If there were a large flood, one would absolutely expect to see statistically significant trends in the data.Ã‚Â That is, one might expect that mammals, with high intelligence, were better at getting away than, say reptiles, which were better at getting away than, say bottom feeders...perhaps you'd think flying animals of all types, birds, bats, insects, etc. would get away the best, as they don't need contact with the rapidly shrinking ground to escape.Ã‚Â So, problem #1:Ã‚Â flying animals did not differentiate themselves in any way from their land-borne counterparts, flying reptiles are found with other reptiles, and flying mammals are found with other mammals.Ã‚Â Problem #2:Ã‚Â you mean to tell me that not one single mammal was killed in the initial stages of the flood?Ã‚Â Sure, one could believe that mammals would be statistically better at getting away than reptiles or bottom-feeders...but that every single mammal escaped, presumably, for several days without a single one dying, even of natural causes?Ã‚Â That's simply ludicrous.
I think you need to look at the fossil bearing sections themselves. You'll find out that most fossils are marine anyway. Are we told that there are reptiles in sedimentary sites with marine animals? Mammals also. It's not seen as anything strange, because so called first and last appearance ranges intersect. If a mammal is found with an invertebrate that is found also in an earlier epoch--the mammal will move the invertebrate's range to a later time.
If you look up laggerstatten, and check out the list of what is found, you'll find mostly marine animals with a few non marine. That seems to be the real stats.http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lagerstättehttp://en.wikipedia....of_fossil_sites