daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,541
bullshit!Please read the whole post it is one of your guys
The parts you ignore.
" Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."
This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.
Fossil of an extinct marine
mollusk (Ammonite)
and its living descendent
Notice the admission that inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?
"The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet."
Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water
"Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."
Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.
"Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."
Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.
"There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas."
Really.But what do they do ?
"When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"
"Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."
I wonder why ? funny stuff.
"Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."
Don't sound reliable to me.
"When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."
Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?
"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. "
Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.
"When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."
I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument
Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?
"There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."
Cherry picker.
Yes most fossils given enough time erode away, are destroyed, never found or what have you. What's the point?
Doesn't mean they all are, or the ones that are found are any less credible of evidence. You can pretend that's the case to your own detriment, but not to those of us who don't spend our lives denying basic verifiable, proven science.
The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?
They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.
They have no tranitional fossils even though they claim they do.
Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.
Another problem is they have not found enough of these so called transitional fossils of the same creature to say they existed or was just a product of cross breeding or deformity.
Evidence that organisms can adapt is not evidence of macro-evolution.
Tyrannosaurus Sue
The prehistoric giant stands again
Holly Hartman
After 65 million years, Sue is back on her feet.
SUE IS A SENSATION. It's not just that she's 42 feet long and 65 million years old. She's the world's most complete, best preserved, and largest Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. More than 10,000 visitors went to her May 17, 2000, debut at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.
Many brought their camerasand a few brought violins. The Chicago Chamber Musicians performed a new piece, written especially for the opening, caled Tyrannosaurus Sue: A Cretaceous Concerto. (T. rex lived during the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic period, as many believe.)
Rest in Pieces
Sue's Stats
Weight: 14,000 pounds
Length: 42 feet
Height: 13 feet at hip
Age: 65 million years
Head: 5 feet long
Teeth: 58
Brain capacity: 4 cups
Home: South Dakota
Found: Aug. 12, 1990
Sold: Oct. 4, 1997
Cost: $8.4 million
Amazingly, more than 200 of Sue's bones were preserved. The skeleton includes the most complete T. rex tail ever found, as well as one of only two T. rex arms ever found. Sue's skull contains the longest (and scariest) T. rex tooth yet knownit's a foot long.
One amazing discovery in Sue's skeleton is that she has a wishbone, or furcula, such as you would find in most bird skeletons. This is the first wishbone found on a T. rex. It supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, either directly or from a common ancestor.
Even though Sue's bones are more than 65 million years old, they are so well-preserved that you can see marks where muscles and tendons once lay.
Tyrannosaurus Sue — FactMonster.com
