Why do we only find fossils?

Yaro, maybe they weren't there. That has nothing to do with Mod's claims. The reason dinos were not there is they were either declining or extinct, and that is the point, right?But modulous here wants to turn that around, and claims it is reasonable to see whales and their ancestors in abundance all over the world, but not to see the species in between in the same places.So let's use the rationale presented here concerning dinos for whale evolution, and we see no good reason for the in-between forms not to be seen. You can't have it both ways here.

Ok, I agree to some extent. But then you must adress the 2 points I made in this post Message 54.Namely the points concerning biodiversity of mega-fauna.The problem for your position is where are all these creatures comming from?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 12:59 PM

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.

This is fundamentally the same objection Randman has made in several other threads. Without a mutual understanding about fossilization probabilities, discussions aobut it are doomed to go inconclusively round and round. The reasons for the varying representation levels in the fossil record need further discussion.This digression would not be on-topic, but this thread is already off-topic. After all the discussion that has taken place about fossilization probabilities, it would be a great boon if the point could be settled one way or the other. If participants begin addressing this area, I will insure that the important points are addressed and not ignored.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I really cannot understand why intelligent people would not get this. I'll try again very slowly, but without much anticipation that you guys can comprehend any argument not advocating ToE.Dinos were declining and/or extinct. So they wouldn't exist at those locales. Right?What ancestors were abundant at certain locales and so were whales. So the declining argument does not hold true. So as argued with the La Brea tar pits, the absence of a certain species is evidence they did not exist. Right?But oh no, evos cannot argue that, can they? LOL. So which is it? If we don't see the fossils does that mean they weren't there, as the claim is for La Brea tar pits, or it that they just didn't fossilize there OR ANYWHERE FOR THAT MATTER!I can't help it if you guys equate a declining population heading into extinction with an evolving one, supposedly, but I will try.At say point 1 in time and evolutionary development, there is an estimate of X million members of various species. At the same locales, at point 10,000, we see similar large numbers of various members of species evos claim evolved from point 1. There is not a declining number here as with the dino example.But at the same locales, we don't see points 2-999,999.In the dino example, the dinos are either extinct or severely declined in population.

Dino Z's are all around you, feathered and winged.I can only hope that you are able to grasp the descent.edit: weird double quote pasteThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-10-2005 01:49 PM

---

"It's hard to admit the truth."
-randman

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!

That's where you are wrong. We do see Basilosaurus for example in large numbers, and then we see whales in large numbers, but we don't see the in-between species.You want to have it both ways. You say, well, we don't see dinosaurs in the tar pits so they probably were not alive then, but the fact we don't see the transitionals is to you evidence not that did not exist, but evidence in some twisted fashion that they must have existed anyway.Your evidence is thus your imagination, not real data.Think of it this way. What if you claimed during the time of La Brea tar pits, that dinos emerged and then went extinct evolving into something else, but we see none of them in the tar pit. The fact we don't see them in the tar pit suggests they did not in fact emerge at that point. We don't see them so we reason they were not there.So we see plenty of whale fossils and plenty of Basolosaurus, but don't see the in-between species. The logical conclusion is that they were not in those locales and considering the locales of both whales and Basilosaurus spanned the globe, it becomes somewhat clear the in-between species that we have never observed any fossils for probably just never existed.

I have made some very important points: Message 54They are relevant to this conversation and I belive randman should adress those.

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.

Wrong. I never asserted dinos existed at that locale at all, period. You are the one with the confused logic here.

Uh, Modulous use your mind. The in-between species would have to be aquatic, right? Just like the tar pits, we cannot find any of these in-between species in any formerly aquatic environment at all.We find the other aquatic species in fairly large numbers, but none of the species evos claimed must have existed.What you are claiming would be the equivalent that dinos did live during the time of La Brea tar pits, but we just haven't found them in the tar pits yet!

The Ashfall beds in Nebraska preserves a Micoene eccosystem under a huge bed of ash layed down by an ancient erupting volcano (a la pompeii):Ashfall Fossil Beds - WikipediaGuess what? No dinosaurs!Account SuspendedThe area is roughly 500 square miles with over 200 fossil sites abundant with the flora and fauna from 10 million years ago! Yet not a single dino.Where did they all go?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 03:40 PM

That's wrong. You need to spend time studying the list of 8 you gave and really dig into the research. Listing dolphins as transitional with whales when we have dolphins today is wrong, and evo twisting of the dates to fit their models is wrong.There are not 8 whale transitions between Basilosaurus and modern whales. There a whales all pretty much very close to modern whales, and nothing transitional prior between the time of Basilosaurus and whales.More educated evos have begun to recognize this which is one reason they no longer claim Basilosaurus as an ancestor to whales.