The Macroevolution thread was closed before anyone really addressed this question, and I think it deserves to be it's own topic.

What if, scientists are mistaking changes in population size for evolution. I used this example and I will keep it for this thread:

There was a species of cow which was very populous, and a species of whale, which had a lot of similarities to this species of cow, which was not very populous and was a contemporary of the cow population. Due to the large population of cows, there are some fossils left of the cow, while there are no fossils left of the whale because it's population was small. Something happened, and the environment on land and sea changed in a way that was detrimental to the cow population while at the same time becoming beneficial to the whale population, and as the cow population dwindled and died, the whale population prospered and grew, so eventually due to the diminished population of cows, no fossils were left--after all in a previous thread we agreed that the number of fossils make up less than 1x107 of a population--while at the same time due to the increasing population of whales, there were now whale fossils left. Is this a possibility?

Is this a possible explanation for the fossil evidence?

I think that its a very interesting point in the way we assume that we know exactly what we are looking at from the past.

It would depend on whether the timeline supported the conclusion. If there was a time when there were cow fossils, but no whale fossils, followed by a time with both fossils, followed by a time with only whale fossils, then the theory would be valid (not necessarily correct, but valid).

It is a good point, but a number of things must be taken into consideration

We would know the environment had changed, because these sort of forces can be observed in minerals and the environment.
We would know of the cows existence by observing other organisms in the area, due to competition and the type of food available and eaten in the area.
Bone fossils are not the only type of fossils, there are also excrement fossils such as vomit and foot prints. There are a number of things that could be left by these organisms. To say the population was small doesn't have much bearing of whether its going to leave fossils or not when compared to what type of environment the organism is living in. If the minerals can't be replaced, then its not going to leave fossils. If its a small population and they can be replaced, then they will leave fossils.

But I thought that even evolutionists don't base their observations on merely the fossil record because it is know that very few deceased organisms become fossils, so would the fact that there are no contemporary cow and whale fossils necessarily invalidate the idea?

This is true


Not necessarily, see above post.

Those are some big "ifs" aren't they? Are excrement, vomit, and foot print fossils any more abundant than skeletal fossils?

You are saying that a population is small without knowing the biological circumstances surrounding its reason for being small. Large creatures who have small populations leave evidence of themselves being here, much more than small organisms of larger populations.

What if we just haven't found the evidence yet? After all, the oceans are deep and we haven't dug up every square inch of land yet. What if the two whale fossils contemporary with cow fossils are buried beneath the pyramids? We may never find them.

Actually I don't think Cimbers would disagree that Science backs you up on this point. The majority of the earth where animals lived is pretty much underwater right now and all shifted all over the place.

I would imagine that if we could get some palentology going underwater we'd be finding some pretty amazing stuff.

its why we have all this data about whales. There's a valley in Egypt that is full of them. Wadi Al-Hitan

True and Son have either of you even taken a science class ?? how about evolution or physics..I mean no disrespect really i don't....yet, what you guys argue about and warn the poor public over seems based in limited data...what are your areas of expertise it snot jumping out at me..Sorry....I ask to get some idea on where your knowledge base stems from.. or is this just your ideas on things????

It appears to me to be an attempt to reconcile the evidence with your worldview, IamsSon.

The title of this thread and my thread Sheri is "WHAT IF" its pure speculation darlin. Thinking for the sake of thinking.

Funny point about your snot jumping out at you. That seriously made me laugh out loud..

And yes we've taken a science class but it seems something is jarring against your science education so why not state what you have learned in science class by way of rebuttal instead of making insulting posts?

**removed by me**

I dont assume to know excactly what we are looking at from the past, do you?

No insults just clarifying....My areas of study are physics and classical math ...

thank you for answering if something jumps out at me I'll post thanks for the invite...*smiles big*

a really good key word for Science is "perhaps, " there is so and so perhaps there is an alternative...good science stays away from absolutes....

That's the difference between speculation and deduction. Deduction follows from the evidence that we actually have. Speculation is a thought exercise that may or may not be correct, but is never really relevant as it is not based on existing evidence.

Evolution may well be incorrect. Whales and cows may have lived side-by-side(so to speak). Until we have the evidence to support that, however, it is nothing more than speculation. Fun, certainly, but ultimately irrelevant.

Oh wow Sheri, I thought you had only gotten your formal education in Cosmetology. Good for you!


Hmm Perhaps is just another way of saying "What if?" is it not?


Anyway thanks for bumping the thread up again. This is a great topic.

I disagree. Anything which can actually cause us to consider something, that we can admit that we don't know everything we think we know, is relevant. If we had been satisfied with the idea that it was impossible to fly to the moon, we would still be completely earthbound.

Your welcome love, I have done many things in my life, haven't you.... ...

if it can't be reproduced in a lab it is irrelevant ....son you are very transparent you are filtering your religious world view onto science.....You have much invested in being right like your whole perspective......




take neutrinos a mass less weightless particle unseen to the eye... science suspected they were there but unless they could be proven it didn't matter... It means nothing until it can be proven, so many things start out as theories but physics is about proof period.

Its like saying elephants will fly if i just beleive hard enough.. .

You mistake relevance for importance. You mistake importance for ambition. We can admit that we do not know everything and still be willing to admit that we do know some things. You can dream of the impossible without being limited by our lack of knowledge. You don't have to be satisfied with Earth, even if you don't have the slightest notion of how you could ever get to the moon.

Nothing is holding you back. Being willing to admit that there are limits is not an admission that they are impossible to overcome.

This is hilarious coming from you, GW, uh, I mean Sheri, seems to me you're inserting your "constructs" on me. You fail to understand that I am not simply blindly believing in God, I have personal knowledge of Him, so there is nothing that could make me doubt His existence or my relationship to Him.

I'm engaging in a thought exercise, I am secure enough in what I know that I feel perfectly comfortable exploring other ideas, are you?

Sheri with all due respect the topic of the thread doesn't bear out your argument. The topic of the thread is "are we misinterpreting the fossils" the fossils are there to interpret are they not? So what is it that you are referring to when you say if it can't be reproduced in a lab is irrelevant?

The topic is about interpreting the data not the data itself.

I live beyond them/constructs... meaning they are tools nothing more .. Thinking is a function of the intellect there are no new thougths or original thoughts in some way they are passed on information, information anyone can have or get too.......... now understanding is another story... that just comes when you set aside thoughts or what you think you know (dogmas) constructs etc....you , just reside in grace.........True , ..you will just know and with it will come a humbleness, knowing ness speaks for itself , you don't, cuz you wouldn't have to because it becomes your example.....Just my two cents....

Kudos to you to have the courage to peek out of your nest a bit... I mean it..
anyway if i can help just give me a holler or not.. no preference ...*smiles big*...

oh I thought it was about science , my mistake...

No, Sheri, you may not experience new thoughts, but the rest of us do, we actually are able to generate new ideas, consider other viewpoints, develop processes of our own, I'm sorry you are unable to and have to depend on your psychologist and teacher friends to think for you.

I imagine being condescending helps your fragile ego, Sheri, but I have been "peeking out of my nest" since I was a child. Pick up David Gerrold's War of the Chtorr series sometime, let your mind be stretched, or Robert Heinlen's "Number of the Beast" or "Stranger in a Strange Land." I grew up reading these authors, you might benefit from them.

Are you inferring that you are thinking up thoughts never thought before ?? this is not possible there are no new thoughts , now they may feel new cuz its a first for you and really thats kool.. . at your place it is good to ...Gosh son i don't bite....

fragile ego ha ha ha ha .. what is a fragile ego?? i have transcended ego, and who knows how you are defining this ( ego as the evil I venture to guess) *giggles*.

If I want see mental brilliance i read Noam chomsky, Michel foucault, Study physics, study classical Mathematics...
etc etc....

Now if we are talking the known versus the unknown in truth we know very little if much of anything at all..I have no issue saying I just don't know.( intelelgence does this) intellect is a function of the mind what you put in is what comes out..sort of like a bio computer..

The thread is a thought study on a possible explanation of fossil evidence, please stop derailing it with your personal ego boosts, Sheri. Go start a thread where everyone can go and tell you how amazing you are.

Now who's being rude ?????



fullywired

[quote name='fullywired' date='Dec 31 2007, 03:49 AM' post='2067139']
Now who's being rude ?????





its his way or the highway , its a framework thing ..no worrys....moving on...

A thought study, hmm (oh I see you are fishing for data probably to prove you are right about something, to validate the beleif you are leaning on.... whilst excluding the process of science( like religion does) hence the framework as another poster said you are filtering through your world view. by all means do that but you aren't gonna get anywhere but a circle of contradiction ..... the appropriate term here would be a philsophical study of fossils which is more for a blog ..science doesn't sit around and entertain purple cows, it figures a way to prove them..... just a heads up....for whatever its worth..

Ummmmmm....

Wow.

You're joking right? If I never did thought exercises and worked through a crazy theory or concept you wouldn't have a computer to read UM with. Get real.

I've been reading this thread but haven't had anything ON TOPIC to contribute, therefore I haven't. But it HAS been an interesting thought exercise and a provoking concept to consider whether it's true or not. I haven't even heard anyone say it's true or viable, it's simply an exercise in concepts and it's neat. Well... it WAS neat.

Thanks, MMW, it was interesting, until Sheri co-opted it to enlarge her ego and beat up on Christianity, like she seems to often do with people's threads.

I want to see an alternative to (or reformation of) the theory of evolution that actually takes observed phenomena in to account.

You mean the way evolution theory as it stands does? How does Iams question differ from the way evolution theory is thought out?

Observed phenomena like what, species of birds evolving into species of... birds? I think this idea would easily encompass that. After all, all I'm asking is, "Is it possible that what we assume to be fossil evidence of a species of organism changing over millennia into a species of completely different organism such as a species of cows changing over several million years into a species of whale, is actually just evidence that a large population of a type of cow which had similarities with a contemporary small population type of whale, became extinct due to environmental changes while the same environmental change benefited the whale population which then grew in size?" After all, doesn't this fit with observable situations? Don't we see, even today some species of animal die off due to changes in their environment while others thrive due to the same changes?

Almost every land animal we see or have seen through fossils (including many aquatic animals and birds) has one overwhelmingly thing in common... commonness. Think about it, The body functions are mostly similar, 2 eyes are on the head-- including a sniffer, mouth and some ears (most of which are in common pairs or singles), limbs (typically 4), digits, claws or nails, reproductive organs, other internal organs. And all of these parts are suspiciously in similar arrangement or position. This is not anything new that I'm saying, but when you sit and think about it, it makes a lot of sense. All life is similar, life itself originated from one source (the source can be debated of course), from there it has evolved. But they're is no doubt in my mind that I'm am related, in some fashion, to a deer that's in the woods.

Sorry if this is off topic. Confused by the other thread too

Like genetic changes?

Iams, to quote Dawkins "it is we who choose to divide animals up into discontinuous species". A bird is a bird. Right, what is a bird?

Google dictionary: "warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrates characterized by feathers and forelimbs modified as wings".

An organism's genotype and phenotype are related; fact. Both are modified through observed processes incorporated in to evolutionary theory; fact.

Your ridiculous claim that a species of bird can only ever evolve in to a different type of bird could only be true if there was a fixed genotype for each species and that only a miniscule number of genes were subject to change. That's entirely untrue.

You accept microevolution, don't you? I want to hear a legitimate rationale, what stops a bird from "microevolving" to the point that it no longer resembles a bird?

I don't know why I'm trying to use reason on this forum now, it's never worked before.

Well, let's look at a couple of things, Raptor:

Why is it that despite a long history of experimentation, breeders have never been able to breed across species lines and produce new species?

What do Gregor Mendel's laws of genetic inheritance do to the idea of macroevolution?

Can you be more specific about what you mean when you say across species lines?



Nothing to implicate it. Why?

Sheri, Iams and Truethat; please don't turn this thread in to a battleground.

Lets keep this civil and on topic.

Iams, using your 'cow/whale' scenario.

We have conditions whereby there is a suitable environment on land to support a large population of cows and a suitable environment in the sea to support only a small population of whales. This would have some relevance were it not for the abundance of other fossils indicating this imbalance of envorinmental suitability was not present.

Take the whale as an example. From prehistoric seas we have found numerous fossil equivalents of the 'whale', which occupies a certain ecological niche, in the reptilian denizens of those times - plesiosaurs, mososaurs, etc. Considering you suggest the environment of the sea could not support the large population of whales and this change in conditions of the sea/land ecology was why whale population increased we would have to assume whales lived alongside those large reptilians. If they did then we have evidence the marine ecosystem was capable of supporting a large population of such creatures and so your assumption therefore is false.

Given that whales must have, according to your reasoning, existed from the earliest times (unless they evolved from something else, which violates your argument) and we know they are extremely successful - they must have survived catastrophies which rendered the reptilian marine predators extinct - we would assume that, over the geological time the whales would have out-competed the marine reptiles, or would have found anther marine niche to grow into, possibly displacing other species, and so we would find many whale fossils in that level of geology and (in relation) few of the marine reptiles. We do not see that, and so we can assume that whales did not appear in the ancient seas until a later date, indeeed the oldest known true whale, pakicetus attocki, is only found in sediments of approx 50 million years of age.

The confluence of these two lines of evidence - that we had an environment suitable for whales to flourish prior to 50 million years ago, but that fossil evidence for their existence is not found until 50 million years ago, is a very strong indication that whales did not exist in pre-Eocene oceans and they therefore evolved from another animal.

Leo, it seems you are making an assumption I don't believe must necessarily be true. It seems you are assuming that whatever environmental conditions kept the whale population down would affected all other sea life similarly, but I believe conditions could be such that some species would thrive in a certain environment while others merely survived, and that even when conditions changed in such a way as to have improved the lot for the whales, the change could have been such as to not have a serious impact on other species for some time. I don't think there is anything in our world that indicates things are as simple as to suggest that an environmental change which is positive for a particular species MUST be positive for all others which share it's environment or that a positive change for one species MUST be negative for all others which were thriving prior to the change. There are countless variables that make up what we call environment.

Additionally, from all that scientists have told us (even here on UM) fossilization is a very rare process, so as in other cases, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Like I pointed out, it may well be that the only fossil evidence for this type of whale happens to be under the pyramids at Giza or in any of the vast areas of the planet which have never been excavated.


I disagree. To successfully claim this is strong evidence would require us to KNOW with 100% certainty that there are NO fossils of this whale prior to 50 million years ago, something no one would realistically ascertain since so much of the planet remains unexcavated, and would also require that we KNOW the exact conditions which would prevent or allow a particular type of now-extinct whale and cow to survive or thrive; and considering that we can't even ascertain that for species currently alive it would be ridiculous to claim we know what those variables were for an extinct species.

Firstly, any assumption I made was that the environment conducive to the success of large populations of marine reptiles would also have allowed for the success for a large population of marine mammals, occupying a similar niche, such as the predatory whales. You reversed this assumption from what I stated, because you assume there was a small population of whales already present.

I am using the records we HAVE - that being there were large populations of large marine reptiles as evidenced from known fossils - to show how the environment was conducive to a large predatory biomass.

Would you like to explain how the whales survived in a very small niche without being specialised. How they could then out-compete a comparative generalist into a vacant niche (displacing sharks from the top of the oceanic food chain upon the disappearance of the large marine reptiles) without adapting into that niche (evolution)?

Now, the whales are not allowed to evolve during this time? Evolution would falsify your argument as we could then allow the evolution of land mammals to marine mammals.

Like i said, the fact that the environment supported large populations of certain types of animals does not in any way indicate that all animals would be supported to the same level by that environment, or even that a change in the environment which had a positive impact on one type of animal would have a significant impact on all other kinds of animals.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That we have yet to record the existence of these creatures prior to the time we have now been able to track them to, in no way invalidates their existence prior to that point.

No, because I am starting from the assumption that they did. I don't have to explain it anymore than evolutionists have to explain where the first life form came from; they just assume it did and distance themselves from the theory of abiogenesis.

They are certainly allowed to adapt so the population can exist within their environment until such a point that they are unable to adapt and dwindle and become extinct, but not somehow become reptiles or birds... or cows.

So how does genetic inheritance implicate macroevolution?

(Im really bored so I may as well participate in a thread like this for a change LOL)

As this is a what if thread, I may as well act as though its real...

There is bound to be fossils left of BOTH cow and whale, so you don't how many there are left, for it all depends on how many are found and that depends on.....

- how many people actually went looking for them?
- how much time was put into it all ?
- where they all looked / searched?



IMO - No, because you would never know for sure UNLESS every fossil was found and i couldn't see that happening


(ps your thread is interesting..it pulled me out of board em for I hardly ever respond to these kind of threads)

What if??? <----thats what IAMS is asking...can you detect a slight hint of hypothetical to this thread??

Its really simple and to be honest even though I gave my personal view..i found his thread interesting... and its rather insulting to make it look as though none of them attended science class..just because someone gives a hypothetical view to ie - fossils - and that view doesn't suit you, doesnt mean he or she hasnt attended science class..you know yourself that is not nice.

since you are going on about his expertise,maybe you can shed more light on it then?? Since when does anyone need to be an expert on fossils to ask a hypothetical question?? Surely anyoone can give a what if idea to anything without being the expert??

PS IAMS never claimed he was an expert

This is part of what I am trying to point out. There is no way to completely dismiss this idea, because the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know everything. Just because we have not found fossils does not mean they aren't out there, and also, since fossilization is such a rare event, even the fact that there are no fossils is not proof that these creatures did not exist.

See, I've wondered. What if the stratification of fossils, that is, how you only find single celled fossils in the oldest strata, and then simple-celled, and so on until you find mammals and humans in the newer strata is simply due to the fact that those were the only kinds of creatures which would fossilize in that environment or in that type of soil?


Thanks, BM, hope you continue to enjoy it.