When science use biblic words (Re: Lazarus Taxa / Ghost Lineage)

Dear all,Feel free to give your opignion about this term: Do you think this is a step toward a reconciliation?See more about here: http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/Benton/1999Wignall.pdfPS. This is my first hundred post and I would like to thanks you all. I can't easily detect classic jokes in replies. But reading and posting here were very instructive.Denesha

Dear Born2preach,It takes arround 20 seconds to download this PDF file with a low speed modem. But you need Acrobat to read it. I didn't mention that.So, it's my goodness day, here is the intro: From Wignall & Benton, 1999Better now?Denesha

Hi Born2preach,Another term is used for a similar phenomenon: Ghost lineage"A ghost lineage is an evolutionary lineage for which no fossil record exists, but the presence of which is inferred from related organisms separated by vast stretches of time".
(from Evowiki)Strange. Some scientists prefer "ghost" rather than "Lazarus".In fact both are overstated. The fossil lack is due to gaps, minimum population maintained in an undiscovered yet refuge area and regular low demography below the threshold of fossil record.Denesha

Thank you Abby,We could try to complicate a bit more if the gap includes a mass extinction or not.Answers couldn't be simple.Denesha

I agree Abby. This classic example is quite good and underscores the incompleteness of our fossil documentation. But if we analyse closely this present case we observe that Coelacanth was probably and gradually becoming in the scope of cryptozoology during the timer-scale. Honestly, we should recognise how lucky we are to observe our day’s biodiversity. I don’t think that Paleontologists in three or four million years (if they will be some) will find any fossils of this fish in our day’s sediment because of the Taphonomic Biases. For those not familiarised with this term, TB are all the filters affecting the incorporation of a past organism in the fossil documentation.Coelacanth is a good example of huge gap but both fossil and recent related fish are known now. Have your heard about Megachasma. This huge shark was first described in 1976. No fossil form is known.
A little known huge fish coming from nowhere.See here for more: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/...descript/Megamouth/Megamouth.htmDenesha

Unfortunately, there are not many fossils down there. Sedimentation rate is too slow. Most of the material was disintegrated before diagenesis starts (an other biblic word). Our fossil documentation is filled up with holes.Consider the case that all the early phylogenetic stages of a lineage have been existed only under inadequate fossilisation condition in exception of one species (which we have fossils). If this fossil will fall on a zealous taxonomist hand, he will create a species, a genus, certainly a family and perhaps a superfamily. If the same fossil fall in a evolutionist hand, he will suggest a ghost/lazarus effect to connect this fossil (whatever the spatial & temporal jump invoked) with something known to date AND according to his own perception of this fossil. Both produce a poor scientific result.Denesha