Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

Released from Proposed New Topics. --AdminThe Recolonization Model is a Flood/post-Flood framework that displays a more mainstream-like pattern of strata and fossils, as compared to the Ecological-zoning model (ie Morris et al's standard proposal), whilst being rooted in a young-earth framework. In particular, many-multiple significant habitation levels (ie, strata displaying evidence of a break in layering and terristial animal and/or plant habitation) are accomodated and the fossil ordering mechanism is based on taxon-specific recolonization of the earth (from a postulated particular location) dictated by breeding rates and ecological requirements.The Recolonization Model proposes that an early Paleozoic Flood (2500BC) was followed by a turbulent, approximately 500-year, period during which the super-continent Pangea broke-up. The tectonic activity of Pangea break-up and sea-floor spreading caused wide-spread post-Flood marine inundations that - vertically - generated more of the geological column than the Flood did, but covered less of the Earth's surface area with water and sediment. [Tentative Flood extent is Pre-cambrian to Silurian/Devonian, with the reaminder of the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Tertiary occurring as the Pangea-break-up tectonically induced marine inundations].It was during this post-Flood 500 years that animals - and people - dispersed from the postulatd location. Animals with rapid breeding rates - like reptiles and dinosaurs - recolonized faster than mammals. Exponentially growing populations of these fast breeders ensure that the first appearences of these animals in the fossil record is lower than slow breeders, or animals ecologically dependent on other slow breeders. In a significant gain of common ground with mainstream paleontology, the Recolonization Model is compatible with many proposed evolutioanry transformations through time such as the horse series.A key 'postulate' of the Recolonization Model is that we don't see the pre-Flood world's land animals fossilized because the initial Flood event was hydrologically and tectonically violent.Let's discuss the stratigraphic, geophysical, paleontological and biological evidence for this model.

I'm sure that many people can point out the obvious problems, but I'm going to take a slightly different tack.Given the extremely short timescale for the "recolonisation", including the depsotion of large amounts of rock, the fossil record ought to show a strong geographic signal. The waves of colonisation should clearly show in the fossil record. Areas sufficiently close to the Ark landing site should seem to be hundreds of millions of years "ahead" of the most distant parts of the planet (by the view of mainstream geology). A significant part of this difference should show in the fossil record - certainly enough to cause serious problems for mainstream paleontologists.If this signal were to be present it would be quite strong evidence that there was something to the model. If it is absent then I have to ask how the mdoel could hope to stand.(Edit expanded and clarified final sentences of 2nd paragraph)This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-24-2005 09:28 AM

When I try to think of this in the way you describe I come up with a slightly different critique. If the entire post-flood world was repopulated from a central point at differential recolonization rates, then animals of all eras should be present in all the post-flood geologic strata around Noah's ark. This distribution should gradually diminish with increasing distance from Noah's ark. TB should support his hypothesis by citing such data.--Percy

I imagine that the idea is based on what happens when forest areas are recolonised after a fire. Quick-growing plants get in first but are displaced by species that invest in longer-term strategies.So, the period of coexistence could - assuming this sort of model - be short and cover a relatively small area. I think that that is a very big assumption - but then so is the idea that large sauropods would spread more quickly than, say, rats or rabbits.Come to that so is the assumption that even human (pre)history can be compressed into a mere 4500 years. Especially when the first 500 years have to incorporate a lot of geological deposition and have no visible human activity anywhere (if the Eocene limestone of Giza Plateau isn't even deposited until close to 2000 BC when can we put the building of the Sphinx and the Giza pyramids ?)

So are you suggesting that while Pangea was breaking and splitting apart that life was able to prosper and spread to every corner of the earth during this "turbulent" and tumultuous time? A time when apparently the sub-continents were frequently being inundated by tectonically-induced marine incursions?Here it comes again! Run for the hills!! That's rather convenient.

You are sure that dinosaurs reproduced more rapidly than rabbits? That's silly speculation. More weak logic. Shouldn't there be significant overlap of all species as we get closer to the final resting place of the ark? This should show up in the fossil record. Why haven't YEC scientists found evidence of this? So, no artifacts? Nothing to show of earlier civilizations? Remember that YEC theory has these early humans as genetically superior and robust than modern humans. Why did they leave exactly no trace at all?

PaulK (1) I agree with you that you would expect 'anomalies' if our model is correct. (2) But not to the extent that you propose IMO.On the first point lets remember that the fossil record in detail is of course not predicted by evolution theory. In fact evolution is compatible with enormous out of sequence finds. As I'm sure you're aware large mammals have been found tens of millions of years lower in the geo column than previsouly seen. Bird tracks that match 5 out of 5 diagnostic points for birds were foudn in Triassic beds in 2003. And every fossil order diagram has huge - up to 100 million year - 'ghost' ranges where an example of an organism is not foudn in the fossil record despite being required by evoltuoanry theory.I'll go along with the claim that 'we shouldn't expect to find a perfect record' but its still not the case that evolution prefers hundred million year ghost ranges.Of course the fossil record is full of examples of flourishing in one region before another. But at this point I wont claim that there is a finger pointing to a central dispersal point.That brings us to point 2. Should we expect to see a evidecne pointing to a central dispersal point? Should we expect to see a location with forms 'millions of years ahead'?Not necessarily. If the dispersal point was in the highlands - very likely - then it would not be affected by catastrophic burial. We just get hundreds of years of normal processes which we claim would leave almost nothing behind.What should we expect to see in the lowlands? The claim is that we should see small reptiles, then large ones, then mammals and birds due to (a) breeding rates and (b) ecological dependencies.Hopefully we'll start to get some historical proxy data (Krakatoa and Mt ST Helens - any more?) as well as theoretical data on this in this thread. Unfortunately neither Krakatoa nor Mt ST Helens are particularly good proxies because Krakatoa was an island of course and Mt St Helens did not utterly destroy life - man yplants and even mammals survived in situ.Theoretically lets first see what the effect of breeding rates might be. I argued that 'exponential factors' ensure stratigraphic separation. I'm sure we're all familiar that in a geometrical series (such as population growth is) even a slight breeding rate difference is rapidly exaggerated with generations. This actaully happens to an extent that for some purposes - eg ability to migrate to the far parts of the world and be fossilised - you can consider the dominating species to be the only ones there.Rememember that in our model catastrophic fossilization via marine inundations dominates over all others to an enormous extent (due to the trivial amount of 'normal' fossilization). So animals needed to migrate to coastal areas to be fossilized.Theoretically again, migration also requires ecological dependencies to be satisfied. So, for example, plants that survived as spores and seeds on the ark had to disperse. Animals somewhat dependent on those particular plants had to wait befoer flourishing. Then then th eentire food chain requirements of herbivores and carnivors set up the remaining obvious dependencies.How this plays out is not immediately obvious. But there are certainly plenty of possibilities so it's not possible to immediately rule it out as a mechanistic origin of the fossil record.Certainly one thing that we have to realise is the role of exponentially increasing populations as I outlined above.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-26-2005 09:59 PM

Percy I cover precisely this issue in the above reply to PaulK.

PaulK Yes in broad-terms, and this suggests another obvious proxy environment and framework. What are you getting at with this? I agree that the biological recolonization aspect is largely hypothesis at this point. Of course we subscribe to Rohl's compressed Egyptian chronology for example. The '500 years' aspect of the Reoclonization Model is an extreme upper limit. The model allows for a shorter catastrophic period which admittedly still requires the comperssion of post-inundation human histroy into perhaps 4250 years. You should check out the Rohl stuff (or is it you I'm discussing things with there?) becasue at the very least Rohl demonstrates how easy it is to make 250 year errors in the first millenium BC!

roxrkool Yes. There is no problem living on the innner part of a plate that is moving at 10 miles per year. And if you're at teh acoasts you become part of the fossil record which is a requirement, not a problem, with the model. But this is more-or-less part of your model too becasue it's in the data! The data in the major formations tells us the earth was inundated by marine incursions up to 50% of the land mass. If anything, the data is more compatible with it being sudden. Most formations demonstrate conssitent currents for thousands of feet. It is only mainstream assumption that the current was a 'normal' current and not the inundation itself. The paelocurrents (ie ordering of ripples, pebbles, fossils and even cross-bedding), not to mention fossil graveyards. are quite consistent with the inundations being sudden.

Edge There are ecologcial issues too. Are you pretending that your model predicts the fossil record? Dinosaurs certainly did reproduce prolifically. See earlier comments to PaulK and Percy. The postulate of the Recolonization MOdel, consistent wiht the data, is to take the biblical use of the term 'Mabbul' seriously. (Mabbul = utter destruction as per Soddom and Gommorah).

In the 'Where did the Flood waters go thread', TC said: Could you explain to me this CPT heat transfer method again please? It is not ad hoc if accelerated decay is REQUIRED by CPT. Although Baumgardner has not fully incorporated accelerated decay into his model at present to my knowledge, I find it hard to see how it could be any other way? Decay was clearly occurring at an accelerated rate during the formation of the entire geological column MODEL FREE!We do have to keep an eye on the big-picture. As a YEC, do you seriously doubt accelerated decay as such? There are several other major advantages to the model.* It largely solves the accelerated decay heat problem - a problem that was far larger than the subduction heat problem as you mentioned.* It allows us to interperet 'in-kind' fossil series as genuine evolutionary transformations in time. There is good evidence of gradual 'in-kind' change within the fossil record as I'm sure you're aware.* IMO the fossil ordering mechanism (recolonization vs ecological zoning) is far superior.And let's not forget that1. There is no post-Ordovician covering that is anywhere near global!
2. The habitation levels in the post-Paleozoic are extremely hard - I would say near impossible - to fit during the Flood period itself.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-26-2005 11:00 PM

Such as? Please explain. Evidence? Documentation? And PLEASE answer my question. Are you saying that dinosaurs (T-Rex, for instance) reproduced faster than rabbits? How about insects? Where are the worldwide Ordovician insects? And yet a little boat on this ocean survived? Not a very satisfactory mabbul, if you ask me. Let me get this straight: your entire theory rests on the fact that there is no data for pre-mabbul life or civilizations? That's an interesting approach to science!

Edge I pointed out ecological issues in the above posts. For example, you wont find T-rexes in areas that don't have prey! We all know from basic ecological considerations that vast numbers of small organisms need to establish before small numbers of carnivors. It's well known that dinosaur nests contain 20-40 eggs and that even T-rex matured rapidly. Next time I come across these well known refs I'll post them but you know this as well as I do if you read New Scientist or SciAm.Your issue of rabbits vs T-Rex is important - I'm not fobbing you off. It's clearly a good point and an issue for the model. From our point of view the answer must come from ecology for this one - or indeed is a classic example of exponentially compounding of a small breeding rate difference. The theory rests on lots things - including that.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2005 01:30 AM

For a start you can forget about historical proxy data on this issue - you're assuming radically different conditions and a world-wide distribution in a relatively short space of time.The frequency of fossilisation must be far higher just to account for the fossils we do have. Taking that, the assumption of rapid deposition and lithification and the assumption of accelerated radiometric decay I'd say that there is a very strong expectation that the pattern of colonisation should be visible.When we remmeber that "millions of years" only represent a few real years in your model I can't see how you can say that we shouldn't see areas that are "millions of years ahead". Are you really proposing that each wave covers the entire land area of the planet within a few years ?And why does the idea that fossilisation occurs in coastal areas make a difference ? If it did then it would invalidate the model which is supposed to explain the fossil record by the very waves of colonisation you say aren't visible.As for your specific examples the "large mammals" aren't modern mammals, are they ? Bird evolution isn't nailed down far enough for the tracks you refer to to be a definite problem, is it ? And "ghost lineages" aren't actually explained by recolonisation, are they ?I think your answer here pretty much kills any idea that recolonisation is a viable hypothesis for explaining the fossil record.