Jump to content


Photo

Punctuated Equilibrium, Gradual Evolution And Macroevolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#1 Adrian7

Adrian7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Anaheim, CA

Posted 10 November 2005 - 01:13 AM

I will start off by asking this simple question: What is the evidence for macroevolution? Before I continue let me clarify what I mean when I say macroevolution, I refer to the change of one type of animal, such as a dinosaur, into another type of animal, such as a bird, I do not mean the development of new species because speciation is accepted by both creationists and evolutionists but rather that which separates the two(the development of new kinds of animals). From what I have read (and keep in mind I am no expert) punctuated equilibrium is a theory that attempts to account for the abrupt emergence of new species and the relatively stable morphology of many species in the fossil record, how it works is that a species remains the same for many years and then experiences rapid change before "stabilizing" again, correct? On the other hand gradual evolution proposes that species evolve slowly over time and therefore this "macroevolution" is not observable. When punctated equilibrium(P.E.) was first introduced (by Gould I believe) many saw it as a threat to orthodox Darwinism but now we are told that both can and did occur. One must understand, however, the circumstances or atleast part of the reason that P.E. was concocted, it was specifically because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution. But don't take my word for it, evolutionary scientists say so themselves:
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study"-Stephen Jay Gould

Also:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.… Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic"- David Raup

Finally:

“Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. This is the reason so many of them were supporters of saltational theories of evolution”-Ernst Mayr

Obviously gradual evolution is not well supported(if at all) which makes it a matter of speculation and something that needs to be proven and not assumed as it often is in mainstream science media. This brings us to the theory of P.E., since it suggests that evolution occurs rapidly, lack of evidence in the fossil record is almost a given. In addition, no evolution of a new kind of creature has been observed which also does not look good for P.E. since it is suppose to occur rapidly and is therefore more likely to be observable yet has not been observed. I readily acknowledge that I have much to learn and that maybe, somewhere out there, another idea is waiting to be introduced that will be more persuasive or atleast supported by the evidence, but with the obvious lack of proof for either gradual evolution or punctuated equilibrium I am again compelled to ask, What is the evidence for macroevolution?

#2 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 10 November 2005 - 03:09 AM

I would like these answers as well, with an add on.
Whichever manner evolutionists will claim; How can the intermediate species reproduce? Reproduction requires genetic compatabilty of both specimens.

#3 Adrian7

Adrian7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Anaheim, CA

Posted 10 November 2005 - 10:19 AM

I would like these answers as well, with an add on.
Whichever manner evolutionists will claim; How can the intermediate species reproduce? Reproduction requires genetic compatabilty of both specimens.

View Post


Very good add on, I too wonder how an intermediate species would reproduce since there development is from random chance mutations, what are the odds that one much less two will arise with genetic compatability.

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 November 2005 - 02:23 PM

Re- punctuated equilibrium

punctuated equilibrium is a theory that attempts to account for the abrupt emergence of new species and the relatively stable morphology of many species in the fossil record, how it works is that a species remains the same for many years and then experiences rapid change before "stabilizing" again, correct?


Punctuated equilibrium was put forward as an explanation (not sure what the mechanism was) that animals seem to appear in the fossil record abruptly – then continue on unchanged for millennium. It has somewhat fallen out of favour as speciation was better understood (i.e. small population as the source of a new species).

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 November 2005 - 02:32 PM

Re - evolutionary transition and How can the intermediate species reproduce?

Evolution predicts that changes from parent to offspring are minor, there will be no point in any species lifetime where it’s parents are significantly different from it’s offspring.

e.g. if the change from a to b represents the changes caused be evolution, like this:

aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaab, aaaaaaaabb, aaaaaaabbb, aaaaaabbbb, aaaaabbbbb.

and a single difference is hardly noticeable that what we see as two species is aaaaaaaaa, and aaaaabbbbb. Hope that helps

#6 Adrian7

Adrian7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Anaheim, CA

Posted 10 November 2005 - 04:39 PM

Re - evolutionary transition and How can the intermediate species reproduce?

Evolution predicts that changes from parent to offspring are minor, there will be no point in any species lifetime where it’s parents are significantly different from it’s offspring.

e.g. if the change from a to b represents the changes caused be evolution, like this:

aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaab, aaaaaaaabb, aaaaaaabbb, aaaaaabbbb, aaaaabbbbb.

and a single difference is hardly noticeable that what we see as two species is aaaaaaaaa, and aaaaabbbbb.  Hope that helps

View Post


I appreciate your response and attempt to clear up the matter but that is one of the main issues I mentioned in my previous post, the process of a species changing slowly overtime and becoming a new kind of animal(gradual evolution) is pathetically represented in the fossil record and is claimed to be unobservable in a person's lifetime. I understand that the term "macroevolution" is also applied to speciation but for this post I intended to address only the transformation of one animal into a new kind( i.e. dino to bird, reptile to mammal, etc). This is something that observed speciation does not do, it actually makes animals more specialized which suggests a constriction on genetic information and expression rather than the creation of new material which would be needed to form a new kind of animal.

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 November 2005 - 07:37 PM

I appreciate your response and attempt to clear up the matter but that is one of the main issues I mentioned in my previous post, the process of a species changing slowly overtime and becoming a new kind of animal(gradual evolution) is pathetically represented in the fossil record and is claimed to be unobservable in a person's lifetime.


Agreed, but realistically (assume old earth, and evolution are true for the moment) how could it be otherwise?

It unrealistic to find a continuous linage. One has to rely on the big picture and see if it is consistent with the ToE (it is in every respect).

A global flood will not sort the fossil record the way it is found.


I understand that the term "macroevolution" is also applied to speciation but for this post I intended to address only the transformation of one animal into a new kind( i.e. dino to bird, reptile to mammal, etc). This is something that observed speciation does not do


Agreed, Dinosaur to bird is rather a large set of changes to see anything similar in even a hundreds or so of generations.

it actually makes animals more specialized which suggests a constriction on genetic information and expression rather than the creation of new material which would be needed to form a new kind of animal.


true animals do tend to specialise, that seems to be a reoccurring evolutionary theme, the only thing that suggests is that something changes, there is no direction. There is no difference between change and new. (aaaaaaaaa, to aaaaaaaab).

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2005 - 08:10 PM

A global flood will not sort the fossil record the way it is found.


Please....... :) That's your opinion, but you don't know the condititions of the flood, and how and why things would have sorted under those unknown conditions.

Terry

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 November 2005 - 10:07 PM

chance> A global flood will not sort the fossil record the way it is found.

Please.......  That's your opinion, but you don't know the condititions of the flood, and how and why things would have sorted under those unknown conditions.


No flood (of any type) will ever produce the strata with fossils we find globally, you can prove it very simply experimentally.

Get a collection of soils and gravels and bones, try various types of simulated flood (from gentle to chaotic), now there’s a challenge for the AiG or DI.

#10 Adrian7

Adrian7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Anaheim, CA

Posted 11 November 2005 - 02:28 PM

[quote name='chance' date='Nov 10 2005, 10:07 PM']
[/quote]

No flood (of any type) will ever produce the strata with fossils we find globally, you can prove it very simply experimentally.

Get a collection of soils and gravels and bones, try various types of simulated flood (from gentle to chaotic), now there’s a challenge for the AiG or DI.

View Post

[/quote]

To say, with complete certainty, that no flood could produce the strata with fossils, I think, is quite a stretch. As far as the experiment, I have not tried it with bones but I did do a simpler version of it by taking some dirt from the yard placing it in a jar, pouring water in and shaking up the jar for about 30 seconds, in a couple of hours the dirt settled into four layers(different colors) which is something I could not easily tell when I first dug up the dirt. At the very least this showed that it does not, at least on always, take a lot of time to form layers and something on the scale of a global flood would probably not have too much difficulty sorting the ground all over the world into different layers in a relatively short period of time. Something even more interesting than that is that a huge number of fossils(some sources say 95%) are of marine creatures, primarily marine invertebrates. Even in the world renown Dinosaur National Monument, in Utah the most common fossils found are clams. Many have claimed that this overabundance of marine life is due to seas and rivers that once existed where now there is land. But its seems more likely due to rapid burial on a grand scale and the huge amounts of fossil sea creatures could be due to a world wide flood when “…all the fountains of the great deep burst forth”(Genesis 7:11).

#11 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2005 - 06:24 PM

No flood (of any type) will ever produce the strata with fossils we find globally, you can prove it very simply experimentally.

Get a collection of soils and gravels and bones, try various types of simulated flood (from gentle to chaotic), now there’s a challenge for the AiG or DI.


Right........

Concering the strata, its been demonstrated that they can form quite naturally in a quick period of time.

The continuous deposit of a heterogranular sediment in still water was studied.

It was noted that the deposited material organised itself immediately after deposition into periodic graded laminae giving the appearance of successive beds.

One of the more striking features of these laminae formed in the sediment itself was their regular periodicity.

The thickness of the laminae was measured in millimetres. It was independent of the speed of sedimentation and varied according to the extreme difference in the size of the mixed particles.

When deposition took place in a water flow, the lamination phenomenon was also observed. The geometry of lamination was modified by the water flow, but the latter was not the cause of the modification.

The periodic graded laminae were similar to the laminae or varves observed in nature which are interpreted as a superposition of seasonal or annual beds. Their origin, however, was quite different, arising from periodic structuring after deposition.

The question now is to study a number of laminated or varved formations in relation to this mechanism, particularly looking for physical structuring obtained from experimentation.


They even took diatomic laminate, broke it up, and ran it through their experiment, and it produced virtually the same laminate as before!


The question now is to study a number of laminated or varved formations in relation to this mechanism, particularly looking for physical structuring obtained from experimentation.

The mixture was fed from the distributor into the test tube of water at three successive speeds of 50, 100 and 150g per hour for identical periods of time. Lamination appeared in the deposit and the thickness did not vary with the sedimentation speed. The original lamination was reproduced with virtually the same thickness (see Figure 6).



Experiments on lamination of sediments

Concerning the fossils:

The last time I pointed a possible flood/fossil scenario out to Aristarchus, he just moved the goal posts, and objected to the presence of volcanic layer in the sediments(which are explainable by lots of volcanic activity during the period of the flood).

Terry

#12 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2005 - 08:28 PM

To say, with complete certainty, that no flood could produce the strata with fossils, I think, is quite a stretch.

View Post



This is a bit off topic, but since Terry brings up those goal posts I keep moving. Here is what I said.

Many geologic columns have large layers of volcanic ash and large layers of salt, neither of these makes any sense to me in a flood scenerio. In South Dakota, the layered geological column includes 15,000 feet of sediment.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

To quote
"There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt."

Other layers contain many feet of volcanic ash which buried the land creatures of the period. Looking at where this ash layer exists across the country, one can trace one of the largest ash layers (26 feet thick) to a volcano in New Mexico.
www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Newsletter/ NLjune05/pdfs%20for%20web/volcanic.pdf

I am not sure how many days you want to lay down the 15,000 feet of sediment, but don't you get just a little bit curious as to how the salt and ash could get laid down by a flood?
____________________

15,000 feet of sediment over a 1 year period would be 41 feet per day. So that 26 feet of compressed volcanic ash needs to be layed down in under 12 hours, from a volcano almost a 1000 miles away in New Mexico and not mix with the other layers of wet sediment.

If you want to say it was a miracle, that's fine, just don't argue that this makes any sense scientifically.

The Deccan traps (volcanic deposits) in northern India are over a mile thick in places. New research suggests it was layed down quickly. What is quick?

http://news.national...3_dinolava.html
"New tests reveal that one 2,000 foot-thick (600 meter-thick) lava section could have accumulated in just 30,000 years. That's lightning-fast by geologic standards."

The Deccan traps cover over 200,000 square kilometers and the heat generated by laying down all this lava in just a million years or so, is now believed to have significantly heated the whole planet. Siberia and the Pacific Northwest has a similar deep lava flow. You really need to think hard about the size of these geologic features.

You just can't get these kinds of lava flows, layers of volcanic dust, and 200 foot thick salt layers from a flood. Many of the best dinosaur fossils ( including dinosaurs on their nests) are those that are covered in volcanic dust. And these dinosaur nests are on top of thousands of feet of earlier sediment.


And not one fossil of the trillions out there is out of place. There is not one modern mammal with the dinosaurs anywhere on the planet. Not one bone is out of place anywhere. There are no bones (none at all) at all in the many layers below the Cambrian. Below the Cambrian, there are no wood, twigs or leaf fossils either. And the deepest layers show only single celled organisms.

Now try to take an objective approach to this small set of facts (I did not even mention the variety of different radiometric dating techniques used to date each layer) and come up with a theory.

#13 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 12 November 2005 - 01:50 AM

Re - evolutionary transition and How can the intermediate species reproduce?

Evolution predicts that changes from parent to offspring are minor, there will be no point in any species lifetime where it’s parents are significantly different from it’s offspring.

e.g. if the change from a to b represents the changes caused be evolution, like this:

aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaab, aaaaaaaabb, aaaaaaabbb, aaaaaabbbb, aaaaabbbbb.

and a single difference is hardly noticeable that what we see as two species is aaaaaaaaa, and aaaaabbbbb.  Hope that helps

View Post

Then the specie cannot evolve. The assumption is that the dominant genes will cause the specie to change. Dominance in genetic terms is not the "biggest, baddest, mofo gene kicks all the other gene butts and rules the specie. Genes are dominant by accumulation of number. In the scenario aaa......bbb there is never an accumulation of genes to cause dominance. Therefore, EVERY mutation is bread out by the already present and dominant genes.

#14 Adrian7

Adrian7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Anaheim, CA

Posted 13 November 2005 - 12:39 AM

This is a bit off topic, but since Terry brings up those goal posts I keep moving. Here is what I said.

Many geologic columns have large layers of volcanic ash and large layers of salt, neither of these makes any sense to me in a flood scenerio. In South Dakota, the layered geological column includes 15,000 feet of sediment.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

To quote
"There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt."

Other layers contain many feet of volcanic ash which buried the land creatures of the period. Looking at where this ash layer exists across the country, one can trace one of the largest ash layers (26 feet thick) to a volcano in New Mexico.
www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Newsletter/ NLjune05/pdfs%20for%20web/volcanic.pdf

I am not sure how many days you want to lay down the 15,000 feet of sediment, but don't you get just a little bit curious as to how the salt and ash could get laid down by a flood?
____________________

15,000 feet of sediment over a 1 year period would be 41 feet per day. So that 26 feet of compressed volcanic ash needs to be layed down in under 12 hours, from a volcano almost a 1000 miles away in New Mexico and not mix with the other layers of wet sediment.

If you want to say it was a miracle, that's fine, just don't argue that this makes any sense scientifically.

The Deccan traps (volcanic deposits) in northern India are over a mile thick in places. New research suggests it was layed down quickly. What is quick?

http://news.national...3_dinolava.html
"New tests reveal that one 2,000 foot-thick (600 meter-thick) lava section could have accumulated in just 30,000 years. That's lightning-fast by geologic standards."

The Deccan traps cover over 200,000 square kilometers and the heat generated by laying down all this lava in just a million years or so, is now believed to have significantly heated the whole planet. Siberia and the  Pacific Northwest has a similar deep lava flow. You really need to think hard about the size of these geologic features.

You just can't get these kinds of lava flows, layers of volcanic dust, and 200 foot thick salt layers from a flood. Many of the best dinosaur fossils ( including dinosaurs on their nests) are those that are covered in volcanic dust. And these dinosaur nests are on top of thousands of feet of earlier sediment.
And not one fossil of the trillions out there is out of place. There is not one modern mammal with the dinosaurs anywhere on the planet. Not one bone is out of place anywhere. There are no bones (none at all) at all in the many layers below the Cambrian. Below the Cambrian, there are no wood, twigs or leaf fossils either. And the deepest layers show only single celled organisms.

Now try to take an objective approach to this small set of facts (I did not even mention the variety of different radiometric dating techniques used to date each layer) and come up with a theory.

View Post


That certainly was a lot of information to read and review, admittedly I am not too well versed in geology much less the issues you brought up. But I did find some sources that can hopefully provide some answers or at least provide some support for the possibility of a global flood.
Concerning large layers of salt I found this site topic: http://www.icr.org/i...ion=view&ID=532

There was one thing in particular that they wrote which provides a reasonable explanation:
“Many now think the salt was extruded in superheated, supersaturated salt brines from deep in the earth along faults. Once encountering the cold ocean waters, the hot brines could no longer sustain the high concentrations of salt, which rapidly precipitated out of solution, free of impurities and marine organisms.
The great Flood of Noah's day provides the proper context. During the Flood, great volumes of magma, water, metals, and chemicals, were extruded onto the surface from the depths of the earth, as the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) spewed forth hot volcanic materials. Today we find them (especially salt) interbedded with Flood sediments, just as the "Back to Genesis" model predicts."


The issue of volcanic ash you brought up, like the layers of salt is also something I am not well versed in, this issue seems to be more complicated than the issue of salt layers but I will continue to research it to learn more, thanks for informing me though as it is a very interesting issue

As far as fossil placement and distribution, that does not appear to be as well understood as is often portrayed, for a good explanation visit this link:
http://www.answersin.../i1/fossils.asp

Also, just as an add on, it is important to note that the fossils themselves would probably not exist(at least not in great quantities) as they do had some special circumstance or circumstances not been at work. What I mean to say is that nature has ways of recycling dead creatures and effectively cuts off fossil production, considering the number of fossils found, especially the great amounts of fossil sea creatures, this suggests one or several special occurrences that prevented the normal process of recycling. For a better explanation than what I can provide I would recommend this link: http://www.answersin...24/i2/whale.asp

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2005 - 05:01 AM

15,000 feet of sediment over a 1 year period would be 41 feet per day. So that 26 feet of compressed volcanic ash needs to be layed down in under 12 hours, from a volcano almost a 1000 miles away in New Mexico and not mix with the other layers of wet sediment.

If you want to say it was a miracle, that's fine, just don't argue that this makes any sense scientifically.


As mentioned above, it can be argued "scientifically" that the relationship between time and strata does not contain alot ot time.

You just can't get these kinds of lava flows, layers of volcanic dust, and 200 foot thick salt layers from a flood.


This is a strawman argument. No one is saying that a flood alone will produce large lava flows, only that during the flood, there was allot of heavy volcanic activity, and that you are seeing its the effects of it in these lava flows.

Also, its not necessary to have a uniform situatuion occuring globally during the flood in the beginning. It may have started some places as rain events, and others as volcanic events, etc....

As far as the Deccan traps goes, this out to tell you something right here:

"The geologic formation is a vast deposit of basaltic lava, which sprawls nearly 200,000 square miles (500,000 square kilometers). The Deccan Traps are believed to have formed during volcanic activity that spanned about a million years."

"New tests reveal that one 2,000 foot-thick (600 meter-thick) lava section could have accumulated in just 30,000 years. That's lightning-fast by geologic standards."


Well, which is it???????????????????

It should be obvious to the casual observer, that if we can go from millions of years to 30k years, then it ought not be that hard to go from 30k years to a few months.

If anything, this supports a global catastrophy as much as anything else, and reveals the potential errors in modern scientific opinion about the past. Its subject to huge errors, and the claim the the "scientific" community believes it makes it true, is as empty as it can possibly be.

What about this part?

Both Hotlz and Sues, of the Smithsonian, suggest that a number of events, including the massive lava flows and the subsequent catastrophic asteroid impact, as well as mountain building and changing global sea levels, might have worked combination to snuff out the dinosaurs.


That all sounds like the creationist model to me, only the time frame is in dispute.

Many of the best dinosaur fossils ( including dinosaurs on their nests) are those that are covered in volcanic dust. And these dinosaur nests are on top of thousands of feet of earlier sediment.


Its not claimed that all dinosaurs died in the flood. Some are belived to have been on the ark, and then died in events that fossilized them, perhaps volcanic events after the flood. Their appearance would naturally be above the sediment formed during the flood.

And not one fossil of the trillions out there is out of place.


I wonder.....

Let us take the aforementioned occurrence of Lystrosaurus to its logical conclusion. Since Lystrosaurus has always been used to correlate rocks into time-equivalent horizons, and to place them all into the Early Triassic, the Permian find of Lystrosaurus should now mean that Permian and Triassic are contemporaneous!


The fossil record: becoming more random all the time


Terry

#16 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2005 - 07:05 PM

To say, with complete certainty, that no flood could produce the strata with fossils, I think, is quite a stretch. As far as the experiment, I have not tried it with bones but I did do a simpler version of it by taking some dirt from the yard placing it in a jar, pouring water in and shaking up the jar for about 30 seconds, in a couple of hours the dirt settled into four layers(different colors) which is something I could not easily tell when I first dug up the dirt. At the very least this showed that it does not, at least on always, take a lot of time to form layers and something on the scale of a global flood would probably not have too much difficulty sorting the ground all over the world into different layers in a relatively short period of time.


You will get layering but a very specific layering. On close analysis you will get, without exception, large particle on the bottom followed by the ever finer ones.

When you add the current life there should be no drastic sorting of bones other than size and density.


Something even more interesting than that is that a huge number of fossils(some sources say 95%) are of marine creatures, primarily marine invertebrates. Even in the world renown Dinosaur National Monument, in Utah the most common fossils found are clams. Many have claimed that this overabundance of marine life is due to seas and rivers that once existed where now there is land. But its seems more likely due to rapid burial on a grand scale and the huge amounts of fossil sea creatures could be due to a world wide flood when “…all the fountains of the great deep burst forth”(Genesis 7:11).


over 99% of all fossils have an association with water, this providing the necessary mechanism to be covered with silt and preserve the bones, animals that die on dry land decay away (mostly). Exceptions are sand dunes and Volcanic.

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2005 - 07:20 PM

From the article 92g posted:

The thickness of the laminae was measured in millimetres. It was independent of the speed of sedimentation and varied according to the extreme difference in the size of the mixed particles.


Just what I would expect to see! But not what is found world wide where you can get alternating layers of fine and course. Now add bones to the equation and what should you get? Bones sorted by the same phenomena, but you don’t get that.

#18 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2005 - 07:27 PM

Then the specie cannot evolve. The assumption is that the dominant genes will cause the specie to change. Dominance in genetic terms is not the "biggest, baddest, mofo gene kicks all the other gene butts and rules the specie.


Err …. Actually it is, (if I understand you correctly), the most fit will dominate the less fit, eventually replacing.


Genes are dominant by accumulation of number. In the scenario aaa......bbb there is never an accumulation of genes to cause dominance. Therefore, EVERY mutation is bread out by the already present and dominant genes.


I don’t understand (or perhaps you have misunderstood what I attempted to represent) , the b is replacing the a, (assumption - it is superior to a).

#19 Adrian7

Adrian7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Anaheim, CA

Posted 14 November 2005 - 04:46 PM

You will get layering but a very specific layering. On close analysis you will get, without exception, large particle on the bottom followed by the ever finer ones.

When you add the current life there should be no drastic sorting of bones other than size and density.
over 99% of all fossils have an association with water, this providing the necessary mechanism to be covered with silt and preserve the bones, animals that die on dry land decay away (mostly).  Exceptions are sand dunes and Volcanic.

View Post


Very interesting, it does appear that the dirt in the experiment I tried sorted from largest on the bottom to finer as it went up that not being the case for the earth as you mentioned is also interesting.

As far as the points you made concerning fossils I am not quite sure I understood what you wrote, atleast not completely, but if you were trying to say that the fossils should also be sorted by the largest and densest to the lightest this does not necessarily have to be the case, most vertebrates bloat when they die and if they are in water take in water slowly through osmosis which means it may take a while for them to sink. This could account for larger creatures such as dinosaurs and other large creatures being found above smaller invertebrate life forms. The overwhelming amount of fossil sea life and there locations in areas that are thought to have been, and currently are, land suggests that they were transported there by water(possibly a natural disaster involving water) under unusual circumstances. Again I not completely certain what you were trying to say so I apologize if I have misconstrued your original point.

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2005 - 10:17 PM

chance > You will get layering but a very specific layering.  On close analysis you will get, without exception, large particle on the bottom followed by the ever finer ones.

When you add the current life there should be no drastic sorting of bones other than size and density.
over 99% of all fossils have an association with water, this providing the necessary mechanism to be covered with silt and preserve the bones, animals that die on dry land decay away (mostly).  Exceptions are sand dunes and Volcanic.


Very interesting, it does appear that the dirt in the experiment I tried sorted from largest on the bottom to finer as it went up that not being the case for the earth as you mentioned is also interesting.


Exactly, there will of course be some local effects in the corner of the container that must be discarded, and some of the material will dissolve, but give it some time and most will precipitate out.


As far as the points you made concerning fossils I am not quite sure I understood what you wrote, atleast not completely, but if you were trying to say that the fossils should also be sorted by the largest and densest to the lightest this does not necessarily have to be the case, most vertebrates bloat when they die and if they are in water take in water slowly through osmosis which means it may take a while for them to sink.


Very true, but, there are small dinosaurs and also some very large mammals (all ranging in size from young to adult), the rules of decay will be consistent no matter what the animal, so for any given location you should get consistent results on size modified by the effects of decay. This might have larger animals sinking somewhat later than there size would suggest, but it would be the same mammal and dinosaure.

This could account for larger creatures such as dinosaurs and other large creatures being found above smaller invertebrate life forms. The overwhelming amount of fossil sea life and there locations in areas that are thought to have been, and currently are, land suggests that they were transported there by water(possibly a natural disaster involving water) under unusual circumstances. Again I not completely certain what you were trying to say so I apologize if I have misconstrued your original point.


A flood wont discriminate to the extent we find, dinosaurs in the Mesozoic (lower in the strata) than all but a few primitive Mammals, and no Dinosaurs above the KT boundary.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users