Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
58 online now:
Mercury, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (5 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,055 Year: 2,701/14,102 Month: 366/703 Week: 19/168 Day: 19/21 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it ALL MOSTLY mammals above the dinosaurs?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 56 (865893)
11-01-2019 11:18 PM


AbE: By the way, it's the video AZ posted in Message 3 that discusses only mammals, though there is a crocodile here and there in the collection. But I didn't read the abstract of the article in the OP.

=======================

Message 1 on the Mammals Rebound thread is a discussion of new mammal fossil finds in Colorado. Message 3 has a video about it, showing how it was discovered that these fossils were encased in concretions of the mineral apatite, explaining why it took them so long to find them.

Since that's a Links and Information thread there isn't supposed to be any debate there, so I'm bringing it over here.

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.

Of course I attribute it all to the worldwide Flood of Noah, and I get asked how the Flood could have sorted the different creatures as we see everywhere. Why is this particular layer yielding pretty much nothing but mammal fossils?

So what I'm asking is why nothing but mammals? Why not just as many fossils of all the creatures found beneath the dinosaurs? Did they all die in the supposed KT extinction? And if they did why did mammals recover and none of the rest of them?

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? There shouldn't really be any sorting at all as we find it, on the ToE/OE models, all those from lower/earlier layers should appear in those above in no less numbers, or at least in abundance: there's no reason for them not to be in the layers above just because other creatures evolved from them. 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.

And this mammal find is very striking: looks like ALL mammals. I can't explain how the Flood did that, but neither is it explainable how the ToE/OE theory accounts for it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 1:55 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2019 3:11 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 6 by caffeine, posted 11-02-2019 4:36 AM Faith has responded
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 11-02-2019 12:25 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 56 (865897)
11-02-2019 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-01-2019 11:18 PM


There should be lots of fossils from earlier periods in each "time period."
This has occurred to me many times before but I never brought it up because I know SOME "earlier" creatures do show up in "later" time periods and I wasn't up to arguing the specifics. But really, very very few show up in later time periods compared to how many there should be, right? 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. They should also show up in great numbers WiTH the dinosaur fossils, shouldn't they? If not, why not? If they died in the "extinction" their bodies should have been buried anyway. 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.

I have to assume this has been thought about, but it seems to me there really isn't a reasonable answer to it that preserves the ToE/OE paradigm.

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-01-2019 11:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2019 3:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 56 (865903)
11-02-2019 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by caffeine
11-02-2019 4:36 AM


I guess I'm going to have to try to research it all because it seems to me there should be a lot more of the "earlier" forms in each time period than are found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by caffeine, posted 11-02-2019 4:36 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Theodoric, posted 11-02-2019 9:51 AM Faith has responded
 Message 10 by Tangle, posted 11-02-2019 11:42 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 56 (865909)
11-02-2019 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Theodoric
11-02-2019 9:51 AM


I do have a lot of trouble reading. I will only put in a lot of effort on something that matters a lot and in many cases I usually have to copy the material into a Word document with a black background, and then I can usually read only part of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Theodoric, posted 11-02-2019 9:51 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 56 (865912)
11-02-2019 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tangle
11-02-2019 11:42 AM


Yes it was, I didn't read the abstract. But still I suspect there are far fewer than ought to be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tangle, posted 11-02-2019 11:42 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 56 (865914)
11-02-2019 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
11-02-2019 12:25 PM


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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 11-02-2019 12:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2019 1:40 PM Faith has responded
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 11-02-2019 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 56 (865915)
11-02-2019 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
11-02-2019 12:25 PM


No it's not done, I just have to do some reading and I've been distracted. It may take a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 11-02-2019 12:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 11-02-2019 4:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 56 (865925)
11-02-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
11-02-2019 1:40 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.

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

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. 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.
t

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2019 1:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2019 5:43 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 56 (865930)
11-02-2019 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
11-02-2019 1:40 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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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. 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. 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?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2019 1:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 7:25 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 56 (865941)
11-03-2019 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
11-02-2019 5:43 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.

Assertion assertion assertion. 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. 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.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

... 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?

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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 ******** up by the clever human mind. And again, where are the objective tests, the DNA relationship tests for instance.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2019 5:43 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 4:18 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 23 by caffeine, posted 11-03-2019 5:11 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 3:00 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 56 (865952)
11-03-2019 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
11-03-2019 7:25 AM


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.

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.

{Gosh, Percy, you are now censoring the word "irrelev(vvv)ant? Pretty soon you'll have censored the entire English language and we'll only be able to grunt out polyannaish noises? Even the crazzzzzy Lefffffft hasn't gone that far yet. Will that swell your chest or what?}

Oops, posted too soon, have to finish Razzy's message separately.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 7:25 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 3:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 56 (865964)
11-03-2019 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
11-03-2019 7:25 AM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
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.

Microevolved, Razzy, that only takes a generation at best, not millions of years. It's still the same species, different varieties.

Again what is critical to note is when they first appeared.

I think you need a snappy tune to go with that constant refrain of the ToE anthem.

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, if the very same varieties appear we know it's a sca(ammm)m, and they do so it is. 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." Evidence, my dear Watson, evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 7:25 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2019 4:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 56 (865967)
11-03-2019 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tanypteryx
11-03-2019 1:40 PM


The fucking conifers have been alive and growing since they first showed up in the fossil record. They didn't disappear and reappear

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

Oh, and that must be a very special variety of conifer. I've never heard of a conifer that reproduces by that means. In fact it must be so rare you should not be treating it so cavalierly, it needs a special mention in the history of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-03-2019 1:40 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 2:11 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 56 (865978)
11-03-2019 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
11-03-2019 2:11 PM


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

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

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

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.

{The Percy Note for this post: now even "hypoththeticals" bites the dust? I see you are getting very clever at anticipating various ways we can misspell your censored words too. Well, I suppose it's good mental exercise. For all concerned.}

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 2:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 3:00 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 56 (865982)
11-03-2019 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
11-03-2019 3:00 PM


OH I SEE I'M A LIAR BECAUSE I FORGOT ONE OF YOUR RATIONALIZATIONS? TYPICAL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO MISTAKE SUBJECTIVE CONJURINGS FOR SCIENCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 3:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2019 3:15 PM Faith has 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