Why are there fossils of big dinosaurs but no fossils of in-betweenies?

[plowter]

Why are there fossils of big dinosaurs, like tyrannosaurus rex,
but no fossils of the smaller dinosaurs that evolved into the big fellas - tyrannosaurus regulus?

[Zacs-Master]

I'd suggest doing a bit of research before posting what is a fairly naive question.

[plowter]

There are only 4 specimens of t-rex but there should be many, many more examples of the precursors of that animal. If you can can identify the fossil species that led to t-rex I'd be most grateful.

[Zacs-Master]

So you believe in God then?

[Mick-Talbot]

God zilla?

[Buenchico]

Tyrannosaurus Rex is, by definition, the largest of the clade (='super-family')called Tyrannosauridae. There are plenty of fossil examples of other, smaller (and earlier) members of the clade, including (for example) Guanlong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanlong

Chris

[plowter]

Sorry, that should say 34 specimens.

No - the heavens are empty. This is a rational rather than a creationist question.

[Zacs-Master]

Is it indeed. Mmm.

[plowter]

Buenchico, I feel uneasy that there's no clear explanation that A led to B led to C leading to this 7 ton beast. Where are the 1, 2, 3 ton predecessors? Perhaps you're right that the answer is there in the fossil record but it doesn't seem obvious to me.

[FredPuli43]

You may be asking next 'W'here is the ancestral giraffe? If the present giraffes have long necks to graze high foliage, and other grazers have short necks, where are the examples of intervening proto-giraffes with increasingly long necks? Or how could the human eye evolve, it being so complicated?
The answers to both questions are in the books if you look!

[plowter]

Spot on FredPuli43 and put very eloquently. I do want to know how giraffes developed.

T-rex seemed to be a good example of unquestioned evolution. You are probably correct that the answer lies in books. Just thought it was a common question with a stock answer.

[friedgreentomato]

Trex ate all the small ones!!

[wildwood]

It is only logical that there is a lot of evidence of T.rex as these were present in the last period of dinosaurs - about 65m years ago. Evidence of early dinosaurs goes back 245m years so that is three times as long as the time that dinosaurs died out in the Triassic period until now.

If you consider these vast time frames it is no wonder the earlier dinosuar evidence is more sketchy.

[Clanad]

The problem is, however, resides in the fairly regular 'extinction events'. Although the "Big Five" Are well known in my text books left over from a university geology study here in the western U.S., each Era of the geologic timeline experienced one or more mass extinction events. The three occurring within the Mesozoic Era are best known, especially the last in the Cretaceous... roughly 65 MYA.
Equally as well known is the fact of stasis... the sudden appearance of a species in the fossil record that remains nearly unchanged until it disappears within the record.

The evolutionary "Tree of Life" is depicted with an ascending series of short lines that not only move upward but laterally as well. The problem, again, is that when closely studied the "Tree's" short vertical lines (representing a species existence) are not connected... except for a series of dashed lines entered by various scientists over a long period of time. The dashed lines represent their best guess as to the ancesteral links. Obviously, there's a great deal of argument on which is valid.

Lastly, early on in my study, it became clear that there is a flaw in dating the age of any fossil. This is best demonstrated in one text but exists in several:

Welles, Samuel Paul, "Fossils," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (1978), p. 364. (Welles was Research Associate, Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley.)
"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie."

Welles, Samuel Paul, "Paleontology," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15 (1978), p. 85.
"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them."

Unique concept, no?

This "circularity" is displayed in my, admittedly ancient, (no pun intended) texts authored by the Chair of Geology Department, University of Wyoming Dr. Samuel H. Knight (long since deceased). He was and is recognized as one of the experts on Rocky Mountain geology and paleontology... The museum there is named after him...

So... to flatly state your T-Rex has identifiable ancestors is a disputed topic of conversation among the professionals...

[WaldoMcFroog]

Ah, Clanad telling his creationist 'truths' about how we know the age of rocks again. Very definitely *not* a unique concept...

The ages of many rocks are easily determined using radiometric dating. The ages of rocks that do not contain radioactive isotopes can determined by their location relative to those we can date by radiometric dating.

It's an amusing addendum to note that the geological column was first determined by geologists that were essentially creationists, and a long time before the theory of evolution, so it's a bit of a stretch to attempt to present issues relating to the geological column as though they've been devised in order to support evolution.

Now, there are index fossils, which is to say that some fossils only appear in certain stratas of rocks, therefore you can tell what age of rock you're looking at by the presence of certain fossils, but this ignores the fact that these strata provably occur between layers containing radiometrically datable isotopes.

Clanad also likes to pretend that the tree of life is only only on fossil evidence. It isn't, as well he knows, but has repeatedly ignored when posting on here. Phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods *all* converge on a similar looking tree.

[Clanad]

Aha... Wally has escaped once more... Welcome back!

Let's see... so, as I understand it... "The ages of many rocks are easily determined using radiometric dating. The ages of rocks that do not contain radioactive isotopes can determined by their location relative to those we can date by radiometric dating."

Great, but it seems you forgot to tell your audience that only metamorphic or igneous rocks contain semi/dependable mother/daughter isotopes that can be measured via radiometric dating. Of course, sedimentary rocks contain the vast majority of fossils. Metamorphic rocks, much less igneous rocks rarely, if ever contain fossilized remains. So, Waldorf's conclusion is that we simply measure the isotope decay in the in the surrounding metamorphic/igneous rocks to arrive at a suggested age for the sandwiched sedimentary rocks and hence, their fossils.

Of course, I see a fallacy brewing here... but then my experience in geology is limited to the Rocky Mountain west, here in the U.S. But, significantly, the folding created by the tectonic plate movements, erosion and subsequent mountain building does a pretty fair job of jumbling such sequences. So, it's reasonable to ask how this allows for an age determination of any dependability.
The universe is demonstrably around 14.8 billions of years old and our home planet and attendant solar system are in the range of 4.5 billions of years old. No disagreement from me.
However... in an attempt to provide insight to Mr./Ms. Plowter in the original question, problems in dating rocks should be discussed.

As to the Tree of Life... I truly love this excerpt from a source that provides 'How to" books on creating Phylogenetic trees (Source available on request):
"Remember that your tree is only a representation of the quality of the sequences and the alignment you submitted. It is very difficult to be confident of a phylogeny without careful selection of sequences for comparison. Creation of trees is useful for visual comparison of species or molecular sequences, but it is advisable to not make too many inferences from the tree about exact evolutionary distances"... Gotta love it.

Wally... you're just going to have to do a better job of cutting and pasting... getting lazy in your retirement? Or is just a coincidence that this site: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent , contains (word for word) your last paragraph re: Phylogentic trees... C'mon, you can do better than that...

[WaldoMcFroog]

To be upbraided for one sentence by someone that regularly regurgitates whole paragraphs from his creationist sources really smarts. I note your objection has no real teeth. Anyone in the field would admit that phylogenic trees are an approximation. Short of having a time machine to actually track a process which is stated to take place over millions of years, what else would it be? You present this like it's a smoking gun when it's openly acknowledged. Only creationists see this as some sort of issue. The model still holds and is supported by evidence. If your mob were correct, they'be done a lousy job of finding a single credible example of a creature that doesn't fit the observed sequence. Youoy need to do it once. Just once. One time. Surely that's easy..? And yet every new bit of evidence, every new fossil, every new genome we unravel just provides more support for the evolutionary model.

Your god is being forced into ever smaller gaps, and its creationists who insist on keeping him there. Most Christians have no trouble accepting evolution alo geode their religious beliefs. Your stubbornness on the face of overwhelming evidence is almost admirable, but it doesn't change how wrong you are.

I'm not sure where you think there's a fallacy in what I've written about dating. We know isotopes decay at a steady rate, and frequently we can find more than one in the same layer, decaying at different rates yet giving a consistent date. So, regardless of deformation and any other processes that can affect the ordering, we can still tell the order. Moreover, of course, we are not limited to one small part of the US. Comparisons can be made of rocks from all over the world. As you are well aware, there is not a single occurance of out of sequence fossils. No, as the oft cited phrase would have it, rabbits on the Pre-Cambrian.

[Clanad]

Au contraire, Pierre! It has always been thou that doest the upbraiding for C&P... gander-goose comes to mind...

No out of sequence fossils... Ha!

“In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil.” David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.

“Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups.” Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.

At one time not that long ago, in almost every museum of palentology here in the U.S. there existed a neat little exhibit of Eohippus (dawn horse) and how a smallish, rat sized critter became the modern horse through a series of carefully calibrated changes over several millions of years... but behold and lo! They've (the displays) all disappeared...

"...The Eohippus was discovered in 1841 by Richard Owen, one of the best paleontologists of his time and also the inventor of the word “Dinosaur.” Professor Owen did not call his fossil discovery Eohippus because, upon careful observation, it did not look like a “hippus” (horse) at all. He called it “Hyracotherium” because it resembled a modern day Hyrax (a rabbit like creature)" (Source:"Phylogenetic systematics of basal perissodactyls Froehlich, DJ, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology).

But... "Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut, in his book Implications of Evolution, writes about the horse series:
"The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends on who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact, one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse. … In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”. G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, 1960, pg 149.

Finally, "...Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed"

“[The Illinois amber] has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world.” David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production,” Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.)

Perhaps its you that doesn't understand...

[WaldoMcFroog]

“Au contraire, Pierre! It has always been thou that doest the upbraiding for C&P... gander-goose comes to mind...”

----------------

Indeed, point taken and hence the admission that being smacked down for a sentence by a serial offender such as you (and I note your out-of-context quotes in the remainder of your reply are also C&Ps) smarts.

----------------

“No out of sequence fossils... Ha!

“In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil.” David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.”

----------------

The full piece is from here: https://docs.google.c...rticles/raup-1981.pdf

How surprising, and unlike a creationist to get it wrong - in context, Raup isn’t saying what you’ve presented him as saying but is addressing a specific claim that Darwinian evolution is necessary or useful to enable paleotologists to determine the sequence of fossils. Raup’s take is that it is not useful. That says nothing about whether fossils are out of sequence.

You will also note that this person you are citing in defence of your position mentions the exact things I’d said in my previous answer about the geological column predating the theory of evolution. Presumably, since you think him worthy of citation, he’s also credible on that point? He also puts the boot into flood theory for good measure – again, one can only assume that you believe him credible on this point too? No? Weird. I think it’s safe to say Raup does not really advance your cause much.

““Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups.” Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.”

This quote, from one of the most celebrated palaeontologists and author of the book “Your Inner Fish” detailing how evolutionary theory makes sense of features that utterly confound the notion of humans having been created perfectly by God, has precisely no relevance to whether there are out of sequence fossils. I’m really unsure how you can read it as suggesting otherwise. In fact, what it does do is support that sentence I’d copied about how phylogenic trees are based on more than just fossil evidence.

TBC.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Cont.

----------------

“At one time not that long ago, in almost every museum of palentology here in the U.S. there existed a neat little exhibit of Eohippus (dawn horse) and how a smallish, rat sized critter became the modern horse through a series of carefully calibrated changes over several millions of years... but behold and lo! They've (the displays) all disappeared...”

[Edited for space]

But... "Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut, in his book Implications of Evolution, writes about the horse series:
"The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends on who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact, one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse. … In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse”. G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, 1960, pg 149.

----------------

I’m not sure why you think that it is remarkable or per se noteworthy that there should be changes in how things are classified in a system (science) which by definition demands that where theories and hypothesis do not fit the observable facts they are modified such that they do. A dictionary would tell you as much.

It would be remarkable if there weren’t examples of this happening. Again, however, this doesn’t address the issue of out of sequence fossils you claimed to be addressing.

----------------

Finally, "...Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed"

“[The Illinois amber] has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world.” David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production,” Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.)

----------------

And yet, when one actually bothers to read the source article (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://we
b.mst.edu/~jkmq53/school/Spring_2010/Chem_02/
files/51.pdf)
it is saying something completely different than that which your selective quote would suggest.

What Grimaldi is actually saying can be summed up in one sentence from that article: “In any case, this 320-million-year-old amber is certainly not from angiosperms, which arose almost 200 million years later. Thus, this amber casts perplexing new insight into the molecular characterization of amber.” The remainder of the article then discusses how what appeared to be traces from angiosperms known to have arisen almost 200 million years later had actually derived from contemporary plants.

----------------

Perhaps its you that doesn't understand...

----------------

I would observe that when a creationist claims that a quote from scientist says ‘x’, reading the original source often reveals that it has been used out of context as per at least two of your quotes above. I don’t really see why it’s me that has the obligation to point out the intellectual dishonesty of these claims.

If I might make a suggestion, a little more scepticism on your part about the honesty of the people from which you borrow your arguments – you’re not stupid, subscribe to a religious view that endorses not lying, and should be capable of understanding - would probably save you a few blushes down the line and make people take you a little more seriously.