
Everyone is excited by discoveries of new dinosaurs – or indeed any new fossil species. But a key question for palaeontologists is 'just how good is the fossil record?' Do we know fifty per cent of the species of dinosaurs that ever existed, or ninety per cent or even less than one per cent? And how can we tell?
It all depends on how we read the fossil record – the sum total of all the fossils in rocks and in museums. In a new study published today, Professor Mike Benton of the University of Bristol has explored how knowledge about dinosaurs has accumulated over the past 200 years, since the first dinosaur was named in 1824. His research does not answer the question once and for all, but it suggests that strong caution is needed with some popular methods to 'correct' the fossil record.
Professor Benton said: "In the past ten years, many palaeontologists have tried to find the true pattern of evolution by using measures of sampling to estimate where the fossil record is well known or poorly known. But it turns out that many of the popular methods are not doing what they are supposed to.'
Professor Benton reconstructed year-by-year, through the history of research on dinosaurs, from 1820 to 2015, how palaeontologists have discovered new species of dinosaurs, and how the patterns of discovery match the patterns of discovery of new geological formations. In fact, the patterns of discovery are closely linked: one or two new dinosaurs for each fossil-bearing geological formation that is newly explored.
This close linkage has been explained in two ways: either rocks drive fossils, or fossils drive rocks. The usual view was that rocks drive fossils: palaeontologists were keen to find new dinosaurs, but could only find them if they looked at new rocks in a new part of the world. Therefore, it could be said that the availability of appropriate rocks biases our knowledge of dinosaurs (or any other fossil group).
The opposite view is that fossils drive rocks, and that palaeontologists usually go out looking for dinosaurs in a very focused way,, and when they find them they would often add a new dinosaur-bearing formation to the list. In this case, the limiting factor is not simply the rocks, because palaeontologists do not search steadily and evenly over the ground, but they go straight to spots where they hear there are bones to be found.
"I have been worried for a while that some of the popular correction methods actually make things worse," Professor Benton said. "By removing the numerical signal of the formations, localities, or collections they were actually removing a huge amount of real information, and producing a resulting curve that is meaningless.
"The fossil record is clearly incomplete, and it is clearly biased by many factors, but many of the supposedly 'corrected' diversity curves we have seen recently may actually be further from the truth than the raw data."
The new work does not answer the question of whether we know 50 per cent of dinosaur species or less than one per cent. But it does provide a clearer picture of why there is such a close correlation between dinosaur species numbers with formations, localities or collections. The numbers of all four are connected because they are all telling pretty much the same story, and they are measuring the same history of knowledge. It is not possible to separate one or other of these measures from the others and then try to use it as an independent yardstick of sampling.
Explore further:
How good is the fossil record?
More information:
"Palaeodiversity and formation counts: redundancy or bias?" Palaeontology, DOI: 10.1111/pala.12191
julianpenrod
Dug
Vietvet
We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.
We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.
We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices."
http://biologos.org/about
From the same site: "We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the "living and active" means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God's Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God."
To be cont.
Vietvet
"There are several reason for these gaps in the fossil record. First, fossilization is a very rare event. Plus, transitional species tend to appear in small populations, where rapid changes in the environment can provide a stronger evolutionary drive. Finally, because fossilization itself is a rare event, smaller populations are sure to produce fewer fossils. The fact that transitional species have been found at all is remarkable, and it offers further support of gradual, evolutionary change."
http://biologos.o...l-record
@verkle
@julian
Devout Christians accepting the evidence for evolution.
What's your problem?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
@jpr: Prove that the experts (paleontologists) are not the experts in the area! I.e. what other group studies and publish more results on fossils?
If you can't, consider make your worthless opinion known somewhere else.
Vietvet
Agreed but it would be progress if verkle etal moved off their young earth nonsense.
viko_mx
Captain Stumpy
you already got those links from me... from the multiple links to verious studies from Lenski, Extavour and Whittaker to sites that had evolution defined and then produced the evidence in studies in easy to follow links
you ignored them all really?
YOU are the one:
1- posting/working on the sabbath
2- lying (big sin)
3- worshiping graven images (don't bother arguing this one: all xtian religious factions do this one, and the non-xtian parent religions of judaism or muslims are no different)
4- intentionally misrepresenting the bible (another really big oopsie)
and you are calling us "sinners"????
remember the story about removing the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the mote from another eye?
what about casting the first stone?
QUIT SPREADING PSEUDOSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS LIES
FredJose
So after all the evaluations of the fossil finds, the scientists are still nowhere closer to showing the definite progression from one kind of animal to the next. All that the fossil record reveals is the remains of animals that were once alive on earth. There is no evidence whatsoever in those fossils that shows how a leg developed in one animal, followed by an arm in another followed by a tail in yet another followed by wings in another set etc. There are no undisputed transitional fossils - even among the most hardened evolutionists. And so few instead of millions.
AGreatWhopper
"Debating" this with Julian Penrod, JVK or viko_mx- who effectively can't read- is like debating Homer with an illiterate person. So, why do you do it?
viko's an anonymous coward, JVK is a stupid Georgia redneck repeating what his inbred parents beat into him, and Penrod is a NJ Catholic apologist that actually thinks an old bachelor is the world's authority on sexual matters. He has actually helped the Catholic League harass victims of paedophile priests as being "anti-Catholic". Hey, Penrod, you want to see anti-Catholic? I've got a red hot poker to shove up your apologist arse!
They're worthless oxygen depleting vermin. So, what's the excuse from those that know better, giving them a forum? I cannot imagine one reason ever debate one word with those creatures. Isn't this why trolls thrive so well here? The "progressive" townsfolk just can't help getting a kick out of the dwarf tossing side show.
Stop it!
JES
AGreatWhopper
jljenkins
gkam
Why do you folk come here to play your disgusting games?
TheGhostofOtto1923
Well this is interesting...
"Evidence Suggests Taylor Swift Is a Psychopath
"Using a combination of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), Robert D. Hare's famous Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) and various psychology articles, we've made a list of the traits of a psychopath. We posit that they might apply to pop star Taylor Swift.
"Taylor Swift exhibits a multitude of behaviors that are in line with a diagnosis of psychopathy. She's the most ambitious blonde since our lady Madonna, and like Madonna she's turned herself into a holier-than-thou media monster hell-bent on presenting perfection."
-IMHO evidence suggests that YOURE a psychopath as well.
But I could be wrong.
Can you sing and dance at the same time?
TheGhostofOtto1923
http://www.hare.o...clr.html
Oh but - theyre suggesting certain relevant experience and knowledge for giving the test...
"Possess an advanced degree in the social, medical, or behavioral sciences...
Be registered with the local state or provincial registration body that regulates the assessment and diagnosis of mental disorder...;
Have experience with forensic populations (as demonstrated by registration as a diploma in forensic psychology or psychiatry, completion of a practicum or internship in a clinical-forensic setting,or at least two years of relevant work-related experience)...
-But then psychopaths have no problem faking degrees and lying about experience
"They have absolutely no hesitation about forging and brazenly using impressive credentials to adopt professional roles that bring prestige and power..."
http://phys.org/n...ack.html