Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data

Go get a paleontology research text from a university library. I recommend MJ Benton's 'Vertebrate Paleontology'.Take the fossil distribution diagrams (for any vertebrate sub-group) and visually observe the fitting of the data to the evolutionary ideology. In particular notice the presence of lengthy ghost lineages (vast time gaps between major groups). The dotted lines traverse hundreds of millions of years in some instances. You can visually see that the fossil distribution bubbles have to be re-ordered from first appearence order according to the similarity tree.The ghost lineages are not suggested by the actual fossil distribution data but are rather due to the fact that because A is more anatomically similar to C than B we have to put C before B in the evolutionary scenario and therefore assume a huge ghost lineage in many instances for C. It is simply the assumption of evolution that forces one to introduce ghost lineages. 'C' can often be a whole series of groups. Ghost lineages have to be proposed for a half-dozen groups for example becasue the more derived group, as determined from anatomy, appears deeper in the record. The distibution data did not itself suggest any links or that the more derived group is really derived from the less derived groups.Lets take amphibians for example. A ghost lineage of over one hundred million years has to be introduced for six distinct groups of extinct amphibians (including Brachyopidae) simply because three other amphibian groups (including the strange flat-headed Eryopidae) are anatomically more 'derived' but appear one hundred million years lower in the fossil record.This occurs across the board in the fossil record. It is not as if digging can solve this. Multiple less derived groups frequently systmatically appear above more derived groups by up to hundreds of millions of years in ay category of life. These ghost lineages can cover more than 20% of the entire Phanezoic.The other thing that comes from eye-balling the fossil distribution diagrams is that last comon anscestors (LCAS) are never (not in his book anyway) actual observed species. The LCAS are all simply dotted proposals for every single branching. What this means is that not only are the transitional forms missing but the lifeforms that derived forms are supposedly related to make no appearence in the fossil record either. The dotted lines do not join up to an observed form but rather a hypothetical form. Systematically, across the board. All observed forms (ie represensted by actual fossils) appear at the tips of branches as Gould put so well. He was not exaggerating in his famous statement.All of the branchings implied by dotted lines are just hypothetical. There are no transitaonal forms found along the dotted line. Any fossil distribtuion can be made compatible with any cladogram derived from anatomies by reordering and dotted lines of approporiate length.The reordering of the fossil distribution diagrams according to similarity and joining with arbitary length dotted lines is a forcing of the data to an ideology regardless of the fact that there is some ordering of fossils with similarity and complexity. Paleontology is immensely interesting, and its methods of cladograms and distribution diagrams very logical but the idea that the fossil record demonstrates macroevoltuion is complete myth.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

Happy New Year Edge!We accept the fossil distributions as fact and propose that the orderings are Flood orderings of created kinds living in mulitple ecologies. Some of it makes immediate sense (invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles/mammals, birds) and much of the rest is simply a proposal.The point of my post is that, unknown to the layman, in the evolutionary scheme, any fossil distribution can accomodate any cladogram!There is no point in 'pushing back frontiers' if your entire scheme is incorrect.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

EdgeI get the feeling you don't understand the primary issue of my first post.The fossil record gives one ordering.
The anatomical similarity tree gives another.By horizontally reordering the fossil distribution diagram according to the anatomical similarity tree, and drawing arbitary length dotted lines, the fossil record can be made consistent with any anatomical similarity tree. The lifeforms in the tree could be swaped and you could still accomodate it. It's just a dot to dot exercise that assumes evolution rather than demonstrating it.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

^ What I am showing you is that the assumption of evolution requires vast ghost lineages of up to hundreds of millions of years to be introduced for multiple sub-groups of organisms in every group you care to check.The data doesn't suggest at all that there is a lineage of one hundred milion years connecting Brachyopidae and five other groups of amphibians to lower forms. It's only the assumption of evolution that requires that line to be drawn in.As you point out in your post, you all assume evolution is proven but a modern look at what the fossil distribution actually looks like shows that mainstream paleontology always was a fitting to an ideology.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-12-2003]

^ The lines are a premises as you put it. Your tests have failed. There are systematically no transitional forms along any of those dotted lines.Don't get me wrong, evolution is a great premise. It's just that you're fooling yourself if you think those dotted lines prove anything.The creation/flood scenario is equally viable. Some organisms with similar anatomy are buried in similar strata whereas other sets of organisms with similar anatomy are separated by thousands of feet of strata. Evolution most certainly does require the dotted lines from Brachyopidae et al to drop one hundred milion years down and extend below Eryopidae et al due to the forcing of the cladogram onto the fossil distribution data. Eryopidae et al are more derived than Brachyopidae even though they occur one hundred million years earlier. Hence the one hundred million year ghost lineages from Brachyopidae et al in the evolutioanry scenario.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

All you've done is show us how evolution occured if it occured. But it may not have occured. That is what this forum is about.Show me how the hundreds of ghost lineages are tested? These ghost lineages have persisted since the 1800s. They are still there in Benton's latest book on vertebrate paleontology.

Mark Yes, all the balloons are filling out, but the key ghost lineages aren't going to go away. That group of six amphibians including Brachyopidae is systematically 100 million years out, all six of them. It is clear that those ghost lineages are only there because the assumption of evolution requires Eryopidae et al to be older! Just remove Eryopidae et al and suddenly the six ghost lineages for Brachyopidae et al disappear overnight. This can be seen all throughout the record. I completely agree with you on the proclaimative nature of our model for the fossil record. I will claim it's early days for us. I personally find flood ordeing plausible. I agree that post flood sediments shouldn't have gl's although of course in our sceanrio we question what sort of fossilization occurs under non-catastrophic conditions. Obviously we will have a betrter idea when we gain a consensus on the flood boundaries. We really don't expect much layering post-flood unless the idea of catastrophic post-flood glacial melting gains support. In our scenario we will probably never see the actual record of diversification since the rocks are either flood or galcial melting, catastrophic either way. Then there's about 4000 years of normal layering which, yes, could potentially record some diversification. We actaully think fossilization is very rare so it would be a patchy record. But in the basins (prone to sedimentaiton rather than erosion) even we would expect to see some nice microevolutionary stories. But fossilization may primarily be a Noahic feature.And it's not hypocritical because you have hundreds of millions of years of layering, we have only thousands of years of non-flood rocks. And the flood-rock fossil record is a snapshot not a time series. There is some isolated, but tantalizing, evidence, agreed. But transitions are systematically absent across the board as anyone reading any paleontology book which shows fossil distributions is aware.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

EdgeYou can play semantics if you like.I stand by my statment that evolution reuires vast ghost lineages as displayed in every fossil distribution diagram which has evoltuionary dotted lines drawn in.

EdgeIn our sceanrio the created kinds diversified via microevolutionary processes, presumably before and after the flood. The flood itself gives only a snapshot view of life via the geo-col, not a time series.

RandyI stand by my expectaitons and evidences.I can easily imagine the flood approximately sorting ammonites by fine details and biogeolgraphy. I wont claim any proof though.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

Read my past post Edge where it is fully explained there and should be obvious to you if you thought about our scenario for a second or two.

CoragypsI also mentoned biogeogrpahy I seem to remember.

Randy Our scenario definetely predicts the marine, wet-land, coastal, in-land, highland orderings roughly consistent with the evidence. Sea-floordwelling species will be buried lower than mobile species.

EdgeAll the fossil reocrd shows is that each group starts at one point in the geo-col and ends at another. It is entirely possible that a global flood could do this. We simply don't know for sure and probably never will. Over the years I would certainly expect the creation model to make more precise preictions and I of course would hope that these match the data.

CoragypsWe understand that the Canadian Rockies have been upifted, just as you do.