Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nye-Ham and how evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field and theory

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Even if Ken Ham may have fumbled on presentation, the facts may show him possibly closer to the truth on some matters. Rather than focus on the immense claims that are part of most YEC models (young universe, young stars, young planets, intelligent design of life, Noah’s flood, the tower of babel, created kinds, etc.), let me focus on the question of lab and field reporting in historical geology and paleontology, and something Nye said would change his mind. He said something to the effect:

Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers

He suggested if we found such things he might change his mind. The first thing to realize is that few if any places on the Earth do we have the following column intact, in fact many of the “layers” are only layers in one’s imagination since they can be side by side or in some cases INVERTED!

It is true that the fossils tend to cluster in certain ways, but let me point out, even in ecosystems present today, limited sets of species tend to cluster around certain geographic areas. Some have argued that the clustering of fossils to particular “layers” (banks or strata is the better term) is due partly to eco-systems. This is sensible, and an occasional exception to a general pattern is what might be expected in the actual physical record versus the imaginary one.

So do we have something that ought to change Nye’s mind. Absolutely!

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”8

Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9

So called age of the dinosaurs

So is there a possibility anomalies are edited out and instead a practice of false reporting (perhaps innocently done) has been perpetuated. They probably think something like: “We found a mammal, that’s clearly contamination because we know mammals aren’t in that era”. So thus we never hear official reports of the anomalies because the anomalies are regarded as contaminants since according to the false narrative, certain creatures didn’t live in certain eras.

This would then admit the possibility at least some (not all) “old” fossils are actually young. Note, this doesn’t not necessarily refute the claim of long ages, it may only demonstrate we are hasty in our conclusions. But to say, “we possibly made a mistake, we possibly don’t know the real age” is heresy in the world of Darwin. Further:

Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

Nye also asked how layers could be formed so quickly.

The following video explains why even in principle layers are unlikely to form slowly! Watch the actual lab demonstrations of fast stratification and the vizualizations. You can even see one lab experiment where layers are formed in a matter of minutes 😉 It crushes Nye’s claims about Grand Canyon formation.

In the video Dr. Julien uses the following impressive analysis using a simple physics equation

E = 7/10 m V^2

to explain sedimentary particle segregation. But you don’t need to understand the equation, you just need to watch the video. IMPRESSIVE! Physics crushes Darwinism. 😎

[youtube PL886FFE0E3EA557BE]

HT: JGuy

There you have it. Real but taboo empirical and theoretical science that you won’t get in school. Why? Evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field, and theory. Falsehoods are perpetuated, and truth is rarely known.

NOTES

1. Picking out only certain fossils and throwing out others in a dig site is cherry picking. This is yet another area of cherry picking in addition to one I reported on at UD earlier:
The Price of Cherry Picking for Addicted Gamblers and Believers in Darwinism

2. HT JGuy

3. See previous articles at UD that support what I laid out above:
DNA half life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?

C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous era dates 300 million years ago

Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition

Astrophysics vs. Darwinists Paleontology

Collagen in Dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Falsifying Darwinism by Falsifying the Geological Column

4. CMI lists Bill Nye’s other “science lies” (Note, I’m not saying Bill is really lying, just mistaken, but “lie” rhymes with Nye:)

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

He said that in Kentucky, the Creation Museum stands on many layers of limestone with coral fossils. He claimed there would not be enough time in a creationist timeframe for these creatures to grow, die, and then be fossilized. However, creationist marine biologist Dr Robert Carter has addressed the existence of fossil corals.

The next argument was that there are ice cores with 680,000 layers, each formed in a summer/winter cycle. Again, he claimed that this disproves a creationist timeframe. However, creationists have also answered this, see Greenland ice cores: implicit evidence for catastrophic deposition.

He also claimed that there are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for. However, dendrochronology is not an exact science; see plant biologist Dr Don Batten’s article on dendrochronology. Nye specifically mentioned bristlecone pines, but there is evidence that they may have more than one growth ring per year as argued at Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines.

His next challenge related to geology. He asked, if the Grand Canyon was the result of a catastrophic global flood, why are there not grand canyons everywhere? But as flood geologists have demonstrated, the Flood would have involved a number of different mechanisms at various stages as the waters drained off the continents. In fact, many erosional features are best explained by a global flood. There is a vast body of creation information in this area; we would send interested readers to our Geology Q&A page.

Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.

Photos by Ian Juby
Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree trunks.

Nye tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. However, we know that there is a huge amount of variability in the human race, and many of the skulls in Nye’s graphic were undoubtedly within that range. For more information about how creationists interpret this evidence, see our Anthropology Q&A.

Nye noted that there are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia. However, absent catastrophic, rapid burial, fossilization of a land creature would be a rare event; thus, lions roamed what is now Israel in historical times, but no lion fossils have ever been found there. In addition, marsupial fossils are actually a huge problem for evolutionists, because their fossils are not in Australia, but in Europe and South America. See Biogeography.

Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. Those 14,000 animals only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible.
The Ark was claimed to be too big to be made from wood, yet too small to fit all the animals required. However creationists have answered these challenges, see Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers.

Nye claims that evolutionists made the prediction that there would be an intermediate species between fish and tetrapods, and that Tiktaalik fills this gap. However, footprints from a tetrapod were found in a layer dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik, so the intermediary cannot be younger than what it gives rise to. See Is the famous fish-fossil finished?

Nye claims that sexual reproduction arose because it granted superior immunity to disease. However, an explanation of how something is beneficial is not the same as explaining how it came to be in the first place, and this is a common fallacy brought up by evolutionists. It doesn’t matter how beneficial something is, you still need a mechanism to explain how it came to be in the first place, and that is a huge problem for evolution. See Episode 5: Why Sex?

Nye seemed to misunderstand a key creationist argument when he claimed on multiple occasions (even after Ham corrected him), that creationists think that natural laws were different in the past. However, creationists actually think that natural laws are constant, but that God has intervened at various times in events that cannot be explained by uniformitarianism.

Nye celebrates the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which he believes to be a successful prediction for the Big Bang and billions of years of history. However, cosmic microwave background radiation is actually a huge problem for the Big Bang model; see Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. There has been years of work in creation cosmology; for more information see Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers.

Nye appeals to radiometric dating, specifically rubidium/strontium, as evidence supporting billions of years. However, different dating methods give different dates for the same rocks, and some dating methods cap the age of the earth at thousands of years, so scientists must pick whichever dating method agrees with their presupposition. Ham gave a slide with a list of such methods; a similar list appears at Age of the earth.

Nye appealed to distant starlight, but see How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?

Comments
Summarizing the answer to Nye's question:
Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers
Because they aren't layers for the most part on top of each other. The "layers" are laying HORIZONTALLY (not vertically) in relation to each other just like eco zones lay horizontally to each other. Because a reasonable explanation is that if the "layers" lay horizontally to each other, they probably represent eco-zones in the first place! You won't find a dead rabbit in the Cambrian any more than you'll find a living rabbit at the bottom of the sea. And when the "layers" are stacked on top of each other, sometimes they are worse than mixed, they are in the wrong order! It is misleading to suggest they are really "layers" when most of these fossil collections from a given "era" lies horizontally in isolation on about 99% of the Earth. The Darwinists got a way with misleading claim by showing pictures of a vertical column to describe long ages such as this one: http://stuartsorensen.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/strata-5.jpg To the extent there may be vertical stratification, it may be explained by the fast stratification methods described in the video Drama in the Rocks Nye is asking a leading question like, "have you stopped beating your puppy today". Even that said, we see mammals in dino dig sites, the fossil record is heavily edited of embarrassments. Rapid stratification is demonstrated possible, and actually shown necessary. It's not just possible that the fossil layers were built fast, it is virtually impossible that they were built slowly if the fossils are permineralized because of the requirements that the entombment happen rapidly (a matter of hours to weeks) and involve water. Radiometric C14 dating, measurable DNA and non-racemic amino acids, helium diffusion, consideration of erosion rates indicates strongly the fossil record must be recent. This is also consistent with the evidence that the so-called "layers" aren't really "layers" but collections of fossils lying HORIZONTALLY (not vertically) in relation to each other, a fact reinforced by the observation that even when they are vertical, they can also be in inverted order, suggesting that as a matter of principle, they had to start out in horizontal relation to each other, and the fact of abundant horizontalization of layers contradicts the assumption that the "layers" accumulated vertically over long ages. Thus Nye's model is incoherent, self-contradictory, therefore, false. Ham may have lost the debate but the facts win the war against evolutionism.scordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
TSErik @ 43
I’m quite curious. What did you guys make of Mr. Nye’s comment on the rate of discovery for new species?
Nye's math: 4000 years since flood. (Nye calls this "Ken Ham's flood". Why?) 7000 kinds of animals (Nye calls these "Ken Ham's kinds". Why?) 16,000,000 species today ________________________ 11 new species per day ...... Sounds impressive... but I don't think it's a problem as he insists. Nye states the lowest estimate is 8.7 million species are reported, but opts for a higher number. Usually, people that want to disprove by absurdity, use a generous case, not worse cases. But he added that the number is higher when you count viruses and bacteria etc... Why would he talk about the number of microbes? Nye is also including in this number every species of animal alive. That is, he's including things in the ocean and apparently insects. However, There wasn't this same bottleneck for species in the ocean. They could in large survive during the flood. But that isn't to totally refute Nye's argument. Just to give an idea of how he is approaching this. Here one way I might continue and refute Nye's argument that this is a problem. Simply take a related kind of animal and see what it does to Nye's problem. Say the various birds. Noah would have had perhaps a few kinds of birds, but for the sake of a worse case scenario, let's say every bird today comes from only one kind of bird - though birds can probably be differentiated into several kinds (e.g. I'd doubt buzzards and sparrows have a common ancestor). Anyway... There are perhaps 10,000 species of birds today. Going by one source I'm reading. 4000 years since the flood (worse case; actual is ~4500y) 1 bird pair (worse case) 10,000 species (worse case) ...... 10,000 species/((365.25days/year)*(4000 years)) = 0.00684 species per day. Which is about 2.5 new bird species per year. Now, if you go back in and plug in closer to actual numbers, you will get even fewer species per year per kind of bird. Example: 4500 years since the flood 10 bird kinds 10,000 species ...... 10,000 species/((365.25days/year)*(4500years)) = 0.00608 species per day = 2.22 species per year. But now divide that by 10 kinds = .22 species per year per kind of bird = Translation. Average 4.5 years to speciate. Some may object that that is still too fast. But... The genetic potential of the original bird kind pairs, off of the ark, would have been far greater than modern species. So, speciation would have been very rapid at first. As genetic information decreased, then you would expect a slower rate of speciation per lineage we might expect today. But you would have more lineages. I suspect this tapers off at some point, but I imagine it would have ballooned rapidly in the first few hundred years. So, Nye's numbers are inflated with all the wrong species. If you were to count only the terrestrial and avian vertebrate, for example, you have only about 29,000 species. And Nye used a shorter duration since the flood. Source: http://animals.about.com/od/zoologybasics/a/howmanyspecies.htm Animals: estimated 3-30 million species | |--Invertebrates: 97% of all known species | `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species | |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species | |--Molluscs: 100,000 species | |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species | |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species | |--Echinoderms: 6,000 species | |--Annelida: 12,000 species | `--Arthropods | `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species | |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species | `--Arachnids: 75,500 species | `--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species `--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species |--Amphibians: 5,400 species |--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species |--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species `--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 speciesJGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
I’m quite curious. What did you guys make of Mr. Nye’s comment on the rate of discovery for new species?
First, let me describe the two competing models to explain the patterns of diversity: 1. Darwin's single tree of life of Universal Common Ancestry 2. Creationist Blyth's Orchard of Trees of Created Kinds In this case, a tree is not a physical tree but a conceptual one. A tree in Blyth's Orchard corresponds to a created Kind (Baramin) in the book of Genesis. How we establish Kinds will be explained below. Like real trees, a single Baramin "Tree" can lose and grow more branches all the time. We see this in Lenski's bacterial experiments with incredible number of new branches over 30,000 generations from his original e-coli sample. We see new branches of the influenza Kind emerge every year. In antibiotic resistance we see new branches of a bacterial kind evolve new branches all the time. Behe's edge of evolution describes new branches of Malaria kinds evolving over the past century and developing resistance to anti-malarial medicines. So if we then are counting branches, we can easily report far more than 11 every day! And the Darwinists notion of species is so incoherent that we can argue almost one way or the other that then number of species is either increasing or decreasing by huge amounts. Ask a Darwinist how many species are emerging by the process of natural selection each day. They'll say, "don't know." Then ask them, are the numbers of species declining rapidly in the present day, they'll say, "absolutely". So I'll say, then by all counts the number of extinctions is exceeding new speciations, so it would seem that based on our best observation, the real trend in the biosphere, REAL EVOLUITION is decline of complexity not increase of it. Of course, they don't like admitting that either because that would seem to imply the origin of complexity came from another source than the processes we see in real time, just like in Lenski's experiments which don't substantially increase complexity even after 30,000 generations, just more varieties of the same basic form without substantial increase in new function. In the present day, the number of so-called "species" in the Darwinian view is rapidly decreasing. See: The Price of Cherry Picking to see what the data indicate. This is very embarrassing since it would seem to demonstrate Darwinian processes can't make more species faster than nature can kill them off. No surprise to me the theory fails, because Darwin basically says, "you build new things through the process of destruction". Suffice to say then, even in the present, Darwin's universal tree can't even be of much help to describe the patterns of life, because somewhere implicit in that tree is the notion that we should see new complexity, new functionality arising, but instead we see new varieties of functionally defective descendants! In anti-biotic resistance, we just see emergence of new ways bacteria can have dysfunctions that confer antibiotic resistance. The pattern of evolution in the current day follows Behe's rule: ADAPTATION IS MOSTLY VIA LOSS OF FUNCTION NOT GAIN OF FUNCTION. Compare Darwin's abysmally failed model with Blyth's orchard model. Now imagine an orchard of "kinds" the started out from an initial creation event, or from Noah's flood. As the kinds diversify and are fruitful and multiplying, at some point they run out of room and huge numbers of branches start to die off from each Kind. In the case of the present, a dominant Kind are the humans and they are sawing off huge numbers of branches from the trees of other kinds. What we view as rapid extinction of species is actually rapid extinction of branches of other Kinds. Darwinists are eager to say there are lots of new species originating by natural selection all the time, but are unable to actually demonstrate it. See: De-origination. In the case of sexually reproducing creatures, the claim a truly new species has emerged is falsified when we can demonstrate the ability to interbreed them! We sometime call that hybridization, but really it's just normal exchange of genes within the same Kind (Baramin). We often say lions, tigers, leopard, etc. are different species, when in fact because they hybridize, they really aren't a different species. Same with dogs, wolves, hyenas, jackals, coyotes, ...they actually can interbreed (hybridize). So hybridization experiments helps creationists establish Kinds if the Kind reproduces sexually. I've suggested another way to test Kind is through orphan genes, we'll see... But they aren't really new species, like Lenski's experiments, they are just branches of the Kind, and in the case of sexually reproducing kinds the tree analogy fails a bit because you can sort of re-merge branches and form new branches from the merge points. The reasons creationists are deeply interested in hybridization experiments is that we can possibly identify groups of creatures that truly have common ancestors even if they look like new species. They are eager to demonstrate: 1. the number of animal Baramin (Kinds) are actually limited 2. the diversification of a Baramin is extremely rapid, that like Lenski's experiments, and Dog Breeder's work, huge new branches are being generated all the time while at the same time huge numbers of branches are dying off How any animal species are there? Fast Blythian evolution (as demonstrated by hybridization) would argue: 1. patterns of diversity are consistent with the existence a finite number of true kinds, and the number of true kinds cannot increase. This is what we see in fossil record, it looks at best like an orchard, not a single tree. 2. show that what may look like new species are actually just varieties (branches) of the same Baramin (kind). 3. that evolution of new so-called species happens quite quickly free of selection (look at those hybridization experiments, the variation is far greater in 1 generation than Darwin's finches over supposed eons!). Which model accords to explain the patterns of life better? Blyth Orchard, imho. Hybridizaion experiments are also a huge embarrassment to Darwinism. Why? Here is what I said in De-origination of species by means of re-union
The species of tiger (which may be as old as 35 million years) can interbreed with the species of lion (which may be as old as 1 million years) and create a Tigon or Liger. So in approximately the time scale (5 million years) needed to evolve 20 unique animal phyla in the Cambrian explosion, we have something like the Panthera genus (tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars) that diversifies so slightly that the members can still interbreed!
The Kinds, the Baramin seem to display an incredible fixity even over 35 million years despite their branching pattern within the kind. So we have huge variety within the Kind, but it is still the same kind! Yet in the space of maybe 5 million years 20 new phyla just pop into existence in the Cambrian explosion? Ha! On the one hand Darwinists want to show all the new varieties emerging every day, but then they are embarrassed the nature of change isn't as severe as required for macro evolution. It's like a bacteria breeder like Lenski, "see look at all the new variety of bacteria I've introduced into the world, that means a fish can evolve into a bird one day." :roll: Ironically, the YECs actually want to show that evolution within Kinds is lightning fast! They can support the claim through hybridization experiments. Look at what hybridization did in even one generation in the Panthera genus: De-origination of species by means of re-union We got ligers, lepons, tigons, etc. within just one generation! I have to admit, the Tigon looked so different it was creepy! So Blyth's orchard explains the patterns of life today: lots of new branches growing all the time, but at the present a far larger number of old branches are disappearing. In the case of Blyth's orchard, each branch has no fundamentally new complexity than the tree from which it springs. In the case of Darwin's model the new branches have to evolve radical new complexity from the tree it springs from. That's not what we see. Bottom line: Nye was wrong, and actually asked a leading question like "are you still beating your puppy". He assumed that there are fundamentally new species being created from the time of Noah: 1. using Darwin's incoherent notion of species 2. and the presumption of new species actually arise It's like asking, "how many new square circles emerge from you Ham's model each day, it would have to be a rate of 11 a day". Nye's question was just as incoherent, but not obviously so.scordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke:
You guys are acting no better than the bigfoot people
Umm there is more evidence for bigfoot than there is for natural selection being a designer mimic. And Nick, your position can't explain dinosaurs and mammals. Perhaps you should stop making fun of other people and actually try to support evolutionism.Joe
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
I'm quite curious. What did you guys make of Mr. Nye's comment on the rate of discovery for new species?TSErik
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
Sixth book,Yes I know they have "answers" for these, but I think many are simply theory saving just so stories. I think I have seen a rebuttal on Talk origins as well. Maybe it is the same one. There may be some valid points in the article but I don't think that they haven't sufficiently dealt with these many evidences, preferring to simply chalk them up as anomalies that don't effect what they "know" to be true. Thanks for the link.tjguy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
JGuy, First off, YECs have competing theories. 1. At first they didn't accept over thrusts, that the clustering of creatures in strata was illusory. That overthrust were evidence against clustering in the first place! 2. Later on, the weight of the evidence seemed too great to ignore that like animals tended to cluster in the same localities (no surprise) and in the same strata (no surprise either under the eco-zone hypothesis). So then then notion of overthrusts became plausible. The problem for the mainstream is either of the above to scenarios is bad for the claim that the strata represent ages. The mainstream generally accepts overthrust as real, but then this violates non-contradiction because it assumes layers of different ages must be horizontal with each other violating the original assumption they must be vertical with youngest on top! OK back to your question. Yes, the mainstream and the current generation of YEC accept that heart mountain moved about 60 miles an hour for 30 minutes. In fact, I met a physical geologist at from secular school at the Creation Geology Conference 2 years ago by the name of T Cleary. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/South-Fork-Heart-Mountain-Faults.pdf He argued some reports said the mountain could have moved 150km/hr or 93 miles/hr :shock: Too bad we didn't have a video tape! He argues it happened toward the late stage of the flood. The key point is the mountain was still not completely solid (unlithified), it was still kinda like wet concrete. Cleary was able to infer the best answer to the structure was that the mountain had to be sort of still like not-compeletely-hardened, and if so this is evidence of the mountain being the result of events after a great flood. That said, back to your observation, I don't know anything about the heating. Sorry. But man, talk about WOW catastrophes with entire moutains moving 93 miles an hour. So much for uniformitarianism and Darwin's buddy Lyell the supposed father of modern geology and uniformitarianism.scordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
Nick, 'Platypi'? It's not a Latin word so it's plural wouldn't be this awful utterance. Platypodes if you want the Greek, but colloquially it's either platypuses or platypus.AussieID
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
p.s. Just to be more sure on conditions ripe for frictional heat. If the thing being over thrusted wasn't in rock form, it would have curled up.. mixed.. So, if there is no mixing, which is apparently the case, then accompanying the over-thrust explanation, you need to expect heat generation from rock on rock friction. Heat would dissipate extremely slowly in rock..so.. how long ago were these supposed over-thrusts? And is there evidence of a melt? Just asking some relatively obvious questions.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
Imagine the heat generated from a massive over thrust for so many miles. Depending on when it supposedly occurred, would one then expect to find residual heat... if not molten rock at the junction?JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
you will not find strata WITH fossils older fossils directly underneath that region of strata.
That's generally true anyway since as pitman observers:
Fossils do not always line up in layers. Often only one layer of fossils is found at a given site. This is particularly common with vertebrates. Sometimes they are found in multiple layers, but a statistical study of their distribution shows that even index fossils are seldom found layered on top of one another.
And it is really bad that we have entire STRATA in the wrong order. We call such things "overthrusts". But what is required for an overthrust to happen? We need to start out with a "young" layer horizontally beside an "old" layer (which would seem a serious contradiction to the notion of younger on top and older on the bottom) and then the "older" layer gets pushed up on top of the "younger". Think about the difficulty of getting an "older" layer to be horizontal to a "younger" layer in the first place, and then some mechanism pushes the entire "old" layer of the "young" layer. Example cited above :
Franklin Mountains Near El Paso, Texas, at West Crazy Cat Canyon Ordovician over Cretaceous 450 million – 130 million No physical evidence of an overthrust.
Er, Bill Nye, were not talking one fossil, how about a set of mountains of rocks and fossils!
Mythen Peak The Alps Cretaceous over Eocene 200 million – 60 million Older rock allegedly pushed all the way from Africa
:shock:
The Glarus Overthrust Near Schwanden, Switzerland Permian – Jurassic – Eocene supposed to be Eocene – Jurassic – Permian 21 miles long.
Err, Bill Nye not a pre-Cambrian rabbit but 21 miles of fossils in the wrong order!
Matterhorn The Alps Eocene – Triassic – Jurassic – Cretaceous; supposed to be Triassic – Jurassic – Cretaceous – Eocene Alleged to have been thrusted 60 miles
:shock: and now regarding the big daddy, Heart Mountain,
The initial block of carbonate rock covered an area of 425 mi1 (1,100 km1) near the northeast edge of Yellowstone National Park. Although the current fault plane dips gently to the southwest,2 uniformitarian scientists believe the carbonates slid down a slope of less than 2° toward the southeast. The block broke up into at least 50 large fragments and spread over an area greater than 1,360 mi1 (3,500 km1). The carbonates are about 1,650 feet (500 m) thick, but uniformitarian geologists believe the rocks were 1.25 to 2.5 miles (2 to 4 km) thick during the slide and were later eroded.1 Many of the fragments ended up over the valley fill sedimentary rocks of the northwest Bighorn Basin. Heart Mountain (figure 1) is one of those fragments, which slid about 40 mi (60 km), coming to a stop on a gentle incline. The McCulloch Peaks represent the most distant fragments, 55 miles (85 km) from the breakaway point. Based on two recently published papers, researchers favor catastrophic emplacement. The Heart Mountain slide is believed to have taken only 30 minutes! http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/06/21/slide-occur-30-minutes
Must have been a sight to see, an entire mountain moving at about 60 miles an hour! And that is the mainstream account, that is not a YEC account. Michael Oard suggests a YEC alternative to the mainstream account, but both YEC and the mainstream suggest something incredible. But for the sake of this discussion the issue is how could supposedly differently aged layers lie horizontal to each other in the first place. That sort of violates the law of non-contradiction where the Younger layer must sit on top of the older layer! Instead, as Pitman points out:
Heart Mountain Wyoming, USA Paleozoic – Jurassic – Tertiary – Paleozoic supposed to be Tertiary – Jurassic – Paleozoic Fossils in the wrong order “big time”
Uh, you have Paleozoic (which contains the Cambrian) sitting on top of the Jurassic (dinosaurs) sitting on top of the Tertiary (just before mammal) sitting on top of the Palezoic (again!) :shock: :shock: Now let us reconsider that the different strata aren't eras but ecological zones, thus they lie naturally horizontal to each other to begin with! They fossilize perhaps at the same time due to the same catastrophe. Then sometime later such a strata can be overthrusted. In addition to that we have may some modest stratification due to the mechanisms in the video above. We may not know all the details, but it seems we have something workable. I pointed out here: Falsifying Darwinism via Falsifying the Geological Column that the entombment which causes permineralized fossilization cannot happen slowly, it must happen as a matter of principle with water and preferably in a matter of hours. Say we have a geological layer that is 100 meters high that took 2.17 million years to form by slow accumulation of sediments:
that yields a deposition rate of .046 millimeters a year,” which is about half the thickness of a sheet of paper. That would mean a dinosaur that is lying 5 meters high will take about 100,000 years to bury, and thus it becomes very doubtful that it will fossilize because it is exposed to scavengers and decomposition and other environmental effects. From Darwin-loving pages of Wiki we read:
Fossilization processes proceed differently according to tissue type and external conditions. Permineralization is a process of fossilization that occurs when an organism is buried. The empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater. Minerals precipitate from the groundwater, occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decay process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
What? The organism needs to buried with sediments and water quickly.
Indeed, as matter of principle, the fossils must have become buried with water quickly! What happens is we have several ecological zones perhaps lying horizontal to each other much like the present day, and they get overwhelmed with water and buried rapidly. Then sometime later, after they fossilized, then stuff like Heart mountain overthrust can happen. It's more sensible as a matter of principle for the reasons stated. Given the "strata" (a misnomer) are laid out mostly horizontal anyway, it seems to accord with ecological zone, not eras.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
p.s. One must ask. If the record is collected to that high a degree of resolution (completeness) of past life. Then why is it that it looks so much like life we see walking around today? You'd expect that anytime a new fossil is found, with the numerous intermediates that evolution would require, that you'd find a new species at every fossil dig site... but... things sure look stasiseee (deliberate mispelling).JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
From Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis": Number of living families of terrestrial vertebrates, excluding birds 178 Number of living families of terrestrial vertebrates found as fossils, excluding birds. 156 Percentage of terrestrial vertebrate families fossilized: 87.8% Only Genus and Species remain in the resolution of animal classification.... Assuming all things are equal. We can with simple math extrapolate this level of preservation to what is the current resolution of species collected: (87.8% of families) * (87.8% of genus) * (87.8% of species) = 67.7% of all past species are represented by collected fossils. Given that high degree of preservation from collected specimens, there should be no apparent gaps in the collected fossil record. But...there exist gaps.... major gaps. What more needs to be said?JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
This is an excellent article by Dr. Sean Pittman: http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column
The geological column is a classification system based on the fossil that are found in layer of rocks. It is assumed that certain fossils are only found in layers that are associated with a particular period of time. These fossils which are used to identify particular periods of the geological column are known as index fossils.[4]
So fossils are used to date layers, but how do we date the fossils? By the layers. Circular reasoning
This gives the appearance of proof, but actually amounts to circular reasoning.
The circular reasoning is demolished by radiometric C14 dating and other dating methods. So how do we explain the apparent succession from Cambrian to the present? It's because likely the only place all the younger layers are on top of the older layers is in the imaginations of geologists, not in physical locations.
Fossils do not always line up in layers. Often only one layer of fossils is found at a given site. This is particularly common with vertebrates. Sometimes they are found in multiple layers, but a statistical study of their distribution shows that even index fossils are seldom found layered on top of one another.
If this is so, this is really bad! This suggest the possibility that as I suggested above, the eras really represent eco-system locations. The Cambrian represents eco systems in the water that were recent, not some layer that got buried 500,000,000 years ago. This is shown to be the case because of C14 in the fossils of the Cambrian. What did I say, if paleontology lives by radiometric dating, it dies by it too! If the Cambrian represents sea eco systems, there is no surprise there are no rabbits there! Curiously, if the many of the latter "eras" are not really eras at all but represent land eco-systems, we should see a scarcity of certain sea creatures in those eras, and in fact as I showed in the comments above, this is the case! Hasn't anybody bothered to look whether there could be an extreme lack of fully body fossils of sea creatures fossils in the Cenezoic, and an over representation of land creatures? What do I mean, count the number of fish in the sea and then animals on land right now. Make an estimate. Is that the ratio you find in the Cenezoic? What, no one has done this work. For shame! As JGUY pointed out there is something ideological and not quite disingenuous:
Different names are given to similar fossils in different strata.
and
It is known that the layers of the geologic column are sometimes found out of place, that is older layers on top of younger ones. They are referred to as overthrusts. An overthrust would be one layer of rock being pushed over another.
Get a load of this:
Qilian Shan North / West China Ordovician over Pliocene 505 million - 5.1 million Ordovician strata is over Pliocene gravel with a valley filled with Pleistocene gravel Lewis Overthrust Montana, USA Precambrian over Cretaceous 644 million - 144 million 350 miles and 15-30 miles wide and goes from Glacier National Park to Alberta, Canada. Franklin Mountains Near El Paso, Texas, at West Crazy Cat Canyon Ordovician over Cretaceous 450 million - 130 million No physical evidence of an overthrust. The Glarus Overthrust Near Schwanden, Switzerland Permian - Jurassic - Eocene supposed to be Eocene - Jurassic - Permian 21 miles long. Empire Mountains Southern Arizona, USA Permian over Cretaceous 286 million - 144 million Mythen Peak The Alps Cretaceous over Eocene 200 million - 60 million Older rock allegedly pushed all the way from Africa Heart Mountain Wyoming, USA Paleozoic - Jurassic - Tertiary - Paleozoic supposed to be Tertiary - Jurassic - Paleozoic Fossils in the wrong order "big time" Matterhorn The Alps Eocene - Triassic - Jurassic - Cretaceous; supposed to be Triassic - Jurassic - Cretaceous - Eocene Alleged to have been thrusted 60 miles
So what was that Bill Nye was saying about out of place fossils. TONS of them! The problem is if there is all this sort of scrambling going on, why are the layers like the Cambrian (500 million years ago) still intact and recognizable! Doesn't make sense.
Fossils are often found out of place according to the geologic column; many of them relate to humans.[6] A list of over 200 anomalously occurring fossils has been compiled by John Woodmorappe.[7] Out-of-place fossils are either ignored as anecdotal if not published by a "proper" (evolutionist) scientific journal, or explained away by one of two methods if they are so published: Reworking Fossil eroded from older rock Down washing Fossil is washed down into older strata
Well, no wonder there are not official out of place fossils. The official record is sanitized. The embarrassments are erased.
Organisms such as the Coelacanth and Nautilus are called living fossils because they remain essentially unchanged from their ancestors in the fossil record. Many were thought to be extinct based on absence of fossils in upper layers of strata, but then later discovered alive and well in remote regions.
WHOA! Sal's hypothesis confirmed by independent observation.
Fossils do not always line up in layers; in fact in many cases only one layer of fossils is found at a given site, and this is most common with vertebrates.
Perhaps this is because fossils group in terms of eco systems, not long ages of layers depositing on top of each other? 99% of the Earth does have the entire fossil record represented. Some have suggested 1% of the Earth may have all the fossils represented but this is dubious so it could be that 100% of the Earth has NO place the entire fossil record is represented, and so this casts doubt that the geological ages for the time life was on Earth is even valid to begin with! Pitmann goes into great detail to refute the remaining 1% of regions where it is claimed young fossils are on top of old fossils all sorted correctly in one column in one place like the diagram above. I simply direct the reader to the link for that. http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column If Pitman is correct, then all the layers can be said to generally represent eco system locations, not actual eras. This is reinforced by the fact C14 dates all the "eras" to be the same age. And another testable prediction, if we find DNA and proteins we can test in the lab from the Cambrian, then these will date the Cambrian era to a nearby time. Recall, I provided a link in the OP to the fact DNA has a half-life of 521 years. No one has tried to look for DNA in these fossils because Darwinism has poisoned science in the lab, field, and theory. But if we find DNA in these creatures that should be the creatures DNA and not some contaminant, then the fossils are young.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Nick @ 25
Young-earth creationism, as insane as ever. Get a grip! Do you guys EVER google anything to find out if there might be some prosaic answer short of SCIENTISTS IZ STOOPID WE KNOW BETER?
Hint #1: “living fossils” are rarely, if ever, identical to their fossil counterparts. Usually all that’s meant is the living group has only a few living species, and no other close living relatives, such that the closest known relatives to the living group are ancient fossils. Look at fossil coelocanths, platypi, ginkgos, etc. Are the fossils identical to the living ones? No!
Misrepresentation as Sal pointed out.
Hint #2: Mammals with dinosaurs: we’ve known that mammals were a group with deep roots for probably a hundred years or more! Mammal-like reptiles from the Paleozoic were being described back in the 1930s, for goodness sake! The mammals in the Mesozoic are small and primitive. Just because you read on the back of a cereal box when you were six years old about how the “Age of Mammals” came after the “Age of Dinosaurs” doesn’t mean that excited, naive and lazy yapping about mammal fossils mixed with dinosaurs in Mesozoic means anything at all. You’re just parading your ignorance before us!
I was aware of this. If you look up the sources above, it's not just about mammals in the sources, it's about both the common perception and the kinds of mammals found. Example: Many still think that mammals and dinosaurs, for example, never coexisted, or if they did it was only for a short period when only small shrew-like mammals were present. However, the facts show otherwise. Gradually, more and more evidence is being discovered that is consistent with what we know from the Bible, namely that dinosaurs and other creatures all lived and died at the same time. To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3 beaver-like4 and badger-like5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!
You guys are acting no better than the bigfoot people or the Moon-Hoax people. No wonder even many of the ID people try to sweep their young-earth creationist supporters under the rug.
I would have guessed bigfoot people were evolutionists. Afterall, what would a bigfoot be if a bigfoot existed? ;)
Also, try spellcheck.
I'm pretty sure you meant spell-check.... but whose counting. :PJGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Sal
I provided more details giving evidence that creationists did not argue for the “immutability” of species except that certain characters must be retained.
Jonathan Safati laid out the history and a clear refutation of that misrepresentation in his book "The Greatest Hoax On Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution". Safarti describes that this starts with the Latin Vulgate translation of the Hebrew word min (English kind) into the Latin species and genere. Linnaeus used the Latin terms in his classification. Over time, equivocation occurred and the biblical fixity of kinds, was confused with Linnaeus species... and this became a type of strawman as the equivocating misrepresented the fixed bible kinds with fixity of [modern] species. An easy target for Darwin's work as Safarti explained.JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
sixthbook
If anything it shows how much substance they have to back up their claims. Zero that is. A completely idiotic refutation IMO.
Indeed. And from the start with item #1... Young Earth claim: [DNA in "ancient" fossilsimg. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.] RationalWiki "Refutation" in toto: [We can do 18,000 to 30,000 years reliably,[3][4] and up to a million at a stretch.[5] Notice that this is the very first point, and he's already saying stuff that's arguments against his 6,000-year timeframe.] "Wow"... compelling comprehensive refutation. :PJGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Tjguy @6: In interest of fairness, here's an evolutionist "refutation" of the article you linked: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe If anything it shows how much substance they have to back up their claims. Zero that is. A completely idiotic refutation IMO.sixthbook
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
"it leads also to testable hypotheses about the sedimentary particles in terms of mass and size, etc. relative to the layers." That video doesn't look very recent. Wonder why no YEC has done the analysis and written it up.REC
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Hint #1: “living fossils” are rarely, if ever, identical to their fossil counterparts. Usually all that’s meant is the living group has only a few living species, and no other close living relatives, such that the closest known relatives to the living group are ancient fossils. Look at fossil coelocanths, platypi, ginkgos, etc. Are the fossils identical to the living ones? No!
I never said they were identical Nick, that is your straw man representation of an argument I never made. The same sort of straw man argument where Darwin accused creationists of saying species are unchangeable when he full well knew (because he plagiarized Blyth) that they didn't claim it. Some have found it hard to explain Darwin would do this because it would imply he was lying, and he couldn't be doing that could he? :wink: I provided more details giving evidence that creationists did not argue for the "immutability" of species except that certain characters must be retained. Darwin tried to prove his case by the variability of finches, but that was nothing new! It was evidence to knockdown arguments creationists didn't make. see: De-origination of species by means of reunion PS
Lies-and the thrills derived from lies-were for him indistinguishable from the delights of natural history or the joy of finding a long-sought specimen. Sir Gavin de Beer describing Darwin
and
[Darwin] was able to put across his ideas not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue. CD Darlington describing Darwin
scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Well, well, look who showed up. Rather than try to refute the obvious physics in particle segregation, Nick makes circular appeals to the very thesis his is trying to prove.
Are the fossils identical to the living ones? No!
No because they evolve according to the creationist Orchard model as Blyth predicted -- a prediction that Darwin plagiarized and distorted from an orchard model to a single tree and miserably failed in scientific terms but succeeded in captivating minds willing to be blind to obvious difficulties. Creationists are especially interested in rapid evolution within individual trees in the orchard. I provided one powerful example where "species" today were mated with creatures they supposedly diverged from millions of years ago, which means they are of the same kind! See: De-origination of species by means of reunion. It illustrates incredibly fast evolutionary change that has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution! It shows that Darwinism fails to be the mechanism of such rapid evolutionary change within a kind. It is very embarrassing that, we have "living fossil" that change by similar degrees but not demonstrably to other kinds. As you yourself said:
phylogenetic methods as they exist now can only rigorously detect sister-group relationships, not direct ancestry,
True. But you'll never admit the real reason why. The real reason is Darwin's tree of life is an illusion, whereas the Orchard model of Blyth is the reality! Creationist blyth was also the pioneer of the idea of Natural Selection and Adpative Radiation, not Darwin. Was Blyth the True Scientist and Darwin Merely a Plagiarist? So there you have it Nick, creationists have better models of real evolution than Darwinists. Blyth wins Darwin loses. And the evolutionary change creationist predict is actually faster than what Darwinism predicts. Creationists need rapid evolution to make Noah's ark account work from a small number of kinds to the diversity we have today. Strange that evolutionist are incredibly disinterested in hybridization experiments (which show rapid evolution within kinds), but creationists are. Why is that Nick? They don't like looking at how evolution really works: rapid evolution within kinds vs. slow geological evolution across kinds.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
scordova @26, Well, show me a dolphin or a penguin or a manatee in the Cambrian, then.
You are invited to open your eyes to true rebel science as I’ve laid out here.
Dude, this is not rebel science. Young earth creationism is the work of the devil, pure and simple. It's a mountain of bovine excrement designed to make Christians look stupid. To tell you the truth, as a Christian, it pisses me off.Mapou
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
If all animal types were created in six 24-hour days, 6000 years ago, how come there are no elephants in the Cambrian layers?
The geological time scales may be an illusion as confirmed by alternate radiometric (C14) and helium diffusion dating. It is becoming apparent the "strata" are tied to their ecosystem with water vs. land being the most severe divergence. That's why you won't find elephants in the Cambrian, but then you find aquatic "living fossils" 300 million years ago, and then the "living fossils" are strangely absent from about 65 million years ago to now in the fossil record even though they are alive today. The Cambrian represents sea creatures that lived recently! How do we infer this? C-14 in the Cambrian! No, we're not joking. Did you even bother to watch the video provided. There was almost nothing about theology, just hard nosed operational science and physics. The simple equation provided explains the fast stratification! My analysis bears this out. That's exactly why paleontologists thought the coelacanth was extinct because it was absent from the recent fossil record, existing in the old fossil record, but alive today. There is a huge gap of non-existence unless one wants to argue the coelacanth magically evolved twice from scratch. :wink: Similar considerations apply to the other "living fossils" I listed. They are strangely absent from the Cenezoic, because the Cenezoic doesn't actually represent an era, it represents an eco system! Finally, there really isn't a column. They de-emphasize that word because you don't just dig in an area and find them following the order of the diagram above. That diagram doesn't exist physically (an interesting controversy about that) it only exists in textbooks. We don't dig into the ground and see these layers in exact succession, maybe only a few fragments here and there and sometimes they are side by side or inverted. And 99% of the fossil record will not have the entire column intact, which would mean the whole concept of succession due to age is fallacious. Further, the video using that simple physics equation demonstrates a far more believable mechanism, and it leads also to testable hypotheses about the sedimentary particles in terms of mass and size, etc. relative to the layers. Finally, I described here why the fossil record has to form quickly and can't form slowly even in principle: https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/cocktail-falsifying-darwinism-via-falsifying-the-geological-column/ You are invited to open your eyes to true rebel science as I've laid out here.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Young-earth creationism, as insane as ever. Get a grip! Do you guys EVER google anything to find out if there might be some prosaic answer short of SCIENTISTS IZ STOOPID WE KNOW BETER? Hint #1: "living fossils" are rarely, if ever, identical to their fossil counterparts. Usually all that's meant is the living group has only a few living species, and no other close living relatives, such that the closest known relatives to the living group are ancient fossils. Look at fossil coelocanths, platypi, ginkgos, etc. Are the fossils identical to the living ones? No! Hint #2: Mammals with dinosaurs: we've known that mammals were a group with deep roots for probably a hundred years or more! Mammal-like reptiles from the Paleozoic were being described back in the 1930s, for goodness sake! The mammals in the Mesozoic are small and primitive. Just because you read on the back of a cereal box when you were six years old about how the "Age of Mammals" came after the "Age of Dinosaurs" doesn't mean that excited, naive and lazy yapping about mammal fossils mixed with dinosaurs in Mesozoic means anything at all. You're just parading your ignorance before us! You guys are acting no better than the bigfoot people or the Moon-Hoax people. No wonder even many of the ID people try to sweep their young-earth creationist supporters under the rug. Also, try spellcheck.NickMatzke_UD
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
If all animal types were created in six 24-hour days, 6000 years ago, how come there are no elephants in the Cambrian layers? You guys are joking, right?Mapou
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
And now the aquatic "living fossil" Nautilus. :-) This report http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-90-481-3299-7_5#page-2 says they are missing from : Miocene, Pliocenene, and Pleistocene which is, TADA -- the later part of the Cenezoic! Now the Nautilus appears as far back as the Cambrian (500 million years ago), and then we see fossils all the way up to the early part of the Cenezoic (40 million years ago), and then they VANISH from the fossil record only to appear alive today, just like the Coelacanth. So, I'm 7/7 add the Coelacanth, I'm 8/8! In fact, the estimate that they are traced to the middle of the cenezoic might not even involve fossils but (puke) phylogenetic methods and molecular clocks.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
This image looks interesting in light of a flood: http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/images/features/earth/geologictime/geologictime1.jpg haha.. nothing in paleontology makes sense except in the light of a flood. It's a hostile take-over of the evolutionary quote repertoire!JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
So, a challenge for Dawkins et.al. Akin to looking for a rabbit in the cambrian (the ocean). Find a hagfish with a chimp or dog in the middle or later part of the cenozoic... and you will possibly refute the ecological flood model. I suppose, the only problem with that is if hagfish live in shallow waters. Then you might find them with primates that got flooded out...maybe.JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
I'd like to have a reliable comprehensive overview of the continental surface as divided by strata. My guess will be that where the "youngest" strata are on the surface - i.e. strata with primates - you will not find strata WITH fossils older fossils directly underneath that region of strata. This isn't a guarantee, but my guess is that would be the rule. Especially, where the surface is far from any surface border with "old" exposed strata - i.e. strata with only marine fossils - is at/near the surface. ..that's just a bit more unrefined mulling.JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
"living fossil" hagfish:
The only fossil hagfishes known to date are Late Carboniferous in age (about 330 million years). They are represented by Myxinikela, from the Pennsylvanian of Illinois, which shares with extant hagfishes the tentacles and long nasopharyngeal duct, but differs from them by its stout body shape and larger caudal fin. Another fossil, Gilpichthys, from the same locality and age, displays nearly the same morphology, except for the tentacles, and is questionably referred to hagfishes. http://tolweb.org/Hyperotreti
So let's get this straight. Hagfishes are alive today, they appear only in the fossil record in the Carboniferous era (360 to 298 million years ago), and then are absent there after (including the Cenezoic). Oh my, I'm 5 for 5 in my theory! Better than Darwin's predictions of the fossil record!scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply