Fossils: 95% Plants, 1/4% Vertebrates - Fact or Fiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goodies
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    fossils
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The claim that 95% of the fossil record consists of plants, with vertebrates making up only 0.25%, lacks validity due to the absence of peer-reviewed sources. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity on how the fossil record is quantified, whether by weight, volume, or raw number. Without credible citations, such assertions are deemed meaningless and should be disregarded. The importance of relying on scientifically validated information is underscored.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of paleontology terminology
  • Familiarity with fossil classification
  • Knowledge of peer-review processes in scientific research
  • Awareness of methods for quantifying fossil records
NEXT STEPS
  • Research methods for quantifying fossil records in paleontology
  • Explore peer-reviewed journals on fossil composition and classification
  • Investigate the role of plants in the fossil record
  • Learn about the significance of vertebrate fossils in evolutionary biology
USEFUL FOR

Paleontologists, biology educators, students of evolutionary science, and anyone interested in the accuracy of fossil record claims.

Goodies
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Hello! I read this post on Facebook and I am curious as to its validity and accuracy:

95% of the fossil record is made of plants. Shellfish & coral make up most of the rest while vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals) make only 1/4 of 1% of the fossil record & only 1 of every 500 of these consist of more than one bone!

This doesn't seem that far from accurate, but I'd love to see peer-reviewed sources on this. Also, the fossil count must be in the several hundred millions because we have hundreds, if not, thousands of fossils JUST in the human evolutionary tree.

Thanks, guys!
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Hello! I read this post on Facebook and I am curious as to its validity and accuracy:
That's easy - it's on Facebook and no citations were given? No note of how the contribution to the overall fossil record was measured was given (i.e by weight, volume, raw number??) or even what "fossil record" means in this context? - therefore it is invalid and meaningless.

Ask the person who posted it to supply a citation.
 
Garbage posted on facebook is..garbage. If there is no peer reviewed source linked to a respected publication, ignore it. You shouldn't even need to ask.
 

Similar threads

How are ancestors classified in a cladistic system?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Creationist Arguments: Debunking Claims with Science
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
What colors and attributes could alien flora & fauna have?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K