No, they don't look for them in layers they believe are too old. That is what they said in your quoted link. But have they turned over all of the evidence to see if those root traces are in the older stuff too? That would be like expecting them to comb over all the evidence of dinosaurs hunting for soft tissue - why would they when their theory says the soft tissue won't be there, and that root traces won't have existed back then?[/font]
No, that was their explanation as to why root traces are not observed in Precambrian layers. If they were there they would be easily seen, unlike soft tissue in dino bones which need the hard matrix dissolved in acid to expose remnants visible under a microscope.
So it seems a "paleosol" isn't necessarily what you think it is, as a layman, with a layman understanding. You refer to them all collectively as "paleosols" as though they are all ancient soil, however it seems the scientists don't class them like that at all, that what precisely they actually are, is baffling to them also. In no way do we have a case you presented to us, as though there is clearly ancient soil right through the record, identical to todays. That is a MISLEADING misrepresentation is seems, for these phenomenons. It seems reasonable the mineral mixings of a flood created all kinds of strange lithologies not seen in todays floodless environment.[/font]
Of course I am a layman, so are you. However the relevant geologists who study paleosols are obviously not. Dr Taz Walker, who wrote the CMI article you link to is also a layman in regard to paleosols, a common theme where CMI authors seem to think they are authorities on a range of disparate scientific disciplines. Walker has degrees in mechanical engineering, he went back to Uni and got a science degree majoring in Earth Science (a very general subject), he has no academic background in the subject of paleosols or any area of paleontology as far as I can see. In your CMI article Walker claims a documented paleosol is no such thing based on a low resolution photograph ! Don’t you think a field visit might be required at least ?
Paleosols are by definition ancient soil layers (altered by compaction/lithification) and don’t pretend scientists are baffled as to what they are, particularly where root traces are evident (Ordovician onwards). You are being intellectually dishonest by extrapolating the comment you quote for a Precambrian paleosol to all paleosols.
Why would a global flood leave root traces in specific layers ? You never have any good answers for such questions but merely appeal to some vague unknowable complexity of the flood to hide behind, just like you did with Siccar Point.