species?
(2) that speciation has been observed?
(3) that the greenish warblers show the gradation between forms that interbreed until a point is reached where two forms do not interbreed?
(4)that the greenish warblers show a very clear spectrum of life that diverges until two components no longer interbreed?
(5) that the variation shown by the greenish warblers in space is no different than the variation shown by other species in time: two populations diverging until a point is reached where two forms do not interbreed?

Is it really that hard to just answer these simple yes or no questions?

Or do you just keep reverting to the same broken record posts?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 5:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 5:56 PM RAZD has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 296 of 304 (254787)
10-25-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Modulous
10-25-2005 5:23 PM


Re: Please address these simple points
Ok, but we are talking about a much smaller range of development that all species that exist. Specifically, we are talking of land mammal to whales, also mammals. So we are comparing similar body structures, and once the process gets to water, fairly similar environmental conditions for fossilization.

So in the context of this discussion, it doesn't fit that some forms are extremely well-represented whereas 99% don't leave fossils at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 5:23 PM Modulous has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 297 of 304 (254788)
10-25-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by RAZD
10-25-2005 5:51 PM


Re: When did this become {Whales} again?
Yawn, asked and answered. It's not my fault if you are incapable of grasping the reality of the process that new features would have to arise and exist within distinct populations and no analogy is going to change that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 5:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 5:59 PM randman has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 298 of 304 (254789)
10-25-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by randman
10-25-2005 5:56 PM


Re: When did this become {Whales} again?
Yawn, asked and answered.

Prove it. Or withdraw this claim for the fallacy it is and then answer the questions.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 5:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by randman, posted 10-25-2005 6:00 PM RAZD has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 299 of 304 (254790)
10-25-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Modulous
10-25-2005 5:23 PM


Re: Please address these simple points
You stated 8 species "between", but that is inaccurate. The reference between suggests some sort of chronology, does it not?

The fact we see ancient whales does not alter the fact we don't see the transitions between ancient whales and their predecessors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2005 5:23 PM Modulous has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 300 of 304 (254791)
10-25-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by RAZD
10-25-2005 5:59 PM


Re: When did this become {Whales} again?
It's not my fault if you are incapable of grasping the reality of the process that new features would have to arise and exist within distinct populations and no analogy is going to change that fact.

What part of the above statement do you not understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 5:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 6:03 PM randman 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