Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Pressie, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,370 Year: 20,406/19,786 Month: 803/2,023 Week: 311/392 Day: 1/41 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it ALL MOSTLY mammals above the dinosaurs?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 16 of 56 (865922)
11-02-2019 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
11-02-2019 12:30 PM


RAZD replied as if he understood your post, but you didn't quote anything and I didn't understand it, so please let me seek clarification.

Faith writes:

True,...

That the thread is done? Something else?

...but there are plenty below the reptiles...

Plenty of what below the reptiles? Once I know that I can try to answer this:

...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.

The article was about a sequence of layers containing mammal fossils - when you say "this layer," which layer are you referring to?

Generally I can say that the duration in time that species persist varies widely. Some species might span many geologic ages, some might not. So answering your question in this general context, some mammal species might persist through many ages above the "mammal layer" where first found, some might not.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 18 of 56 (865926)
11-02-2019 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
11-02-2019 12:36 PM


Faith writes:

No it's not done,...

But your thread title asked why it was "ALL mammals above the dinosaurs?" Your Message 1 said:

Faith in Message 1 writes:

I really have only one point to make: Why are there ONLY mammals in that find?...So what I'm asking is why nothing but mammals?

It's obvious that you missed where the article clearly mentioned plants and reptiles. Since you only raised this point because you were careless in your reading, how is this thread not done?

If there's something else you want to discuss, you could change the title.

I just have to do some reading and I've been distracted. It may take a while.

The only reading you have to do regarding the topic of this thread as described by you in Message 1 is this from the article:

quote:
Now, though, a fossil-rich deposit in Colorado’s Denver Basin is offering paleontologists a window into how mammals, plants and reptiles recovered and flourished following the impact.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 12:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
Message 20 of 56 (865933)
11-02-2019 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
11-02-2019 4:20 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. 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).

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

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. ...

Which is a fantasy non-explanation not based on any evidence. That model would mix them in any layer because the purported flood occurred in such a short term everything needed to be alive at the same time.

As you admit you cannot explain the particular layers.

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.

Some do, some don't. Conifers, for instance show up in all layers after they first appear, they just don't appear in earlier/lower layers because they didn't exist then.

... 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?

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 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.

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

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 4:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 22 of 56 (865942)
11-03-2019 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
11-03-2019 12:51 AM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1713
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 23 of 56 (865944)
11-03-2019 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
11-03-2019 12:51 AM


Re: Plant fossils belie flood "geology" fantasies
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.

There is no reason any arbitrarily chosen group of organisms should remain at the same level of diversity. We know there are lots of organisms around today that were very diverse in the past, but only have a few survivors today. Rhynchocephalians, a type of reptile similar to lizards, were spread all over the world and very diverse in the Jurassic but, like the dinosaurs, they were mostly wiped out in the K-T extinction event, and now there are only a couple of relict species surviving in New Zealand.

Why would this be a problem? We know that extinction happens, otherwise there would still be dinosaurs everywhere (well, there are of course, but you know what I mean).

But your argument here is particularly odd, since you're complaining about organisms that are abundant, and then vanish, and then reappear as abundant again. There may be cases of that happening, but it's not true of the ones you're talking about. Conifers and ferns never vanished - they've been abundant since their first appearance in the fossil record. It seems odd that you're arguing this is not the case based solely on the fact that RAZD's brief overview of land plant evolution doesn't list every species of plant known from every fossil locality in exacting detail.

For example:

Cheirolepidiaceae: Biology, structure and paleoecology

quote:
Conifers of the Cheirolepidiaceae, on the basis of palynological evidence, extended from the Triassic to the Late Cretaceous or perhaps to the Early Tertiary. They were geographically widespread and especially important in the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous at low palaeolatitudes.

You don't need to go digging in academic journals for this info. You say that, if conifers and ferns appeared in any abundance they would be noteworthy, and indeed if you look at any introductory 'what was life like in the Cretaceous?' article you will indeed find them noted. This is from UCMP Berkeley:

quote:
No great extinction or burst of diversity separated the Cretaceous from the Jurassic Period that had preceded it. In some ways, things went on as they had. Dinosaurs both great and small moved through forests of ferns, cycads, and conifers. Ammonites, belemnites, other molluscs, and fish were hunted by great "marine reptiles," and pterosaurs and birds flapped and soared in the air above. Yet the Cretaceous saw the first appearance of many lifeforms that would go on to play key roles in the coming Cenozoic world.

Perhaps the most important of these events, at least for terrestrial life, was the first appearance of the flowering plants, also called the angiosperms or Anthophyta. First appearing in the Lower Cretaceous around 125 million years ago, the flowering plants first radiated in the middle Cretaceous, about 100 million years ago. Early angiosperms did not develop shrub- or tree-like morphologies, but by the close of the Cretaceous, a number of forms had evolved that any modern botanist would recognize. The angiosperms thrived in a variety of environments such as areas with damper climates, habitats favored by cycads and cycadeoids, and riparian zones. High southern latitudes were not invaded by angiosperms until the end of the Cretaceous. Ferns dominated open, dry and/or low-nutrient lands. Typical Jurassic vegetation, including conifers, cycads, and other gymnosperms, continued on into the Lower Cretaceous without significant changes. At the beginning of this period, conifer diversity was fairly low in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, but by the middle of the period, species diversification was increasing exponentially. Swamps were dominated by conifers and angiosperm dicots.


See? The spread of angiosperms was the big, important change, and that's why it was the event RAZD's brief summary; which crams hundreds of million of years into a few paragraphs; chose to focus on. But ferns and conifers are happily doing their thing throughout.

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?

Of course they have. And they've demonstrated that the closest relatives of grasses are all plants restricted to the southern hemisphere; which makes sense, as the oldest grass fossils are also known from southern continents (though grasses, of course, unlike their relatives, have colonised the whole planet).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 24 of 56 (865946)
11-03-2019 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
11-02-2019 4:47 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.

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.

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?

Nope. Some exist in certain locations (some in Australia iirc)but they are by and large replaced by modern plants, angiosperms and conifers.

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

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.

Extinct life forms do not "recover" after going extinct. What you generally see is other life forms evolving to fill their niche -- this is usually when new life forms appear and become abundant.

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 ...

With increasing complexity from the lower/earlier layers until today. This certainly included index fossils for certain layers.

... 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. ...

Not being mentioned does not mean they don't show up. The article linked is concerned with the first instances of different phases of evolution of plant life. For instance cyanobacteria still exist today: it is not remarkable as a marker of evolution beyond their first appearance. Your making assumptions based on what the article reports -- it does not list all the different forms of life in each layer, just the novel developments.

... 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. ...

The ToE is very capable of explaining the actual progression of life on earth. Your floodist model fails miserably to explain the layering of life with the layers of sediments. The linked article shows the evolution of more and more complex plant life forms over time, indexed layer by layer.

... 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?

You obviously have some misunderstanding of what is listed: what is listed is the first evidence of certain developments, NOT a complete catalogue of every known plant fossil in each age layer.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 11-02-2019 4:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 12:41 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 1:43 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


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

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2330
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


(1)
Message 26 of 56 (865961)
11-03-2019 1:40 PM


Oh for Fuck's sake.

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


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 1:53 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


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
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 29 of 56 (865971)
11-03-2019 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
11-03-2019 1:53 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 1:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 11-03-2019 2:43 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019