Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossilisation is rare, so ....
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 17 of 33 (10033)
05-20-2002 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
05-19-2002 11:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I saw this about a month ago on Australian TV and these were not miscellaneous bones. It was 'complete sauropods on top of complete T-Rex (like) skeltons' etc. We'll see, but a I'm sure sure you know that many of the worlds best fossil sites are graveyards with completely preserved (intact) skeletons. In our model we know what happened.
Actually, it was a herd of maiasaurs, there were no signs of predators or predation. Most importantly Horner's conclusions were, as Joe rightly remembers, that the Maiasuar's had been killed and then a flood had moved their bones long after the dying event. And floods, even catastrophic ones, aren't uncommon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 11:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 05-20-2002 4:31 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-20-2002 8:57 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 33 (10046)
05-20-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mister Pamboli
05-20-2002 12:16 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Actually, it was a herd of maiasaurs, there were no signs of predators or predation. Most importantly Horner's conclusions were, as Joe rightly remembers, that the Maiasuar's had been killed and then a flood had moved their bones long after the dying event. And floods, even catastrophic ones, aren't uncommon.[/B][/QUOTE]
Most of the better dinosaur fossil finds are in fluvial sedimentary rocks such as the Morrison Fm. That is one reason why they are so often confused with flood deposits.
[This message has been edited by edge, 05-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-20-2002 12:16 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 33 (10062)
05-20-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mister Pamboli
05-20-2002 12:16 PM


In any case, MP, many fossil graveyards record complete (ordered) skeletons. I still find it hard to believe Horner was talking about 'random bones' but if you say he was I'll take your word for it.
I've certainly heard many times of all types of dinoasurs (herbivore/carnivore) on top of each other but intact. With that in mind, you can imagine rivers, I'll imagine flood channels - both fluvial.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-20-2002 12:16 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 05-21-2002 10:56 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 21 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 11:43 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 22 by edge, posted 05-21-2002 11:44 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 33 (10111)
05-21-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
05-20-2002 8:57 PM


TB,
No comment on message 16?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-20-2002 8:57 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 21 of 33 (10113)
05-21-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
05-20-2002 8:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I still find it hard to believe Horner was talking about 'random bones' but if you say he was I'll take your word for it.
I don't know what you mean by random bones. Here is what Horner said: "... nor did it make sense that a heard (sic) of living animals buried in mud would end up with all their skeletons disarticulated."
They were not complete ordered specimens, but disarticulated skeletons, with the bones lying east-west and the small bones separated from the large bones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-20-2002 8:57 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:24 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 33 (10114)
05-21-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
05-20-2002 8:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In any case, MP, many fossil graveyards record complete (ordered) skeletons. I still find it hard to believe Horner was talking about 'random bones' but if you say he was I'll take your word for it.
Yes, some do and some don't. It isn't necessary to assume that all sites are the same. However, many, if not most, dinosaur fossil sites consist of scattered, disarticulated and sometimes broken bones. I have seen several such sites. Why do you think that they originally had the wrong skull for the (at that time) brontosaurus? But you are confusing me. I thought that creationists used the broken and disarticulated fossils as evidence for the flood.
quote:
I've certainly heard many times of all types of dinoasurs (herbivore/carnivore) on top of each other but intact.
I have not actually heard of this. (Here it comes!) Can you document it? What do you mean by 'on top of each other?' Where do they occur so 'many times?' Can you give us your interpretation?
quote:
With that in mind, you can imagine rivers, I'll imagine flood channels - both fluvial.
Well, rivers do flood. This is something we have actually seen. Not a myth. And actually, you might want to look up a definition of 'fluvial,' unless you wish to redefine that term also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-20-2002 8:57 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 05-21-2002 11:53 AM edge has not replied
 Message 24 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 1:15 PM edge has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 33 (10116)
05-21-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
05-21-2002 11:44 AM


Edge/TB,
I was at the Natural History museum (London), where there is a fossil protoceratops (i think), & velociraptor next to each other. The museum claimed this was the only known fossils of dinosaur combat.
It may now be dated info, but I doubt the situations changed that much.
That said, I'm not sure I would expect many meals to be taken whilst drowning was being avoided, non?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 05-21-2002 11:44 AM edge has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 24 of 33 (10124)
05-21-2002 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
05-21-2002 11:44 AM


quote:
TB: I've certainly heard many times of all types of dinoasurs (herbivore/carnivore) on top of each other but intact.
Edge: I have not actually heard of this. (Here it comes!) Can you document it? What do you mean by 'on top of each other?' Where do they occur so 'many times?' Can you give us your interpretation?
Well they were presumably of the same "baramin" which means they could interbreed, so perhaps they were ...
No no, I won't go there at this time of the morning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 05-21-2002 11:44 AM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 33 (10138)
05-21-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mister Pamboli
05-21-2002 11:43 AM


Fair enough MP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-21-2002 11:43 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 33 (10141)
05-21-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
05-20-2002 6:09 AM


Mark, all I can tell you is that we have a documented mechanism for creating 'generations' of fossilized forests. If you don't want to consider it possible becasue of 'the details' that's fine with me. I am not an expert on those details and I find the very rapid dismisals of creationist ideas (rather than OK - it could be possible) evidence of your biases.
If you guys can't even imagine soils being washed into a forest deposit then I think you (not necessarily you Mark) are obviously not willing to understand the other viewpoint. I have no problem with you pointing out miriad problems but if they were prefaced with 'it's not completely impossible but' it would lead to more sensible debate.
Most beds around the world are marine so statistically they will end up on the bottom more often. And catastrophic inundations of the land by sea will deposit the terrestial beds in one place and the rest is obviouly going to be marine until a deper surge comes. Hence alternate arine/non-marine beds.
And why should we get a 'jumbled mess of tees' in our model? Austin showed that the trees sink vertically and insert in mud and will stay vertical especially under catastrophic circumstances of non-stop deposition.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 05-20-2002 6:09 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by edge, posted 05-21-2002 10:10 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 05-22-2002 7:57 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 33 (10147)
05-21-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 9:36 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Mark, all I can tell you is that we have a documented mechanism for creating 'generations' of fossilized forests. [/QUOTE]
Could you please reiterate these for us? I do not remember you providing this or documenting it.
quote:
If you don't want to consider it possible becasue of 'the details' that's fine with me.
Sure, let's ignore the details.
quote:
I am not an expert on those details and I find the very rapid dismisals of creationist ideas (rather than OK - it could be possible) evidence of your biases.
Maybe it's because of the details??? Perhaps we know the details that simply prohibit your scenario.
quote:
If you guys can't even imagine soils being washed into a forest deposit then I think you (not necessarily you Mark) are obviously not willing to understand the other viewpoint.
Where has this come up before? I don't remember soils washing into a forest. Seems to me that the soil would then be deposited on top of soil...
quote:
I have no problem with you pointing out miriad problems but if they were prefaced with 'it's not completely impossible but' it would lead to more sensible debate.
It would also lead to a more sensible debate if you tried to counter some of the points made against you rather than ignoring them.
quote:
Most beds around the world are marine so statistically they will end up on the bottom more often. And catastrophic inundations of the land by sea will deposit the terrestial beds in one place and the rest is obviouly going to be marine until a deper surge comes. Hence alternate arine/non-marine beds.
I guess.
quote:
And why should we get a 'jumbled mess of tees' in our model? Austin showed that the trees sink vertically and insert in mud and will stay vertical especially under catastrophic circumstances of non-stop deposition.
As I have suggested above, this reference to Austin shows that you are not really that familiar with the mainstream literature. My guess is that you have read a LOT more of the creationist websites or papers than the mainstream. How long do you think that those trees remain vertical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:36 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 33 (10191)
05-22-2002 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
05-21-2002 9:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Mark, all I can tell you is that we have a documented mechanism for creating 'generations' of fossilized forests. If you don't want to consider it possible becasue of 'the details' that's fine with me. I am not an expert on those details and I find the very rapid dismisals of creationist ideas (rather than OK - it could be possible) evidence of your biases.
If you guys can't even imagine soils being washed into a forest deposit then I think you (not necessarily you Mark) are obviously not willing to understand the other viewpoint. I have no problem with you pointing out miriad problems but if they were prefaced with 'it's not completely impossible but' it would lead to more sensible debate.

1/ I never prefaced anything with 'it's completely impossible', either You asked me to believe that sinking trees with root systems & soil attached explained rooted, in situ fossil trees. I merely pointed out an expected global prediction of such an occurrence re. Fossils in the GC. I don’t deny such a phenomena exists, just that it is insufficient to explain the evidence. It is up to your model to provide the answers. I shouldn't have to preface everything with "it's not completely impossible, but".
2/ Your model lives & dies on the details.
3/ Please present the documented mechanism for creating successive forests.
4/ regarding bias, I am biased in favour of the theory that explains the most evidence, that is not contradicted elsewhere. I am concerned that creationist models will overlook those details. So, that documented mechanism please.
Now, the soils..
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm
You are saying that the soils are transported & washed in.
Retallack also commented on Fritz's (1980) paper, stating that "there are at least some cases of petrified tree stumps unquestionably in place," with roots penetrating incipient soils horizons that, "compared to previous accounts, are suprisingly well differentiated" (p. 52). In his reply to Retallack, Fritz (1981, p. 54) again stated:
Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks. narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved were they grew. Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change. The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion
So, two types of upright trees have been identified, short trunk, abraded examples indicative of transported uprights, & long trunk examples with root systems penetrating SOIL HORIZONS.
The cretaceous McRea formation in New Mexico
Bucl and Mack (1995) describe large in situ trees in fluvial deposits of the McRae Formation. The McRae Formation in south-central New Mexico is about 420m thick, and consists of two members, the Jose Creek and the Hall Lake. The formation is of latest Cretaceous age, based upon the included dinosaur fauna. The formation is rich in paleosols (at least 26), many of which contain in situ tree trunks.
14 paleosols, from 45-150m thick, are recognized in the Jose Creek Member. These are classified as argillisols, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/agll/prosoil/argic . These display well-developed soil horizonation (A-E-Bt-Bc-C), and soil structures such as blocky peds and clay cutans. Downward bifurcating, downward-tapering root traces are abundant, some of which are silicified (root petrifactions).
Several of these paleosols are blanketed by ash-fall tuffs burying tree stumps up to 1.7m! in diameter, with preerved large roots penetrating and cross-cutting the underlying palesol horizons (see fig. 5).
12 paleosols are recognized in the overlying Hall Lake Member, from 70-450cm thick. These are classified as calcisols, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/agll/prosoil/calc.htm and vertic calcisols . Soil horizons and soil structures are well-developed, and at least one paleosol includes a "massive, well-indurated bed of pedogenic calcrete up to 4m thick," which indicates a very advanced stage of calcisol development. Calcisols are diagnostic of semi-arid environments.
What are well defined soil horizons doing in a fossil forest if the soils were washed in?
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Most beds around the world are marine so statistically they will end up on the bottom more often. And catastrophic inundations of the land by sea will deposit the terrestial beds in one place and the rest is obviouly going to be marine until a deper surge comes. Hence alternate arine/non-marine beds.
And why should we get a 'jumbled mess of tees' in our model? Austin showed that the trees sink vertically and insert in mud and will stay vertical especially under catastrophic circumstances of non-stop deposition.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]


So why do those trees move in the first place if they can remain rooted under catastrophic conditions of non-stop deposition? What you seem to be saying is that only trees that have been uprooted & then deposited elsewhere, can be held in place. If what you say is true, it seems reasonable that many trees are going to remain rooted in pre-flood soils, where are they? This phenomena should indicate a clear boundary between pre-flood, & flood deposits. Those pesky details again..
You will get a jumbled mess of trees in your model because trees will not fall next to each other, they will fall on top of each other, overlapping etc. (as well as next to each other), meaning the complete layers seen at specimen ridge should not exist, as the rooted paleosols that came WITH the trees will penetrate the conglomerate layer.
Also, as the surge abates, why are marine organisms not deposited on top of the terrestrial forests stuck in place. Surely those conglomerates would be full of dense shelly marine fauna?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:36 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 05-23-2002 12:29 AM mark24 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 33 (10262)
05-23-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
05-22-2002 7:57 AM


Hey, TB, howzabout wandering over to my "flowering plants and the Flood" thread in this topic and seeing what you can do with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 05-22-2002 7:57 AM mark24 has not replied

  
PeterW
Guest


Message 30 of 33 (10283)
05-23-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
05-17-2002 10:56 AM


The point I was trying to make is that (I'll try to be more
clear)::
Fossilisation is either rare ... or it isn't.
Everyone here tends to agree that fossilisation IS a rare
occurrence requiring very specific environmental conditions
(not simply burrial).
The two scenarios (as I understand it) are::
1) All/most fossilised specimens are the result of burrials in flood
deposits during the Great Flood. According to TC, anything hitting
bottom would be fossilised.
OR
2) Fossilised specimens found were laid down over millions of
years locally WHEN conditions were favourable.
Under scenario 1) I would expect to see very few fossilised
specimens of ALL animals in existence at the time of the flood.
My reasoning for this is that the environmental conditions for fossilisation, while helped by a flood, are none-the-less quite
rare. Encountering such conditions within the flood year (or so)
would be expected to result in few (rare) fossilisation events.
Under scenario 2) I would expect to find few fossils of particular,
short-lived species, many of longer lived species, and many fossils
over-all.
Reasoning:: Given sufficient time, even a rare event can occurr
a high number of times. If a species is long lived, then many
generations are available for fossilisation (when the conditions
are right), while shorter lived species are not. Overall, many
fossils would be found if an extended time period was involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 10:56 AM edge has not replied

     
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 33 (10313)
05-23-2002 11:55 PM


There's little evidence to demonstrate that, in some beds at the very least, one might not even get every vertebrate creature fossilised in a catastrophic situation. Why not (in some beds at least)? What are these 'special conditions' other than burial? Teach me.
In the field, in many beds we can see ripple marks in every every square foot of every layer! You think we wouldn't be able to find evidence a fish was rapidly buried there if it was? I think you're just finding it hard to

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 05-24-2002 1:48 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 05-27-2002 6:27 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024