Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum fossils

Trilobyte. You wrote:

"Please give location of where each fossil was found....or retract your statement."

When I pointed you in the right direction you wrote:

"are you going to tell me a Foraminifera found on one side of the world is evolving exactly like a Foraminifera on the other side of the world?"

I can only presume that you neither looked at my link nor actually understand the question you asked. The foraminifera provide evidence of change over time in a single column, which is what your first question seems to require. The same foraminifera in two different regions would suggest they lived at the same time. You are very fond yourself of using the unlikeliness of any event to support your own reasoning. Are you simply following the usual fundamentalist method of debate and shifting the goalposts?

TFF. Thanks so much for that very revealing link you posted after;

"That silliness you posted made no more sense the first time it was posted over on:"

We are wasting our time but disagreement can somtimes lead to a sort of hybrid vigour.

Hey Rusty Rockets. I liked my bit about atheist priests.

I love watching you evos backpeddle.

Ah, trilobye, you're here. Who's backpeddling? Do you think my comment about atheist priests is backpeddling? Rusty Rockets felt it was best if you didn't see it.

Anyway what were these "kinds" that Noah took onto the ark? It's definitely not off topic. The kinds Noah took on board and the timing of the event should be readily discernable in the geological column. Of course we cannot discuss the subject rationally unless we can agree what a kind is. Is it nearer to a genus than a species? nearer to an order than a genus? a class than an order? Perhaps it is a phylum. I'm sure you have no wish to clear the matter up though. It would mean the goalposts were firmly set in place.

Reading this more thoroughly, I wanted to address the good question that it raises, but not over on G&s. Hope that's okay.

Posted by RicS:

"G'day all,

I gotta ask this. What's a transitional fossil?

If we start with a horse like creature with a longer than normal neck but in order to compete those in that species with longer than normal necks have a significant advantage and you end up with a giraffe, isn't every animal in that sequence just a representation of a species that existed at a particular point in time? My vague memory of evolutionary biology is of a tiny little creature that over about 40 million years ended up the modern horse. Where's the transition? Are not every single creature in that progression just an animal that either fitted its environment and was fairly successful or had to adapt and change. But all of those creatures survived and slowly changed otherwise we wouldn't have the hores. And back to the giraffe and those with short necks. What happens to them? Perhaps they ended up with their own specialisation or the long necked versions may have removed sufficient numbers to allow the short neck ones to continue on their merry way.

Or is the argument that evolution happens in spurts and the change from the longer horse like creature to a giraffe took not that many generations? In that case the chances of a fossil existing of any animal that was not either the earlier creature or the giraffe would be very small indeed.

To me I thought the theory of evolution includes that every creature on earth is evolving in some way. Some types of sharks may not have changed much in 100 million years or so but they still have made some changes and what is to say that many other types of species have not evolved from the basic species during that period, eventually being different enough so that they no longer could mate with the original species and continued off on their own, changing out of all recognition to the original shark, which because it wasn't a bad fit for its environment in the first place also managed to remain in existence during all that time.

This is not an area that I have much knowledge except the Science channels, the occasional article and what I learned at school so my musings may not be all that perfect but this idea of a "transitional fossil" seems a bit strange to me.


Richard"

--------------------

ANYWAY, I answered this over on God & science thinking I was on this fossil thread. I gave a humerous (I thought, if not valid) answer without reading the post; just based on the definition of the word "transitional."

But reading this closer, it looks like a good question. I'm not as good an evo-biologist as I am a physicist, but I think both mechanism operate. I think there are several genetic mechanisms that allow for "quantum" mutations (if I may) where a structure will double or triple its expression; or be expressed in a different context (physically or chemically) of the organism. You wouldn't expect transitional fossils in that case.

Then there are the more common variability mechanisms, which (given ideal conditions for making fossils) would leave a continuous record for us to find. --and I didn't want to talk much about fossils!


~~samwik

Samwik. Quote:

'I think there are several genetic mechanisms that allow for "quantum" mutations (if I may) where a structure will double or triple its expression; or be expressed in a different context (physically or chemically) of the organism. You wouldn't expect transitional fossils in that case.'

The problem with quantum leaps is you end up virtually having to assume a single individual can breed with itself and produce a new species. Many explanations for how evolution works finish up with the same problem. The idea is so ridiculous that years ago I began to wonder why it persists. I believe it comes from a combination of Industrial Revolution "survival of the fittest" and stories from The Old Testament.

Most geneticists accept that each gene has its own evolutionary history. In other words collections of genes move through a species by migration and interbreeding. A scientist in the Out of Asia post suggests it will take a long time before the idea is generally accepted though.

However we know recessive genes can spread through a population without showing up until inbreeding occurrs. I make the speculative assumption that the rapid spread of double recessive genes through a population can explain many absences of transitional fossils.

TB wrote: "I love watching you evos backpeddle."

TB is delusional. You change the subject from what you asked of US, and then you can't even get IT right.

terrytnewzealand ...If you want to discuss "KINDS"...start a new thread.

This topic is about fossils, or the lack of... in-b-tweeners.

terry posted:
I can only presume that you neither looked at my link nor actually understand the question you asked. The foraminifera provide evidence of change over time in a single column,

I read the article and did not see that.

Perhaps you could cut and paste that portion. From what i understand there is no single column that describes what you are talking about.

Trilobyte try this:

"Foraminifera are ideal subjects for testing various aspects of evolutionary theory, because large populations of individuals, whose characteristics can be measured and treated statistically, can be obtained from closely spaced rock samples at carefully selected localities to provide an evolutionary time series. It is then possible to show how distribution of a particular characteristic changes over time within successive populations."

And this:

"During the late 1930s and early 1940s Finlay and J. Marwick, a macropaleontologist, collaborated to produce the scheme of fossil zones comprising New Zealand's Cenozoic Series and Stages. Their scheme is still used today, albeit with considerable refinement, for the biostratigraphic classification of New Zealand strata."

If there was no variation within a particular column there would be no way they could correlate across columns.

This;

"High resolution biostratigraphy, which involves identification of closely spaced bioevents, often in conjunction with various quantitative techniques, is a major research direction"

I'm sure that's enough for you to digest for now.

Anyway, back to these "types".

Trilobyte. Quote;

"terrytnewzealand ...If you want to discuss "KINDS"...start a new thread. This topic is about fossils, or the lack of... in-b-tweeners."

There should be fossils of all your "kinds" in the geological column. Therefore should be no trouble for you to tell us when and where they lived.

Just where are these "closely spaced rock samples at carefully selected localities"

In your head.

Please stop being a troll.

trilobyte:
Quit taking everything everyone says as an "ad hom" attack. You're like the boy crying wolf. I could censor you for your ad hom attacks. I suggest you quit making them yourself if you expect me to act on your complaints.

Amaranth
Moderator

What? re: previous posts?
sorry, wrong thread.
~never mind....

Trilobye. Quote:

'Just where are these "closely spaced rock samples at carefully selected localities"'

There are many places in NZ that have complete profiles through the Late Cretaceous through the Early Tertiary. I presume the "carefully selected sites" included sites in some of those regions.

I can't believe you are so obtuse as to not understand why the sites are "carefully selected." It would hardly be worth their while to look at very shallow profiles. They would learn nothing from them during the early stages of their investigation.

If you are really serious about knowing where the actual sites are why don't you ask them? You should be easily able to find a contact for them on the net. I'll do it for you if you wish. I have found that scientists in NZ are more than happy to share their information. We live in a small country.

Besides you still haven't explained the "kinds" that you refer to so often.

Trilobyte. I just went back to my link to foraminifera. Towards the end there are a whole series of names you can click on and emaill them. Why don't you try to do your own research on the subject?

samwik asks:
"What happened to the previous posts?"

Can't answer that one but lets be honest here. TB's posts are pure troll with zero science value. They are the parroting of fundamentalism by a teenage boy who cares not one iota about fact.

If this entire thread were dropped, my posts included, I would drink a toast to the good sense and health of the moderators.

TNZ wrote:
"I can't believe you are so obtuse as to not understand"

Why?

Does a tiger change its stripes?
Does a leopard change its spots?
Has TB even once evidenced actually reading and/or thinking about anything anyone has posted?
Has TB even once posted a link to anything relating to real science?

He is a teenage troll: Believe it.