(September 7, 2008 at 5:30 pm)Pete Wrote: Again with the creationists junk? Why do you keep bringing those kooks up?? I have absolutely zero interest in what creationists think and I prefer not be confused with them. Okay?You brought up the gaps argument. It is an argument usually associated with creationists, and which you probably got off a creationist without knowing it. No evolutionary biologist would have ever told you "we are baffled by the gaps in the fossil record". I've spoken with many of them, and they all explain it perfectly.
I seem to have made the mistake of using the term "gap" with the sudden appearance in complex life forms. I was not referring to the incompleteness of the fossil record when I was speaking of a gap in the fossil record. I can see how that can be confusing to you. My mistake.
Quote:Let me quote what this book I'm reading on evolution has to say about all of thisWell firstly that book doesn't sound very scientific at all. Every single fossil is a transitional form, so every single fossil found is one. There is no "struggle" to find any of them...
Quote:Darwin wondered where to find transitional life forms (consider them the in-between-this-and-that forms). Although we've had more success in finding transitional life forms, today scientists still feel his pain. They are better at knowing where to look and they have more people looking, but they still struggle to find them.I'm not asserting that lack of finds of fossils is any mystery at all. I was thinking about rates of evolution. I mistook that phenomena with the common use of "gap" in the fossil record. I won't make that mistake again. So I would appreciate it if people would get off this creationsists kick. I'm not a creationist and have no interest in what their opinions/arguements are. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about them.
Scientists hypothesize that evolution doesn't occur at a constant rate: It can occur in bursts seperated by long periods when not much happens. If transitional was brief, the chance that such forms would have been fossilized is even more dicey.
Anyway, you are still wrong when you assert "Gaps in fossil beds are expected. Not gaps in the fossil record.". We know from experience that gaps in the fossil record are expected, because we have a load of them. Fossilization requires a load of factors to be right, the most important being that the animal isn't disturbed much when it dies. If an animal dies and is ripped apart by a pack of wolves and devoured, it won't be much use to scientists even if a few of the remains are fossilized.
As for the creationist thing, I apologize, but when you stop bringing up old and used creationist arguments (even if you don't mean to) we'll stop pointing them out.