|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood sorting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Ok TB,
Lets have it. How does the flood sort dead things into the observed geologic strata? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: Magic ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
He has "faith" that it does.
http://EvC Forum: How paleontology really works -->EvC Forum: How paleontology really works
quote: Specifically, TB has faith that "homology, hydrodynamic sorting, biogeography, & relative mobility" are responsible. When asked HOW they are responsible, he retreats to the "faith" argument, maintaining that hydrodynamic sorting etc are a better explanation of fossil ordering than the mainstream explanation?!?! Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Come on, TB. Here is your chance to shine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
We propose that
1. biogeography - the localisation of species2. 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 biogeographyB. 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: So flowering plants ran faster than all other plants and that is why they are found near the top? ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ Compmage, at what stage does your filtering work - in your retina, the optic nerve, visual processing or somewhere else in your brain?
I listed three mechanisms that are difficult to deconvolute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: Funny...maybe you could answer the implied question?Why do we only find flowering plants near the top of the geological column? ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 1/ Archeohippus & Nannihippus are getting smaller whilst at the same time other lineages are getting larger, in the same place. Now,
quote: All found on N.American continent in the same strata (the larger & smaller species, that is)
quote: They are different sizes, so should be in different strata.
quote: 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: 3/ Please explain plant fossil patterns,
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
From TB:
quote: Biogeography? You mean like how reptiles and mammals never live in the same geographic areas? Like how we never see Wildebeest and crocodiles or snakes and rats living in the same area. That explains why dinosaurs are never found with modern mammals all right. Just like we never see any conifers living up in the mountains, only flowering plants like water lilies live up there and all the conifers live down in the swamps with no flowering plants. That’s sure a good explanation for flowering plants being found above conifers in the fossil record. Right? No pine trees in the mountains. Right? Or is that backwards like most so-called creation science? Or maybe you think conifers were not as good at running away as angiosperms. It does seem that flowers were able to outrun all the Permian critters after all. Permian animals must have been pretty slow movers to get outrun by all those dinosaurs, mammals and even flowering plants. In fact none of your supposed mechanisms in isolation or in combination can even begin to explain the sorting of the fossil record. Here is what I posted before from Glenn Morton’s page on positions and extinction. Triassic there are 4 genera--no living membersJurassic, 43 genera-no living members ,Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members, Paleocene 213 genera-no living members, Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera, Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera, Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera,Pliocene762 genera 133 extant genera, Pleistocene, 830 genera 417 extant genera Now explain to us how biogeography, hydrodynamic sorting and differential escape mechanisms just happened to bury animals at relative depths correlated to their post-ark extinction patterns. Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and Paleocene animals were supposedly saved on the ark but somehow they ALL became extinct. From the eocene up the relative number of extant species correlates to burial position. In every era you will find animals with varying mobility, hydrodynamic properties and geographical ranges. I don't think you can explain these data any more than you can answer the other questions about the fossil record that have been raised on this and other threads. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So we should have sorting by anatomical similarity? All deer-like creatures ought to be in the same strata. All bird-like creatures ought to be in the same strata. All reptile-like creatures ought to be in the same strata.
quote: In other words you have an impossibly complex theory-- or should I say irreducibly complex? And it is therefore invalid by virtue of being untestable. What's that you say? A,D, and E are all unknowable. There is no data. What you need is a theory to describe the sorting behavior which does not depend upon unknowns. Something like the sorting of oil and vinegar in a jar of water. Jar size doesn't matter. Jar shape doesn't matter. The initial conditions don't matter. The method of stirring the mixture doesn't matter.
quote: To assume that the upper layers of dirt are older than the lower layers does not seem like much of a stretch to me. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Compmage
I don't have the floatability etc of flowering plants compared to non-flowering at hand so it is difficult to answer. Your point is a very well known, extremely relevent, constraint for our model. I suspect flood geolgists will tackle this once there is a better consensus on (i) the flood boundaries in the geological column and (ii) the mechanisms and stages of the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Mark24 & John
Most of your comments ignore the fact that our explanation will come from convoluting all three processes. If you think that anyone could be expected to explain this stuff with hand waving then I suggest that you've just got yoursleves jobs replacing the supercomputers working on grand challenges worldwide. You think we should be able to just 'see the answer'? Who needs supercomputers to predict protein 3D structure - you should be able to just handwave the tertiary structure from sequence. Why not predict next years weather while your at it? The flood fossil order is a computing grand challenge. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: Your "model" is so constrained as to be totally falsified. Hasn't it yet dawned on you that the reason that "flood geologists" can never say exactly which geological layers were deposited by the worldwide flood is that there are NO geological layers that were deposited by a mythical worldwide flood? "Flood geologists" have known of the "flood sorting" problem since the beginning of modern "flood geology" with Henry Morris or George McCready-Price or whoever and the amount of progress toward solving it is exactly zero. All you can do is make up absurd stories about hydrodynamic sorting or escapability or ecological zoning or now "floatability" that explain exactly nothing. The claim that some sort of magical "flood sorting" led to the creation of most of the fossil record is another clear example of why "creation science" is an oxymoron.Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ You may be entirely correct Randy. On the other hand you might be plain wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024