Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 342 (717860)
02-02-2014 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
02-02-2014 6:43 AM


Hi Eliyahu,
In case other people are wondering, "Bs'd" appears to be an abbreviation for the Aramaic phrase "B'Sayata Di'shamaya," which means "With the Help of Heaven." (Source: GoDaddy Security - Access Denied, et. al.)
Aren't those quotes arguing against gradualism, not evolution?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 6:43 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 12:12 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 79 of 342 (717995)
02-03-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 1:14 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Hi Eliyahu,
About the part of your message from where you say "I'll say something about them" up until where you say "If you want me to say more about the fossiles, just let me know", isn't that all just unattributed cut-n-pastes from the web? I can't tell which particular sites because what you quoted appears at literally dozens of creationist websites.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 1:14 PM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 11:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 119 of 342 (718066)
02-04-2014 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 12:12 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
Aren't those quotes arguing against gradualism, not evolution?
Bs'd
Do you believe in very fast evolution?
I asked first. Aren't those quotes arguing against gradualism, not evolution?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 12:12 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 121 of 342 (718068)
02-04-2014 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 11:06 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
About the part of your message from where you say "I'll say something about them" up until where you say "If you want me to say more about the fossiles, just let me know", isn't that all just unattributed cut-n-pastes from the web?
Yes it is. And that's because those people are all evolutionistic paleontologists or zoologists, or something like that, so they know much more about the subject than me. Therefore I quote them.
But you didn't quote them. You just cut-n-pasted their words into your message as if they were your own.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 11:06 PM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2014 10:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 143 of 342 (718161)
02-05-2014 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 12:15 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
I repeat: We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."
But didn't Eldredge say this about gradualism, not evolution? Here's a fuller quote:
Niles Eldredge in "Time Frames" writes:
"And one might ask why such a distortion of the grosser patterns of the history of life has come about. For it truly seems to me that F. J. Taggart was right all along. The approach to the larger themes in the history of life taken by the modern synthesis continues the theme already painfully apparent to Taggart in 1925: a theory of gradual, progressive, adaptive change so thoroughly rules our minds and imaginations that we have somehow, collectively, turned away from some of the most basic patterns permeating the history of life.
"We have a theory that -- as punctuated equilibria tells us -- is out of phase with the actual patterns of events that typically occur as species' histories unfold. And that discrepancy seems enlarged by a considerable order of magnitude when we compare what we think the larger-scale events ought to look like with what we actually find. And it has been paleontologists -- my own breed -- who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom we owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns really look like.
"Yet on the other hand, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works in nature, but that we know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Ever since Darwin, as philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has occasionally played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has been bland, and we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about. We'll look at some of the larger patterns in the history of life in the next chapter -- along with the hypotheses currently offered as explanations. Throughout it all, adaptation shines through as an important theme; there is every reason to hang on to that baby as we toss out the bathwater. But before turning in depth to these themes, we need to take just one more, somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs."
Source: The Quotations
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add missing cr.
Edited by Percy, : Add missing quotation mark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 12:15 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 12:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 158 of 342 (718212)
02-05-2014 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 12:36 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
But didn't Eldredge say this about gradualism, not evolution?
Bs'd
Unless you believe in "hopeful monsters", evolution is gradual.
Yes, evolution is gradual on the everyday timescales we're familiar with, minutely gradual, in fact. And except for drift evolution won't produce change while adaptive forces remain constant, so relatively unchanging environments produce little to no evolutionary change. And when adaptive forces do change then evolutionary change will be gradual, taking thousands of years for change sufficient to produce noticeable differences to accumulate.
But the timescale of the paleontological record is tens of thousands of years, and Eldredge is a paleontologist. He's explaining why that gradualism isn't reflected on paleontological timescales. When recorded on geologic timescales of tens of thousands of years, evolution often appears episodic.
AbE: Forgot to mention, you're description of David Raup (not Raub - you even included the typo) is an unattributed cut-n-paste.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 12:36 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 173 of 342 (718339)
02-06-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 1:52 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
In those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis.
But they're talking about gradualism, not evolution. They're saying that the fossil record isn't a very good record of gradualism. None of them concluded the fossil record isn't a good record of evolution, or that evolution doesn't happen. Anyone can who can read can see that.
Have you already answered the question about why it makes sense to you that some of the foremost evolutionists in the world believe the evidence is against evolution?
You make more sense when you argue that punctuated equilibrium is wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 1:52 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 215 of 342 (718858)
02-09-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 1:54 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
So the evo's came up with a theory that the supposed evolution happens only once in a while,...
Evolution is occurring all the time. A tiny amount of evolution occurs in every reproductive event. As the authors you quoted explained, evolution is always taking place, but evolutionary change is a response to environmental change. It's called adaptation. Stable environments do not produce evolutionary change (except for genetic drift) because life is already adapted to that environment. When environments change then species adapt and change.
...and then relatively fast, in a small isolated area. And that is supposed to be the reason that no evolution can be found in the fossil record.
What they actually said (and you quoted them saying it) is that that's the reason that examples of *gradualism* (not evolution) are not well represented in the fossil record.
You're declaring that "no gradualism in the fossil record" equates with "no evolution in the fossil record", and that therefore the authors you've quoted are actually saying there's no evolution, but their own words make clear they don't believe that that's what they're saying, and you've thus far been unable to support your premise that "no evidence of gradualism" is the same as "no evidence of evolution".
Eldredge and Gould hold the fossil record is what it seems, it shows what happened. That is a break with Darwin, who held that the record is imperfect.
If now, 40 years after the onset of PE, things have changed according to you, then the only option is a regression to the viewpoints of Darwin, that the fossil record is imperfect.
Like Darwin, Eldredge and Gould and all other paleontologists understand that the fossil record is imperfect. They're merely pointing out that we now have enough data from the fossil record to conclude that the sparsity of evidence of gradualism is not an artifact of sparse data but is actually real.
Please give me some experts who disagree with the notion of Eldredge that the fossil record is exactly what it seems.
We have already given you tons of evidence that your notion of what Eldredge is saying is wrong. We can't give you any evidence that Eldredge's notion of what he is saying is wrong, because his views are fairly mainstream.
The now common held ET is PE, and that just gives an explanation for the fact that no evolution is to be seen in the fossil record. It confirms that the fossil record does not show evolution.
Again, they're talking about gradualism, not evolution. The next person you quote says exactly that:
"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40
Moving on:
And that's a good thing, science doesn't progress when we stick with old outdated ideas instead of upgrading our theories as more evidence comes to light.
So science can change its viewpoint at any given time, so it would be foolish to present a present scientific viewpoint as an established fact, because tomorrow science might hold something completely different.
Science is tentative. Theories will change in light of new evidence or improved insight. This is true of all fields of science. If you want to be super anal about it then you could argue there's no such thing as a scientific fact and that nothing can ever be proved, but most people see no need to trivialize language like that. Most people understand that "scientific fact" or "established fact" or "proven" means supported by a great deal of evidence. In science none of these terms is used to imply that some piece of knowledge or understanding is eternal truth. There is no such thing as eternal truth in science. Again, science is tentative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 1:54 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 9:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 233 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 2:03 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 245 of 342 (719036)
02-10-2014 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Eliyahu
02-10-2014 1:42 PM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Eliyahu writes:
It is imperfect according to all the evo's, who cannot prove evolution with it.
...
With the difference that the punctuation, the gaps, are all over the fossil record, and the gradual evolution is nowhere to be found. It is only assumed.
What country is this? Omigod, the data is imperfect and incomplete, whatever shall we do? How will we ever figure this out? What a mystery!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 1:42 PM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2014 4:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 253 of 342 (719051)
02-10-2014 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Eliyahu
02-10-2014 2:03 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Eliyahu writes:
Evolution is occurring all the time.
Or so you think.
Every reproductive event, every birth of a child or a kitten or a tadpole, contains a tiny bit of evolution because offspring are different from parents, and the differences are inherited by the next generation which will contain yet more differences.
Environment cannot make new species. Actually, nobody knows what can.
Wrong on both counts. Evolution through selection of existing variation and the creation of new variation is what produces adaptation to changing environments. This has been demonstrated experimentally many times with short-lived species like bacteria.
It always takes millions of years to come up with a fundamentally different new species.
The time it takes to create a new species is more accurately measured in generations, not years. Some bacteria can produce several generations in an hour, while humans take a century. A tiny amount of evolutionary change accumulates in the genomes of each successive generation, and across many generations the accumulated change can grow very large, sufficient to eventually produce a new species. In a stable environment species can survive largely unchanged for millions and millions of years, but in a changing environment new species can be created in perhaps only a thousand generations, far far less than the millions of years you claim.
Species don't change overnight in a totally new species. If evolution happens at all, it has to be gradual.
Therefore: Gradualism = evolution, and the other way around.
If you're taking a snapshot every generation, then of course evolution is gradual. But if you're taking a snapshot every ten thousand years then you can't capture that gradual change, and the incompleteness of the paleontological record means that we only get snapshots at widely separated intervals.
Clear what? He does NOT hold by an imperfect fossil record.
All paleontologists understand the fossil record is imperfect. My God, man, upland regions almost never produce fossils (they're areas of net erosion, not deposition), and entire environments and geologic eras have descended into subduction zones to be lost forever. How could anyone still in their sane mind consider the fossil record anything but imperfect.
Back in Darwin's time the paucity of evidence for gradualism seemed explained by the comparatively little fossil evidence that existed, but in the modern era it became clear that lack of evidence for gradualism was real.
But at no point in this process did any paleontologist conclude that the fossil record is now perfect. It's sufficient to conclude that the evidence of gradualism is limited, but perfect? No.
And according to PE, that what did happen, happened in out of the way small places, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it.
We're over 200 messages in and you still can't get it right. It is thought that much evolutionary change occurs in small populations in small geographic regions, greatly reducing the likelihood of fossils and of their being discovered.
So the fossil record shows us that there is no evidence of evolution.
For the fossil record to show no evidence of evolution would require all species to be found in all geologic eras, but that's not what the fossil record shows. What the fossil record actually shows is increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth, a record of continual change over time, evolution.
Oh. Well, I don't remember anything like that. That's of course my bad memory, but please give me some numbers of the posts where I can find that.
Thanks in advance.
See almost any message in the thread. I've never seen "playing dumb" employed as a debate strategy with such determination before.
The now common held ET is PE, and that just gives an explanation for the fact that no evolution is to be seen in the fossil record. It confirms that the fossil record does not show evolution.
Again, they're talking about gradualism, not evolution. The next person you quote says exactly that:
There is no non-gradual evolution.
No one anywhere here has ever claimed there is non-gradual evolution, yet you keep pulling out this objection as if they are. You obviously don't understand what is being said. Maybe the fact that you're not a native speaker of English is getting in the way. Again, you're quoting paleontologists writing about the absence of evidence of gradualism, not the absence of evidence for evolution.
What you're getting confused about is the gradual generational change of everyday life that is far too rapid to be captured on geologic scales of tens of thousands of years.
Yes it is. So we went from a fossil record that supported gradualism, to a fossil record that does not support it.
No, of course not, the fossil record was never strongly representative of gradualism.
So we went from stasis being proof for non-evolution to stasis being a part of evolution.
As has already been explained, stable environments do not produce much evolutionary change. Life will change in reaction to changing environments.
Many times an about-face has occurred, and undoubtedly many more are going to come in the evo theory.
So it is best not to take the statements of evolutionists too seriously, because tomorrow they may hold the opposite.
I'm sure we all earnestly hope that evolutionary theory will change to reflect new evidence or improved insight, but you don't seem to have a clue about how evolutionary theory has changed so far.
--Percy
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of large font and color in subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 2:03 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:57 AM Percy has replied
 Message 263 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:59 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 270 of 342 (719086)
02-11-2014 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 1:57 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Eliyahu writes:
Every reproductive event, every birth of a child or a kitten or a tadpole, contains a tiny bit of evolution because offspring are different from parents, and the differences are inherited by the next generation which will contain yet more differences.
Wrong. The difference between parents and offspring, and between brothers, is not because of evolution, but because of recombination. And since recombination can only work with the DNA available in the parents, the amount of change is limited.
In sexual species each reproductive event includes recombination and mutation. Humans average in the neighborhood of a hundred mutations with each act of conception. These mutations are heritable and will be passed on to the next generation, accumulating from one generation to the next.
So as I said, every reproductive event contains a tiny bit of evolution.
There is a limit to adaptation, because the limits in the available genes in the DNA.
Because mutation produces new alleles and genes, adaptation can be spectacularly wide ranging.
For new body parts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere.
Do you see anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) arguing that evolution produces new body parts? I don't think so.
The basic body plans that emerged in the Cambrian Explosion are not thought likely to change. Evolution works with what is already there and through mutation and selection modifies it to produce better adaptation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:57 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 7:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 271 of 342 (719087)
02-11-2014 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 6:32 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Eliyahu writes:
So we agree it doesn't work like that.
Can now somebody tell me how they think it DOES happen?
If you don't understand how evolution explains the history of life, how is it that you feel qualified to have an opinion?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:32 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2014 10:11 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 279 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 272 of 342 (719089)
02-11-2014 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 6:59 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Eliyahu writes:
Looks to me we're saying the same thing: "PE says that evolution happened in nooks and crannies, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it."
No, we're not saying the same thing at all. Evolution and gradualism are not synonyms. It is evidence of gradualism that is not well represented in the fossil record. Evidence of evolution is everywhere throughout the fossil record.
So PE is just an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.
No, wrong again. PE explains the underrepresentation of gradualism in the fossil record.
And since species pop up suddenly, without any link to supposed predecessors,...
Of course fossil species in one layer can be associated with fossils in older layers, just not through gradual change. For example, Chasmosaurus beli is thought to be an ancestor of Triceratops, and the similarity is obvious:
This is evidence of evolution, but not of gradualism. The paucity of evidence for gradualism is what PE attempts to explain.
...and since those species don't change during the millions of years they are present in the fossil record, therefore they are totally in line with the creation story.
Species that don't change over millions of years is consistent with the creation story? Really? You mean the creation story from the Bible? The creation story where the world is only around 6000 years old? And that's consistent with species surviving unchanged for millions of years?
Please give me some numbers of posts in which people prove that my notion of what Eldredge says is wrong.
Please take good notice that I don't want people SAYING that my notion of what Eldredge says is wrong, because everybody can say whatever he wants.
What I want is post numbers where people PROVE that point.
You're not really asking for the messages where people demonstrate how wrong and chuckleheaded you're being, because that's been done all over this thread. What you're really asking for is the message that finally made the little light go on in your head that says, "Oh, evolution and gradualism are not the same thing."
That message hasn't happened yet, but let me try again. You quote Eldredge in support of your claim that he believes the fossil record shows no evolution:
"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163
Note that Eldredge said "finely graded change", not evolution.
--Percy
Edited by AdminModulous, : subtitle
Edited by Percy, : Replace Triceratops, it was from a site that doesn't play nice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 280 of 342 (719098)
02-11-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 6:59 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Forgot to reply to this part:
Eliyahu writes:
So the fossil record shows us that there is no evidence of evolution.
For the fossil record to show no evidence of evolution would require all species to be found in all geologic eras, but that's not what the fossil record shows. What the fossil record actually shows is increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth, a record of continual change over time, evolution.
Except there where it doesn't, there an evo must say that the layers got mixed up.
Inverted layers are both uncommon and extremely obvious, obvious like paging through an upside down book. The progression of change in the fossil record through successively higher levels of strata is precisely what evolution tells us to expect. The tilting or inverting of strata in some places long after they were originally laid down doesn't change anything or make them particularly difficult to interpret.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:59 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 11:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 292 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:59 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 299 of 342 (719218)
02-12-2014 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Eliyahu
02-12-2014 6:59 AM


Re: Fossils support evolution
Eliyahu writes:
There we have it: When they agree with the ET the layers are correct, if they don't; they are inverted.
Well now you're just making things up. That would be like saying, "If you can't read a book then it must be upside down," but that's not true, is it. The book could be in an unfamiliar language.
The easiest way to recognize that a book is upside down is by checking if the letters and words are upside down, and that's the way we recognize that layers are inverted, that the elements making up the layers are upside down. Layer boundaries are eroded upward from the bottom instead of downward from the top. Structures representing streams and lakes are upside down. Radiometric dating runs backward with youngest layers beneath. Evidence of the tectonic forces necessary for mountain building (which is what usually produces tilting and inversions) will be present. In some cases the layers are the same ones and in the same order as non-inverted layers in a nearby region, just upside down.
Perhaps you didn't notice my Message 263? It addresses several other of your errors.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Change font size of subtitle, and the subtitle itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by AdminModulous, posted 02-12-2014 9:33 AM Percy has seen this message but 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