|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossil sorting for simple | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
So finally the real explanation is that God, as is his perogative, overrode all the laws of physics and made miracles happen to order the fossil record in a very precise way. Is that it?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-25-2004 01:29 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Where did you dig this up? What laws do you think are in violation here? The 'theory' of evolution? Yes, He would have danced all over that one for sure!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
OK, so we are staying with in what is physically possible without miracles then? Just need to get that staight.
So again, have I paraphrased your explanation for what happened correctly? There was a whole lot going on, but million and billions of fossils got sorted into just the right place by happenstance. Is that what happened?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The 'theory' of evolution? Yes, He would have danced all over that one for sure! Do you have a problem staying focussed. This has exactly what to do with the fossil ordering issue?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Arkathon,
mark writes:
A global flood should leave global evidence, right? A global flood responsible for the majority of the geologic column should have a start & a stop point...
arkathon writes: Says you. We may see certain general patterns, but there was a world of possible differences. You can't shove a life ending worldwide cataclysm into such a little box! ! Says me? You mean a "life ending worldwide cataclysm" wouldn't leave evidence? I guess your idea of the flood was trying to leave intact the idea of great age differences in the layers! Lose that, and you have a good start in the right direction! Nope, please read more carefully. I noted there is a pattern to fossil deposition based on relative ages. Remember the pretty picture where I asked you to explain how the bottom strata got inserted under the top one? No? Well, you completely failed to address the point, so that must be why.
Please explain how the layering isn't relatively older the deeper you go. Even if this formation were laid down during a flood this would be true. Key word - superposition.
mark writes: Why aren't mosses, liverworts, conifers, grasses etc. found in terrestrial strata of the same relative age?
arkathon writes: When the entire planet is sky high in water, "terrestrial strata" must be rare!? But the point remains, there were NO land plants during the Cambrian. Strange, wouldn't you say, given your explanation elsewhere should have everything "jumbled"? Why aren't mosses, liverworts, conifers, grasses etc. found in the same strata of the same relative age? 'Relative age'? Relative to what?-old age reasoning? Perhaps some of the layers that washed in and hardened didn't wash away much of the plants you mentioned? Or what if there were different plants mostly before, with different properties (float more, no pollen, etc. etc.) Trees aren't particles that settle out like sediments. And the taxa I mention are all in the fossil record so must have predated the alleged flood.
What if God planted most of today's varieties after the flood?! If-if-if. Why are the taxa I mention a part of the fossil record, then?
Or if He adapted, or evoluted them in a hurry? What if some giant earthquake ridden, sulfate soaked (or something) mass movement slushed some layers that hardened, that carried very different life, or lack of it inside? If-if-if. This still doesn't explain the pattern in the fossil record.
mark writes: If you want to include the marine algae, fine, go for it, it's the same story! Everything is mightily ordered for such an alleged "jumbling".
arkathon writes: Whole formations in the Rockies, as a quick example are composed largely of limestone hardened crushed, and broken fragments of say, crinoids. (like starfish) in the trillions. "mightily ordered" you say? And how does that impinge on the pattern seen in the fossil record? Some deposits are thick & fossiliferous is not a rebuttle. Single celled bacteria predate single celled algae, which in turn predates multicellular algae, which again predates the earliest terrestrial bryophytes...etc. How on earth does mentioning echinoderms represent a rebuttal to the ordering I've mentioned? I'm going to assume the penny has dropped regarding relative ages & restate my case in more detail. Your answers thus far have been if-if-if, none of which actually answer the question & explain the pattern seen in the fossil record, they are more like excuses as to why we shouldn't see a pattern in the fossil record. Apologies to those who have seen this a thousand times...
Assessing Congruence Between Cladistic and Stratigraphic Data Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex cladograms) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value. Stratigraphic Consistency Index. The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3). Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids. SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)." Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation? Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.
Or what if there were different plants mostly before, with different properties (float more, no pollen, etc. etc.) Amazing, isn't it, that organisms today, & organisms most similar to existing flora & fauna are more bouyant than ones that are dissimilar & find themselves in the uppermost strata. Amazing too, that the relative ordering of the fossil record should match evolutionary expectations. Please directly address the points raised & avoid if-if-if arguments. If you are going to assert, you are going to need evidence. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm inclined to think you should hold off on the SCI metric question. Akhanatan is has enoug to deal with right now. There's lots more for him later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:There was a pattern it seems in how these millions of jiggle events happened aroun the world, yet with lots of wiggle room for variety! [quote]Please be clear on exactly what you are saying happened. You haven't done that yet. quote:See what I mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Guess what all....we're past 300 posts.
Please take any discussion to a new thread and link back to this one. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024