Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 6:11 AM
23 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,858 Year: 4,895/19,786 Month: 1,017/873 Week: 373/376 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Flood sorting
John
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 53 (16091)
08-26-2002 11:59 PM


Ok TB,

Lets have it. How does the flood sort dead things into the observed geologic strata?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by compmage, posted 08-27-2002 2:46 AM John has not yet responded
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 08-27-2002 4:36 AM John has not yet responded
 Message 4 by John, posted 08-27-2002 11:40 PM John has not yet responded

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 3258 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 2 of 53 (16095)
08-27-2002 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John
08-26-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

Lets have it. How does the flood sort dead things into the observed geologic strata?


Magic

------------------
compmage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John, posted 08-26-2002 11:59 PM John has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 53 (16100)
08-27-2002 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John
08-26-2002 11:59 PM


He has "faith" that it does.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=45&p=3 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=45&p=3">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=45&p=3

quote:

TB
I have both faith and scientific intuition of plausibility that our 3-point mechanism could generate the empirical ordering.

Specifically, TB has faith that "homology, hydrodynamic sorting, biogeography, & relative mobility" are responsible.

When asked HOW they are responsible, he retreats to the "faith" argument, maintaining that hydrodynamic sorting etc are a better explanation of fossil ordering than the mainstream explanation?!?!

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John, posted 08-26-2002 11:59 PM John has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 53 (16136)
08-27-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John
08-26-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Ok TB,

Lets have it. How does the flood sort dead things into the observed geologic strata?


Come on, TB. Here is your chance to shine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John, posted 08-26-2002 11:59 PM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 12:51 AM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 53 (16143)
08-28-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
08-27-2002 11:40 PM


We propose that

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

is responsible for the fossil ordering.

Anatomically similar animals tend to have similar 1/2/3 prpoerties and hence fossil order is approximately correlatable with anatomical similarity or supposed homology.

In detail this would require a huge set of simualtions that would require knowledge of:

A. the pre-flood 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 stages

As everyone knows this is all extremely difficult. So the only hope of ever doing anything like this might be to pick a subset of organisms and try it out.

The evoltuionary model does not suffer from this difficulty of possibility of reconstruction becasue each layer is simply assumed to be a surface layer habitated for thousands of years. Each animal lived and died in its layer. Our model has no such simple assumption possible.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 08-27-2002 11:40 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by compmage, posted 08-28-2002 3:21 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 08-28-2002 11:07 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 10 by Randy, posted 08-28-2002 12:07 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 11 by John, posted 08-28-2002 5:08 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 3258 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 6 of 53 (16154)
08-28-2002 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 12:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We propose that

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

is responsible for the fossil ordering.


So flowering plants ran faster than all other plants and that is why they are found near the top?

------------------
compmage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 12:51 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 3:26 AM compmage has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 53 (16155)
08-28-2002 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by compmage
08-28-2002 3:21 AM


^ 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by compmage, posted 08-28-2002 3:21 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by compmage, posted 08-28-2002 10:22 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 3258 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 8 of 53 (16169)
08-28-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 3:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ 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.


Funny...maybe you could answer the implied question?
Why do we only find flowering plants near the top of the geological column?

------------------
compmage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 3:26 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 8:11 PM compmage has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 53 (16171)
08-28-2002 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 12:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We propose that

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

is responsible for the fossil ordering.

Anatomically similar animals tend to have similar 1/2/3 prpoerties and hence fossil order is approximately correlatable with anatomical similarity or supposed homology.

In detail this would require a huge set of simualtions that would require knowledge of:

A. the pre-flood 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 stages

As everyone knows this is all extremely difficult. So the only hope of ever doing anything like this might be to pick a subset of organisms and try it out.

The evoltuionary model does not suffer from this difficulty of possibility of reconstruction becasue each layer is simply assumed to be a surface layer habitated for thousands of years. Each animal lived and died in its layer. Our model has no such simple assumption possible.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]


1/

Archeohippus & Nannihippus are getting smaller whilst at the same time other lineages are getting larger, in the same place.

Now,

quote:

1. biogeography - the localisation of species

All found on N.American continent in the same strata (the larger & smaller species, that is)

quote:

2. hydrodynamic sorting - the flow and sink properties of organisms

They are different sizes, so should be in different strata.

quote:

3. relative mobility - escape speed, direction, desire to escape etc

Different sizes, I would reasonably assume different mobility.

Why are these equiids found in the same strata, TB? Why are Ornithomimus, Deinonychus, & Coelophysis found only in lower strata, & not higher strata, given they appear to be built for speed?

In fact, there appear to be fossils all through the mesozoic & cenozoic, on all continents, that appear to be built for speed. A dichotomy?

2/

This post, once again, focusses on animals. I have asked you before to explain....

quote:

1/ "Not to mention that the flood would have ripped up the local pre-flood shallow deposits."

So where is the cenozoic Ediacaran fauna?

2/ Given soft bodied Ediacaran fauna can manage to fossilise pre-flood, where are the mammals, reptiles, amphibians etc? You reckoned that 1,500 years wouldn’t generate many fossils, yet hard-to-fossilise soft bodied examples can be found. So, where are the easy to fossilise examples, of bone, arthropods etc. Which we would reasonably expect to find more of than soft bodies?

3/ Why is an increase in complexity seen in “pre-flood” strata, from older to younger?

4/ Provide a model (it’s a toughy, I know, but single examples I can always contradict with a counter example. It’s best to cut to the chaste) that universally demonstrates that homology etc. related deposition is expected under the flood model. Otherwise, well, it isn’t, & a 0.5 average SCI is pretty remarkable evidence for evolution, not to mention that when the fossil record is “better”, so is the SCI.


3/

Please explain plant fossil patterns,

quote:

Angiosperms are flowering plants, gymnosperms are cone bearing, lycopsids are club mosses, & pteropsida are ferns. I should also include pteridosperms (seed ferns), that have been extinct since the Jurassic.

Club mosses, ferns, & seed ferns appear in the devonian/carboniferous.

Gymnosperms appear in the triassic.

Angiosperms appear in the cretaceous.

Why, then do these tree (ferns excepted) to small plant bearing classes of plants appear at different times, & in the case of seed ferns, disappear altogether, under a flood model? I ask you to explain the stratigraphy of these plant taxa, & how it pertains to the flood models hydrodynamic sorting, biogeography, & relative mobility.


If you can't objectively test & quantify the factors you mention, & apply them to the actual patterns of fossil deposition, showing that the large majority of organisms comply, then all you have is a "just so" explanation. Furthermore, there are valid questions being asked that would appear to directly contradict your "model". It's not looking like a very good explanation from where I'm standing, TB.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 12:51 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 8:16 PM mark24 has responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4352 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 10 of 53 (16176)
08-28-2002 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 12:51 AM


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 genera

Now explain to us how biogeography, hydrodynamic sorting and differential escape mechanisms just happened to bury animals at relative depths correlated to their post-ark extinction patterns. Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and Paleocene animals were supposedly saved on the ark but somehow they ALL became extinct. From the eocene up the relative number of extant species correlates to burial position. In every era you will find animals with varying mobility, hydrodynamic properties and geographical ranges. I don't think you can explain these data any more than you can answer the other questions about the fossil record that have been raised on this and other threads.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 12:51 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 53 (16186)
08-28-2002 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 12:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We propose that

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

is responsible for the fossil ordering.

Anatomically similar animals tend to have similar 1/2/3 prpoerties and hence fossil order is approximately correlatable with anatomical similarity or supposed homology.


So we should have sorting by anatomical similarity? All deer-like creatures ought to be in the same strata. All bird-like creatures ought to be in the same strata. All reptile-like creatures ought to be in the same strata.

quote:
In 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 stages

As everyone knows this is all extremely difficult. So the only hope of ever doing anything like this might be to pick a subset of organisms and try it out.


In other words you have an impossibly complex theory-- or should I say irreducibly complex? And it is therefore invalid by virtue of being untestable. What's that you say? A,D, and E are all unknowable. There is no data.

What you need is a theory to describe the sorting behavior which does not depend upon unknowns. Something like the sorting of oil and vinegar in a jar of water. Jar size doesn't matter. Jar shape doesn't matter. The initial conditions don't matter. The method of stirring the mixture doesn't matter.

quote:
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.

To assume that the upper layers of dirt are older than the lower layers does not seem like much of a stretch to me.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 12:51 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 53 (16191)
08-28-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by compmage
08-28-2002 10:22 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by compmage, posted 08-28-2002 10:22 AM compmage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Randy, posted 08-28-2002 8:33 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 53 (16192)
08-28-2002 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mark24
08-28-2002 11:07 AM


Mark24 & John

Most of your comments ignore the fact that our explanation will come from convoluting all three processes.

If you think that anyone could be expected to explain this stuff with hand waving then I suggest that you've just got yoursleves jobs replacing the supercomputers working on grand challenges worldwide. You think we should be able to just 'see the answer'? Who needs supercomputers to predict protein 3D structure - you should be able to just handwave the tertiary structure from sequence. Why not predict next years weather while your at it?

The flood fossil order is a computing grand challenge.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 08-28-2002 11:07 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 08-28-2002 11:13 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 08-29-2002 9:05 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4352 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 14 of 53 (16193)
08-28-2002 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 8:11 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 8:11 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 10:56 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 53 (16196)
08-28-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Randy
08-28-2002 8:33 PM


^ You may be entirely correct Randy. On the other hand you might be plain wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Randy, posted 08-28-2002 8:33 PM Randy has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019