Why do we only find fossils?

I'm sure you were denying this kind of argument had any merit when asking why we don't see certain whale fossils at certain locales...I know that has a great potential to swing this off topic so let's not go down that that route. But as Yaro said, Dinos seem to be relatively well represented in that locale, but not in the tar pits.

I believe that was the crux of your argument. Ours was, to paraphrase your Message 33: Hence why I said what I just said in Message 47

I'm sorry, my Message 50 was terribly obfuscated. If you aren't able to untangle the webs of wit and powerful rhetoric, let me help you: No - that's a closer description of what you were trying to claim.

---

I hope you aren't trying to take up the next 10 pages of this thread with this.

I answered your question, with an obvious 'No' in Message 50 and a direct, blatant and explicit 'No' in Message 55. How am I not taking a stand, randman? Not at all, I agree that the two situations are different. In the whale scenario we do not know if our inbetween species existed in that locale or if they existed in significant numbers. In the dino example we know that dinos existed at that locale and in significant numbers. Entirely different.

No randman, read it again. The statement I made, once again for you was Since we don't see them in the tar pits we can conclude that they were not contempory with the tar pits.

Well, I don't want to turn this into a whale debate so let me actually clarify for you what I am actually claiming.I am claiming that you rejected the following argument'We don't see organism x in the fossil record because it didn't exist at locales y in significant numbers'on the grounds that they must have existed in significant numbers in that locale. There is no evidence that they did, but you asserted that they must.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.

The problem we are having is a time/space issue. Dinosaurs did exist in that area, just not at the time of the tar pit. Agreed, and at different times. Right, all we know is that whale ancestors and whales existed at those locales in significant numbers. It is evidence that they probably didn't exist at that place in that time in significant figures. Especially given the abundance and variety of organisms that were found in the pits. That's the argument being put forward by this very thread. Simple:If we know that dinosaurs existed in that area at one time, but they didn't get preserved in a tar pit which preserved a large amount then it is probably they didn't exist at the same time as the tar pit.We do not know that some of the transitional whales existed in a certain area in signifant numbers, so we cannot say if we should expect them to have been preserved by fossilization (and then survive/be found etc). Bingo! Or that they were there in small numbers. YES! Once again, this is another possibility. Nobody is making that equation. I even said:

quote:

---

the two situations are different

---

in Message 57right, the two situations are different. Correct!

OK, great, let's explore this - Percy has given us the go ahead. If Yaro wants to veto the discussion, I'll start another topic and we can discuss the tar exclusively. Yes, OK, we have evidence that Basilosaurus existed in those areas in significant numbers. OK, we have evidence that modern whales existed in those areas. OK, so we don't have any evidence that these in-between species existed in these areas in significant numbers.That a distant ancestor and the modern animal exists in the area is not evidence that the in-between species existed there as well. Actually, if a population was to become isolated it would probably start that by being located in a geographically dissimilar place than its parent population, so it would be quite unusual to see all the transitions in the same area.I think that is what I was saying when I said: You are merely guessing that they were there, with no evidence to support that. Yes, and I believe that you say that too. Let's go over this again:

1. Dinosaurs were abundant in area x at time a
2. Lots of organisms were preserved in tar at area x at time b
3. Not one dinosaur was preserved in tar at area x
   Conclusion: Dinosaurs were not abundant in area x at time b
   ​
4. Lots of Basilosaurus were preserved as fossils in areas 1
5. Only about 8 whale transitions have been found from the start of basilosaurus to modern whales, in small numbers in areas 1
   Conclusion: Either whale transitionals were not abundant in areas 1 or they existed in those areas at a time when those areas were not conducive to fossilization and long time preservation.
   

I'm not having it 'both ways'. I'm applying the same argument both times.Once we agree here, we need to agree that a tar pit is an area very conducive to preservation. Then we are close to finally coming to full agreement, so let's see how far we get.

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'

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.

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

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

Feel free to take this over to the new topic, if it gets promoted. Yaro has asked that we 'take it outside' (so to speak).