In talk.origins, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
<c2fnha$1nn$0@pita.alt.net>:
>
>> An earlier, similar reply to the following was apparently lost in the
>> aether. If it eventually turns up, my apologies for the duplication.
>>
>> In article <c271vr$7q2$0@pita.alt.net>, noway@jose.com [Uncle Davey]
>wrote...
>> >wiadomoci news:c24ueu$om0$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
>> >> In article <c245k7$a68$0@pita.alt.net>, noway@jose.com [Uncle Davey]
>> >wrote...
>>
>> [snip]
>> >> >You raise a good point, how many loricariid fossils are there?
>> >>
>> >> More than zero; I recall finding refs to some when looking for
>> >> info on Corydoras fossils for you in that thread a while back.
>>
>> [snip of a few fossil catfish refs]
>>
>> >Once again, not very many fossils seem to have been located bearing in
>mind
>> >the toughness of the exoskeleton of Loricariids and the length of time
>they
>> >must ahve been around.
>>
>> I'm not sure that we should really expect that the currently-known
>> fossil record of Loricariidae [or Callichthyiidae] should be any
>> better than it is.
>>
>> First, it seems that there aren't any large number of South American
>> freshwater fossil sites of the right age range that have been
>> extensively explored so far. How many fossil catfish experts are
>> currently working to actually study whatever remains have been found
>> to date? For all we know, there may in fact be many more fossil
>> armored-catfish specimens already on museum storage shelves but
>> still waiting to be described and named.
>>
>> Then, there are the obvious taphonomic questions:
>>
>> Don't many loricariids prefer to live in rocky stream habitats, not in
>> places with deeply accumulating sediment? I vaguely remember
>> something of the sort. If it's the case that living loricariids tend
>> to avoid those places that favor fossil preservation, then it may not
>> be so surprising that the known fossils of their relatives are
>> relatively few.
>>
>> From what I've seen so far about the loricariid and callichthyiid
>> fossil record, it sounds like members of both families often tend to
>> disintegrate into a jumble of loose plates and spines after death.
>> [An aquarist might confirm if this often happens to ones that die
>> several days before being discovered and removed?] Even if the
>> scattered bits of armor do preserve well, the hypothetical overworked
>>
>> South American paleoichthyologists might be forgiven for not spending
>> much time classifying the fragmentary remains. I'm reminded of that
>> earlier-cited paper which mentioned layers with concentrations of
>> abundant Corydoras plates and spines, but evidently didn't bother to
>> name any new fossil Corydoras species from the remains. The literature
>> already cited of fossil loricariids and callichthyiids do seem to
>> largely involve descriptions of loose bones [other than your one very
>> complete Corydoras fossil].
>>
>> Anyway, it seems to me that the currently-known existence of even a
>> few fossil speciments and species of these fish strongly implies the
>> existence of many more individuals [and additional related species]
>> that aren't yet known as fossils. Presumably, that fossil Corydoras
>> species known only from a single specimen must represent only one of
>> a very large number of individuals that ever lived of that species.
>> [But I suppose a believer in special creationism might argue that that
>> one fossil fish may well have been the only individual ever created of
>> its species, and a true believer in omphalism might even suggest that
>> it was specially created as a fossil, already in place in the rocks]
>>
>> Even an adherent of inclusive separately-created "kinds" would need
>> to argue that there are many "gaps" in the fossil record between say,
>> the remarkable modern diversity of Corydoras catfishes and the
>> hypothetical originally-created single ancestral form of their "kind".
>> The explanation will be much the same as the "evolutionist" one-- all
>> the required gradual-intermediate forms must have existed in the past,
>> but most are as yet unknown as fossils.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>
>My Omphalism Lite is still tending to believe that the fossils are from the
>Flood and not from being placed there, as full omphalism would suggest.
>
>Omphalism Lite is like a cross between Full Omphalism and YEC, taking the
>strongest bits of each idea.
Is there some way to mix two pieces of utter nonsense and get sense out
of them?
[attempts at ignorance based cherry picking deleted]
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 |
|