quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We propose that
1. biogeography - the localisation of species
2. hydrodynamic sorting - the flow and sink properties of organisms
3. relative mobility - escape speed, direction, desire to escape etc
is responsible for the fossil ordering.
Anatomically similar animals tend to have similar 1/2/3 prpoerties and hence fossil order is approximately correlatable with anatomical similarity or supposed homology.
In detail this would require a huge set of simualtions that would require knowledge of:
A. the pre-flood biogeography
B. every animal's hydrodynamic sorting propoerties
C. every animal's mobility and escape behaviour
D. the pre-flood topography/continental configuraiton
E. a precise model of the how/timing of the flood stages
As everyone knows this is all extremely difficult. So the only hope of ever doing anything like this might be to pick a subset of organisms and try it out.
The evoltuionary model does not suffer from this difficulty of possibility of reconstruction becasue each layer is simply assumed to be a surface layer habitated for thousands of years. Each animal lived and died in its layer. Our model has no such simple assumption possible.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]
1/
Archeohippus &
Nannihippus are getting smaller whilst at the same time other lineages are getting larger, in the same place.
Now,
quote:
1. biogeography - the localisation of species
All found on N.American continent in the same strata (the larger & smaller species, that is)
quote:
2. hydrodynamic sorting - the flow and sink properties of organisms
They are different sizes, so should be in different strata.
quote:
3. relative mobility - escape speed, direction, desire to escape etc
Different sizes, I would reasonably assume different mobility.
Why are these equiids found in the same strata, TB? Why are
Ornithomimus, Deinonychus, & Coelophysis found only in lower strata, & not higher strata, given they appear to be built for speed?
In fact, there appear to be fossils all through the mesozoic & cenozoic, on all continents, that appear to be built for speed. A dichotomy?
2/
This post, once again, focusses on animals. I have asked you before to explain....
quote:
1/ "Not to mention that the flood would have ripped up the local pre-flood shallow deposits."
So where is the cenozoic Ediacaran fauna?
2/ Given soft bodied Ediacaran fauna can manage to fossilise pre-flood, where are the mammals, reptiles, amphibians etc? You reckoned that 1,500 years wouldn’t generate many fossils, yet hard-to-fossilise soft bodied examples can be found. So, where are the easy to fossilise examples, of bone, arthropods etc. Which we would reasonably expect to find more of than soft bodies?
3/ Why is an increase in complexity seen in pre-flood strata, from older to younger?
4/ Provide a model (it’s a toughy, I know, but single examples I can always contradict with a counter example. It’s best to cut to the chaste) that universally demonstrates that homology etc. related deposition is expected under the flood model. Otherwise, well, it isn’t, & a 0.5 average SCI is pretty remarkable evidence for evolution, not to mention that when the fossil record is better, so is the SCI.
3/
Please explain plant fossil patterns,
quote:
Angiosperms are flowering plants, gymnosperms are cone bearing, lycopsids are club mosses, & pteropsida are ferns. I should also include pteridosperms (seed ferns), that have been extinct since the Jurassic.
Club mosses, ferns, & seed ferns appear in the devonian/carboniferous.
Gymnosperms appear in the triassic.
Angiosperms appear in the cretaceous.
Why, then do these tree (ferns excepted) to small plant bearing classes of plants appear at different times, & in the case of seed ferns, disappear altogether, under a flood model? I ask you to explain the stratigraphy of these plant taxa, & how it pertains to the flood models hydrodynamic sorting, biogeography, & relative mobility.
If you can't objectively test & quantify the factors you mention, & apply them to the actual patterns of fossil deposition, showing that the large majority of organisms comply, then all you have is a "just so" explanation. Furthermore, there are valid questions being asked that would appear to directly contradict your "model". It's not looking like a very good explanation from where I'm standing, TB.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-28-2002]
™ Version 4.2