Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Cook: "Re: Social Engineering (was: Different patriarchy Model)"
• Previous message: Eric Paul Strayer: "Re: Corporate Cultures? Help..."
• Maybe in reply to: Greg Resch: "ANCESTRY QUESTION?"
• Next in thread: Stanley Friesen: "Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION?"

Vance wrote
snip....
|> animals that have ever lived. (Also, as I'll say again below, it's not
|> generally thought that all populations everywhere are at all times "on
|> their way" to some new form.) What do you think are the chances that
|> a given animal will be fossilized after death?
|>
Mark wrote..
>Yes Vance, but doesn't it seem odd that there are no clear >transitional
>species in the fossil record? It seems that if darwin were >correct, that
>the transitional would be the norm in the fossil record since >there would
>be numerous intermediate species for each *distinct* species (now >everyone
>doesn't need to jump on what do I mean by distinct -- you know >
>what I mean).
This is just not true, in sequences where depositional
conditions are favourable such transitional forms occur. One
example is irregular echinoids of the Cretaceous especially
well developed in the south coast of England. As time goes
on the position of mouth and anus move and the shape of
the echinoid changes in response to a changing habitat.
This is very well documented.
Deposition tends to be sporadic/episodic and preservation
relies on a complex series of interactions between
sedimentation and environment.It's easy to understand why
transitional species are not ubiquitous.
Let's have some facts in this thread not just
unsubstatiated assertions!
Brian
my opinion not my employers

• Next message: John Cook: "Re: Social Engineering (was: Different patriarchy Model)"
• Previous message: Eric Paul Strayer: "Re: Corporate Cultures? Help..."
• Maybe in reply to: Greg Resch: "ANCESTRY QUESTION?"
• Next in thread: Stanley Friesen: "Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION?"