chandler2368@hotmail.com (Steve the Sauropodman) wrote in message news:<fd9543a1.0408110520.d5a021e@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407200437.5f5da8bd@posting.google.com>...

mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote in message news:<cdeau9$lhl$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>...

In article <murphy-20040717041844.05811.00001922@mb-m05.wmconnect.com>,

By the way, what is the single best argument against evolution
Richard

The Fossil Record, itself.

Non sequitur, or didn't you notice that "the Fossil Record,
itself" isn't actually an "argument"?

Care to make one, perhaps even one based on the fossil record? In
what ways can "the fossil record, itself" be construed as being
evidence "against evolution"?

A strong argument against the plausibility of the theory of evolution
via natural selection is the fossil record's pattern of stasis and
sudden appearance.

< snipped...references available in other posts>


From a paleobiogeographical sense, neither stasis nor sudden
appearence refute evolution, or discredit the fossil. Species can
remain in a particular biome for significant amounts of geologic time.
However, species can seem to appear "suddenly" because of those same
geologic timescales. What may seem to be a sudden appearence may be
the end result of migration of primary indiginous species to other
biomes, as competition increases; predatory extinction - one species
wipes out another; or a variety of environmental changes altered the
local ecosystem. Not a problem at all, just another example that,
understanding the history of life on earth is not a linear process
from the past to the present, but rather a complex inter-reationship
millions of species in a dynamic planetary ecology.

I wish people who claim that the fossil record does not support
evolution, or even those who think it supports punctuated equilibrium
(and yes, I do think that Gould and Eldridge fall into this category)
would spend more time in the field collecting fossils. Expecting the
fossil record to provide a long series of 'intermediate forms' in the
vertebrate record is simply ridiculous. Vertebrate fossils are very
rare, are fossilised only through a combination of unusual events, and
are known mainly from a limited range of horizons in a small number of
formations. To give you some idea of how rare vertebrate fossils are:

I collect regularly from one of the most productive locations for
vertebrate fossils in the UK, the Lias of Yorkshire, and know most of
the best places to find vertebrates. I reckon that if I find a single
bone for every 24 hours spent in the field I'm doing well. In thirty
years of collecting from one location, I've found an ichthyosaur, a
few articulated plesiosaur vertebrae, a bag of bits - isolated
vertebrae and other bones of ichthyosaur and plesiosaur, and on one
glorious occasion the phalange of a pterosaurs.

If you look at the chronological distribution of plesiosaur finds, we
have a load from the Lias (Hettangian to Toarcian), a load from the
Oxford Clay (Callovian), a lot from the Kimmeridge Clay, and then very
little other than isolated bones until we get to the Upper Cretaceous.
The conditions under which bone could be preserved were either
non-existent or simply very uncommon. It's worth noting that
plesiosaurs are reckoned to be well-represented in the fossil record.

John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<410FA49E.2040805@pacbell.net>...

david ford wrote:

mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote in message news:<cdeau9$lhl$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>...

In article <murphy-20040717041844.05811.00001922@mb-m05.wmconnect.com>,

By the way, what is the single best argument against evolution
Richard

The Fossil Record, itself.

Non sequitur, or didn't you notice that "the Fossil Record,
itself" isn't actually an "argument"?

Care to make one, perhaps even one based on the fossil record? In
what ways can "the fossil record, itself" be construed as being
evidence "against evolution"?

A strong argument against the plausibility of the theory of evolution
via natural selection is the fossil record's pattern of stasis and
sudden appearance.

Rather than regurgitate a pointer to a long and mostly irrelevant
article, perhaps you could summarize the reasons why stasis and sudden
appearance falsify evolution via natural selection. Because I don't see
it and I don't want to wade through the irrelevancies.


[snip]

It's worth taking a look at a small section of this essay to get some
idea of how sound the arguments are, and how well-supported by
evidence:

"The focus is not on "gaps," but instead on the absence of fossil
sequences depicting the gradual, step-by-step appearance of
evolutionary
novelties. A series of fossils showing the gradual, step-by-step
transformation of a fin into a leg has not been unearthed."

It has. Look up the work people such as Per Ahlberg, Jenny Clack and
Hennig Blom have been doing on this subject. Read Jenny's book
'Gaining Ground'.

"A series of
fossils depicting the gradual, step-by-step transformation of a leg
into
a wing has not been discovered."

It has. The new feathered dinosaurs from China, most notably
Microraptor, show just such a transformation

"A series of fossils depicting the
gradual, step-by-step transformation of a scale into a feather has not
been found."

Nor is it likely that it ever will be found. Feathers and scales very
rarely fossilise.

"A series of fossils depicting the gradual, step-by-step
transformation of some item of land animal anatomy into an item of
whale
anatomy has not been uncovered."

It has, and has been well-documented.

All in all, not an impressive piece if scolarship.