Why is it ALL MOSTLY mammals above the dinosaurs?

quote:

---

I really have only one point to make: Why are there ONLY mammals in that find? It's very clear it's all in a certain layer of dirt, composition not specified as far as I recall, above layers of dinosaur finds, so of course it's all explained as the "recovery" of life after the meteor strike that supposedly killed all the dinosaurs.

---

Let’s be clear. The dating of the rocks puts them after the extinction, so the absence of dinosaurs is hardly surprising.And if you bothered to read the article you’d know that there were plant fossils there, too. Indeed, the article doesn’t even say that mammals were the only animals found.

quote:

---

See, it's hard to explain how the Flood would have sorted the animals as we find them, but it's just as hard to explain why each "time period" should be characterized by one particular kind of fossil. If new creatures evolved from the kind in the layer below it, those same creatures wouldn't just disappear, they should appear in roughlyh the same numbers they are found in their own time period, shouldn't they?

---

It is certainly not true that other types of animal are absent. I grant that there was a time when amphibians were the only land vertebrates, but that is it. Even from that time we find plant and insect fossils from the land, and other fossils from the seas.So, the labels generally refer not to the only type of animals, but the dominant group of land vertebrates. Obviously numbers can change - and a change in dominance means a change in numbers. The dominant group will be the most common at the time, and that may only be determined through fossil evidence.So, your point is incorrect. It is quite possible to explain the actual data through changes in population sizes. Which includes extinctions reducing some populations to zero, and new groups evolving. And if you think either of those are the least problematic for the mainstream scientific view you’re nuts.Of course, the sorting is more impressive at lower taxonomic levels, but that is even less helpful - and more problematic - for you.

quote:

---

In fact all of those "before" the dinosaurs should appear in the layers with the dinosaur fossils, all of them. Why aren't they there? If the KT event killed the dinosaurs surely it would have killed all the other creatures that preceded them and their fossils should be found in great numbers WITH the dinosaur fossils.

---

Obviously creatures that died millions of years earlier than the K-T extinction will be found in the strata from millions of earlier than the K-T extinction. Only those that died in the K-T extinction will be found there. So your question doesn’t make a lot of sense as it is written.Now it is certainly true that amphibians survived into the age of the dinosaurs - and are found as fossils from that period National Geographic so even if we take sensible ideas about what we should find there is no problem - except for those who try to explain the entire fossil record by a single Flood.

quote:

---

But really, very very few show up in later time periods compared to how many there should be, right?

---

I don’t see any reason to believe that at all.

quote:

---

And even with the KT "extinction" which of course on the Flood model is a fantasy, even with that there should be plenty of fossils of many other creatures along with the mammals.

---

In fact quite a lot of creationists say that the K-T extinction IS the Flood. And since the article explicitly mentions plants and seems to imply that other animal fossils were found I’m. It sure where the only mammals comes from.

quote:

---

They should also show up in great numbers WiTH the dinosaur fossils, shouldn't they?

---

I don’t know about great numbers but they certainly do show up. For instance, we have a fossil of a snake caught raiding a dinosaur nest

quote:

---

Along with the bodies of mkillions of other creatures that supposedly lived "before" the dinosaurs, and some of which should have "recovered" from the KT event to be found among the mammal fossils in some large numbers.

---

Anything that only lived before the dinosaurs won’t be found anywhere near the K-T extinction. For animal species that were around in the period represented in the rocks that were investigated, I don’t see any reason to expect large numbers of non-mammalian animals at the Colorado site or any reason to think they were absent.

quote:

---

I mean, just about every fossil found in the whole Fossil Record has versions of it living today. There are a few exceptions of course, such as the trilobites, but they are rare exceptions. So just about everything we see in the fossil record is living today. Therefore they should have been living in many of the earlier time periods where for some reason they don't seem to be represented

---

Just because you don’t know about fossils of - for example - frogs or snakes from the time of the dinosaurs doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Indeed they do and have been widely reported.

Let us note how Faith sets the tone of debate, with double standards and false accusations.

quote:

---

Assertion assertion assertion.

---

Let us note that the claim that RAZD was answering was also a mere assertion.

quote:

---

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

---

The only thing that Faith can claim is ignored is her assertion about numbers. Which is obviously false. The original article that prompted this discussion was about recovery after a mass extinction. Further, the dominant land vertebrates in the Permian were synapsids. After a mass extinction dinosaurs took over. After the next mass extinction synapsids - in this case the mammals - returned to dominance.

quote:

---

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.

---

And here we hava a completely gratuitous and false accusation.

quote:

---

You have no problem imposing your own wild guess on what the Flood supposedly would have done but raising meaningfjul doubts about evolution, of course not.

---

RAZD’s ideas about the Flood are quite reasonable and in line with the Biblical story, unlike the wild rationalisations proposed against them.
Let us also note that we have yet to see a meaningful doubt about evolution in this discussion. Speculating that some groups should be. Ore abundant in the fossil record - without any idea of how abundant they are or should be cannot possibly count.

quote:

---

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.

---

And this again is mere assertion - RAZD made sufficient points that a meaningful rebuttal was possible - if his assertion was false. Evidence contradicting the first appearance dates, comparisons of complexity showing that there was no increase. But all we have is a bare assertion.

quote:

---

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.

---

I hardly think that reasonable abundance is anything like as noteworthy as the first appearance. And certainly there are reasons why species - and especially larger taxonomic groups can get sharply reduced or even disappear from the fossil record. Populations are not constant. They can be drastically reduced. They can spring back.

quote:

---

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

---

Surely a comparison of the examples listed by RAZD is not impossible.

quote:

---

See how subjective it all is? "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.

---

Let us note that RAZD’s sequence presents no claims of evolutionary relationships, and Faith is reduced to mere assertion. Again.

quote:

---

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

---

This, of course, is a ridiculous falsehood. The sequences produced by transgression and regression are a clear example where layers are expected. Environments change. Deposition starts and stops - and erosion takes over. The material being deposited may change. It is the Flood that makes no sense of the layers we find.

quote:

---

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

---

Not one of which has been shown to be real.

quote:

---

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...

---

Which at this point is an assertion based only on misreadings.

quote:

---

... just one of many lines of evidence that the ToE is bogus.

---

As I have had to point out before, it isn’t evidence unless it’s true. So far we have absolutely no reason to think that it is.

quote:

---

So goes the party line although there is no evidence of it in the depictions or discussions of the fossil record, suggesting that it's being asserted now because I pointed out the discrepancy

---

False. See caffeine’s Message 23

quote:

---

And of course numbers are not mentioned at all by you, I wonder why.

---

Because it’s irrelevant? They only need to survive, not to maintain a constant population over all that time.

quote:

---

Like I said rationalization is the method of the ToE since you have no facts to show for any of this

---

By which you mean that you have to lie because your daft opinion is obviously wrong. Indeed, I pointed to the example of the synapsids which were the dominant form of land vertebrates before and after the dinosaurs.

quote:

---

However, since we're dealing in hypoththeticals and Reason, the reasonable answer to you is that in hundreds of millions of years some of them should have done more than merely survive to the subsequent time periods.

---

Hundreds of millions of years gives plenty of time for variations in population sizes, so the timescale hardly helps your argument. And of course caffeine has provided examples.

quote:

---

But it's all just subjective mental manipulation anyway so you can say whatever you want and call it true. That's a perfect definition of the ToE. But you call it Science in your fervid need for it to be true.

---

And there you go lying again. Because it’s all you’ve got.

quote:

---

OH I SEE I'M A LIAR BECAUSE I FORGOT ONE OF YOUR RATIONALIZATIONS?

---

Calling facts rationalisations is just more lying. Not that we should need facts since the idea that population crashes and recoveries cannot happen is obviously silly.

quote:

---

TYPICAL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO MISTAKE SUBJECTIVE CONJURINGS FOR SCIENCE.

---

And yet more lying.But what can we expect someone who makes things up and then calls them evidence ?

quote:

---

Exactly. Can't expect much of anything from defenders of the ToE.

---

And there you go. Falsely accusing others of doing what you have done - and have done today, in this thread. I said it was SOP for you, and you’ve just proved it.This is the sort of thing that gets you called deplorable.

quote:

---

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

---

Which is a silly rationalisation of your inability to grasp the concept of first appearance. RAZD didn’t give a list of what appears where.

quote:

---

... AND that it most likely appears in smaller numbers which would fit sorting by some mechanical process but makes no sense on the ToE/OE system.

---

There’s no implication of lower numbers, it doesn’t particularly fit a mechanical sort and a mechanical sort isn’t a viable explanation anyway.

quote:

---

First the absolute silliness of thinking sedimentary strata represent time periods.

---

You said something silly and you can’t make any sense of it. That’s not a problem with evolution.

quote:

---

Second the absolute silliness of denying that sedimentary strata represent time periods

---

So thinking it and denying it are both absolutely silly ? That looks like a problem with your list.

quote:

---

Third the absolute silliness of thinking that dead things found within the sedimentary strata represent creatures that lived in the particular time period represented by the particular sedimentary layers.

---

Since it obviously isn’t silly, this must be just another of your problems.

quote:

---

The subjectivity of the order of the fossil record and lack of objective tests, for "complexity" and so on.

---

The order of the fossil record is objective fact, and other creationists don’t seem to have much of a problem with complexity.

quote:

---

The fact that it's impossible for trial and error ever to produce a new species even in billions of years

---

An assumption isn’t a fact.

quote:

---

The fact that you only need a few hundred years at most to get new varieties of any species. Trilobites are a conspicuous example in the fossil record of varieties represented over hundreds of millions of years. Sheer silliness, and not a hint of evolution to another species either.

---

The idea that trilobites are the product of strong selective breeding is hardly an obvious fact. Where is the evidence of the breeders? In fact trilobites include a multitude of species and the dates are determined by geology. Claiming that it only took a few hundred years or even a few thousand is just silly.

quote:

---

either.
The fact that evolution must ultimately lead to a point where further evolution is impossible, or even to extinction, by the inevitable depletion of genetic diversity.

---

A fact which has been disproved.

quote:

---

The habit of responding to critics of the ToE with ad hominems.

---

Says the person who relies most on lies and abuse.I guess that the real list is more like this:

• Evolution is true
• Faith doesn’t like it
• Evolutionists refuse to worship lies
• Evolutionists refuse to submit even when Faith lies about them
• evolutionists dare to tell the truth about Faith, instead of giving her the respect she deserves as an evil lying hypocrite

quote:

---

Assertion assertion assertion denial denial denial and you didn't even check to see what I was responding to.

---

I chose to address the part that is supposedly about things I’d been saying. I think I understand my own position without needing to guess which specific posts you meant.As for the rest, I can back up all of it. You can’t back up your claims.