|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood sorting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 'Convoluting?' Interesting choice of words.
quote: So, in the absence of such a 'convolution' you still think that the flood model is superior to mainstream geology? Mainstream geology has explained virtually every aspect of the questions that we have posed to you. That is why we ask them. Please explain how your model is superior. Other than hunches, I mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ Convolution is a mathematical term. Most people who analyse data and apply model dependent extraction of parameters are 'deconvoluting' the data.
The convolution of f and g (called f*g(x)) is the integral of f(u)g(x-u)du from -infinity to infinity. f and g become hopelessly entangled into f*g. The strata themselves still look far more like flood deposit than gradual sedimentary environments. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Good. But it also seems to refer to convoluted logic.
quote: That's funny. The ones we see being deposited today look identical and yet they are not being deposited by flood... Why do you think that is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ You really think that is true. That is where the problem lies.
If I were you I would want to find the answer to the paleocurrent question. Doesn't it worry you that no-one is publishing detailed comparisons of paleocurrents in modern vs ancient? It would scare the Lyell out of me. Turbidite deposits make up half the geological column. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm sure you would know.
quote: You have been given answers here. Geologists have been studying paleocurrents for generations.
quote: No. Probably because it is not necessary or was done many years ago. Check out some textbooks maybe they have your answer. I know sedimentologists and they do these things. Perhaps you are just not familiar with the literature. Maybe your subscription to Sed Pet ran out.
quote: No problem, except in the minds of creationists. Well, I'm not sure about the percentage, though the number sounds inflated. But there are turbidites being deposited today. Where is the flood? [This message has been edited by edge, 08-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Thank you for the math lesson. However, it would seem to me that you should be de-convoluting rather than convoluting if you are to make a model. As I remember you said that the ultimate model would be a 'convolution of the three mechanisms.' Seems to me that you are trying to get us hopelessly entangled in infinity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
None of us here, including me, have been able to find good data comparing paleocurrents in ancient vs modern environments. I'm thinking of giving the project to my next grad student but I don't know if the head of department will go for it.
Your epeiric seas, generating most of the geological column, have the tell-tale sign of high energy flood event written in just about every layer in the form of rapid paleocurrent signatures. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
The point about convolution is that you can't look at the data and extract what caused it. You really do need to propose a mechanism and then go simulate it and see. We all know that with simple systems one can work backwards. With messy sytems you can't. I am a protein folder. From model system experiments we know what the forces are that fold prorteins. Now I have to simulate them in silico, empirically representing certain forces and features, and look for the result. Flood sorting is no different and would have to be approached in a similar manner. There is no way one could predict the details intuitively.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
But surely for hydrodynamic sorting to have played any part at
all in consistent fossil ordering it would have to be a deterministic process. It's not ... I checked up some research papers on it ... the dynamics are so complex that the end results are inconsistent even in lab. tanks. And hydrodynamic sorting would supercede the rest of your sortingprocesses in a year-long flood, surely. Once the critters can no longer escape (the world was coveredafter 40 days and the waters receded after 150 days) the major 'sorting' influence would be hydrodynamic sorting. If 'escape' is a factor, surely we should only find 'mobile'animals in strata at higher altitudes ... don't animals flee to high ground during floods? Or is the whole contour of the earth changed at that time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6248 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
So TB how do you propose to mathematically convolute hydrodynamic sorting with escapability and biogeography? What does a convolution integral from linear theory have to do with anything here? I am sure you know that the convolution integral is used to predict output from a complex input function when output to a simple input function (usually a delta function) is known. It is irrelevant here and really just a dodge because you can't answer any of the questions you have been asked about "flood sorting".
I think that if you read his posts you will find that Mark24 has given examples that directly falsify your claims in some detail and I am sure he and others could give many more. Escapability is nonsense for marine organisms and plants. Biogeography simply fails. For example there are successions of botton dwelling organisms all through the fossil record and succession of animals that lived in intertidal zones and I alrady pointed out how silly it is for animals and plants. Hydrodynamic sorting also fails as organisms with different body sizes and shapes are found in any given layer and organisms with similar body shapes are found in different layers. This is also true of relative mobility and there is no way to put these three factors together to explain the fossil record. All creationist attempts to do so are easily falsified by the data. Why would the "convolution" of factors just happen to cause mammals to be buried in a way that correlates with their post flood extinction pattern? This doesn't make even the least bit of sense and I see you have yet to address it. Trying to change the subject to one that was discussed on other threads, where it seems to me that your claims were thoroughly refuted doesn't speak too well for your arguments either. Or are you saying that it was paleocurrents that caused the flood to sort animals in correlation with their post-flood extinction patterns and caused the order in the fossil record that you can't otherwise explain? Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Probably no one has bothered looking for it since the work was done generations back. This is silly, TB. What do you think sedimentologists do? Don't you think they might have noticed that there are discrepancies between the geological column and modern sedimentation?
quote: Ah, yes. That reminds me. You never did explain what the evidence is for high energy transport in the Mancos Shale unit. Or the many coralline limestones. I would also like to know what the current directions and velocities are in such units. Maybe one of your grad students could work on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And yet you adhere to Baumgardner's model? That is all that he does.
quote: Good for you. I'm sure this qualifies you to evaluate sedimentary models.
quote: Rrriiight! And yet what are you doing with your 'hunches' and intuition? You have given us nothing but ill-iformed guesswork with virtually no detail since joining this board. On the other hand, Joe and others here have spent careers studying this things and
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
If you're right, post the links to the abstracts systematically comparing paleocurrents in modern vs ancient environments! I can't find them. It's a fantastic basic science research project akin to systematic genomics. I might even put a proposal in to ARC or NSF. And I never said that every bed demonstrates rapid currents. About half do with the rest due to gentle settling afterward - but gentle settling today vs gentle settling after a catastropghic surge which would have suspended enormous quantities of debris are two different things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
Baumgardner et al are doing exactly wat I am saying. They've got the forces and mechanims from toy modles and model experimental systems and then they put it all togehter in a quantitative compouter simulation. That's how it works in these 'grand scientific computing challenges'. Messy systems require this sort of approach. I've admitted 100 times that I can't prove the fossil order is due to the flood. But I do believe the geo-data suggests rapidity of formation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Convolution is a general conceptanalgous to the situaiton here. Every complex physical system is effectively a convoution (try out hypothesis and see if it reproduces the data) problem. I'm a theoretical (bio)physicist and so I was using the math definition as an analogy.
The way the fossil order would have to e tested would be with a computer simulation of the entire process. It is almost impossible to do but one could try and pick out some salient subset of data and have a go. There is no 'why' (would it reproduce the data) except if that is how it happened! The eovltuionary long age interpretaitonis based on homology which does intuitively emerge from our 3 mechanisms as I 've explained on numerous occasions. I never changed subjects in the other thread. Someone else changed the subject (eg challenged the flood) and I answered. Go check it out.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024