Forgot your password?
Haven't registered yet?
4/25/2015“More than Information: A Christian Critique of a New Dualism,” Berkeley, CA
4/26/2015“Creation, Design, Evolution, and Human Origins,” Holland, MI
5/6/2015"God and the Multiverse,” Vancouver, BC. Speaker: Deborah Haarsma
5/7/2015“The God of Small Things: Nanotechnology, Creation and God,” Cambridge, England
That's quite a difference, ranging from 90% of species without fossils to 95% with. I don't have original sources and I hope someone does. But I wonder if it might not be possible for both to be right? Isn't the difference in the adjectives "extant" and "existing?" And perhaps a key difference in what it means to "fossilize?" It seems feasible that a majority (don't know what percentage) of extant species might have existed long enough to have some specimens fossilized or at least to leave some trace of their past existence. Though surely this must refer only to those species where fossilization or preservation of some kind is possible. However, a very tiny fraction of species that have ever lived are still extant. So to say 90% of all species that have ever lived have left no fossil record is also very likely, especially if one defines "existing" as "having ever exited" and if one considers all the species without structures that fossilize.
It seems to me that your view is the most accurate and the YEC claims need a fair amount of qualification. Maybe an expert in the field will clarify our thinking on all this. Or perhaps I misunderstood the use of the various adjectives.
I am responding to this post rather late, but here are some general comments for those interested. More on this can be found in my essay on the Cambrian "explosion" on the BioLogos Forum website.