I dunno ... I go on holiday for a week and a discussion
on fossil ordering (sans timescale) turns into a
'how old is all this stuff?' hoo-ha

Seriously though ... I wasn't interested in how old the GC
is considered to be, but in the idea that the order which
has been observed in the fossil record was caused by hydrodynamic
sorting + survivability/mobility.
Hydrodynamic sorting, based upon my reading of research papers
looking into the effects of flooding on archeology and paleontology
suggest to me that the process has far too many variables to
be considered deterministic ... that is it cannot explain a consitent
ordering, because it is, itself, a near as dash-it, random process.
Mobility/survivability doesn't hold up for me, because there is
no logical reason why some elephants would have survived longer
than some stegosaurs or apatosaurs or some-such ... nor why
survivabity would lead to an ordering which could be interpreted
as a progression in time (however long or short).
For fossils to have ALL been laid down after the flood, and the
representation in the record due to things like reproductive
rate is a new one on me.
Suggesting that mammals tracks and remains wouldn't be in the
fossil record cause they breed slower (what about mice and rats?)
and don't live on mud flats (but they do have to go to rivers or
lakes or whatever to drink ... don't they?) also seems to be an
unsupportable assumption.
I might start a co-existence thread based upon ecological
considerations like, for example, why would you get pumars (say)
and velociraptors in the same environment ... I'm not familiar
with a modern environment in which there are two large (relative to man) predatory species co-existing (could be wrong on that though ... absence
of knowledge isn't knowledge of absence

)