Fossil record: stasis and sudden appearance

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Randman asserts that the sudden appearance of new forms in the fossil record is evidence against evolution.

In order to evaluate this argument randman, could you please define in quantifiable terms what you mean by "sudden appearance"?

1 year?
1,000 years?
10,000,000 years?

Please also cite specific fossil specimens that support your estimates.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Hello? Randman?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

In areas where fossil deposition took place for long periods of time, evolutionary changes in the local organisms can be seen over time. Good examples are the late cretaceous deposits of montana and alberta. Ammonite and dinosaur fauna (among others) exhibit these changes. Even the infamous T.rex changed over a 3MY period. So, stasis does not mean "no change whatsoever". In fact, ammonite fauna throughout the whole mesozoic changes so rapidly, and is so well recorded - that certain marine deposits can be dated by thier presence to within 200KY. Human fossils show considerable change over the last million years.

All in all I find the concept of stasis to be more perplexing then sudden appearance - since there is ample evidence that stasis is not the norm in well recorded lineages. Sudden appearance could simply result from gaps in the fossil record, or the migration of a previously unrecorded species into a new area.

 

[randman]

You are right in that stasis does not mean no change whatsoever, but you miss the point. The change occurs around a median so the net result is that there appears in the fossil record to be no change when viewed over a long period of time. Then, the next thing we see is another species, usually quite "evolved" from the former species.
PE advocates try to resolve this. Some evolutionists still deny and ignore this reality, and creationists simply think the creature did not evolve at all.

I think there is merit from a science perspective in all 3 camps, and that the data is not conclusive.

THe claims of evolutionists that their models, or the basics of them, has been proven is false.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
You are right in that stasis does not mean no change whatsoever, but you miss the point. The change occurs around a median so the net result is that there appears in the fossil record to be no change when viewed over a long period of time.

Does these look like "change around a median" to you?

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

 

[randman]

Are those complete records of the life of the species?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


Does these look like "change around a median" to you?

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html

I'm not sure what your point is here. Do they look different? Yes. Do I see a progressive change? Yes, it looks that way. But I'm still at the stage of "so what?"

What puzzles me most is this from one of your links (the snails):

If there had been gaps in the fossil sequence, we would have thought that these were fossils from several different species. If we look at snails alive today, we can find separate species which differ by less than the difference shown in the picture.

Actually, I would have thought they were all of the same species, but I'm not a marine biologist, so perhaps it's just a matter of "they all look alike to me."

I'm not saying they AREN'T the same species - they certainly may be. It's the assumption that I find ludicrous. How does this person KNOW that these fossils represent the same species? Did he sprinkle some scientific fairy dust on them, resurrect them all, set up some nice snail food around a dinner table with wine, candles and soft snail music to see if they could/would interbreed?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
Are those complete records of the life of the species?

No. What difference does it make? The point is that these fossils do not exhibit "change around a median" like you claimed all fossils do.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm not sure what your point is here. Do they look different? Yes. Do I see a progressive change? Yes, it looks that way. But I'm still at the stage of "so what?"

Randman has asserted that the fossil record only shows "change around the median". The actual fossil record shows otherwise. It is nice to see that even you agree.

How does this person KNOW that these fossils represent the same species?

I don't know the answer to that, but it is irrelevant to my point. There are many fossils sequences that are not confined to "change around the median".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

I don't know the answer to that, but it is irrelevant to my point.

I don't know if you addressed randman's point, though. randman can speak for himself, but I got the impression he was talking about changes in species that are much more significant than what your examples represent.

What I was thinking he meant was something more along the lines of "in this layer there are a bunch of snails, and in this next layer, a bunch of horny toads appear." The median is the fact that there are only snails -- not that the snails got taller and then shorter and then taller again. He can correct me if I'm mistaken here.

Whether or not these snails really are the same species is also tangentially related to your point. If the person who did this study makes a claim that these snails are the same species as if it is fact, yet he cannot possibly know that this is true, then IMO that casts doubt on everything else he says. That makes the example a poor one for any point you may wish to make, whether your point is right or wrong.

 

[randman]

You got it Nick, though it can work on a smaller scale too, which is why I asked about the time period. Gould pointed this out, and I think he was right. paleontologists did find changes in the fossil record, but the more they found, the more these changes would swing back and forth around a median to some extent.

This is why Gould and Eldridge claimed "stasis" was a dominant aspect of the fossil record.

If I were LFOD, and spent so much time debating evolution, I would be embarrassed about now at my lack of knowledge.

If you disagree with me LFOD, how do you explain "stasis"? Do you think these men believed species did not change, or what? Let me state that I do not consider all of these men's views as authoritative, and I do think they only partially opened up on the fossil record, but even the little bit conceded has merit. I think Nick hits on a deeper issue, but if we can't get past the little part, how can we discuss the larger issues.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
You got it Nick, though it can work on a smaller scale too, which is why I asked about the time period. Gould pointed this out, and I think he was right. paleontologists did find changes in the fossil record, but the more they found, the more these changes would swing back and forth around a media to some extent.

Is this what you mean by "swinging back and forth around a media to some extent" ?

Or something else?

 

[randman]

2 areas

1. Take a species. It changes, but as time goes on it changes again, and when comparing the changes, we see that the species does not actually change at all, thus stasis. The reason is that it changes back, and in the end, no significant evolutionary processes are seen in the species in the fossil record, and species appear to never change basically. That is the fact of stasis that Goukld and Eldr idge talked about.

2. The 2nd area is the same principle but on a larger scale. I'd prefer we establish some agreement on the first before moving onto the larger perspective.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
2 areas

1. Take a species. It changes, but as time goes on it changes again, and when comparing the changes, we see that the species does not actually change at all, thus stasis. The reason is that it changes back, and in the end, no significant evolutionary processes are seen in the species in the fossil record, and species appear to never change basically. That is the fact of stasis that Goukld and Eldr idge talked about.

2. The 2nd area is the same principle but on a larger scale. I'd prefer we establish some agreement on the first before moving onto the larger perspective.

On the first point: yes, as long as a species is better adapted than any other in its ecological niche, it tends to stasis. Further, stasis is generally preserved in any given line until after speciation takes place. Only after there is a mechanism which serves to isolate two or more populations' genomes, population genetics predicts relative stasis. When that mechanism is in place, one has to consider that a speciation event has occurred, and only then is it possible for real divergence to occur. Further, while the new species may diverge radically from the parent species after isolation, it may attain an equilibrium of its own, and show stasis over time as a result (relative to its own species, not relative to the original population.)

Is this the kind of agreement you were looking for?

 

[randman]

No, I am not looking for your ideas on what you think may have happened, but on the fossil record itself.

Right now, the why is not the issue, but the what, if that makes sense to you. You can try and explain stasis later, but the discussion at hand is much, much narrower. What is "stasis" in the context of being the dominant trait in the fossil record. LiveFreeOrDie has stated that I was wrong in my assertions. I trust you will clarify.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Randman, I refuse to discuss this further unless you answer the original question I posed. Without some quantifiable parameters I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. If I try to assume what you are thinking, you'll just weasel out later.

 

[seebs]

Yeah... What *is* sudden?

If my cat came into the room, sat down, and started licking all four of his front paws, I'd call that "sudden" appearence of a morphological trait.

If twenty years of careful breeding for size in dogs produced a dog twice the size of the average of the parent population, I would not call it "sudden".

 

[randman]

Sudden appearance is a term used by Gould and Eldridge. Maybe you should bone up on what they had to say before trying to enter the debate. Obviously, "sudden" is not in the context of years as y ou state. To even ask that question shows you are missing the point. "Sudden" here refers to the fact species appear without any trace of their immediate ancestors, but appear fully formed in the fossil record. That last sentence was a near-quote of the original PE advocates, btw.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
Sudden appearance is a term used by Gould and Eldridge. Maybe you should bone up on what they had to say before trying to enter the debate.

I know what Gould and Eldredge say. I want to see if you do.

Obviously, "sudden" is not in the context of years as you state.

???
Then what IS is in the context of? Meters? Ohms? What are you talking about?

To even ask that question shows you are missing the point. "Sudden" here refers to the fact species appear without any trace of their immediate ancestors, but appear fully formed in the fossil record.

Which species in particular are you asserting appears "without any trace" of ancestors in the fossil record?

 

[randman]

LFOD, it is obvious to me you lack any sicerety in these debates. I am not sure what is going on with you psychologically, but basically, I am not that interested in wasting my time with someone who is being dishonest.

If you have read Gould and Eldridge, you know full well that "sudden appearance" does not refer to the time that species evolve, and has nothing to do with time really. It has to do with the fact, which you dodged on another thread, that species appear in the fossil record fully formed without a trace of their immediate ancestors.

Also, don't waste my time "testing me." Take some time to learn what you are advocating, and quit pretending you understand things you obviously do not.

OK?