Flood sorting

From TB:

quote:

---

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

---

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 members
Jurassic, 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 generaNow 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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

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

So TB how do you propose to mathematically convolute hydrodynamic sorting with escapability and biogeography? What does a convolution integral from linear theory have to do with anything here? I am sure you know that the convolution integral is used to predict output from a complex input function when output to a simple input function (usually a delta function) is known. It is irrelevant here and really just a dodge because you can't answer any of the questions you have been asked about "flood sorting".I think that if you read his posts you will find that Mark24 has given examples that directly falsify your claims in some detail and I am sure he and others could give many more. Escapability is nonsense for marine organisms and plants. Biogeography simply fails. For example there are successions of botton dwelling organisms all through the fossil record and succession of animals that lived in intertidal zones and I alrady pointed out how silly it is for animals and plants. Hydrodynamic sorting also fails as organisms with different body sizes and shapes are found in any given layer and organisms with similar body shapes are found in different layers. This is also true of relative mobility and there is no way to put these three factors together to explain the fossil record. All creationist attempts to do so are easily falsified by the data.Why would the "convolution" of factors just happen to cause mammals to be buried in a way that correlates with their post flood extinction pattern? This doesn't make even the least bit of sense and I see you have yet to address it.Trying to change the subject to one that was discussed on other threads, where it seems to me that your claims were thoroughly refuted doesn't speak too well for your arguments either. Or are you saying that it was paleocurrents that caused the flood to sort animals in correlation with their post-flood extinction patterns and caused the order in the fossil record that you can't otherwise explain?Randy

quote:

---

I've admitted 100 times that I can't prove the fossil order is due to the flood. But I do believe the geo-data suggests rapidity of formation.

---

It goes much further than saying you can’t prove the fossil order is due to the flood. You can’t provide any rational explanation for how the observed fossil ordering could have possibly been produced by a flood and overwhelming evidence has been presented demonstrating that the fossil record could not have been produced by a global flood. Why don’t you try answering my question? Why would any combination of hydrodynamic sorting, differential mobility and biogeography lead to the selective burial of mammals in a way that correlates with their post-flood extinction rates?

quote:

---

The way the fossil order would have to e tested would be with a computer simulation of the entire process. It is almost impossible to do but one could try and pick out some salient subset of data and have a go.

---

This is ridiculous and just a dodge. In the immortal words of Bob Dylan You don’t need a weather man to tell which way the wind blows. It so easy to see that your proposed mechanisms can’t possibly explain fossil sorting by a flood that computer modeling would be a complete waste of time. My guess is that even creation scientists will never try it because they know that attempting it would only show how wrong their ideas about the fossil record are.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

Who says that the flood distribtiuon of fossils coprrelates with the post flood extinction pattern?

​

For marine organisms we would argue that the aproximate (anti)correlation of first appearence stratigraphic level with extantness makes sense due to flood survivability.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-29-2002]

---

I posted this twice now. I wonder if you are paying attention. I said that distrubtion of mammals correlates with supposed post flood extinction. I took the data from Glenn MOrton's page on this. Here they are again.Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic, 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.Of course you can't identify which of these layers were pre or post flood because there was no flood but there it is.Randy

On the other page TB wrote

quote:

---

The primary unanswered point here, and near punctuated equilibrium, let alone evoltuion, killer, is that we can see beautiful gradual evolution in the fossil record up a geological column covering million of years in shell-fish paleontology for example. We can track the morphology change - the shape changes, the swirls increase in helicity.

---

Now TB please tell us again how this beautiful sorting occured during your surging, swirling worldwide flood.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ This gradual morphology up the geo-col is definetly not everywhere as you know! If the flood occurred it must have been a flood of surges and there would have been times/places of constant current )(as suggested by the paleocurrents) that could very easily have sorted shell shapes approximately just as one gets graded pebble sizes (which is suggestive of the flood too). But it was a process and it had cyclical stages.

---

So you are claiming that these "flood surges" sorted ammonites of appoximately the same size and shape by the complexity of their shell sutures. How did that work? Were these the same surges that carried trillions of tons of sand hundreds of miles?Randy