|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9024 total) |
| |
Ryan Merkle | |
Total: 882,901 Year: 547/14,102 Month: 547/294 Week: 34/269 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author |
Topic: Why is it |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Director Posts: 3933 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Why is it ALL mammals above the dinosaurs? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16684 Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16684 Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
quote: I don’t see any reason to believe that at all. quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1799 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
And the short answer is 'there aren't' The first sentence of the abstract: quote: There are turtles and crocodiles there too. Presumably other types of animal, but the paper only specifically mentions the biggest and best preserved animal fossils.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member (Idle past 72 days) Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
I thought you had trouble reading? Only when the evidence contradicts your fantasy arguments?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8054 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Your original claim was disproven immediately. “I really have only one point to make: Why are there ONLY mammals in that find?” So now you're moving the goal posts. But how on earth are you going to show that there should be more? How many would be enough? Why should they all be found there? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes it was, I didn't read the abstract. But still I suspect there are far fewer than ought to be the case.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 19906 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
I think this thread is done. The question asked is answered in the very article cited, Remarkable fossils capture mammals’ recovery after the dino-killing asteroid (this was also quoted earlier):
quote: Though the primary focus of this particular article is mammals, it obviously isn't "ALL mammals above the dinosaurs." --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No it's not done, I just have to do some reading and I've been distracted. It may take a while.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: 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, : . 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021