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

quote:

---

Sea-floordwelling species will be buried lower than mobile species.

---

And the Burgess Shale, with all its sea-bottom fauna, is found near Field, BC, in the Canadian Rockies, at what altitude?

That seems to me less of problem of explaining the possibility of, than captiulating an UNDERGRADUATE degree from Cornell in studies of Evolution even if the work is in writing the bill paid for. It seems to be true indeed as was the case at VPI that one must defend the belief of the actually understood notions of evolution and not the progress answering your question can devolve if made practical etc.Dont forget one need not argue FROM The phenomenology of the inside of the shell but only the correlation to any external variable acutal that may (do) the sorting.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-13-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

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.

---

Well TB, use your scenario to predict where fossil mangroves will appear in the geologic column.[This message has been edited by wj, 01-13-2003]

quote:

---

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.

---

No your scenario predicts that sediments should be washed from high ground by the surges and mixed with low ground sediments. Haven’t you talked many times about sediments washed down from high ground and transported long distances? How does this happen without mixing?Or maybe you mean the way gymnosperms like conifers and ferns that grow in mountains are found above flowering plants like water lilies and willows that grow in swampy low ground in the fossil record? Or is it the other way around? It seems your biogeography sorted these backwards. There are no modern biomes that have plants and animals sorted anything like the way they are in the fossil record. In fact biogeography makes no more sense than hydrodynamic sorting or flowing plants out running dinosaurs.I expect that many, many other examples can be found that don’t fit your prediction with no trouble at all, for instance the sequences of sea floor dwelling species that are found above other seafloor dwelling species and even above earlier mobile species but I don’t have time tonight.Randy

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

wjI would have to say I would expect mangroves to start around the amphibian sort of region of the column or a little earlier, so how about Devonian/Carboniferous? I'm sure you've designed this to be a dud right? I have admitted here already that our scenario is primarily a proclamation from the POV of fossil ordering. From the POV of the rocks themsleves, on the other hand, there is much evidence of rapidity.

RandyYou may be entirely correct. You may be entirely wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

How do you sort by biogeography when you require great masses of water washing down sediments from high ground and transport of those sediments in some cases over long distances? When one of your claims falsifies another as here you should realize that your whole thesis is fatally flawed.
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.

---

What? There is no such ordering! Please be specific.So tell us how angiosperms outran dinosaurs to escape from the flood. Or were they more intelligent? Please keep up the story, though, TB. It gets better all the time.[This message has been edited by edge, 01-13-2003]

EdgeI'll amend the ordering to sea-floor, general marine, wet-land, terrestial, bird-life which does make sense from a global flood POV and is the observed ordering. Dinosaurs vs extant mammals is a big problem for us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
wj

​

I would have to say I would expect mangroves to start around the amphibian sort of region of the column or a little earlier, so how about Devonian/Carboniferous? I'm sure you've designed this to be a dud right?

​

I have admitted here already that our scenario is primarily a proclamation from the POV of fossil ordering. From the POV of the rocks themsleves, on the other hand, there is much evidence of rapidity.

---

Hmmm. Do you just make this up as you go along?Devonian / Carboniferous is the "amphibian" region. Conventional science calls this 417 to 290 million years ago. Certainly there are plants at this time / level of the geologic column, but they are not mangroves. Mangroves are angiosperms and angiosperms don't appear until the Cretaceous, about 125 million years ago.So, this obviously beg the question: why don't we find angiosperm mangroves in the "amphibian" Devonian and Carboniferous layers?Can't say I'm impressed with the predictive abilities of the creationist flood model.

^ The key issue, that I did consider yesterday but decided not to complicate my answer with, is whether amphibians would be generally buried in their habitat or transported seaward or landward (or escaped landward).A Cretaceous first appearence of mangroves suggests that the amphibians were transported from their habitats and buried seaward. This is clearly a post-observation comment. In our scenario it suggests that freshwater flooding from highlands preceded marine innundation leaving mangroves higher than their fauna. Of course one would expect transport of flora as well as fauna and we would have to argue that the devil is in the details.I do not claim any detailed predictive power in this scheme at this point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The key issue, that I did consider yesterday but decided not to complicate my answer with, is whether amphibians would be generally buried in their habitat or transported seaward or landward (or escaped landward).

​

A Cretaceous first appearence of mangroves suggests that the amphibians were transported from their habitats and buried seaward. This is clearly a post-observation comment. In our scenario it suggests that freshwater flooding from highlands preceded marine innundation leaving mangroves higher than their fauna. Of course one would expect transport of flora as well as fauna and we would have to argue that the devil is in the details.

​

I do not claim any detailed predictive power in this scheme at this point.

---

TB, you stretch where evolution easily grasps.

EdgeWhere you draw long dotted lines, we suggest transport, escape, ecology and sorting. Not too different.You didn't really predict that flowering plants come after amphibians! The raw data told both of us that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The key issue, that I did consider yesterday but decided not to complicate my answer with, is whether amphibians would be generally buried in their habitat or transported seaward or landward (or escaped landward).

​

A Cretaceous first appearence of mangroves suggests that the amphibians were transported from their habitats and buried seaward. This is clearly a post-observation comment. In our scenario it suggests that freshwater flooding from highlands preceded marine innundation leaving mangroves higher than their fauna. Of course one would expect transport of flora as well as fauna and we would have to argue that the devil is in the details.

​

I do not claim any detailed predictive power in this scheme at this point.

---

Yep, making it up as you go along.So what's the twist in your story to explain the occurance of vast quantities of other plants in the Devonian and Carboniferous deposits such as tree ferns and early gymnosperms in those levels with the amphibians but not angiosperms? Were the ferns and gymnosperms washed down from highlands along with amphibians and through the mangroves and into the seas whilst the mangroves and all other angiosperms managed to hang on until they could be washed away later with the Creataceous dinosaurs?Or were the mangroves able to outrun the gymnosperms and amphibians? Truly impressive as presumably the mangroves started at a disadvantage being on the waters edge and therefore having to run further uphill.

^ You have highlighted one of the biggest problems of the flood model as I have admitted on dozens of occasions.