Jump to content


Photo

Chalk


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#21 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 April 2015 - 04:39 PM

I am certainly open to my making a mistake here, but acc. to Roth, there are 60 x 10-12 grams per coccolith.  So if you had 13 billion of them per liter, all of them would weigh .78 grams.  The rest would be water.  So (by weight) the proportion is 999.22 to .78 or 1281 parts water to 1 part transparent calcium carbonate.  Or if you want to say there were 13 billion cells and each had 10 liths, then fine...you can say the ratio is 992 to 7.8 or whatever.  It is still way more water than liths.  I can't see why there is that much of a light problem...even if there ARE 13 billion cells or 130 billion liths per liter.  I would think they could thrive in that dense of a population without much problem even TODAY...and in a Flood scenario thrive even BETTER due to warmer temps and more nutrients.


Using the value for the average weight of a Emiliana huxleyi coccolith given here which is considerably less than the Roth figure, I get a total weight for 10 billion cells (each with 10 liths) of 0.234 g per litre, but whichever figure you use it is indeed a small proportion within a unit volume of water (slightly more by volume as the liths are denser than water). In a white water bloom situation however you get an even larger number of suspended detached coccoliths in addition to the attached ones as they are continually shed and regrown. The result of all these liths floating about is that light is actually intensified at the very top of the water column but at the cost of reduced light further down (you have to remember also that each cell has a chloroplast which is there to absorb photons)

 

From this source:

 

" Firstly, the increased scattering causes the ocean to become more reflective, i.e. the ocean's albedo increases. A greater proportion of the photons which pass through the water-surface from air to water subsequently leave again, from water to air, after having been scattered by coccolith particles in the water. For a typical ocean, the proportion of photons re-emitted by the water increases from 1% when there are no coccoliths in the water, to 3% with 100 mg CaCO3-C m-3 of coccoliths in the water, to 7% with 300 mg CaCO3-C m-3 of coccoliths.

Secondly, the addition of coccoliths to the water makes that water brighter near to the surface and darker deeper down. .……… The coccoliths shade the deeper water, reducing the amount of light available there. This reduces the depth of water which is habitable for the phytoplankton, because they require a minimum light intensity to survive. "

 

 The accompanying graph shows that at 300 mg CaCO3-C per m3 (this refers to weight by Carbon atom I think) light intensity drops by 50 % at about 3 metres depth and 90% at 10m depth. The same article describes a concentration of  100 mg CaCO3-C per m3 to be an "intense bloom". The website elsewhere states anything over 1000 cells/ml constitutes a bloom. You are suggesting that 10 billion cells per litre would "thrive....without much problem". And Snelling wants this in the top 500m of the water column.

 

I will point out that the website I referenced above cites an observation of the most intense bloom ever measured. This was 115 million cells per litre off Norway in 1955 which is about 10x higher than the previous highest I could find.



#22 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 April 2015 - 04:52 PM

So Wibble...do you ever make direct replies to my attacking comments?  Why not?  It sure SEEMS like pot-shotting, and I don't stay in discussions for long if my arguments are just ignored.  What is your explanation for the rapid burial of whales in chalk?  I think this is a very good example to test if the YE idea is valid.  What AE explanation for that do you have?


Your own source says that the whales were fossilised in diatomaceous rock, not chalk. Of course diatom sediment also accumulates slowly so its still an interesting find. Without researching this right now, how about if an underwater avalanche had quickly buried the remains of dead whales ?

How about an answer from you regarding the observed gradual evolution of the sea urchin Micraster and bivalve Inoceramus that is seen as you move up through chalk rock. How is this explained in a rapid burial scenario ?



#23 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 April 2015 - 08:15 PM

>>I will point out that the website I referenced above cites an observation of the most intense bloom ever measured. This was 115 million cells per litre off Norway in 1955 which is about 10x higher than the previous highest I could find.>>

I appreciate your offering that new fact.  One would THINK that warmer water is better...since they (many of them) like it nearer the top.  But I guess some species do like it in colder waters.  But for many species, if the Flood made the water warmer and more alkaline...do you agree that could drastically affect populations?
  OR if there was a great influx of calcium ions...which they use to make the shells?

 

Also, I showed (from wiki) that many species like it in the LOWER photic zone.  AND that they only GENERALLY like the light.  And that some think the liths allow them to SINK LOWER to more nutrient rich layers.  So there are benefits to being deeper. 
 

>>The result of all these liths floating about is that light is actually intensified at the very top of the water column but at the cost of reduced light further down (you have to remember also that each cell has a chloroplast which is there to absorb photons)>>

Maybe just in the upper levels there's sort of a biofeedback thing because of the INTENSIFIED light from the bloom.

 

>>You are suggesting that 10 billion cells per litre would "thrive....without much problem". And Snelling wants this in the top 500m of the water column. >>

AS said that if it WAS down to 500m then the mass of 500m of rock could be produced in JUST 2 or 3 BLOOMS.  They reproduce about 2x per day.  And he admits there could be a problem of not enough light BUT he claims they can feed on bacteria...which means they may not need light.  But using Roth's 10 MILLION rate, and ONE HUNDRED meters of water...he got an accumulation of 100m of sediment in 200 years...500m in 1000 years.  This was without any changes in alkalinity or amount of calcium ions...or temp.  So if that is ramped up to 10 BILLION and 200m of water (wiki says the euphotic zone goes down to 200m...where photosynthesis happens), then this means you would get 500m of sediment in 180 days.  If the reproduction rate increased too...or perhaps they died quicker in such blooms, the rate would be higher, and time needed would be reduced. 

 

I believe the key is the calcium ions...which could affect rates dramatically and without any correlation to bloom rates seen today.  Maybe it makes the creature make 5x the liths...or 5x the thickness per lith.  Who knows?

 

 



#24 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 April 2015 - 08:33 PM

>>Your own source says that the whales were fossilised in diatomaceous rock, not chalk. Of course diatom sediment also accumulates slowly so its still an interesting find. Without researching this right now, how about if an underwater avalanche had quickly buried the remains of dead whales ?>>

 

They said there were 100 of them in a 1.4 x 1.4km area.  I cannot imagine a cliff of pure chalk (diatomite) that could collapse so fast as to bury 100 whales.

>>How about an answer from you regarding the observed gradual evolution of the sea urchin Micraster and bivalve Inoceramus that is seen as you move up through chalk rock. How is this explained in a rapid burial scenario ?>>

 

Without researching this now, I would question the actual gradual-ness of the fossils in chalk.  If there were to be found some "out of place" fossil, I would expect it would be dismissed by one of several common methods ev's use.  Do you want to point me to the evidence of this so I can put some thought toward it?

 

BTW, are you a gradualist?  Most ev's have abandoned that idea since the phenotypes appear complete and suddenly.  One would THINK there would be some sort of gradual change that would be quite easily seen.  That's what Darwin certainly expected, right?
 



#25 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 17 April 2015 - 10:39 PM

Pitman twice referred to the whales being in chalk.  Maybe the term can apply to other types of rock besides coccolith-filled rock.  Or he may have made a mistake to call it chalk.  As you indicated, the same argument about rapid growth and rapid deposition can be made about diatoms as about coccoliths. 



#26 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 April 2015 - 03:26 AM

But for many species, if the Flood made the water warmer and more alkaline...do you agree that could drastically affect populations?[/font][/size]  OR if there was a great influx of calcium ions...which they use to make the shells?

Not sure about drastically but it might do. However, a flood on this scale would also introduce vast amounts of light obscuring sediment, and powerful water currents which would stop blooms forming (they need calm conditions)
 

Also, I showed (from wiki) that many species like it in the LOWER photic zone.  AND that they only GENERALLY like the light.  And that some think the liths allow them to SINK LOWER to more nutrient rich layers.  So there are benefits to being deeper. 


I already addressed this in post#13. Blooms only occur in the Upper photic zone and don't produce coccoliths where its dark.
 

>>You are suggesting that 10 billion cells per litre would "thrive....without much problem". And Snelling wants this in the top 500m of the water column. >>

AS said that if it WAS down to 500m then the mass of 500m of rock could be produced in JUST 2 or 3 BLOOMS.  They reproduce about 2x per day.  And he admits there could be a problem of not enough light BUT he claims they can feed on bacteria...which means they may not need light.


I've already given you a source that says that only a few, weakly calcified species are capable of heterotrophy

 

But using Roth's 10 MILLION rate, and ONE HUNDRED meters of water...he got an accumulation of 100m of sediment in 200 years...500m in 1000 years.  This was without any changes in alkalinity or amount of calcium ions...or temp.  So if that is ramped up to 10 BILLION and 200m of water (wiki says the euphotic zone goes down to 200m...where photosynthesis happens), then this means you would get 500m of sediment in 180 days.  If the reproduction rate increased too...or perhaps they died quicker in such blooms, the rate would be higher, and time needed would be reduced. 


I've shown you that 90% of light is extinguished at 10m depth in intense blooms today. There is clearly problem then with an unprecedented 10 billion per litre over a whole 200m depth. (eutrophic zone to 200m is in clear waters)
 

I believe the key is the calcium ions...which could affect rates dramatically and without any correlation to bloom rates seen today.  Maybe it makes the creature make 5x the liths...or 5x the thickness per lith.  Who knows?


Irrelevant if you have no light in addition to massive sediment load and surging currents. The chalk layers are being laid down towards the end of the year or so of Flood according to your model remember, when the waters are draining off the land.

 

Will address your other post later.



#27 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 18 April 2015 - 11:45 AM

>>Using the value for the average weight of a Emiliana huxleyi coccolith given here which is considerably less than the Roth figure, I get a total weight for 10 billion cells (each with 10 liths) of 0.234 g per litre, but whichever figure you use it is indeed a small proportion within a unit volume of water (slightly more by volume as the liths are denser than water).>>

YOUR numbers are BETTER than mine...taking up LESS space in a liter than mine.  Ok, can we assume then that you do not have a problem with the 10 billion cells number...at least as far as how much mass is within each liter of water?  The light question is still unresolved.  Do you agree that the 3x number for chalk rock is probably just a typo or error by Woodmorappe (not Snelling)?

 

>>The accompanying graph shows that at 300 mg CaCO3-C per m3 (this refers to weight by Carbon atom I think) light intensity drops by 50 % at about 3 metres depth and 90% at 10m depth. >>

 

The way I read the chart, it seems that is also true (close to it...80% or so) of water with NO calcite in it...the blue line below.  ALSO, the MORE the calcite (red) the MORE the brightness in the 0 to 5m depths, where most of the growth happens. 

 

 

scalar.gif

 

If brightness is really so important (not sure it is...compared to other factors), then the bloom conditions could INCREASE growth.  Is it your view that a bloom ends because of loss of light?  Or does it usually end when the nutrients (including Ca ions) have been depleted?

 

From your site:  Although each coccolith is invisibly small, when they are present in enormous numbers in the water they cause large changes in the way that light is transmitted or reflected by the water. Figures 1 and 2 below show the affect that different components in the water have on the inherent optical properties of the water, i.e. on the probabilities of absorption (termination) and of scattering (reflection) of photons. It can be seen that an intense bloom of Ehux (100 mg CaCO3-C m-3) causes a large increase in the scattering at all wavelengths of light (400-700nm) relevant to phytoplankton, but no change to the absorption [Balch et al, 1991;>>

 

This seems to say that even with an enormous bloom, the light is SCATTERED but it is not blocked (terminated) AT ALL.  So the phytoplankton absorb just as much light.

 

>>Firstly, the increased scattering causes the ocean to become more reflective, i.e. the ocean's albedo increases. A greater proportion of the photons which pass through the water-surface from air to water subsequently leave again, from water to air, after having been scattered by coccolith particles in the water. For a typical ocean, the proportion of photons re-emitted by the water increases from 1% when there are no coccoliths in the water, to 3% with 100 mg CaCO3-C m-3 of coccoliths in the water, to 7% with 300 mg CaCO3-C m-3 of coccoliths.>>

All this says is that because the water appears white from space, the reflection of solar energy goes from a very very low albedo (1%, meaning 99% is absorbed) to a still very low 7% (93% is absorbed).  It is doubtful that this would be so much reflection that it hurts the coccolith production.  Indeed it could increase it, in the 10m top layers.  Maybe lower too.

 

Also, the liths themselves absorb NONE of the light...but just change its direction, resulting in a whiter optical condition in the water, but not affecting absorption.  However, it is true that your article does make the claim that

 

"The coccoliths shade the deeper water, reducing the amount of light available there. This reduces the depth of water which is habitable for the phytoplankton, because they require a minimum light intensity to survive."

 

Let me ask this, Wibble, if these creatures THRIVE and grow lots more liths due to the brightness in the upper layers...but then get heavy and fall to the lower levels and die there...but the bloom itself is not affected because it keeps on growing while the light and nutrients (and Ca ions) are present...couldn't that still mean massive deposition of liths?  It appears they (some varieties, anyway) usually grow down to 200m, and the light that far down is VERY low (i.e. 1%) anyway.  So if the top layer has a 1000x increase, but that means they only grow down to 100m (where perhaps the 1% level now is)...then it could still be a massive increase over normal conditions.  Especially if they die off more rapidly or shed more liths...but the growth of the bloom still continues. 

 

>>I will point out that the website I referenced above cites an observation of the most intense bloom ever measured. This was 115 million cells per litre off Norway in 1955 which is about 10x higher than the previous highest I could find.>>

I appreciate your pointing that out.  Another 10x gets us to the 10 billion number. 
The Flood would greatly affect many growth factors, I believe.

 

>>a flood on this scale would also introduce vast amounts of light obscuring sediment, and powerful water currents which would stop blooms forming (they need calm conditions)>>

Could be.  All YECs I know of would put these blooms near the end of the Flood.  Some put them AFTER the Flood year.  I am not sure when the "calm" might happen in the deeper parts of the ocean.  I thought you said the produce chalk sediments far from land...and our oceans TODAY (at the surface) can be far from "calm" out there.  If there were months when the turmoil was gone, maybe the Flood waters would be that calm by near the end of the flood.  Upwelling water from below (after the rain all stopped in 40 days) for 110 days...then 250 days of no more upwelling...might get the conditions close to what would allow blooms. 

 

>>I already addressed this in post#13. Blooms only occur in the Upper photic zone and don't produce coccoliths where its dark.>>

Some species thrive in the "lower photic"...which goes down to 200m...where it is PRETTY DARK. 

 

>>I've already given you a source that says that only a few, weakly calcified species are capable of heterotrophy>>

I did a very brief search and found a book which suggests the opposite. 

Morphometric Variability in the Extant Coccolithophores: Implications for the Fossil Record   By Alicia Catherine Muzika Kahn

 

 

The most prolific (42% at 120m depth...for one sample) species (Florisphaera profunda) in "deep photic zone" (DPZ) does produce much calcite in the form of polygoliths (a different shape of coccolith, layered like petals of a flower...in fact sometimes the liths are referred to as coccoliths) and the expert who wrote the book indicated they are possibly heterotrophic.  They live at a depth where the light is 1% of that in the upper photic zone AND there are more nutrients.  And if they are NOT heterotrophic, then so what?  The Flood would provide them more nutrients, in the form of non-biotic minerals, such as Ca ions.  That could massively increase their growth anyway. 

 

>>I've shown you that 90% of light is extinguished at 10m depth in intense blooms today. There is clearly problem then with an unprecedented 10 billion per litre over a whole 200m depth. (eutrophic zone to 200m is in clear waters)>>

I don't think light would be the limiting factor.  With ZERO coccoliths, the light is 80% at 10m anyway.  Plus the DPZ (down to 200m), where abundant species live, only has 1% light. 

 

>>Irrelevant if you have no light in addition to massive sediment load and surging currents. The chalk layers are being laid down towards the end of the year or so of Flood according to your model remember, when the waters are draining off the land.>>

I'd say the blooms occur well before draining off the land.  Besides, if these blooms are in the middle of the ocean, it would not matter that much that land surfaces are rising.  AND it is NOT "no light".  The sediments got laid down in the early-mid Flood year, so the upper ocean (top 200m?) would be clear or clearing. 



#28 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 April 2015 - 06:17 PM

>>Using the value for the average weight of a Emiliana huxleyi coccolith given here which is considerably less than the Roth figure, I get a total weight for 10 billion cells (each with 10 liths) of 0.234 g per litre, but whichever figure you use it is indeed a small proportion within a unit volume of water (slightly more by volume as the liths are denser than water).>>

YOUR numbers are BETTER than mine...taking up LESS space in a liter than mine.  Ok, can we assume then that you do not have a problem with the 10 billion cells number...at least as far as how much mass is within each liter of water?  The light question is still unresolved.  Do you agree that the 3x number for chalk rock is probably just a typo or error by Woodmorappe (not Snelling)?


Yes I agree that it looks like an error reported by Woodmorappe for the density of coccoliths in chalk rock..and if so then that's minus points for Snelling for not checking the facts while building his case. I do have a problem with the 10 billion cells/litre claim though, firstly because such densities have never been observed, secondly because Snelling wants this density down to 500m, which is utterly implausible.

With all the figures flying around, and with your calculation that the extreme, never observed density of 10 billion per litre equates to less than 1g CaCO3-coccolith per litre of water, you have to wonder how you get chalk rock with a weight of about 2700g per 1000 cm3 (same volume as 1 litre) to a depth of 560 metres at its maximum depth in Southern England, all deposited in a few months ?

 

If brightness is really so important (not sure it is...compared to other factors), then the bloom conditions could INCREASE growth.  Is it your view that a bloom ends because of loss of light?  Or does it usually end when the nutrients (including Ca ions) have been depleted?


Could be either/or. Whichever is limiting.
 

Let me ask this, Wibble, if these creatures THRIVE and grow lots more liths due to the brightness in the upper layers...but then get heavy and fall to the lower levels and die there...but the bloom itself is not affected because it keeps on growing while the light and nutrients (and Ca ions) are present...couldn't that still mean massive deposition of liths?  It appears they (some varieties, anyway) usually grow down to 200m, and the light that far down is VERY low (i.e. 1%) anyway.  So if the top layer has a 1000x increase, but that means they only grow down to 100m (where perhaps the 1% level now is)...then it could still be a massive increase over normal conditions.  Especially if they die off more rapidly or shed more liths...but the growth of the bloom still continues.


Well they wouldn't drop out at all quickly because they are extremely light. I think in an intense bloom the nutrients would be assimilated and limit further blooms. Just because some species can live at lower depths it doesn't mean they are also able to bloom up to extreme levels down to these depths, the blooms occur in the top 30m or less.
 

>>a flood on this scale would also introduce vast amounts of light obscuring sediment, and powerful water currents which would stop blooms forming (they need calm conditions)>>

Could be.  All YECs I know of would put these blooms near the end of the Flood.  Some put them AFTER the Flood year.  I am not sure when the "calm" might happen in the deeper parts of the ocean.  I thought you said the produce chalk sediments far from land...and our oceans TODAY (at the surface) can be far from "calm" out there.  If there were months when the turmoil was gone, maybe the Flood waters would be that calm by near the end of the flood.  Upwelling water from below (after the rain all stopped in 40 days) for 110 days...then 250 days of no more upwelling...might get the conditions close to what would allow blooms. 


My reference to far from land was in regard to the greatly increased (>300m or so compared to today) sea levels in the Late Cretaceous. So the (now) English Channel was a long way from terrestrial input of sediment. However, areas of chalk deposition were still above continental shelves. Calcium carbonate cannot be deposited in the deep ocean because it becomes dissolved at great depths.
 

>>I already addressed this in post#13. Blooms only occur in the Upper photic zone and don't produce coccoliths where its dark.>>

Some species thrive in the "lower photic"...which goes down to 200m...where it is PRETTY DARK.


But not bloom, at least to the densities you require.
 

>>I've already given you a source that says that only a few, weakly calcified species are capable of heterotrophy>>

I did a very brief search and found a book which suggests the opposite. 
Morphometric Variability in the Extant Coccolithophores: Implications for the Fossil Record   By Alicia Catherine Muzika Kahn
 
 
The most prolific (42% at 120m depth...for one sample) species (Florisphaera profunda) in "deep photic zone" (DPZ) does produce much calcite in the form of polygoliths (a different shape of coccolith, layered like petals of a flower...in fact sometimes the liths are referred to as coccoliths) and the expert who wrote the book indicated they are possibly heterotrophic.  They live at a depth where the light is 1% of that in the upper photic zone AND there are more nutrients.  And if they are NOT heterotrophic, then so what?  The Flood would provide them more nutrients, in the form of non-biotic minerals, such as Ca ions.  That could massively increase their growth anyway.


Phytoplankton are plants. Stick any plant in a dark room, furnish them with as many nutrients (P, N, Ca, whatever) as you like, it will die. They are autotrophs, they use the energy of sunlight to synthesise sugars from CO2 and water.
 

>>I've shown you that 90% of light is extinguished at 10m depth in intense blooms today. There is clearly problem then with an unprecedented 10 billion per litre over a whole 200m depth. (eutrophic zone to 200m is in clear waters)>>

I don't think light would be the limiting factor.  With ZERO coccoliths, the light is 80% at 10m anyway.  Plus the DPZ (down to 200m), where abundant species live, only has 1% light.


Again, very limited blooming potential at lower depths.
 

>>Irrelevant if you have no light in addition to massive sediment load and surging currents. The chalk layers are being laid down towards the end of the year or so of Flood according to your model remember, when the waters are draining off the land.>>
 
I'd say the blooms occur well before draining off the land.  Besides, if these blooms are in the middle of the ocean, it would not matter that much that land surfaces are rising.  AND it is NOT "no light".  The sediments got laid down in the early-mid Flood year, so the upper ocean (top 200m?) would be clear or clearing.


As I said earlier, no blooms occur in the middle of the ocean, only at the ocean margins. If the Cretaceous chalk was laid last, and all previous sediment had settled, why is it not the final geological stratum in the geological column (and I would think, at such a rapid rate of deposition, it would not contain any benthic fossils, such as sea urchins...which it does ) ?



#29 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 19 April 2015 - 04:45 AM

>>Your own source says that the whales were fossilised in diatomaceous rock, not chalk. Of course diatom sediment also accumulates slowly so its still an interesting find. Without researching this right now, how about if an underwater avalanche had quickly buried the remains of dead whales ?>>
 
They said there were 100 of them in a 1.4 x 1.4km area.  I cannot imagine a cliff of pure chalk (diatomite) that could collapse so fast as to bury 100 whales.


Haven't looked into this thoroughly yet but another possibility is that the dead weight of a whale would simply sink into sediment if it was sufficiently soft.
 

>>How about an answer from you regarding the observed gradual evolution of the sea urchin Micraster and bivalve Inoceramus that is seen as you move up through chalk rock. How is this explained in a rapid burial scenario ?>>
 
Without researching this now, I would question the actual gradual-ness of the fossils in chalk.  If there were to be found some "out of place" fossil, I would expect it would be dismissed by one of several common methods ev's use.  Do you want to point me to the evidence of this so I can put some thought toward it?


That's one of the good things about chalk. It's a record of an environment that was relatively stable for millions of years with continuous accumulation of chalk ooze for periods long enough that do document slow, gradual evolution. (ok not large changes buy you wouldn't expect that in such a stable environment). I read about Micraster and Inoceramus in this book. Also described here .
 

BTW, are you a gradualist?  Most ev's have abandoned that idea since the phenotypes appear complete and suddenly.  One would THINK there would be some sort of gradual change that would be quite easily seen.  That's what Darwin certainly expected, right?

Never really thought about which camp I'm in. I know that catastrophes such as the meteorite that hit at the end of the Cretaceous caused a major shift in the course of evolution. Sedimentary rock normally represents disparate, snapshots through time so you wouldn't expect incremental changes in fossil series. Also if a new species evolves at the periphery of a distribution and then outcompetes and replaces the founder population then the fossil record would show a sudden jump in that main area of population.

#30 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 21 April 2015 - 09:23 PM

>>I do have a problem with the 10 billion cells/litre claim though, firstly because such densities have never been observed, secondly because Snelling wants this density down to 500m, which is utterly implausible. With all the figures flying around, and with your calculation that the extreme, never observed density of 10 billion per litre equates to less than 1g CaCO3-coccolith per litre of water, you have to wonder how you get chalk rock with a weight of about 2700g per 1000 cm3 (same volume as 1 litre) to a depth of 560 metres at its maximum depth in Southern England, all deposited in a few months ?>>

We simply do not and CANNOT know how these organisms would respond to the conditions of the Flood which would be very UNlike what we see today, even in the most extreme conditions ever observed.  It could be the nutrients (dead organisms...if they are indeed heterotrophic) or the calcium ions, or the temperature or alkalinity....ANY of these (or other?) factors could change things so that the most extreme modern-day bloom would be minor in comparison.  I can't prove that to you, but I do believe (and you SHOULD believe) that such different conditions COULD change their growth a LOT.  We know these creatures are capable of massive changes to their growth patterns and I'm not sure that what we see today is their limit. 

 

Indy:>>    Let me ask this, Wibble, if these creatures THRIVE and grow lots more liths due to the brightness in the upper layers...but then get heavy and fall to the lower levels and die there...but the bloom itself is not affected because it keeps on growing while the light and nutrients (and Ca ions) are present...couldn't that still mean massive deposition of liths?  It appears they (some varieties, anyway) usually grow down to 200m, and the light that far down is VERY low (i.e. 1%) anyway.  So if the top layer has a 1000x increase, but that means they only grow down to 100m (where perhaps the 1% level now is)...then it could still be a massive increase over normal conditions.  Especially if they die off more rapidly or shed more liths...but the growth of the bloom still continues.


W:>>Well they wouldn't drop out at all quickly because they are extremely light.>>

 

How quickly they drop their liths is irrelevant...so long as they eventually DO drop them.  I doubt you'd say it take a year for one to reach the seafloor.  And who cares if it take TEN years? 

 

W:>>I think in an intense bloom the nutrients would be assimilated and limit further blooms. Just because some species can live at lower depths it doesn't mean they are also able to bloom up to extreme levels down to these depths, the blooms occur in the top 30m or less.>>

 

I guess I didn't make myself clear.  Suppose that ALL the growth happens in the upper level and the creature then drops lower and is replaced by another new (lighter) one...over and over.  I read that they wondered if extra weight of liths would help the creatures get to lower levels where more nutrients were.  Maybe if suddenly there were more nutrients in the UPPER levels (due to dead stuff or influx of Ca ions, etc.) then the bloom could be much more massive in upper levels OR lower down.  I just think it is very hard to apply current day limitations to these creatures.  Neither of us KNOWS how much effect the very unusual conditions of the Flood might have.  I believe that if the largest known bloom (10 billion) still puts less than ONE GRAM in each liter, there is still a LOT of room for more growth...provided the nutrients and other factors they need are there.  What if it was 50 grams per liter?  Is that so hard to imagine?  1/200 still leaves LOTS of room!

 

>>    Some species thrive in the "lower photic"...which goes down to 200m...where it is PRETTY DARK.

W:>>But not bloom, at least to the densities you require.>>

 

Neither of us knows that the reason they bloom in upper levels is due to the light.  That may be where the influx of new nutrients is.  We do know that these creatures can indeed thrive (with enough light energy to live well) at depths where the light is only 1%.  I don't think I want to argue much more on this...we just don't know if the conditions of the FLood could allow them to grow that fast.  I do think it is possible, given the wide range of growths we observe today in OUR conditions. 

 

>>Phytoplankton are plants. Stick any plant in a dark room, furnish them with as many nutrients (P, N, Ca, whatever) as you like, it will die. They are autotrophs, they use the energy of sunlight to synthesise sugars from CO2 and water.>>

It is unfair to compare these to plants in a room...and I think you know that.  They can live with 1% of the light at the surface.  Plants in a room cannot.  They get enough light energy they need for them to thrive at 1%.  If they had tons more nutrients or alkalinity or Ca ions, then perhaps the 1% light would be enough for many many MORE of them to thrive in that same low light environment. 

 

>>Haven't looked into this thoroughly yet but another possibility is that the dead weight of a whale would simply sink into sediment if it was sufficiently soft.>>

I would think that would be easily detected...compared to an engulfing flood of sediments.  There would be signs of uppush...maybe other signs too.  Plus my guess is that plenty of dead whales have fallen onto piles of ooze before and I doubt that they just disappear.  Do you think they WOULD???

 

>>Sedimentary rock normally represents disparate, snapshots through time so you wouldn't expect incremental changes in fossil series.>>

Actually I would disagree.  If there were great time periods between the layers you would see good evidence of unconformities.  There usually are NONE. 

 

 

And we have other indications of RAPID deposition, like polystrate fossils.  (Although this pic is NOT in chalk layers)

 

Attached File  Polystrate3.JPG   80.08KB   0 downloads

 

>>Also if a new species evolves at the periphery of a distribution and then outcompetes and replaces the founder population then the fossil record would show a sudden jump in that main area of population.>>

If the chalk is such a PURE and UNBROKEN record of umpteen million years...as you say...then I can't see where all the thousands of intermediary forms (and BILLIONS of individuals) could HIDE!  They don't run off to somewhere ELSE to do all their evolving (to get to the next phenotype in the ev. chain) and then migrate back IN when the evolving is done...do they?



#31 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:03 AM

I wrote:>>What if it was 50 grams per liter?  Is that so hard to imagine?  1/200 still leaves LOTS of room!>>

Sorry, that should be 1/20.



#32 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 April 2015 - 04:44 PM

>>I do have a problem with the 10 billion cells/litre claim though, firstly because such densities have never been observed, secondly because Snelling wants this density down to 500m, which is utterly implausible. With all the figures flying around, and with your calculation that the extreme, never observed density of 10 billion per litre equates to less than 1g CaCO3-coccolith per litre of water, you have to wonder how you get chalk rock with a weight of about 2700g per 1000 cm3 (same volume as 1 litre) to a depth of 560 metres at its maximum depth in Southern England, all deposited in a few months ?>>

We simply do not and CANNOT know how these organisms would respond to the conditions of the Flood which would be very UNlike what we see today, even in the most extreme conditions ever observed.  It could be the nutrients (dead organisms...if they are indeed heterotrophic) or the calcium ions, or the temperature or alkalinity....ANY of these (or other?) factors could change things so that the most extreme modern-day bloom would be minor in comparison.  I can't prove that to you, but I do believe (and you SHOULD believe) that such different conditions COULD change their growth a LOT.  We know these creatures are capable of massive changes to their growth patterns and I'm not sure that what we see today is their limit.


This is pure, hopeful speculation. Even if special conditions could allow densities much greater than seen in the most extreme blooms ever observed today you’re never going to get anywhere near the concentration of coccolith material in solid rock in the short time you’re looking at, even if multiple turnover of blooms were possible. To get the 2 tonne cubic metre of chalk rock you need, even at the implausible 10 billion per litre figure (=10 thousand billion per m3), all the cells from over 3000 blooms (2000 kg rock divided by 0.6 kg live cells) at that density to all contribute to coccolith ooze on the sea floor. And that would be just for one metre of rock.

I’m not even convinced that in a global flood scenario you would get nutrient concentrations much higher than in extreme conditions today. Sewage pollution, like in Roth’s duck ranch effluent that was claimed to cause the 10 billion /litre, is ideal for the proliferation of certain microorganisms (I would think not coccolithophores because of the associated turbidity) because it has concentrated, easily available nutrients. Flood detritus, containing mainly plant/woody material, no matter how vast the amount, would not supply all the associated nutrients in a short burst, rather they would be gradually broken down by biological activity over an extended time. Same to a lesser extent for dead animals, which would be a minor contribution to total flood debris. (ok in your model there is upwellings and volcanic activity which could also boost nutrient levels but I doubt total nutrient could much exceed human induced extreme nutrient spikes seen today)
 

Indy:>>    Let me ask this, Wibble, if these creatures THRIVE and grow lots more liths due to the brightness in the upper layers...but then get heavy and fall to the lower levels and die there...but the bloom itself is not affected because it keeps on growing while the light and nutrients (and Ca ions) are present...couldn't that still mean massive deposition of liths?  It appears they (some varieties, anyway) usually grow down to 200m, and the light that far down is VERY low (i.e. 1%) anyway.  So if the top layer has a 1000x increase, but that means they only grow down to 100m (where perhaps the 1% level now is)...then it could still be a massive increase over normal conditions.  Especially if they die off more rapidly or shed more liths...but the growth of the bloom still continues.


W:>>Well they wouldn't drop out at all quickly because they are extremely light.>>
 
How quickly they drop their liths is irrelevant...so long as they eventually DO drop them.  I doubt you'd say it take a year for one to reach the seafloor.  And who cares if it take TEN years? 
 
W:>>I think in an intense bloom the nutrients would be assimilated and limit further blooms. Just because some species can live at lower depths it doesn't mean they are also able to bloom up to extreme levels down to these depths, the blooms occur in the top 30m or less.>>
 
I guess I didn't make myself clear.  Suppose that ALL the growth happens in the upper level and the creature then drops lower and is replaced by another new (lighter) one...over and over.  I read that they wondered if extra weight of liths would help the creatures get to lower levels where more nutrients were.  Maybe if suddenly there were more nutrients in the UPPER levels (due to dead stuff or influx of Ca ions, etc.) then the bloom could be much more massive in upper levels OR lower down.  I just think it is very hard to apply current day limitations to these creatures.  Neither of us KNOWS how much effect the very unusual conditions of the Flood might have.  I believe that if the largest known bloom (10 billion) still puts less than ONE GRAM in each liter, there is still a LOT of room for more growth...provided the nutrients and other factors they need are there.  What if it was 50 grams per liter?  Is that so hard to imagine?  1/200 still leaves LOTS of room!


This 10 billion figure is totally unsubstantiated without a proper reference and I bet it doesn’t even refer to coccolithophores. (115 million per litre is the highest verified observation remember). I don’t believe sky high concentrations beyond this is possible due to reasons already given. Ca ions would become a limiting nutrient as it is assimilated into coccoliths, if you want to claim a flood sourced continuous influx then you would not be able to avoid an influx of silicates as well (and turbidity). Coccolithophores only bloom in a low silicate environment because they otherwise get outcompeted by diatoms.
 

>>    Some species thrive in the "lower photic"...which goes down to 200m...where it is PRETTY DARK.

W:>>But not bloom, at least to the densities you require.>>
 
Neither of us knows that the reason they bloom in upper levels is due to the light.  That may be where the influx of new nutrients is.  We do know that these creatures can indeed thrive (with enough light energy to live well) at depths where the light is only 1%.  I don't think I want to argue much more on this...we just don't know if the conditions of the FLood could allow them to grow that fast.  I do think it is possible, given the wide range of growths we observe today in OUR conditions. 
 
>>Phytoplankton are plants. Stick any plant in a dark room, furnish them with as many nutrients (P, N, Ca, whatever) as you like, it will die. They are autotrophs, they use the energy of sunlight to synthesise sugars from CO2 and water.>>

It is unfair to compare these to plants in a room...and I think you know that.  They can live with 1% of the light at the surface.  Plants in a room cannot.  They get enough light energy they need for them to thrive at 1%.  If they had tons more nutrients or alkalinity or Ca ions, then perhaps the 1% light would be enough for many many MORE of them to thrive in that same low light environment.


The reasons behind coccolithophore blooms aren’t totally understood as yet and it’s probable that no single factor causes them. However, light availability is certainly an important factor. For example, in this paper: Coccolithophore dynamics of Bermuda (N. Atlantic). Deep Sea Research. Haidar A.T & Thierstein H R (2001)

“….data confirms, that light availability is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for high rates of coccolithophore photosynthesis and calcification..”

“…..The dominant taxa U. irregularis (surface dweller) and F. profunda (deep dweller) are at the extreme ends of the preferred light spectrum…..

(Florisphaera profunda is the deep photic zone species you brought up in an earlier post as a possible heterotroph (even if it is, which is uncertain, it’s not a species that appears in chalk because it hadn’t evolved yet))

“Since F. profunda lives in deep waters (100-150m water depth), it is expected that this coccolithophore species has a preference for waters rich in nitrate and phosphate. However, the highest abundances of F. profunda were still observed under relatively low nutrient conditions. Tanaka (1991) and Ahagon et al. (1993) found a close relationship between F. profunda abundance and water transparency, implying light limitation.
Our results are consistent with such an interpretation because the cell densities of F. profunda at Bermuda tend to increase with light availability
 

>>Also if a new species evolves at the periphery of a distribution and then outcompetes and replaces the founder population then the fossil record would show a sudden jump in that main area of population.>>

If the chalk is such a PURE and UNBROKEN record of umpteen million years...as you say...then I can't see where all the thousands of intermediary forms (and BILLIONS of individuals) could HIDE!  They don't run off to somewhere ELSE to do all their evolving (to get to the next phenotype in the ev. chain) and then migrate back IN when the evolving is done...do they?


This is what I’ve said, chalk (unlike most sedimentary rock) is an unbroken record for very long periods, which means that the gradual evolution of benthic animals such as Micraster and Inoceramus is observed. You seem to have shied away from responding to this point apart from doubting the gradualness (is that a word ?). But it is gradual, and the different species are used in the recognition of vertical sections of chalk.

Why would we see these observed changes in a rapid dump of ooze ?

Also, if chalk is the last layer lain after the flood (is that right ?), why are there deposits afterwards ? Chalk outcrops in two stretches in southern England but there are various deposits on top of the chalk within the London basin, particularly the London Clay formation which contains plant fossils (palm seeds etc.) indicative of a tropical climate. Wasn’t there supposed to be an Ice Age after the Flood also ? Has this all happened in the last 4000 years ? The Romans were here 2000 odd years ago, it was a bit warmer then but there is no record of anything as dramatic as an Ice Age or tropical forest.
 



#33 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 26 April 2015 - 12:53 PM

>>This is pure, hopeful speculation. Even if special conditions could allow densities much greater than seen in the most extreme blooms ever observed today you’re never going to get anywhere near the concentration of coccolith material in solid rock in the short time you’re looking at, even if multiple turnover of blooms were possible. To get the 2 tonne cubic metre of chalk rock you need, even at the implausible 10 billion per litre figure (=10 thousand billion per m3), all the cells from over 3000 blooms (2000 kg rock divided by 0.6 kg live cells) at that density to all contribute to coccolith ooze on the sea floor. And that would be just for one metre of rock.>>

I believe the bold part has an error...which I also made.  Your calc assumes the number of cells equals the number of LITHS...which is what the wt was based on.  Also my calc was .78g per liter, but I also had the mistake of liths instead of CELLS.  If there are 20 liths per cell then we need to multiply by 20x.  Then there are 1000 liters of water per m3 of water.  So that means in one meter of water with 10 billion CELLS there would be 7800g (7.8kg) IF each cell has just one LITH.  BUT we need to multiply by the number of liths.  Roth's weight estimate is PER LITH, so we have to multiply by 20x (a maximum) to go from cells to liths.  If the bloom goes down to 100 meters that means that one bloom would produce 7800 x 20 x 100 g of sediment, which equals 15600 kg of liths.  At 2000kg per meter of chalk rock, that means each bloom would be 7.8 meters of rock.  If they have 2 growths per day that means in 32 days you would have 500 m of rock.  And if they grow down to 200m deep (all they need is 1% light to grow if the nutrients are there, and 200m has 1% light) that would be 16 days.  If the density went from 10 billion/liter to 10x that number (still plenty of room in a liter of water)...then that brings it down 1.6 days.  It is wrong to think that the special conditions of the flood could not drastically bring up the production to being above the maximum seen today. 

 

>>I’m not even convinced that in a global flood scenario you would get nutrient concentrations much higher than in extreme conditions today. Sewage pollution, like in Roth’s duck ranch effluent that was claimed to cause the 10 billion /litre, is ideal for the proliferation of certain microorganisms (I would think not coccolithophores because of the associated turbidity) because it has concentrated, easily available nutrients.>>

If true, that duck ranch surely seems to settle the question of whether they are heterotrophs, eh?  The Flood, near the end, would not have great turbidity.  Many many days of non-violent action would calm down the water.  It had many months to settle out.  And we only are talking about the top 200 m or so. 

 

>>Flood detritus, containing mainly plant/woody material, no matter how vast the amount, would not supply all the associated nutrients in a short burst, rather they would be gradually broken down by biological activity over an extended time.>>

No one says the nutrients had to come from plant/wood.  That's just your straw man.  The main nutrient would be Ca ions I think...and those would (in Brown's flood model) be maybe a thousand (more?) times greater in abundance.  Then we also have alkalinity and temperature which would be more favorable as well.  As for dead animals...maybe the chalk deposits happened near a certain choke point where a large amount of carcasses bunched up. 

 

>>(ok in your model there is upwellings and volcanic activity>>

I don't think you know what my model is.  Brown has a whole chapter on how limestone is produced...from his subterranean water chamber.  It involves huge inflows of Ca ions.  See this   

 

"Supercritical water (SCW) readily dissolves certain minerals and other solids. [See pages 121-123.] As SCW’s temperature steadily rose in the preflood subterranean chambers, more and more substances dissolved in the water such as: sodium, chlorine, calcium, carbon, oxygen, copper, aluminum, and iron. Later, as the temperature rose further, they precipitated as salt (NaCl), limestone (CaCO3), and various ores—a process in SCW called “out-salting.” Thick deposits of these mushy solids accumulated on the preflood subterranean chamber’s floor."  Also on the next page:  "In summary, while much limestone precipitated before and during the flood, seawater still contains dissolved inorganic limestone. Algae, corals, and shelled creatures take in these dissolved chemicals and produce intricate organic limestone."

 

>>(Florisphaera profunda is the deep photic zone species you brought up in an earlier post as a possible heterotroph (even if it is, which is uncertain, it’s not a species that appears in chalk because it hadn’t evolved yet))>>

I don't know what species IS the main one in chalk...nor do I know what its limits for light or nutrients are...or how it would react to a great influx of warmer water, higher alkalinity, dead animals, or VERY MUCH HIGHER Ca ions.  If as you say, the limit WERE light...why couldn't great numbers of these things grow to very thick abundances in the top 50m or so...but then die off and fall...which would then allow for others to have more light?  Over and over for many days.  OR instead of dying off, they may just shed liths faster while light and nutrients were sufficient.  Neither of us knows if LIGHT is what causes blooms to start OR STOP.  My guess would be it is NUTRIENTS (incl. Ca ions) and not LIGHT that is the key limiter.  Do you say otherwise?

 

>>You seem to have shied away from responding to this point apart from doubting the gradualness (is that a word ?). But it is gradual, and the different species are used in the recognition of vertical sections of chalk.>>

I doubt that we agree on what a true transitional form should look like.  It should be something that gains some slight advantage due to very SMALL genetic changes due to mutation.  AND there should be thousands of other phenotypes that do NOT gain an advantage by THEIR mutations (or only gain a slight one...but get outcompeted) which are also contained in the PURE chalk that records EVERYTHING.  I don't believe at all that is what is seen in chalk layers.  You can't have them going off somewhere ELSE for a million years to evolve...then return to the chalk deposit with their new organs and shapes.  I definitely would have to do a lot of study about invertebrates to discuss this much.  My guess is the claim of great "gradualness" is very disputable.  Every OTHER ev change involves big JUMPS. 

 

>>Why would we see these observed changes in a rapid dump of ooze ?>>

RAPID dump?  I thought your model has this happening over millions of years without much (if any) interruption.  If there were thousands of years without any "dumping" then that would show in the deposit. 

 

>>Also, if chalk is the last layer lain after the flood (is that right ?), why are there deposits afterwards ? Chalk outcrops in two stretches in southern England but there are various deposits on top of the chalk within the London basin, particularly the London Clay formation which contains plant fossils (palm seeds etc.) indicative of a tropical climate. Wasn’t there supposed to be an Ice Age after the Flood also ? Has this all happened in the last 4000 years ?>>

Yes.  'm not well-read on ice-ages but I believe those were a result of very warm oceans and cold continents...which produces large amounts of snow.  A few decades or maybe centuries after the flood would produce all the separate "ice ages", I believe.  Could be a good new topic.

 

>>This 10 billion figure is totally unsubstantiated without a proper reference and I bet it doesn’t even refer to coccolithophores.>>

My belief is that with Brown's model, and the great influx of Ca ions, other nutrients, warm temps, and higher alkalinity, there could easily be 50 to 100x that number.  Maybe more.  I'd appreciate it if you would take time to read the Limestone chapter from Brown.  His HPT flood model is unlike other flood models.



#34 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 April 2015 - 08:38 AM

>>>>Why would we see these observed changes in a rapid dump of ooze ?>>

Indy:>>RAPID dump?  I thought your model has this happening over millions of years without much (if any) interruption.  If there were thousands of years without any "dumping" then that would show in the deposit.>>

I am sorry...I missed your point and get it now.  Yes, if it is true that much true "evolution" is seen, without any exceptions, then this would argue strongly against MY "rapid dump" position.  That is, unless there were some reason the various shapes would be a result of varying conditions, early then late in the "dump."  It could be that some varieties might be happier with more alkalinity...which could change within days.  Or light, or Ca ion concentration...etc.  They may not have arisen as "new species" due to mutations, but merely by expression of different inherent traits that were part of the genome.  What might seem "fast" normally may not be so fast when you consider how many generations there could be in 500m of chalk rock.  This would explain why no true transitionals are seen. 



#35 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 27 April 2015 - 12:03 PM

>>
Using the value for the average weight of a Emiliana huxleyi coccolith given here which is considerably less than the Roth figure, I get a total weight for 10 billion cells (each with 10 liths) of 0.234 g per litre, but whichever figure you use it is indeed a small proportion within a unit volume of water (slightly more by volume as the liths are denser than water).>>
 

 

When I checked your site it said Ehux would normally have 30 liths.  A low of 20 and a high of 40.

 

>>Number of crystal units: whilst the structure of the crystal units is extremely regular the actual number of crystal units is variable. Typically an Ehux coccolith has about 30 crystal units - this can easily be determined by counting the number of hammer head elements in the distal shield. Small specimens, however, may have as few as 20 crystal units and large specimens more than 40.>>

 

So your number should be 3x higher...which takes it to my number. 



#36 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 01 May 2015 - 04:11 PM

>>This is pure, hopeful speculation. Even if special conditions could allow densities much greater than seen in the most extreme blooms ever observed today you’re never going to get anywhere near the concentration of coccolith material in solid rock in the short time you’re looking at, even if multiple turnover of blooms were possible. To get the 2 tonne cubic metre of chalk rock you need, even at the implausible 10 billion per litre figure (=10 thousand billion per m3), all the cells from over 3000 blooms (2000 kg rock divided by 0.6 kg live cells) at that density to all contribute to coccolith ooze on the sea floor. And that would be just for one metre of rock.>>

I believe the bold part has an error...which I also made.


It wasn’t an error as such, I knew about the 30 lith per cell but as the Emiliana huxleyi coccolith weight is approx 30 times less than the figure given by Roth I stuck with 0.6 kg.
 

Your calc assumes the number of cells equals the number of LITHS...which is what the wt was based on.  Also my calc was .78g per liter, but I also had the mistake of liths instead of CELLS.  If there are 20 liths per cell then we need to multiply by 20x.  Then there are 1000 liters of water per m3 of water.  So that means in one meter of water with 10 billion CELLS there would be 7800g (7.8kg) IF each cell has just one LITH.  BUT we need to multiply by the number of liths.  Roth's weight estimate is PER LITH, so we have to multiply by 20x (a maximum) to go from cells to liths.  If the bloom goes down to 100 meters that means that one bloom would produce 7800 x 20 x 100 g of sediment, which equals 15600 kg of liths.  At 2000kg per meter of chalk rock, that means each bloom would be 7.8 meters of rock.


You’ve added a zero here, should be 1560 kg and therefore 0.78 m. Also, like Roth and Snelling, you are taking a maximum bloom density (not withstanding the unlikelihood of the 10 billion figure in the first place) and assuming this maximum density is extended all the way down to 100m (not going to happen, the max will be in the upper few metres where the greatest light intensity is, and the higher the coccolith density, the more light is restricted further down.
 

If they have 2 growths per day that means in 32 days you would have 500 m of rock.  And if they grow down to 200m deep (all they need is 1% light to grow if the nutrients are there, and 200m has 1% light) that would be 16 days.  If the density went from 10 billion/liter to 10x that number (still plenty of room in a liter of water)...then that brings it down 1.6 days.  It is wrong to think that the special conditions of the flood could not drastically bring up the production to being above the maximum seen today.


You’re assuming they will continue at two divisions a day but at this rate after 10 days you’re up to a population of 10.24 million million cells per litre, which is silly. They won’t settle out quickly, due to Stokes Law. A paper I read (sorry, lost the link) suggests a settling rate of 10cm/day for coccoliths, 1m/day for cells, much higher for faecal pellets but if you’ve got lots of grazers in there (zooplankton etc.) then that will limit the bloom.
 

>>I’m not even convinced that in a global flood scenario you would get nutrient concentrations much higher than in extreme conditions today. Sewage pollution, like in Roth’s duck ranch effluent that was claimed to cause the 10 billion /litre, is ideal for the proliferation of certain microorganisms (I would think not coccolithophores because of the associated turbidity) because it has concentrated, easily available nutrients.>>

If true, that duck ranch surely seems to settle the question of whether they are heterotrophs, eh?


That's an extremely big ‘if’
 

The Flood, near the end, would not have great turbidity.  Many many days of non-violent action would calm down the water.  It had many months to settle out.  And we only are talking about the top 200 m or so.


It would only become calm and start to clear once the waters had drained off the land, even after that I would think it would take a long time for the waters to become anything approaching calm and clear enough to allow coccolithophore blooms, which brings us back to the question as to why we observe sediment layers above the chalk ?
 

I don't think you know what my model is.  Brown has a whole chapter on how limestone is produced...from his subterranean water chamber.  It involves huge inflows of Ca ions.  See this   
 
"Supercritical water (SCW) readily dissolves certain minerals and other solids. [See pages 121-123.] As SCW’s temperature steadily rose in the preflood subterranean chambers, more and more substances dissolved in the water such as: sodium, chlorine, calcium, carbon, oxygen, copper, aluminum, and iron. Later, as the temperature rose further, they precipitated as salt (NaCl), limestone (CaCO3), and various ores—a process in SCW called “out-salting.” Thick deposits of these mushy solids accumulated on the preflood subterranean chamber’s floor."  Also on the next page:  "In summary, while much limestone precipitated before and during the flood, seawater still contains dissolved inorganic limestone. Algae, corals, and shelled creatures take in these dissolved chemicals and produce intricate organic limestone."


Do you really believe these global subterranean chambers existed ? After all there is no evidence they ever did. It’s just pure fantasy. Even if the limestone precipitate did explode out in this way, inevitably mixing with other sediments, how does this explain the purity of chalk ? Anyway, seawater is already supersaturated with calcium carbonate, I would think the capacity for increased Ca ion to facilitate increased coccolith production would be much more limited than you are hoping.
 

>>(Florisphaera profunda is the deep photic zone species you brought up in an earlier post as a possible heterotroph (even if it is, which is uncertain, it’s not a species that appears in chalk because it hadn’t evolved yet))>>

I don't know what species IS the main one in chalk...nor do I know what its limits for light or nutrients are...or how it would react to a great influx of warmer water, higher alkalinity, dead animals, or VERY MUCH HIGHER Ca ions.  If as you say, the limit WERE light...why couldn't great numbers of these things grow to very thick abundances in the top 50m or so...but then die off and fall...which would then allow for others to have more light?  Over and over for many days.  OR instead of dying off, they may just shed liths faster while light and nutrients were sufficient.  Neither of us knows if LIGHT is what causes blooms to start OR STOP.  My guess would be it is NUTRIENTS (incl. Ca ions) and not LIGHT that is the key limiter.  Do you say otherwise?


Most of that addressed above. The coccolithophore species in chalk are not the same as today. I’ve been using Emiliana huxleyi in calculations because it’s the species that creates the vast blooms today but it only appears in the fossil record 200 000 years ago. Perhaps there were other species in the Cretaceous which could likewise bloom. However, why would all the species be different to today if it was only 4000 years ago ?
 

>>You seem to have shied away from responding to this point apart from doubting the gradualness (is that a word ?). But it is gradual, and the different species are used in the recognition of vertical sections of chalk.>>

I doubt that we agree on what a true transitional form should look like.  It should be something that gains some slight advantage due to very SMALL genetic changes due to mutation.  AND there should be thousands of other phenotypes that do NOT gain an advantage by THEIR mutations (or only gain a slight one...but get outcompeted) which are also contained in the PURE chalk that records EVERYTHING.  I don't believe at all that is what is seen in chalk layers.  You can't have them going off somewhere ELSE for a million years to evolve...then return to the chalk deposit with their new organs and shapes.  I definitely would have to do a lot of study about invertebrates to discuss this much.  My guess is the claim of great "gradualness" is very disputable.  Every OTHER ev change involves big JUMPS.


The Micraster sea urchin I linked you to evolved changes in it’s external morphology, which is suggested is linked to changes in burrowing habit, probably as a way of evading predators. There is a species sequence which is used to recognize different layers in the chalk. They didn’t go off somewhere else to evolve, incremental change is observed. 
  

>>Also, if chalk is the last layer lain after the flood (is that right ?), why are there deposits afterwards ? Chalk outcrops in two stretches in southern England but there are various deposits on top of the chalk within the London basin, particularly the London Clay formation which contains plant fossils (palm seeds etc.) indicative of a tropical climate. Wasn’t there supposed to be an Ice Age after the Flood also ? Has this all happened in the last 4000 years ?>>

Yes.  'm not well-read on ice-ages but I believe those were a result of very warm oceans and cold continents...which produces large amounts of snow.  A few decades or maybe centuries after the flood would produce all the separate "ice ages", I believe.  Could be a good new topic.


Very warm oceans would produce an overall warm climate, not an ice age. Could be a new topic indeed. Stretching credulity a bit to think that a tropical environment and several ice ages could have occurred in the last 4000 years without anyone noticing ??
 

>>This 10 billion figure is totally unsubstantiated without a proper reference and I bet it doesn’t even refer to coccolithophores.>>

My belief is that with Brown's model, and the great influx of Ca ions, other nutrients, warm temps, and higher alkalinity, there could easily be 50 to 100x that number.  Maybe more.  I'd appreciate it if you would take time to read the Limestone chapter from Brown.  His HPT flood model is unlike other flood models.


I read it but it just seems like a fantastical story to me which defies common sense. Sorry.



#37 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 01 May 2015 - 08:30 PM

>>The Micraster sea urchin I linked you to evolved changes in it’s external morphology, which is suggested is linked to changes in burrowing habit, probably as a way of evading predators. There is a species sequence which is used to recognize different layers in the chalk. They didn’t go off somewhere else to evolve, incremental change is observed.>>

How would you distinguish variations caused by new expressions of the pre-existing genome (which could happen in one or two generations)...versus variations caused by random mutations (requiring deep time)?  I have nothing to use to test if your claim about non-mixing of "old" and "recent" variations of a single line of ancestors is true or untrue.  I believe claims of perfect "sorting", without any out of place fossils, are just not very reliable.  And I don't want to use time now to figure that out. 

 

If you found fossils of a chiquaqua and a basset hound, would you assume there had to be lots of evolution...caused by mutations?  Would you figure that there were no gradual intermediates because they evolved in some niche and then the equillibrium was "punctuated" by that new breed's arrival in the fossil record?  And would you be right or wrong about that?  (BTW, I've actually heard well-studied ev's refer to dog breeds as examples of evolution!)



#38 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 01 May 2015 - 08:38 PM

I've come close to the limit of my interest in this topic...which is more up your ally, Wibble.  I was glad I could resolve the first question you had...which seems to be due to an error made by Woodmorappe.  If you think that should be cause to dismiss the rest of what he (or Snelling) wrote about this...that is your call.  I don't agree with that.  I will agree that if only 10 billion/liter is the max...and if they only can grow to 10m or so...as you seem to say...then you can't get the 500m of chalk within a few weeks.  I just don't agree with your assumption that limits found today would apply in a global flood scenario. 



#39 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 02 May 2015 - 10:02 AM

>>To get the 2 tonne cubic metre of chalk rock you need, even at the implausible 10 billion per litre figure (=10 thousand billion per m3), all the cells from over 3000 blooms (2000 kg rock divided by 0.6 kg live cells) at that density to all contribute to coccolith ooze on the sea floor. And that would be just for one metre of rock.>>>>

 

I still believe this is an error.  The 10 billion figure was CELLS for one liter of water.  You must multiply that by number of liths per cell (I'll use 20) and then weight per lith and then take that times 1000 (liters per meter3 of water).  THEN you need to multiply by however many meters deep each bloom is.  We differ about what that number should be.  But if indeed it is 100 m then that means, for ONE BLOOM in 100 meters of water you would have 10e10 x 20 x 1000 x 60×10-12 g per coccolith (per Roth) x 100m.  Or 2e14 x 6e-12 x 100 or 1.2e5g or 120kg per bloom.  So 16.67 blooms make one m of chalk rock (@ 2000kg).  Not 3000.  At 2.5 blooms per day, that means you get 300kg of rock per day or 1m of rock per 6.67 days.  At this rate you need 3333 days for 500m of rock.  If the bloom is 200m deep (which we know is no problem for some low-light species, so the limiter is nutrients) that means 1666.5 days.  Still too long.  This means the growth rate has to be 10x to 100x the biggest bloom known/reported in present times to get it to 17 to 166 days.  It then is a question of whether the Flood conditions would be able to cause that much more growth.  If there is exponential growth of these organisms when the conditions are extremely good, then I believe that is possible.  I suppose some sort of experiment could determine if that is true.  Just basing it on reporting of what the best conditions known in present times won't answer it. 

 

This  says that the maximum density for ehux is 4 billion cells per liter.  (Not too far from 10 billion). In experiments it used 500mg/L as "high density"...so the .78g/L number (based on 10 billion cells per liter) is not that far from a number they considered to be in the high range.  Also they reported Initially there were about 73 billion coccoliths per gram of sediment.  If you figure 20 liths per cell, that is 3.65 billion cells per gram.  That means 10 billion cells would weigh 2.74 grams not .78 or .6g.  It is also notable that as cells per liter went up, SO DID the wt per lith (see fig 12).  "When E. huxleyi blooms the relative weight of coccoliths in the settling particle assemblage increases."  This..."Consequently the density of the aggregates increases and the speed of settling particles reaches values as high as 750 m/day"...seems to me to say that the stuff settles at a rate of 750 METERS PER DAY.  So a bigger bloom means bigger liths, and this means they fall faster...clearing the space for more cells to grow. 

 

>>You’re assuming they will continue at two divisions a day but at this rate after 10 days you’re up to a population of 10.24 million million cells per litre, which is silly. They won’t settle out quickly, due to Stokes Law. A paper I read (sorry, lost the link) suggests a settling rate of 10cm/day for coccoliths, 1m/day for cells>>

 

This surely seems contradicted by the quote above.  And my link was not lost.  This also contradicts you.  It says it uses Stokes Law and although it is not as high as what the other source said (750m/day) it gets (for a 6micrometer object...in the caption for fig. 1) a settling rate of 6cm in 30 min....or 288cm/day.  28.8 times what you say. 



#40 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 02 May 2015 - 09:15 PM

>>You’ve added a zero here, should be 1560 kg and therefore 0.78 m.>>

I do appreciate that you caught this error of mine.  I don't LIKE it, but it was a good thing anyway!

 

>>you are taking a maximum bloom density (not withstanding the unlikelihood of the 10 billion figure in the first place) and assuming this maximum density is extended all the way down to 100m (not going to happen, the max will be in the upper few metres where the greatest light intensity is, and the higher the coccolith density, the more light is restricted further down.>>

This is merely your ASSUMPTION that the reason blooms happen in and today are limited to the upper levels is due to LIGHT.  You don't know that.  It could be due to that being where there would be a great influx of nutrients, and so if the same level of nutrients were to be available at lower depths, the blooms would also continue to those depths.  I have shown you that MANY species are best able to thrive with only 1% of the light at the surface (at 200m).  If there is a bloom happening above, it is IMO very doubtful that you would have greatly less light than that at 100m or even 200m...so if there were plenty of nutrients that deep, we could indeed see big blooms go that low.  No reason to think otherwise.  You just don't know what would happen in Flood conditions if there were ideal amounts of bio matter for them to feed on, large amts of Ca ions, low alkalinity, enough light (though perhaps low) and warmer temps.  There could indeed be EXPONENTIAL growth compared to the less than ideal conditions...which it seems these creatures are certainly capable of. 

 

Indy>>If true, that duck ranch surely seems to settle the question of whether they are heterotrophs, eh?>>
Wibble>>That's an extremely big ‘if’>>

NOT true.  The only unique condition reported (to cause the high numbers) was the effluent from a duck ranch...which means the nutrients feeding them were BIOLOGICAL.  To me, that means nothing else than "heterotroph."  That is, they feed on organic matter.  Can you not admit to that OBVIOUS fact?

 

>>It would only become calm and start to clear once the waters had drained off the land, even after that I would think it would take a long time for the waters to become anything approaching calm and clear enough to allow coccolithophore blooms, >>

 

If you had (say) 3000 m of Flood water, covering the pre-flood mountains and then the water level dropped by (say) 1000m, there could be much sediment clouding the bottom 1500m with very little in the upper 500m...allowing clear water for blooms. 

 

>>which brings us back to the question as to why we observe sediment layers above the chalk ?>>>>

 

If you look at the Grand Canyon, the TOP layer is PERMIAN (way earlier than the chalk layer's "age").  I'm not prepared to discuss all the geology of depositional formations, but it seems that YOUR model has some accounting to do also for where all the more RECENT layers went.  I have very little doubt that expert YECs have a way to explain deposits that happened after Cretaceous chalk layers were laid.  In the scenario I just described, there could be MUCH deposition after the chalk blooms were in place as flood waters subsided further.  I'm not sure I want to research that to answer your question better just now. 

 

>>Do you really believe these global subterranean chambers existed ? After all there is no evidence they ever did. It’s just pure fantasy.>>

You mean like dark matter or dark energy or the Oort Cloud?...which are considered to be very scientific postulations.  In attempting to explain the past by what we see today there is HYPOTHESIZING that happens and then the observed facts are tested against that "imaginary" or "fantasized" idea.  There may be no direct evidence of what is hypothesized, but if it can explain observations better than other ideas, then it is treated as a good scientific model to be tested further against more facts.  Are you wanting there to be a time machine we could all use to go back to LOOK AT IT?  And BTW, there are quite a few pieces of evidence (including salt water found in the deepest drill hole...far below the ocean or water table...and upwelling supercritical water from seafloor vents) to support the SWC of the HP theory.  I doubt however, that you've read much about any of that.  Yet that doesn't stop you from declaring "no evidence!"...does it?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users