Summations Only

quote:

---

Where you find fossils today has absolutely nothing to do with the fossils in the stratigraphic/geologic column, which are clearly NOT found in such local places, as I explained.

---

Ignorantly asserting falsehoods hardly helps your case.For example:volcanic burial - an article I have previously cited so it should not be a surprise.

I didn't read the article but volcanic burial is too local to apply to the fossils in the stratigraphic/gologic column where the Flood deposited tem.

quote:

---

I didn't read the article but volcanic burial is too local to apply to the fossils in the stratigraphic/gologic column where the Flood deposited tem.

---

Perhaps you should rewrite that so it makes sense.None the less, the article describes a large collection of fossils buried by volcanic ash, not by a flood of any sort.In reality the fossil record is a collection of things that have been buried by different means, by different events, in different times and different places.

Sorry, the genetics was implied, as it was for Darwin's pigeons with the exaggerated features. The argument is that the same features are possessed by all the trilobites, not more, not less, and that is what makes them all members of the same Kind, and any given specimens best called "subspecies" for the sake of clarity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree that I don't always make the distinction between the land strata and the marine strata, but I am certainly aware of it. I think most of what I say also applies to those strata that are supposedly formed in marine environments too though. You couldn't get a flat rock out of those.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry, the genetics was implied, as it was for Darwin's pigeons with the exaggerated features. The argument is that the same features are possessed by all the trilobites, not more, not less, and that is what makes them all members of the same Kind, and any given specimens best called "subspecies" for the sake of clarity.

---

The actual genetics are unknown. You may assume that the process was the same, but that is assumption not actual information. However in reality it takes selective breeding to produce rapid and extreme divergence, and trilobites have diverged far more than even the selectively bred pigeons. Some trilobites had eyes on stalks, for instance. Good luck finding that feature on a pigeon.I note that you do not even attempt to give an objective criteria based on morphology - which is all the evidence gives you. All you have is opinion, lacking any solid basis. If you are wasting your time it is not because we are being unreasonable, it is because your arguments are at best shallow and lacking a real understanding of the evidence.

PaulK handled this just fine. My comment is redundant.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you saying that fossils should be at the bottom of the geological column because they tend to be dense and heavy? If so, I was thinking that because Faith says that fossils are from life killed by the flood that it wouldn't be fossils being swept around by the flood but corpses (in the general sense, not just people). Corpses will tend to float if air remains in the lungs, making it impossible for the corpse to sink. But if the lungs fill with water then the corpse will sink. After a few days corpses fill with gases, increasing the volume and decreasing the density, so they will all float. After a variable amount of time the gasses leave the corpses (either gradually or suddenly in the case of a rupture) and they sink again.I don't think Faith has taken any of this into account. I think it means there would be a great deal of randomness about which sedimentary layers corpses eventually become buried in.--Percy

Remember that Faith's silly flood first kills everything but then piles miles of sediment on whatever died. She's stripping everything that ain't nailed down off in the very first 40 days so it's likely even the freshly dead get buried right at the start along with everything that's dense. Then after the 40 days all the less dense material will pile on so what we MUST see if the Biblical Flood happened is a bottom lair of corpsicals and dense big rocks and then gradually finer material until the top layer is the smallest, lightest stuff left.

I would say almost never. Not instantly. But geological history tells us that, over time, marine transgessions and regressions will give us 'flat and horizontal' layers.I notice that you have not referred to the strat column that both Percy and I have provided to you. If you are going to continue making your pronouncements, you should address that.

You are right, I hadn't thought about how corpses would behave in the Flood, and your thoughts are very useful. I did think in terms of corpses rather than fossils being buried, of course, but hadn't thought about the buoyancy factor.In fact that could help account for the distribution, couldn't it? Bigger animals, more bloating and gasses, more buoyancy, would have to affect the distribution somehow. There couldn't possibly be any more randomness to how things were buried if these factors are taken into account than if they were all just dead weight. I doubt these factors explain all the sorting but they certainly have to be taken into account.Some animals must have been overtaken and buried on the spot, so this would only apply to any that were carried along in the water. I still think habitat, and something about how ocean water itself sorts things because of its own propensity to divide into layers according to temperature, and its separate currents and so on, all need to be considered all together.Sorting wouldn't be from the very bottom to the very top of the geologic/stratigraphic column because it was laid down in layers, so some layers or groups of layers would be sorted according to whatever principles apply. But if thinking in terms of sorting by weight through the whole geo column, then there would be no reason for the bigger animals to be at the bottom according to sorting by size and weight.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The genetics at least involve many genes per trait, so many for the pleural spines, and there appear to be separate groups of those spines, probably governed by their own sets of genes; and probably many separate for the genal and pygidial spines, many for the head parts etc etc.Thinking about the comparison with humans and chimps: it's the structure of the body itself that makes the difference. If it were only a matter of appendages then cats and dogs would be far more similar to each other than humans and chimps. But it's the body structure that distinguishes cats from dogs, flexible cat skeleton, rigid dog skeleton among other things; and it would be the huge differences in body structure that distinguish humans from chimps. Shape of face, length of arms and legs, gait and posture, etc.The trilobite also seems to have a basic body shape even if its appendages can vary so dramatically.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I seriously doubt you would ever get anything as flat and horizontal and especially as extensive over vast areas, as those in the geo/strat column. I doubt it but in any case I asked you to explain it, did you do that? And I just plain don't read a lot of Percy's posts. Sorry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no reason to think DNA operates differently in different Kinds. Many genes governing each trait for instance. What would differ is the traits governed by the various genes. {It's kind of fascinating don't you think, that the DNA looks pretty similar from creature to creature, even certain segments of it government the same basic trait, and yet the traits themselves can't be predicted from just looking at the DNA. How you get from a coded protein to a human eye versus a dog eye or fish eye etc. remains mysterious although they may be governed by the same segment of DNA.) '
All it takes in nature to produce all degrees of divergence from subspecies to subspecies is reproductive isolation of some portion of the original gene pool. This is a form of selection in itself, albeit random. Selective breeding may or may not be faster, depends on how many individuals make up the founding members of the evolving population and how much genetic diversity is available.It appears that each population has its own set of genetic possibilities that bring out the various traits we see in the different species or subspecies. Pigeons are probably the result of many divergences in the past, each of which would restrict the genetic diversity of each new population. That would explain why they can't vary as much as the trilobite subspecies obviously did. Trilobites were a pre-Flood creature, which had a lot more genetic diversity in their original genome than any creature living today after the huge bottleneck of the Flood (genetic diversity meaning number of genes per trait for instance, "junk DNA" being most likely a record of lost genetic diversity). They had enough genetic diversity to produce all those tens of thousands of variations / subspecies that have been logged, and probably much more if it hadn't been for the Flood that wiped them out. (Yet I understand there are some living land-adapted trilobites today).It appears that the genome of each Kind governed traits for that particular Kind, so that trilobites had the potential for eyes on stalks though pigeons didn't. Trilobites could possibly use eyes on stalks in some circumstances, but they would be a detriment to a flying creature. God knows what He's doing. Trilobites probably couldn't produce a feather either, even if drastically selected. Gosh, I thought I did a pretty good job by identifying the various trilobite features that had to vary to produce the different types discussed. Having all the same features is part of the definition I gave for the Kind. I pointed out objective features. Seems like a rather solid basis for my opinion to me. I don't feel I'm wasting my time on this topic. The discussion has become rather fascinating recently.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is no reason to think DNA operates differently in different Kinds. Many genes governing each trait for instance. What would differ is the traits governed by the various genes.

---

Indeed, there is no reason to assume that what you suggest is even possible - at least in practical terms - without a truly massive program of selective breeding.

quote:

---

All it takes in nature to produce all degrees of divergence from subspecies to subspecies is reproductive isolation of some portion of the original gene pool. Selective breeding may or may not be faster, depends on how many individuals make up the founding members of the evolving population.

---

In principle, perhaps. In reality splitting the population up so many ways, subjecting the sub-populations to very strong and different selective pressures and ensuring that enough of the sub-populations manage to survive and escape their little region seems more than a little unlikely. Not to mention the fact that reproductive isolation does not seem to generally occur in selective breeding. Your timescale allows only a couple of thousand years from creation to Flood. That’s not long if you leave it to nature.

quote:

---

It appears that each population has its own set of genetic possibilities that bring out the various traits we see in the different species or subspecies. Pigeons are probably the result of many divergences in the past, each of which would restrict the genetic diversity of each new population. That would explain why they can't vary as much as the trilobite subspecies obviously did.

---

In your opinion. But it is just an opinion, and since we know that trilobite variation evolved over long periods of time - there really is no good reason for us to agree with you.

quote:

---

Gosh, I thought I did a pretty good job by identifying the various trilobite features that had to vary to produce the different types discussed. Having all the same features is part of the definition I gave for the Kind.

---

Just like chimpanzees and humans. It’s all just variations in size and shape. The basic bits are all there.

quote:

---

I pointed out objective features. Seems like a rather solid basis for my opinion to me.

---

But it obviously is not. There is no objective connection between the features and your idea of kind. When the evidence shows that trilobites evolved over a long period of time why should we accept your assumption that they are all varieties of a single species? You haven’t shown that at all.

quote:

---

I don't feel I'm wasting my time on this topic. The discussion has become rather fascinating recently.

---

Well don’t expect anyone else to think that simply assuming that you are right is a brilliant argument. At least we got a nice example of you complaining about one of your arguments being treated fairly.