Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

It's clearly a trilobite, every one of them, all derived from the same genome, no matter what complicated system of classification you lay on them.

Such an authority you are. But you just said all horseshoe crabs are trilobites and there are 4 living species of horseshoe crab.A real authority would have known this.Now they are related, but I don't know how closely.

quote:

---

Cyamocephalus loganensis Currie 1927 Length about 5 cm - family Pseudoniscidae Late Llandovery or possibly early Wenlock, Silurian period, Scotland (Euramerica)

---

Certainly the Cyamocephalus loganensis looks like it could be part modern horseshoe crab and part trilobite, as one would expect from a transitional stage, and it's about 2" long, but without knowing the underside and body bits it would be a little presumptuous to go on just a sketch of the top view.Oh wait, that is what you just did ...Enjoy

Why has the horseshoe crab survived so long with so little change -- a common YECKIE question ...

quote:

---

The horseshoe crab is a very unique character! It is a very old organism that has been around sinc e the Ordovician period which was close to 500 million years ago! Many of the horseshoe crab's closest relatives such as the trilobites and the eurypterids have gone into extinction. So what makes this organism so special to have survived throughout millions of years without becoming extinct like the trilobites and other closely related arthropods during that time? Horseshoe crabs have been favored because they are known as ecological generalists, meaning that they can live in a wide variety of environments without too much inconvenience. What makes this organism so successful is that they are not fixed to one specific habitat. Horseshoe crabs can endure variations in temperature and salinity.

​

Burrowing is an adaptation that multiple organisms have developed. The horseshoe crabs are one of the largest organisms that burrow in sandy environments so that it can lay its eggs in the sediment. This provides more protection for the eggs increasing their survival.

​

Due to its flexibility with its environment, horseshoe crabs have been able to make the changes necessary to carry on through time!

---

Capable of living in many different ecologies is a big advantage to survival, and it doesn't put pressure on the species to select for new traits in order to use those ecologies.Now I expect you are going to say that eurypterids are also trilobites ...

quote:

---

Eurypterids (sea scorpions) are an extinct group of arthropods related to arachnids that include the largest known arthropods to have ever lived. They are members of the extinct order Eurypterida (Chelicerata); which is the most diverse Paleozoic chelicerate order in terms of species.[1] The name Eurypterida comes from the Greek words eury- (meaning "broad" or "wide") and pteron (meaning "wing").[2] This name was chosen due to the pair of wide swimming appendages on the first fossil eurypterids discovered. The largest, such as Jaekelopterus, reached 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) in length, but most species were less than 20 centimetres (8 in). They were formidable predators that thrived in warm shallow water, in both seas and lakes,[3] from the mid Ordovician to late Permian (470 to 248 million years ago).

​

Eurypterid from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur (1904)

---

Horseshoe crabs are closer to sea scorpions than trilobites as they are both members of the Subphylum Chelicerata while trilobites are in the Subphylum Trilobitomorpha. Curiously I'll take my information from scientists that actually study the critters in detail over an opinionated arm-chair creationist making wide-ass guesses based on minimal information, a person with no actual education in the field.Enjoy

Just to stir things up a little bit, here is an image that I finally tracked down after numerous searches: It shows several important implications for the geology of the Grand Canyon. And for RAZD, it it stays on topic by referring to trilobites. Moose will also appreciate the inclusion of a scale showing fairly gross vertical exaggeration.First, notice the rise of the basement rocks going from west (left) to east (right). This reflects going from the ocean environment up onto the craton or higher elevation. This is probably the source of the 'hump' or 'bulge' that some have referred to earlier on the true flood history thread. It is basically a rising landscape.The most important part here is the occurrence of two species of trilobite. The lower one (older and red) is Olenellus in the early Cambrian; while the second one is Glossopleura (younger and blue) of mid-Cambrian age.This is a very important diagram because it shows how sedimentary formations are time-transgressive. The Tapeats Sandstone is actually older in the west than the east. This may seem odd to many, but it makes sense if you look at it from the standpoint of Walther's Law. The ocean is encroaching from the west.And the key point for this discussion is that it is doing so gradually. In other words, it takes time, not only for the trilobite species to evolve but also for a number of fluctuations during the rise in sea level (see the comment with blue background).I'm sure that this all supports Faith's scenario, somehow. But the explanatory powers of this empirical observation by McKee in 1945 are very powerful. Find more of the original work here:Cambrian History of the Grand Canyon Region - Edwin Dinwiddie McKee, Charles Elmer Resser - Google BooksI don't know if this helps Faith see the actual effects of Walther's Law or why it would take time to accomplish this set of data, but perhaps it helps to clear up what a stratum is and how it relates to times and time periods.

Great diagram, edge. It explains Walther's Law perfectly.I think you made one mistake though. The blue trilobite zone is older than the red trilobite zone. That's what the captions in the diagram show.In my own country the Ecca Group of the Karoo Sequence is older in the north and east than in the south and west.But, trying to explain to Faith that the concepts of Cambrian or Permian mean periods, not layers, is impossible. One of his/her heroes told untruths to him/her and he/she will always believe it.

Well, it's not the source. The cross section shows a rounded hill that goes up one side and more gradually down the other; it rises up over the Great Unconformity as shown on the section in such a way as to definitely imply that whatever pushed up the GU also pushed up the whole stack of strata into which the Grand Canyon is cut. But what is the evidence that the lower trilobite is older than the higher one? Just the usual assumption about the age of the rocks? Otherwise there is no reason to think of the different trilobites that climb the entire Geological Column as being progressively younger: If they were all contemporaries that were buried by the Flood, which of course they were, then they would have been related to each other more like cousins, and there would be no reason to assume those lower on the ladder were older than those higher. (One thing that usually escapes discussion, I've noticed, is the actual location of the various fossils found in the strata. The usual illustrations make it look like they are found directly above one another, all of course neatly arranged by their particular morphology, but isn't it more likely they are found scattered throughout the world or at least a very large geographic area?) Yes, that would make sense if the Geological Time Scale was true, but of course it isn't. The time scale model requires that the deposition be slow, but if the model is wrong there is no reason to assume it was slow.And you go on to elaborate the usual model: The comment about staggered facies? Not sure why that requires huge amounts of time, but neither does anything else in the scenario. Certainly the trilobites need no time to "evolve" if they are all contemporaneous relatives of each other. Well at least there's nothing in it that contradicts it. First, as usual I have a lot of trouble looking at the bright illustration for long so I'm afraid I'm getting only a rough idea of it, but I really don't see anything in the observations laid out there that's a problem for the Flood. Of course the standard time line that is assumed is a problem but there's nothing in the illustration itself that requires that time line. Sometimes I almost wish I could see things your way just so we wouldn't always be in a fight to the death, but I really just don't. I don't see anything in that illustration that requires the standard time line. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course you don't see it, because you would have to admit that you are wrong if you could see it. Just like horseshoe crabs and trilobites have to be all one species or you would have to admit that you are wrong.That is your firmly held beliefs/opinions/fantasies interfering with your ability to understand.Enjoy

That reminds me, I did not say horseshoe crabs were the same species as trilobites, I said they look similar, that's all. See Message 484 where I say There's another post where I emphasize that all the trilobites are trilobites, which perhaps you misread as including horseshoe crabs?ABE And of course there is no error in what I said, there's nothing in that illustration that's incompatible with the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So I looked

quote:

---

Horseshoe crabs, some of them anyway, do look quite a bit like trilobites. And I guess I'd think of them as I think of the other "living fossils" as evidence against the ToE because the changes they show are just variations within the Kind over hundreds of millions of years. Funny how the creatures that don't show such a lengthy fossil history, where there is no evidence of evolution that is, are assumed to have evolved from one thing into another, such as reptiles into mammals, whereas when there is actual evidence from one time period to another of the changes to a creature -- like trilobites, horseshoe crabs and coelecanths, the differences are obviously the expected changes within the Kind.

---

Seems like I did misunderstand you.So now you don't have any relationship between them, and we still have the same sorting problem:Everything arranged and magically sorted to imitate old age intentionally ... the big joke of the joker god/s ... And you still cannot explain the radioactive isotope levels sorted with the fossils as if they were the remnants of long ages of decay, magically sorted by the magic carpet flying flood.Enjoy

Surely, there is more than one factor here. How about isostatic rebound? I would say that the facts that we never see them together, nor Olenellus above Glossopleura, and the fact that the former is always below the latter, it is strong evidence that they are in evolutionary order. Certainly Olenellus is in a lower rock layer. Actually, it has nothing to do with deep time or absolute age of the fossils. We are only working with relative ages in this case. And your evidence that they are cousins is what? That the lived at the same time? Why? Except when there is. That's the whole point. They are not scattered randomly all over the world. Well then, show us how your scenario would do the same thing. How does that feature occur in your scenario? How do the different sedimentary environments moved back and forth in a flood situation?

Perhaps you misunderstood. I didn't mean individual trilobites, I meant species as a group, not found close to each other.

The individual trilobites of the species as a group are found all over the world, the two different species edge is talking about are never found in the same layers, and they are always found with the older species below the younger species, as we expect from the relative dating of the layers and the evolution of newer species from the older species.The radioactive isotopes are also found in the same concentrations for the layers the trilobites from each species are found in and the lower layer concentrations show more decay than the higher layer -- another indication of relative age ... except this also gives us estimates of absolute ages, so we know significant time has passed between layers.You can't escape the details, Faith.Enjoy

THE POINT IS that if the different species of trilobites are found at large distances from each other that would fit with the Flood scenario.

THE POINT IS that ain't so. They are found in close proximity but always sorted vertically.As has been said several times.

Actually, no, that has NOT been shown. The Time Scale illustrations make them look to be in close proximity but that is just an illusion. You need to supply the information of where the fossils of each species have been found.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.