Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood sorting
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 53 (16198)
08-28-2002 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 8:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Most of your comments ignore the fact that our explanation will come from convoluting all three processes.
'Convoluting?' Interesting choice of words.
quote:
If you think that anyone could be expected to explain this stuff with hand waving then I suggest that you've just got yoursleves jobs replacing the supercomputers working on grand challenges worldwide.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 8:16 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 11:21 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 53 (16199)
08-28-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by edge
08-28-2002 11:13 PM


^ 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 08-28-2002 11:13 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 08-28-2002 11:25 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 21 by edge, posted 08-29-2002 12:33 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 53 (16200)
08-28-2002 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 11:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Convolution is a mathematical term. Most people who analyse data and apply model dependent extraction of parameters are 'deconvoluting' the data.
Good. But it also seems to refer to convoluted logic.
quote:
The strata themselves still look far more like flood deposit than gradual sedimentary environments.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 11:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 11:35 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 53 (16201)
08-28-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by edge
08-28-2002 11:25 PM


^ 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 08-28-2002 11:25 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 08-28-2002 11:51 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 53 (16202)
08-28-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 11:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ You really think that is true. That is where the problem lies.
I'm sure you would know.
quote:
If I were you I would want to find the answer to the paleocurrent question.
You have been given answers here. Geologists have been studying paleocurrents for generations.
quote:
Doesn't it worry you that no-one is publishing detailed comparisons of paleocurrents in modern vs ancient?
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:
It would scare the Lyell out of me. Turbidite deposits make up half the geological column.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 11:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 12:38 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 21 of 53 (16205)
08-29-2002 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 11:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 11:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 12:43 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 53 (16206)
08-29-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by edge
08-28-2002 11:51 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 08-28-2002 11:51 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 08-29-2002 4:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 38 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:05 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 53 (16207)
08-29-2002 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by edge
08-29-2002 12:33 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by edge, posted 08-29-2002 12:33 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 08-29-2002 4:51 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 25 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 5:14 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 27 by edge, posted 08-29-2002 5:42 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 53 (16217)
08-29-2002 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 12:43 AM


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 sorting
processes in a year-long flood, surely.
Once the critters can no longer escape (the world was covered
after 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 12:43 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:42 PM Peter has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 25 of 53 (16219)
08-29-2002 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 12:43 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 12:43 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:39 PM Randy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 53 (16256)
08-29-2002 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 12:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 12:38 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:29 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 53 (16257)
08-29-2002 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
08-29-2002 12:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We all know that with simple systems one can work backwards. With messy sytems you can't.
And yet you adhere to Baumgardner's model? That is all that he does.
quote:
I am a protein folder.
Good for you. I'm sure this qualifies you to evaluate sedimentary models.
quote:
...
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 12:43 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:32 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 53 (16261)
08-29-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
08-29-2002 4:59 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 08-29-2002 4:59 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by edge, posted 08-30-2002 1:20 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 53 (16262)
08-29-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by edge
08-29-2002 5:42 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by edge, posted 08-29-2002 5:42 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 53 (16263)
08-29-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Randy
08-29-2002 5:14 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 5:14 AM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Randy, posted 08-29-2002 9:28 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024