Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9038 total)
321 online now:
kjsimons, nwr (2 members, 319 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,670 Year: 3,316/14,102 Month: 257/724 Week: 15/91 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it ALL MOSTLY mammals above the dinosaurs?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 15 of 56 (865917)
11-02-2019 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
11-02-2019 12:30 PM


Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
True, but there are plenty below the reptiles that don't seem to be represented. But the main question is probably whether there are reptiles and the same mammals above this mammal layer.

Actually what is interesting for me is how all the plant life is sorted into specific layers as if they have evolved over time.

Plants don't run around or swim to higher ground.

The trees and grasses we see since the K-T layer are not the plant life that coal is made from, and don't appear in lower layers.

quote:
Timeline of plant evolution

Plant evolution is an aspect of the study of biological evolution, predominantly involving evolution of plants suited to live on land, greening of various land masses by the filling of their niches with land plants, and diversification of groups of land plants.

Fossil evidence of plants begins around 3000 Ma with indirect evidence of oxygen-producing photosynthesis in the geological record, in the form of chemical and isotopic signatures in rocks and fossil evidence of colonies of cyanobacteria, photosynthesizing prokaryotic organisms. Cyanobacteria use water as a reducing agent, producing atmospheric oxygen as a byproduct, and they thereby profoundly changed the early reducing atmosphere of the earth to one in which modern aerobic organisms eventually evolved. This oxygen liberated by cyanobacteria then oxidized dissolved iron in the oceans, the iron precipitated out of the sea water, and fell to the ocean floor to form sedimentary layers of oxidized iron called Banded Iron Formations (BIFs). These BIFs are part of the geological record of evidence for the evolutionary history of plants by identifying when photosynthesis originated. This also provides deep time constraints upon when enough oxygen could have been available in the atmosphere to produce the ultraviolet blocking stratospheric ozone layer. The oxygen concentration in the ancient atmosphere subsequently rose, acting as a poison for anaerobic organisms, and resulting in a highly oxidizing atmosphere, and opening up niches on land for occupation by aerobic organisms.

Cambrian flora

Early plants were small, unicellular or filamentous, with simple branching. .... Other major groups of green algae had been established by this time, but there were no land plants with vascular tissues until the mid-Silurian.

Ordovician flora

The evidence of plant evolution changes dramatically in the Ordovician with the first extensive appearance of spores in the fossil record (Cambrian spores have been found, also). The first terrestrial plants were probably in the form of tiny plants resembling liverworts when, around the Middle Ordovician, evidence for the beginning of the terrestrialization of the land is found in the form of tetrads of spores with resistant polymers in their outer walls. These early plants did not have conducting tissues, severely limiting their size. ... With spores, plants on land could have sent out large numbers of spores that could grow into an adult plant when sufficient environmental moisture was present.

Silurian flora

The first fossil records of vascular plants, that is, land plants with vascular tissues, appeared in the Silurian period. The earliest known representatives of this group (mostly from the northern hemisphere) are placed in the genus Cooksonia. They had very simple branching patterns, with the branches terminated by flattened sporangia. By the end of the Silurian much more complex vascular plants, the zosterophylls, had diversified[3] and primitive lycopods, such as Baragwanathia (originally discovered in Silurian deposits in Victoria, Australia),[4] had become widespread.

Devonian flora

By the Devonian Period, the colonization of the land by plants was well underway. The bacterial and algal mats were joined early in the period by primitive plants that created the first recognizable soils and harbored some arthropods like mites, scorpions and myriapods. Early Devonian plants did not have roots or leaves like the plants most common today, and many had no vascular tissue at all.... They probably spread by a combination of vegetative reproduction forming clonal colonies, and sexual reproduction via spores and did not grow much more than a few centimeters tall.

By the Late Devonian, forests of large, primitive plants existed: lycophytes, sphenophytes, ferns, and progymnosperms had evolved. Most of these plants have true roots and leaves, and many were quite tall.... By the end of the Devonian, the first seed-forming plants had appeared. This rapid appearance of so many plant groups and growth forms has been called the "Devonian Explosion". The primitive arthropods co-evolved with this diversified terrestrial vegetation structure. The evolving co-dependence of insects and seed-plants that characterizes a recognizably modern world had its genesis in the late Devonian. The development of soils and plant root systems probably led to changes in the speed and pattern of erosion and sediment deposition.

The 'greening' of the continents acted as a carbon dioxide sink, and atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas may have dropped.[6] This may have cooled the climate and led to a massive extinction event. see Late Devonian extinction.

Also in the Devonian, both vertebrates and arthropods were solidly established on the land.

Carboniferous flora

Early Carboniferous land plants were very similar to those of the preceding Latest Devonian, but new groups also appeared at this time.

The main Early Carboniferous plants were the Equisetales (Horse-tails), Sphenophyllales (scrambling plants), Lycopodiales (Club mosses), Lepidodendrales (arborescent clubmosses or scale trees), Filicales (Ferns), Medullosales (previously included in the "seed ferns", an artificial assemblage of a number of early gymnosperm groups) and the Cordaitales. These continued to dominate throughout the period, but during late Carboniferous, several other groups, Cycadophyta (cycads), the Callistophytales (another group of "seed ferns"), and the Voltziales (related to and sometimes included under the conifers), appeared.

The Carboniferous lycophytes of the order Lepidodendrales, which were cousins (but not ancestors) of the tiny club-mosses of today, were huge trees with trunks 30 meters high and up to 1.5 meters in diameter. These included Lepidodendron (with its fruit cone called Lepidostrobus), Halonia, Lepidophloios and Sigillaria. The roots of several of these forms are known as Stigmaria.

The fronds of some Carboniferous ferns are almost identical with those of living species. Probably many species were epiphytic. Fossil ferns include Pecopteris and the tree ferns Megaphyton and Caulopteris. Seed ferns or Pteridospermatophyta include Cyclopteris, Neuropteris, Alethopteris, and Sphenopteris.

Cordaites, a tall plant (6 to over 30 meters) with strap-like leaves, was related to the cycads and conifers; the catkin-like inflorescence, which bore yew-like berries, is called Cardiocarpus. These plants were thought to live in swamps and mangroves. True coniferous trees (Walchia, of the order Voltziales) appear later in the Carboniferous, and preferred higher drier ground.

Permian flora

The Permian began with the Carboniferous flora still flourishing. About the middle of the Permian there was a major transition in vegetation. The swamp-loving lycopod trees of the Carboniferous, such as Lepidodendron and Sigillaria, were replaced by the more advanced conifers, which were better adapted to the changing climatic conditions. Lycopods and swamp forests still dominated the South China continent because it was an isolated continent and it sat near or at the equator.

Triassic flora

On land, the holdover plants included the lycophytes, the dominant cycads, Ginkgophyta (represented in modern times by Ginkgo biloba) and glossopterids. The spermatophytes, or seed plants came to dominate the terrestrial flora: in the northern hemisphere, conifers flourished. Dicroidium (a seed fern) was the dominant southern hemisphere tree during the Early Triassic period.

Jurassic flora

The arid, continental conditions characteristic of the Triassic steadily eased during the Jurassic period, especially at higher latitudes; the warm, humid climate allowed lush jungles to cover much of the landscape.[7] Conifers dominated the flora, as during the Triassic; they were the most diverse group and constituted the majority of large trees. Extant conifer families that flourished during the Jurassic included the Araucariaceae, Cephalotaxaceae, Pinaceae, Podocarpaceae, Taxaceae and Taxodiaceae.[8] The extinct Mesozoic conifer family Cheirolepidiaceae dominated low latitude vegetation, as did the shrubby Bennettitales.[9] Cycads were also common, as were ginkgos and tree ferns in the forest. Smaller ferns were probably the dominant undergrowth. Caytoniaceous seed ferns were another group of important plants during this time and are thought to have been shrub to small-tree sized.[10] Ginkgo-like plants were particularly common in the mid- to high northern latitudes. In the Southern Hemisphere, podocarps were especially successful, while Ginkgos and Czekanowskiales were rare.[9][11]

Cretaceous flora

Flowering plants, also known as angiosperms, spread during this period[12], although they did not become predominant until near the end of the period (Campanian age). Their evolution was aided by the appearance of bees; in fact angiosperms and insects are a good example of coevolution. The first representatives of many modern trees, including figs, planes and magnolias, appeared in the Cretaceous. At the same time, some earlier Mesozoic gymnosperms, like Conifers continued to thrive, although other taxa like Bennettitales died out before the end of the period.

Cenozoic flora

The Cenozoic began at the Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event with a massive disruption of plant communities. It then became just as much the age of savannas, or the age of co-dependent flowering plants and insects. At 35 Ma, grasses evolved from among the angiosperms. About ten thousand years ago, humans in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East develop agriculture. Plant domestication begins with cultivation of Neolithic founder crops. This process of food production, coupled later with the domestication of animals caused a massive increase in human population that has continued to the present. In Jericho (modern Israel), there is a settlement with about 19,000 people. At the same time, Sahara is green with rivers, lakes, cattle, crocodiles and monsoons. At 8 ka, Common (Bread) wheat (Triticum aestivum) originates in southwest Asia due to hybridisation of emmer wheat with a goat-grass, Aegilops tauschii. At 6.5 ka, two rice species are domesticated: Asian rice, Oryza sativa, and African rice Oryza glaberrima.


Why are there no grasses below the Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event layers?

Why are there no angiosperms below the Cretaceous layers?

Why are there no conifers below the Permian layers?

Why are there no vascular plants below the Silurian layers?

Why are there no plants with roots or leaves below the Devonian layers?

Why do all these plant fossils form a consistent pattern within the geographical/geological/temporal matrix, a pattern that seemingly shows new groups evolving from existing groups?

Did they suddenly appear/develop during the flood ?? Full grown ???

More preposterous things have been suggested.

Why are the Banded Iron Formations (BIFs) only found in the same age/stratigraphic layers around the world?

How did the flood omit Iron Oxide in rock layers below the BIF?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 12:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 4:20 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 4:47 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 20 of 56 (865933)
11-02-2019 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
11-02-2019 4:20 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Don't ask why isn't such and such BELOW a certain level, the question I'm interested in is why such and such don't show up in layers ABOVE where they first appear.

They do to different degrees. That is not problematic for the evolution model, nor is it critical to your floodist model. It doesn't distinguish one from the other. Absence below older lower levels does distinguish the evolution model from an honest floodist model (where all things are mixed in turbulent waters or settled out in calmer waters).

What we see is an evolution of complexity in plant life from 3 billion years until today.

They were growing wherever they were growing when they were uprooted and carried by the Flood to their burial place. Why a particular layer/burial place is the question of how the Flood sorted things which I've said I don't know. ...

Which is a fantasy non-explanation not based on any evidence. That model would mix them in any layer because the purported flood occurred in such a short term everything needed to be alive at the same time.

As you admit you cannot explain the particular layers.

But my question is why a particular plant shows up in a particular layer, a kind of plant we see on the Earth now, and then doesn't show up at all in higher layers.

Some do, some don't. Conifers, for instance show up in all layers after they first appear, they just don't appear in earlier/lower layers because they didn't exist then.

... and then doesn't show up at all in higher layers.

That isn't listed because it is not remarkable, what is remarkable is when they first appear: why don't they appear in lower/older layers?

Why are the plants listed in order of increasing complexity?

First cyanobacteria provide oxygen for aerobic life

Early plants were small, unicellular or filamentous, with simple branching.

Then first extensive appearance of spores in the fossil record (Cambrian spores have been found, also). The first terrestrial plants were probably in the form of tiny plants resembling liverworts

Then the first fossil records of vascular plants, that is, land plants with vascular tissues, appeared in the Silurian period. (the first plants with sap carrying ducts)

Then plants with roots and/or leaves

Then the first tall plants/trees

Then the rapid appearance of so many plant groups and growth forms that it has been called the "Devonian Explosion".

Then the swamp-loving lycopod trees of the Carboniferous were mostly replaced by the more advanced conifers, which were better adapted to the changing climatic conditions.

Then Ginkgos appear in the fossil record

Then flowering plants, also known as angiosperms

Then grasses evolved from among the angiosperms.

Why are the layers of sediments organized with fossils consistent with evolution and age consistent with radiometrc data?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 4:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 56 (865946)
11-03-2019 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
11-02-2019 4:47 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
So in your Jurassic period there are many varieties of conifers, but conifers aren't even mentioned in the Cretaceous and Cenozoic. But today we have lots of conifers. Shouldn't they have continued through the time periods after the Jurassic?

Spore plants show up in the Ordovician, but aren't mentioned again in any of the subsequent time periods, although of course they thrive today.

Yes they do show up later, that is not remarkable, nor critical to the evolution of plant life over time. What is critical is when they first appear, so that is what is mentioned.

There was a "major transition in vegetation" in the Permian such that the plants of the previous Carboniferous period were not in evidence as they had been up to that point. And yet, isn't it true that those plants of the Carboniferous are quite abundant today?

Nope. Some exist in certain locations (some in Australia iirc)but they are by and large replaced by modern plants, angiosperms and conifers.

Ferns of various types thrived in some of these earlier periods and then don't show up at all in later time periods although they are abundant on the planet today.

Not the same species however. They have evolved. Again what is critical to note is when they first appeared.

I guess you can explain away lots of stuff with the "extinction events" at varous periods, but why is there no "recovery" of the extinct plants in the next time period up, plants that are quite abundant on the arth today. There may be different varieties of coruse, but the same plant.

Extinct life forms do not "recover" after going extinct. What you generally see is other life forms evolving to fill their niche -- this is usually when new life forms appear and become abundant.

I'd have to spend more time on the details which is hard on my eyes though maybe I can do it eventually, but my impression is that each time period is characterized by a particular kind of plant and/or animal fossil that dominates in that period ...

With increasing complexity from the lower/earlier layers until today. This certainly included index fossils for certain layers.

... and then doesn't show up at all or only in much smaller numbers in succeeding time periods although it may be quite abundant today. ...

Not being mentioned does not mean they don't show up. The article linked is concerned with the first instances of different phases of evolution of plant life. For instance cyanobacteria still exist today: it is not remarkable as a marker of evolution beyond their first appearance. Your making assumptions based on what the article reports -- it does not list all the different forms of life in each layer, just the novel developments.

... In fact some variety or other of just about all the living things we see in the fossil record are abundant on the earth today, so their absence or reduction in numbers in earlier time periods that followed their first appearance is hard to explain on the ToE/OE theory. ...

The ToE is very capable of explaining the actual progression of life on earth. Your floodist model fails miserably to explain the layering of life with the layers of sediments. The linked article shows the evolution of more and more complex plant life forms over time, indexed layer by layer.

... This is a general statement, an impression, I think it is true but it would take working out. Are you going to dispute it or agree with it or what?

You obviously have some misunderstanding of what is listed: what is listed is the first evidence of certain developments, NOT a complete catalogue of every known plant fossil in each age layer.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 4:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:41 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 1:43 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 31 of 56 (865980)
11-03-2019 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
11-03-2019 12:51 AM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Assertion assertion assertion. ...

Well I was responding to a rather silly question and giving you a reason why it was silly.

... What it suggests is that y'all get so fixated on the supposed/made up sequence you think shows evolution you fail to take note of the fact that whatever living thing DID evolve and spread widely would continue in similar abundance in the following time periods, or at least enough of them would to reflect what we see today of the spread of those living things. ...

Curiously that is still irrelevant to whether the ToE explains all the evidence (and your comment shows it does) while the Floodist concept fails to explain simple evidence -- like the appearance of novel plant traits as you go from deepest/oldest layers of sediment to higher/newer layers.

Do various types of plant life "show up in layers ABOVE where they first appear" ? Yes, and no: "They do to different degrees." Once a new trait evolves it becomes part of the ongoing evolution of life. Some species go extinct, some evolve into new closely related species.

Again, in a listing of the appearance of novel traits as the fossil record is evaluated from bottom up, what survives afterwards is not of great interest compared to what is new and different.

We KNOW that the lower layers are the oldest -- even if you discard all the information regarding absolute age by radiometric dating methods, you are still stuck with the Law of Superposition

quote:
The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with geological stratigraphy. It is a form of relative dating. In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating, which assumes that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed.

We have discussed this before, a lot.

... Sure you can rationalize it away, that's what the whole ToE is anyway, just a bunch of "likely stories" that rationalize away all objections.

Even with a floodist model you have relative dating of the layers, and you have increasing levels of radioactive isotopes with higher layers, which is further confirming evidence of deeper layers being older than higher layers.

Curiously, denial does not refute the evidence. Repeated denial does not make it any more valid.

You have no problem imposing your own wild guess on what the Flood supposedly would have done ...

Based on knowledge of how sedimentary particles behave in water and knowledge of what flood waters have done in known floods. Evidence based theory is not wild guessing.

Pretending that something different and unknown anywhere would happen would be wild guesses based on fantasy without evidence.

So I'll take evidence based reasoning.

... but raising meaningfjul doubts about evolution, of course not. ...

No "meaningfjul doubts" have been raised in over 150 years of attempts as far as I know. Pretending a flood occurred that covered the earth is not a meaningful doubt, it is an unevidenced assertion based on fantasy: there is no evidence of such an event.

... Sure, the absence beneath is what you point to as evidence of evolution, ...

Even with a fantasy flood laying down layers one after the other you have fossils of whatever forms of life existed at the time each layer was deposited.

You also have radiometric evidence in the relative ages of the isotopes that are used in radiometric dating methods within these layers, relative ages that confirm the relationship of deeper to older and higher to younger depositions. This means that the fossils are in a geological/temporal matrix defined by those layers, even for a floodist model.

... but what I'm pointing to is something else that casts doubt on evolution: the fact that fewer to none of a living thing that dominated in the time period in which it is interpreted to have first appeared are found in subsequent time periods. This suggests that they were deposited in a particular layer and not in others or much less in others. This suggests that evolution is not the explanation for the supposed sequence, it's just the work of overactive imaginations.

Sadly, for you, this is just not true -- (a) because living things that appear for the first time in one layer often do appear in higher layers, they just aren't reported in a listing of when novel traits first appeared -- and (b) because some things/species go extinct, so their not appearing in later/higher layers is not at all problematic to the ToE.

Well, actually you don't, what you actually "see" is just a sequence of fossilized life which you then interpret as evolution of complexity. It's not even clear that there is a sequence of increasing complexity, that's just something you assume.

What we see is increasing complexity over time. This is demonstrated by the order of the fossils in the different layers that define relative ages.

The ToE explains this increasing complexity, the floodist model is a complete failure of even addressing any changes from layer to layer.

The human mind is an amazing organ, you conjure all sorts of relationships between the condition of the dirt a fossil is found in and "climate" in the "time period" you invent out of such flimsy bits of fact.

Says the person who invents hilarious wild concepts out of thin air that have NO basis in reality.

Developing theories to explain evidence is one of the more rational behaviors using the human mind. Pretending that fantasy actually happened is one of the least rational behaviors using the human mind.

That isn't listed because it is not remarkable, what is remarkable is when they first appear: why don't they appear in lower/older layers?

If it occurred in reasonable abundance it should be noteworthy. There is no reason why a species should spring up and spread in one time period only to disappear or gt sharply reduced in the next. What we should see in the next time period is many varieties of the species rather than fewer to none.

Noteworthy in a complete listing of all life on earth eon by eon, yes (and such listings are available). Noteworthy in a listing of when new traits appeared, no.

As I've said before, the continuation of various life-forms over time is not critical to either the ToE or fantasy floodist concepts, it doesn't distinguish one from the other, and it doesn't cause a problem for either to explain. The emergence of new traits as one goes from deeper layers to higher layers does however create problems for any floodist model to explain, but which is explained more than adequately by the ToE.

Yes, however, this is more evidence of the remarkable imagination of the human mind.
And of course all you have is the human imagination because there is no independent test of its rightness. Has a real test of the idea of increasing "complexity" even been done or does that remain a subjective impression that is imply reified and so aggressively asserted anyone who doubts it is a hater of science?

Yes. Many. See Evolution: The Rise of Complexity article in Scientific American blog.

quote:
Given how easily multicellular creatures can arise in test tubes, it might then come as no surprise that multicellularity has arisen at least a dozen times in the history of life, independently in bacteria, plants and of course, animals, beginning the evolutionary tree that we sit atop today. Our evolutionary history is littered with leaps of complexity. While such intricacies might seem impossible, study after study has shown that even the most complex structures can arise through the meandering path of evolution. ...

One mentioned in the article is the evolution of multi-cellular life forms from single cell life forms. In the lab.

See how subjective it all is? ...

Nope. I see how objective it all is: new traits occurring over time delineated objectively by relative age of layer superposition and radioactive isotope levels.

... "This appeared "after" that therefore it evolved from it, and your mind seizes on some characteristic of each to increase the plausibility of the relationship. You have no objective standard for the principle of increasing complexity. It's all an imaginative construct and nothing more.

Have DNA studies been done to test the subjective assertion that one type of plant evolved from another? How about grasses from angiosperms? Any DNA tests on that supposed relationship? And from a mere slab of rock you concoct a whole climate and then your agile mind "explains" why a particular plant could live in that "climate." You are believing nothing but clever relationships dreammed up by the clever human mind. And again, where are the objective tests, the DNA relationship tests for instance.

Curiously I only used evolved in the last item listed. What is listed is simply a time dependant ordering of more and more complex traits in the plant fossils.

Yes we have DNA evidence that confirms genetic relations, especially for the evolution of grasses from angiosperms, but that is not the issue of my arguments here.

My argument is simply that the the evidence shows an objective pattern of increasing complexity over time and that a floodist model is simply incapable of rationally explaining this evidence.

That is what you need to address.

The ToE can explain it, so this argument can distinguish the validity of one compared to the other.

Why are there layers at all in the OE/ToE scenario? That really makes no sense whatever.

WOW. WOW.

Science doesn't make stuff up and then look for corroborating evidence (that would creationism fantasy), it takes observed objective empirical evidence.

Observed objective empirical evidence shows that the earth is covered in layers, many many layers. This isn't part of theory this is FACT. Theories explain facts, hence the geological model of the natural history of the earth includes layers, lots of layers.

Again, you are making much of subjectively defined characteristics that your mind interprets as "consistent with evolution" ...

The Theory of Evolution can be stated thusly:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

The new traits listed are not subjective, they too are observed objective empirical evidence: FACTS.

They are consistent with the ToE explanation of the diversity of life based on known observed factual processes of evolution.

Your problem (that you try to hide from with this verbal garbage) is that you can not explain the time ordering of the appearance of these traits in the geological time scale imposed by the layering (relative ages of the layers) and by the radioactive isotope levels (that confirm the relative ages and leads to scientific approximations of actual age).

... and of course since evolution must work by trial and error it is actually mathematically impossible for the complex changes to have occurred even in millions of years to get from one kind to another. ...

Obstinately wrong and you know it. Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Change followed by selection followed by change followed by selection. Neglecting selection means the math is wrong/incomplete and meaningless (a straw man).

... As for those cases in the Fossil Record where all you have is not species to species change but simply variations within a species, the millions of years allotted are overkill to an absurd extreme. ...

So you agree there is more than enough time for evolution to cause variations that are selected and consolidated in later generations.

If I have more than enough time to walk from Maine to California, then there is no problem with postulating that I can walk from Maine to California.

New varieties of living things only need a hundred or a few hundred years. But you've got trilobites taking millions upon millions of years to produce mere genetically built in variations.

With so many variations that we label them as many different species in several different genera and different families. This is, after all completely consistent with the ToE.

Curious that there are no trilobite fossils after/above the Permian layers. Another FACT that the floodist fantasy model absolutely fails to explain.

quote:
Trilobite extinction

Exactly why the trilobites became extinct is not clear; with repeated extinction events (often followed by apparent recovery) throughout the trilobite fossil record, a combination of causes is likely. After the extinction event at the end of the Devonian period, what trilobite diversity remained was bottlenecked into the order Proetida. Decreasing diversity[29] of genera limited to shallow-water shelf habitats, coupled with a drastic lowering of sea level (regression) meant that the final decline of trilobites happened shortly before the end of the Permian mass extinction event.[21] With so many marine species involved in the Permian extinction, the end of nearly 300 million successful years for the trilobites would not have been unexpected at the time.[29]


The whole edifice is built out of nothing but mental cleverness, emphasizing this, ignoring that, making sequences out of subjectively chosen characteristics.

Mental cleverness developing rational theories consistent with all the evidence known, it is creationists that ignore details and evidence.

I've pointed out all kinds of problems with the ToE in different threads. ...

You have failed to provide a single problem that stands up to the evidence. Not one single problem that has not been answered in detail showing your erroneous thinking.

... This one focuses on a new problem: the lack or scarcity of specimens of a species after it first bursts on the scene as it were, just one of many lines of evidence that the ToE is bogus.

Except, curiously, that is not the argument I have made.

Instead this "new problem" that you fail to explain, is the time/layer dependent occurrence of new/novel plant traits in the fossil record -- not their continued existence (whether they prosper or go extinct is irrelevant), but their first appearance in the natural history record of plant fossils in the sedimentary layers.

That you claim the ToE does not explain something that has not been argued is what is bogus straw man fallacy.

Now, if you want to expand this discussion to include a complete map of all life on earth from start to finish, I hope you have several decades to cover it -- but that is a different argument entirely from the one I have addressed here: the layer by layer relative time line for the natural history of the development of new/novel plant traits as shown by the plant fossils in the different layers of sediment.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:51 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:14 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 56 (865989)
11-03-2019 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
11-03-2019 12:41 PM


Listing first appearances has nothing to do with how long they last
Oh jazzy Razzy, you are such a clever apologist for the ToE. But that's not science, dear. Science doesn't leave out facts just because they don't enhance the Theory. You know that of course, but the ToE is always an exception because of course you KNOW it's true so leaving out what you deem to be irrelev(vvv)ant stuff is completely acceptable.

Faith, once again: listing when a certain trait first appears has absolutely nothing to do with how long the various species that carry the trait exist/persist on earth. That is a different question, a different issue and involves a different set of evidence.

I believe this is the fourth or fifth time I have explained this distinction to you.

Certainly you can't possibly think that describing the continued existence of species/descendants/etc after their first appearance in the natural history geological record can pose any kind of a problem for Evolution.

You could just as well accuse me of leaving out evidence of gravity ... and you still would be failing completely to even begin to address the issue I AM talking about -- why do the layers of sediment show a progression in the development of plant life from the lowest/oldest to the highest/newest.

Message 28: Actually what is interesting for me is how all the plant life is sorted into specific layers as if they have evolved over time.

Plants don't run around or swim to higher ground.

The trees and grasses we see since the K-T layer are not the plant life that coal is made from, and don't appear in lower layers.

Then I posted a Timeline of Plant Evolution showing when various plant traits first appeared in the geological natural history record of life on earth.

That timeline does not cover how long various species/etc lasted, because that is not relevant to when they first occurred.

Why are there no grasses below the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event layers?

Why are there no angiosperms below the Cretaceous layers?

Why are there no conifers below the Permian layers?

Why are there no vascular plants below the Silurian layers?

Why are there no plants with roots or leaves below the Devonian layers?

How could a flood possibly do this sorting?

Response to these questions? {chirp} {chirp} {chirp} {chirp}

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 39 of 56 (865990)
11-03-2019 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
11-03-2019 1:43 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Microevolved, Razzy, that only takes a generation at best, not millions of years. It's still the same species, different varieties.

Microevolution is evolution. No other kind of evolution exists. Macroevolution is just microevolution over several generations, producing sufficient difference that we label them different species.

That you deny how science labels species has nothing to do with reality, just how you deny reality.

It's just a distraction on this thread though, because it's still true that all the subsequent time periods should demonstrate the same species that supposedly appeared in one previous time period, varieties of course, however, ...

Still irrelevant to the timing of new/novel plant traits that don't exist in lower/older layers.

Still ignoring that you have not provided any explanation for the sorting of plant fossils by the occurrence of new/novel traits by some fantasy flood event that is notable in having a total absence of evidence for it occurring.

Meanwhile you are very busy trying to distract this thread from any answer to the question of the timing of developments that is shown by the plant fossils in the different layers.

... the subsequent time periods should demonstrate the same species that supposedly appeared in one previous time period, varieties of course, however, if the very same varieties appear we know it's a sca(ammm)m, and they do so it is. ...

Nope.

This only happens in your mind, because the continuation of species was not discussed in the data I presented.

Thus absence is not relevant, absence is not evidence of a scam, absence is just an artifact of not having been discussed.

... Because if it's the same varieties we know the next sedimentary layer is not a time period but just a layer of sediment that got laid down at the same time as the previous "time period." ...

Nope.

Conifers existing from the Jurassic layers until today does not mean that they are the same time period as the Cenozoic layers because the layers below/before the Cenozoic do not contain fossils of grasses.

Just like spores existing from the Ordovician layers until today does not mean that they are the same time period as the Jurassic layers because the layers below/before the Jurassic layers do not contain fossils of conifers.

This is precisely why the FIRST appearance of specific traits is important to this discussion while the continued survival of some traits until today is irrelevant to the discussion: the continued existence of a trait does not mean that the timing of the layers is right or wrong.

... Evidence, my dear Watson, evidence.

Indeed, so you better start dealing with the evidence that very few of the plant traits known in the world today are represented by fossils in the oldest/lowerest layers of sediment, that as you rise up from the bottom/lowest/oldest layer, layer by layer, that more and more traits known in the world today are represented by fossils in the newer/higher layers of sediment.

Start dealing with the evidence of relative age of each layer with oldest at the bottom and newest at the top.

Even if -- by some strange and bizarre miracle -- the layers were laid down by a flood, this relative age of the layers would be correct.

And you would still have trouble explaining the sorting of the fossils in the different layers showing the appearance of new/novel traits in higher levels, traits that do not appear in the lower layers.

You should get started. I've document quite a few of these new/novel traits arising in higher/newer layers.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 1:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 56 (865991)
11-03-2019 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
11-03-2019 3:14 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Not if you've invented the concept of "complexity" ...

Which I haven't.

quote:
The evolution of biological complexity is one important outcome of the process of evolution.[1] Evolution has produced some remarkably complex organisms - although the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all proposed as possible metrics.[2][3][4]

Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive (orthogenesis) and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant.


... and that's mostly what I've pointed out in this thread so far. ...

Which post was that?

... I suspect an honest assessment of that term would show there is no such pattern as increase in complexity. And that's because you are assessing the term purely subjectively rather than scientifically.

See above: "Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant."

An honest assessment would agree that a conifer with vascular sap vessels, roots and leaves, is more complex than cyanobacteria and that the complexity of the conifers did not exist in the Cambrian layers. Factually listing the different traits developed over time is not subjective, nor is comparing the new/novel traits for complexity vs previous plant life shows that new/novel traits add to complexity that did not exist before.

Adding a new trait that did not exist before would rather obviously add to the overall complexity of life, imho.

I suspect you could turn the order upside down or rearrange it any way at all and you could find "novel plant traits" appearing above those below. Spores for instance would be novel if they appeared above the vascular type of plant. That's how subjective this is.

Nope.

The layers that have vascular type of plants also have plants with spores, so appearance of spores above vascular type plants would not indicate a new/novel trait at that point.

This is why the layer by layer documenting of new/novel traits is objective empirical evidence -- fact.

This is you not paying attention to what is said and going off on tangents only you have made up.

The first appearance of a trait in layer X does not mean it doesn't exist in layer Y which is above/later than layer X. It is not a list of the only appearance of the trait.

This is the fifth or sixth time I have explained this to you.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 3:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 5:27 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 56 (866010)
11-04-2019 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
11-03-2019 5:27 PM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
Yes, Razzy, they gave up on progression to higher forms of life although isuch a progression is patently clear ...

Nope. Nice subjective assertion.

They "gave up" on it because it unnecessarily implied wrong thinking, that one form of life was "better" than another.

... since that's the basis on which the taxonomic tree was also built. ...

quote:
The idea of a "tree of life" arose from ancient notions of a ladder-like progression from lower into higher forms of life (such as in the Great Chain of Being). Early representations of "branching" phylogenetic trees include a "paleontological chart" showing the geological relationships among plants and animals in the book Elementary Geology, by Edward Hitchcock (first edition: 1840).

Charles Darwin (1859) also produced one of the first illustrations and crucially popularized the notion of an evolutionary "tree" in his seminal book The Origin of Species. Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because such diagrams effectively convey the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptive and semirandom splitting of lineages. Over time, species classification has become less static and more dynamic.

The term phylogenetic, or phylogeny, derives from the two ancient greek words φῦλον (phûlon), meaning "race, lineage", and γένεσις (génesis), meaning "origin, source".[3][4]


So?

... And for all its strong assertion that complexity has taken the place of that supposedly erroneous system absolutely not one word is said of evidence that complexity is involved at all. You are subjectively assessing superficial characteristics as more or less complex, but such subjectivity is not science.

Are plants with roots and leaves and sap vesicles more complex than ones without?

But we can use diversity instead: these new/novel traits add to the diversity of life that didn't exist before.

Adding roots and leaves and sap vesicles makes plant life more diverse.

Are grasses more complex than angiosperms? ...

Grasses are angiosperms. Their development added to the diversity of angiosperms.

Isn't it true that there are some insects or worms that have more genes than human beings?

Yes, so?

Oh I've noticed how you and PK are asserting that just because something appears in a layer doesn't mean it doesn't also appear in the layer above ...

Because that is what the evidence shows. So?

... and I've answered that it's not science to leave it out pf the discussion of what appears where, ...

But it is science when discussing first appearances -- which it seems I have been at pains to explain to you in each of your post replies.

It is the first appearances that determine which traits are older.

Let's say - just for giggles - that every trait listed has continued until today: how does that affect the fact that the lowest/oldest layers only contain single cell plant life, that the newer/higher layers, layer by layer show new traits are added, until you have the full diversity seen today?

... AND that it most likely appears in smaller numbers which would fit sorting by some mechanical process ...

And what kind of mechanical process sorts the plant life in the layers of sediments so that we see the increasing complexity/diversity from layer to layer?

Spit it out Faith: this is what you should be talking about.

... but makes no sense on the ToE/OE system.

Except that it makes perfect sense to the "ToE/OE system" in spite of your misinformed assertion.

Meanwhile the appearance of greater diversity over time, layer by layer, does indeed present problems for any rational floodist model of deposition.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 5:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 54 of 56 (866076)
11-05-2019 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
11-03-2019 5:27 PM


First Appearances of Plant Traits in fossils
Upon review I see that all these traits exist today, so we can summarize the data as follow:


F *----------------------Grasses appear
O *------------------------Flowering plants, angiosperms, appear
S *--------------------------Ginkgo trees appear
S *----------------------------coniferous trees appear
I *------------------------------huge trees appear
L *--------------------------------early gymnosperm groups appear
*----------------------------------seed-forming plants appeared
L *------------------------------------plants with roots or leaves a;;eared
A *--------------------------------------vascular plants appeared
Y *----------------------------------------appearance of spores
E *------------------------------------------photosynthesis originated (BIF)
R *--------------------------------------------cyanobactera fossils appeared

first appearance of plant fossils[

We know by the law of superposition that the deeper sedimentary layers are older than the sedimentary layers over them. We know this rationally because succeeding layers are deposited on top of the previous layers.

Thus the diagram represents relative ages of the fossils in the respective layers, with oldest at the bottom and youngest at the top.

Each layer also contains fossil samples similar to layers below them but not those above them.

Thus they show the relative timeline of plant traits from the first life until today.

This is objective empirical evidence of the actual timing of developing these plant traits.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 5:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021