quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I just read an article on T-Rex and it stated that juveniles do get mistaken for alternative species especially if separated stratigraphically.
I assume that you are refering to Nanotyrannus and "Jane" the new find and whether or not Jane was a Nano or a juvenile. Anyway, regardless of the classification, Jane lived in the late Cretateous just like Sue (the big Tyrannosuarus currently residing in Chicago)did. In other words, no separation w.r.t. time of life there.
quote:
If anyone wants to further discuss flood ordering I suggest you start a thread on that elsewhere.
I think that is probably a good idea, I was responding to a statement of yours and appear to have taken us further off track, my bad
. However, this does bring up an interesting and thread relevant idea. If run-away subduction occured why do we have any marine fossils at all from the "earliest" stages of the flood (or earliest times of evolution)? Wouldn't many or most of them have been "melted" in the interior of the earth? I do not remember seeing anything addressing this in Baurmgardners paper. While I understand that much of the old seabed is not accessible, I know that we do have some marine fossiles (ie Burgess Shale, marine dinos, ect). How come they were laid down and preserved and not turned into molten rock. This question actually is for either side for people with more knowledge of geology than I have, is this a valid question
?
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz