Flood sorting

We propose that1. biogeography - the localisation of species
2. hydrodynamic sorting - the flow and sink properties of organisms
3. relative mobility - escape speed, direction, desire to escape etcis 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 stagesAs 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, 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.

CompmageI 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.

Mark24 & JohnMost 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]

^ You may be entirely correct Randy. On the other hand you might be plain wrong.

^ Convolution is a mathematical term. Most people who analyse data and apply model dependent extraction of parameters are 'deconvoluting' the data.The convolution of f and g (called f*g(x)) is the integral of f(u)g(x-u)du from -infinity to infinity. f and g become hopelessly entangled into f*g.The strata themselves still look far more like flood deposit than gradual sedimentary environments.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

^ You really think that is true. That is where the problem lies.If I were you I would want to find the answer to the paleocurrent question. Doesn't it worry you that no-one is publishing detailed comparisons of paleocurrents in modern vs ancient? It would scare the Lyell out of me. Turbidite deposits make up half the geological column.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

None of us here, including me, have been able to find good data comparing paleocurrents in ancient vs modern environments. I'm thinking of giving the project to my next grad student but I don't know if the head of department will go for it.Your epeiric seas, generating most of the geological column, have the tell-tale sign of high energy flood event written in just about every layer in the form of rapid paleocurrent signatures.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

EdgeThe point about convolution is that you can't look at the data and extract what caused it. You really do need to propose a mechanism and then go simulate it and see.We all know that with simple systems one can work backwards. With messy sytems you can't.I am a protein folder. From model system experiments we know what the forces are that fold prorteins. Now I have to simulate them in silico, empirically representing certain forces and features, and look for the result.Flood sorting is no different and would have to be approached in a similar manner. There is no way one could predict the details intuitively.

EdgeIf you're right, post the links to the abstracts systematically comparing paleocurrents in modern vs ancient environments! I can't find them.It's a fantastic basic science research project akin to systematic genomics. I might even put a proposal in to ARC or NSF.And I never said that every bed demonstrates rapid currents. About half do with the rest due to gentle settling afterward - but gentle settling today vs gentle settling after a catastropghic surge which would have suspended enormous quantities of debris are two different things.

EdgeBaumgardner et al are doing exactly wat I am saying. They've got the forces and mechanims from toy modles and model experimental systems and then they put it all togehter in a quantitative compouter simulation. That's how it works in these 'grand scientific computing challenges'. Messy systems require this sort of approach.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.

Convolution is a general conceptanalgous to the situaiton here. Every complex physical system is effectively a convoution (try out hypothesis and see if it reproduces the data) problem. I'm a theoretical (bio)physicist and so I was using the math definition as an analogy.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.There is no 'why' (would it reproduce the data) except if that is how it happened! The eovltuionary long age interpretaitonis based on homology which does intuitively emerge from our 3 mechanisms as I 've explained on numerous occasions.I never changed subjects in the other thread. Someone else changed the subject (eg challenged the flood) and I answered. Go check it out.

PeterThe flood occurred in surges based on geo-data (if there was a flood) so that is why it is not as simple as you are suggesting. Show me the links to the tank data. The amount of work done in this area would be incredibly minimal.

RandyWho 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]

^ If it was post flood extinction (eg catastrophic glacial melting) then it would make sense that the correlation of the column with today's distribution of mammals makes sense. On the other hand if the entire Cenozoic is during-flood then that is a harder ask for us becasue of the ark.