A Whale of a Tale

Randman, there's more than one factor in how likely we are to find a fossil of a given species. Three major factors are the probabilities that once an individual organism dies, it will be fossilized, remain in a recognizable form, and then be found by researchers, respectively. These probabilities are all very low for any type of organism, and the probability of all three occurring are much lower - for that individual in question.Another factor is how abundant and widespread these individuals of a species are when they exist, and the length of time in which they exist. In other words, when a species or form is very abundant and widespread, and is very successful for a long period of time, is likely to have many more individuals that are preserved and later discovered as fossils.I doubt it's coincidental that the forms in the cetacean family that are (thus far) better-represented in the fossil record are also those that are adapted to an entirely marine lifestyle, and likely had a global oceanic distribution, while those that were at least partially terrestrial (and would therefore have much more limited range) {edit: and are now extinct} would be rarer as fossils.I'm not an expert in cetacean evolution, but that seems to be an important point that you're missing with regard to fossil rarity or abundance.This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-03-2006 09:59 PM

Do you have a link or anything to support that? I thought that Basilosaurus was always found in marine strata. Yes, suggesting that horses were widespread, persistent and abundant across terrestrial landscapes. What do you mean? This is common practice in evolutionary biology.

Although this is off-topic, I would like you to consider defending this position (particularly the part I bolded) in a new thread. You sure make some wild, unsupported assertions for someone who so frequently accuses biologists of doing so!

I asked you first. Nyah. You are the one making a positive assertion, therefore you should support it.