Why are there gaps in the fossil record?

[tyronem]

You're explaining how you think the layers of strata were formed. I was asking if you could explain why the fossils are distributed the way they are.

I was, Probably my fault for not being more explicit, Liquefaction explains both adequately.

 

[philadiddle]

I was, Probably my fault for not being more explicit, Liquefaction explains both adequately.

How does it explain why the fossil record is found in a nested hierarchy?

 

[lucaspa]

Liquefaction causes things to distribute into rock layers (and causes the rock layers themselves.)

That doesn't explain all the rock layers. For instance, it doesn't explain the salt (NaCl) deposits under the Great Lakes. NaCl is very water soluble and would be dissolved in water (liquefaction) and thus should not be in a layer as a solid rock by itself.

In terms of fossil distribution, this explanation does not work. For instance, humans and velociraptors are about the same size and human bones are even denser than velociraptor bones. Yet fossils of velociraptors are always found in sedimentary layers quite a bit lower than those where human fossils are found.

 

[lucaspa]

What a terrible thing it is to have blinders superglued to your sideburns for three years.

Of course, what my point highlights is that IDers, despite their wails to the contrary, are basing ID on the Bible. Humans need to be specially created because the Bible says so. If they were working only from the science, then they would conclude that chimps were the ones specially created.

The taxonomic gymnastics Mr. Kennedy is performing supports soimething Niles Eldredge speculated on almost 30 years ago: creationists would be OK to have all other living organisms evolve as long as humans are specially created by God.

 

[tyronem]

How does it explain why the fossil record is found in a nested hierarchy?

hmm, what exactly do you mean fossil record nested hierarchy?

If by nested Hierarchy you mean the hierarchy found in books. That comes from radiometric dating the rock a fossil is found in (that and index fossils which makes it a fair bit of circular reasoning), not it's position in the earth. no-where on earth is the entire fossil record.

It is also important to note that fossils found outside of the evolutionary claimed order are discarded and that is a regular occurrence as modern mammalian have been found in the same rock as dinosaur fossils only the mammalian remains don't get recorded because that would violate evolution theory.

 

[tyronem]

That doesn't explain all the rock layers. For instance, it doesn't explain the salt (NaCl) deposits under the Great Lakes. NaCl is very water soluble and would be dissolved in water (liquefaction) and thus should not be in a layer as a solid rock by itself.

At normal temperature in normal conditions it is soluble yes.

However evaporation has been found to be fraught with problems as an explanation for salt deposits.

Science has found that salt deposits are better explained by high temperatures and pressures causing NaCl to be quite insoluble and collect in deposits very rapidly. If it is then rapidly covered with sediment it will not dissolve back into water. These conditions are adequately explained in Hydroplate theory.

In terms of fossil distribution, this explanation does not work. For instance, humans and velociraptors are about the same size and human bones are even denser than velociraptor bones. Yet fossils of velociraptors are always found in sedimentary layers quite a bit lower than those where human fossils are found.

Do you have some examples where sedimentary layers have been dug up layer by layer starting with humans right down to velociraptors? Or are you going by radiometric dating of rocks?

 

[philadiddle]

hmm, what exactly do you mean fossil record nested hierarchy?

If by nested Hierarchy you mean the hierarchy found in books. That comes from radiometric dating the rock a fossil is found in (that and index fossils which makes it a fair bit of circular reasoning), not it's position in the earth. no-where on earth is the entire fossil record.

Yes, I am talking about their actual position in the earth. Can you name some fossils that are not found in a nested hierarchy?

It is also important to note that fossils found outside of the evolutionary claimed order are discarded and that is a regular occurrence as modern mammalian have been found in the same rock as dinosaur fossils only the mammalian remains don't get recorded because that would violate evolution theory.

Can you name some examples of out of order fossils?

 

[Mr Dave]

Mod-Hat On

Some posts have been removed in a clean-up.
If yours is missing and you have any questions, feel free to PM me.


Mod-Hat Off​

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, I am talking about their actual position in the earth. Can you name some fossils that are not found in a nested hierarchy?

Can you name some examples of out of order fossils?

These are wrong questions. In classification, everything can be classified according to some criteria. That says nothing about their origin. Paleontology is simply a big scheme of classification. After the classification, it makes up a most reasonable explanation to be the origin, which is the evolution. It is why I don't believe that evolution is true.

 

[philadiddle]

These are wrong questions. In classification, everything can be classified according to some criteria. That says nothing about their origin. Paleontology is simply a big scheme of classification. After the classification, it makes up a most reasonable explanation to be the origin, which is the evolution. It is why I don't believe that evolution is true.

So then name some fossils that were arbitrarily classified and really aren't in order. Vague assertions will get you no where.

 

[juvenissun]

So then name some fossils that were arbitrarily classified and really aren't in order. Vague assertions will get you no where.

None. A good classification does not do that.
Again, not a good question.

 

[philadiddle]

None. A good classification does not do that.
Again, not a good question.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are the fossils in the order evolution would predict? Does evolution even make a prediction? Is our classification system adequate and reliable or ad hoc and subjective? I just don't know what you're trying to say.

 

[Astridhere]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are the fossils in the order evolution would predict? Does evolution even make a prediction? Is our classification system adequate and reliable or ad hoc and subjective? I just don't know what you're trying to say.

Very often fossils are not in the order evolution would predict. Rather it takes non plausible scenarios to justify many inconsistencies. You know many decendants have been found with their ancestors. Much of the evidence is based on a few chards of bone or a single bone that have been reconstructed into a complete organism with a whole life story and this is used as evidence.

Once one goes back past the family rank what you have is a variety of kinds, idealised from chards and single bones mostly, all thrown into one basket by some similarity. With homology found in non related species this is erraneous reasoning at its classification base.

Let's take tiktaalik for example, the great and irrefutable evidence of transition to land. Tetarapod footprints have been found that predate tiktaalik by 18my.

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

To me these look like paw prints, similar to a bear. Paws belong to mammals.

Here is a link to a natural bear footprint. One can easily see the similarity to the 380my footprints.
BEAR FOOT PRINT

The fossil evidence is what is found. The interpretation of the evidence is subjective, not objective.

A 380 million year old mammal of course would totally falsify evolution as proposed. Therefore evolutionary researchers would never even entertain such a proposal.

Here is a link that discusses subjective taxonomic classifications.

The Fossil Record

 

[philadiddle]

Very often fossils are not in the order evolution would predict. Rather it takes non plausible scenarios to justify many inconsistencies. You know many decendants have been found with their ancestors. Much of the evidence is based on a few chards of bone or a single bone that have been reconstructed into a complete organism with a whole life story and this is used as evidence.

Once one goes back past the family rank what you have is a variety of kinds, idealised from chards and single bones mostly, all thrown into one basket by some similarity. With homology found in non related species this is erraneous reasoning at its classification base.

Let's take tiktaalik for example, the great and irrefutable evidence of transition to land. Tetarapod footprints have been found that predate tiktaalik by 18my.


Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

To me these look like paw prints, similar to a bear. Paws belong to mammals.

Here is a link to a natural bear footprint. One can easily see the similarity to the 380my footprints.
BEAR FOOT PRINT

The fossil evidence is what is found. The interpretation of the evidence is subjective, not objective.

A 380 million year old mammal of course would totally falsify evolution as proposed. Therefore evolutionary researchers would never even entertain such a proposal.

Here is a link that discusses subjective taxonomic classifications.

The Fossil Record

Allopatric Speciation explains why species appear next to their ancestors. Basically when one small sample of a population is separated and undergoes change based on a new environment, the original population remains as they were. There's no stretch of the imagination here, we actually observe this happening.

Whenever creationists link to something like "new discovery pushes back timeline for evolution of [X species]" they don't seem to realise that they are confirming that the theory of evolution goes where the evidence takes it, instead of interpreting things to fit an imovable religious view.

For your last link maybe you could pick just one example in there that you would like to defend. I'm not going to take the time to tackle every single assertion in there, I simply don't have the time, but I'd be glad to look at one or two points of your choosing.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are the fossils in the order evolution would predict? Does evolution even make a prediction? Is our classification system adequate and reliable or ad hoc and subjective? I just don't know what you're trying to say.

I am not sure what was I saying. I simply answered your question.

Like I said, prediction in paleontology is insertion in nature. We see A and C, then we predict B. There is no way it can predict A and H in a sequence of ... D, E, F ...

The current scheme of paleontology is reliable if there is no surprising discovery. In other words, it can not predict.

 

[philadiddle]

I am not sure what was I saying. I simply answered your question.

Like I said, prediction in paleontology is insertion in nature. We see A and C, then we predict B. There is no way it can predict A and H in a sequence of ... D, E, F ...

The current scheme of paleontology is reliable if there is no surprising discovery. In other words, it can not predict.

So just to be crystal clear here, if we dated a layer of rock based on radiometric dating, we wouldn't be able to predicts what fossils (if any) we would find in it? Or, if we found fossils of a certain species in a rock bed we wouldn't be able to predict what other species we would find in there as well?...And also what species we wouldn't find in there?

 

[juvenissun]

Allopatric Speciation explains why species appear next to their ancestors. Basically when one small sample of a population is separated and undergoes change based on a new environment, the original population remains as they were. There's no stretch of the imagination here, we actually observe this happening.

Whenever creationists link to something like "new discovery pushes back timeline for evolution of [X species]" they don't seem to realise that they are confirming that the theory of evolution goes where the evidence takes it, instead of interpreting things to fit an imovable religious view.

For your last link maybe you could pick just one example in there that you would like to defend. I'm not going to take the time to tackle every single assertion in there, I simply don't have the time, but I'd be glad to look at one or two points of your choosing.

What about the image of footprint? Are they footprints of an amphibian which lived 18 m.y. earlier than the tiktaalik?

 

[juvenissun]

So just to be crystal clear here, if we dated a layer of rock based on radiometric dating, we wouldn't be able to predicts what fossils (if any) we would find in it? Or, if we found fossils of a certain species in a rock bed we wouldn't be able to predict what other species we would find in there as well?...And also what species we wouldn't find in there?

If we have the fossil sequence established in that time period, of course we can predict what "should" or "should not" be there. That is not a real prediction. And we can not predict what "could" be there. If we found a new fossil among the known ones, then we expanded the classification a little bit larger. The logic used in this work is very simple.

The sequence of radiometric dates generally synchronized with the fossil sequence is a far more significant feature than the concern of prediction. A serious creationist can not close his eyes to this correlation.

 

[Soothfish]

"Why are there gaps in the fossil record?" This is often thought of as a question that is detrimental to evolution but in reality the fact that it is possible to ask the question is strong support for evolution.

There are two different ways that we could conclude there are no gaps in the fossil record:

1) Evolution is true and we have every fossil of every species to have ever lived.
2) Evolution is not true and there are no gaps because there is no succession of morphological features in the fossil record.

Of course, option 1 isn’t reasonable, we would expect to have some breaks in the line since we can’t expect everything that ever lived to be fossilized. But the real problem for creationists is that we have gaps in the fossil record, which means that fossils are found in the order that evolution would predict, and as expected not everything is fossilized.

My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?

The fact is that we will never know if we have a complete fossil record. There have been a few mass extinctions throughout Earth's history. It is possible that certain species underwent a mass extinction while living exclusively in areas of the world where the geological conditions would destroy the fossils. For example, a species that lived at Yellowstone at the exact spot of eruption.

Another thing to consider is that scientists are not even close to being finished with analyzing the phylogenetic record of species. No honest person knows what the complete picture will tell us.

The only thing that is certain is that the findings will have no effect whatsoever on the opinions of a great many people.