|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Basic and Remedial Fossil Identification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
i think robin was referring to something that bears properties of both reptiles and mammals, not a direct line from lizard to cows. The reptile to mammal line was what I meant: the most complete of all, according to this book I read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The reptile to mammal line was what I meant: the most complete of all, according to this book I read. again, still not totally accurate. mammals did not evolve from reptiles. they evolved from pre-reptile amniotes that were very reptilian in many ways. and i'm not sure if it's the most complete. i haven't looked into it much, but i feel confident in saying that dinosaur-bird transition is so much more complete that nobody even feels there is a transition at all anymore, because birds ARE dinosaurs. and even if i'm wrong on that account, dino-bird would still give reptilian-mammal a run for its money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Robin, I think you posted a link to sketches of this supposed transitional series, but I haven't been able to find it. Can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I certainly thought that supposed fossil transition didn't make sense but I wasn't up to getting into it at the time.
By the way, could you reduce that picture of the reptile you posted? I don't know how to do it. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I certainly thought that supposed fossil transition didn't make sense but I wasn't up to getting into it at the time. well, it makes sense. i'm just quibbling over a technicality. mammals and reptiles diverged from the same ancestor, not mammals from reptiles. if we were to draw the diagram, you wouldn't even be able to tell -- that "reptile" i posted, for instance, is not a reptile. it's actually more closely related to mammals than it is to reptiles. it's just very close to the common ancestor, and so still looks very reptilian. but since it's a synapsid, and not a sauropsid, it's not a reptile.
By the way, could you reduce that picture of the reptile you posted? I don't know how to do it. Thanks. fixed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, that's a clear post. But as I said, I'm getting overwhelmed with all the material accumulating on this thread that I have to spend a lot more time thinking about.
You ask about some of the critters continuing into later periods, and sure they do, kinda. The forms vary as we move higher in the column. For example the ferns of today are distinctly different from the ferns from long ago. When you say "kinda" are the modern fossil ferns found in anywhere near the quantity of what should be expected of an evolving species that is still abundantly represented on earth? I mean, the differences are not a problem for floodists, but if earlier forms of life, forms of which are clearly abundant among us today, only "kinda" continue into upper strata, that is, are very sparsely represented as fossil imprints, I would think that might pose a problem for evolutionists.
The important point is that does not hold true moving down the column. We NEVER find ferns below a certain level, or grass below a certain level or trilobites below a certain level or dinosurs below a certain level. Is that any clearer? OK I'm glad to have that said with such absolute certainty. Yes. But this is no problem for a floodist, and I would think you'd know what a floodist would say about this by this point. Edited by Faith, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3895 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Here is that link to the lizard-cows from the Mediocre Debate.
The name of the scientific specialization you are looking into with your question is biostratigraphy. Maybe I will come back to that later, it will involve talking about strata, and that isn't where you want to start. The basic principle you are investigating is called the Law of Faunal Succession. Here it is being discovered by Will Smith in the 1790's
Smith worked at one of the estate's older mines, the Mearns Pit at High Littleton. As he observed the rock layers, or strata, at the pit he realised that they were arranged in a predictable pattern, and that the various strata could always be found in the same relative positions. Additionally, each particular stratum could be identified by the fossils it contained, and the same succession of fossil groups from older to younger rocks could be found in many parts of England. This gave Smith a testable hypothesis, which he termed the principle of faunal succession, and he began his search to determine if the relationships between the strata and their characteristics were consistent throughout the country. The business about rocks at the bottom and top being the same thing as older and younger rocks respectively is from an even earlier and more substantial discovery called the Law of Superposition. It says, in brief, that rock forms naturally into horizontal layers one after another. In cases where we don't have these horizontal layers or strata, where the layering or piling or "grain" of the rock is more diagonal or vertical, the rock has been disturbed. This is pretty basic geology, it is hard to dismiss, and it isn't unique to one side of the argument.
Steno himself saw no difficulty in attributing the formation of most rocks to the flood mentioned in the Bible. However, he noticed that, of the two major rock types in the Apennine Mountains near Florence, Italy, the lower layers had no fossils, while the upper ones were rich in fossils. He suggested that the upper layers had formed in the flood, after the creation of life, while the lower ones had formed before life had existed. This was the first use of geology to try to distinguish different time periods in the Earth's history - an approach that would develop spectacularly in the work of later scientists. Edited by Iblis, : fixed a link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, thanks for that link from the lizard-cow discussion. I thought it must be on that thread somewhere. Thanks also for the other links.
I do already grasp those principles, though. The law of superposition is simple common sense. But nothing about that principle requires great spans of time, simply order of deposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Faith
I do already grasp those principles, though. The law of superposition is simple common sense. But nothing about that principle requires great spans of time, simply order of deposition. Please explain what the order of deposition you would expect the animals that died in the flood to achieve and what the reason for this would be.Since the biblical record of the flood occurs over the course of ~ 1 year is there a prediction you can make about what you would expect to find when all the animals of the planet are drowned and settle to the bottom and are subsequently buried?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The physical strata that contain physical fossils are described in terms of eras of time and evolved creatures instead of the simple physical facts. There's something that smacks of mystification in this, but it's standard. We aren't presented a stack of physical strata with its interestingly peculiar sediment layers and peculiar fossil contents, we are presented with scenarios about life on earth millions of years ago. I think I have found the flaw in your thinking Faith. Scientists use the fossils of certain creatures as the description of the strata because it's more accurate than a physical description of the strata. Let's say, using absolutely no technical terms, that there is a level of strata which is 1 million years old and its accessable near your house (where ever that is). Let's say that layer is sandstone and contains snail fossils. Halfway around the world, another layer of strata also 1 million years old contains the same fossil snails, however this strata is packed ash laid down by a volcanic explosion. Both strata are from the same time period, but a simple description of their physical nature would be completely useless. One is sandstone, the other is ash. However, the fact that both layers contain similiar fossils tell us they are from the same era.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Faith, you're asking for two very different things in this thread.
You are saying:
The fact that this information has not already been accumulated and abstracted for the public is reprehensible, because it makes it prohibitive for the average person to question the evo interpretation. Which seems like you want someone to research the information and give you a summation for public consumption, written in plain English so the average person could sit down and understand what is being said without having to do a lot of research. Yet, at the same time you are asking things like:
Assuming that "Devonian rocks" occur higher in the GC than the Silurian, right above the Silurian or is there an intervening layer; and how much higher might be interesting to know. And when you say "gets to be very common" what relative numbers or density are you talking about and at what level, and right above the other layers that contain these fossils or is there a gap and so on? How thick are the particular rocks could be a telling factor. I don't know for sure what would be most relevant. Those are detailed, analytical questions about distribution, averages, etc. The answers you seek would necessarily come with a great deal of data - the opposite of what you are asking in my first example. Which is it? Do you want a primer on evolution/fossils? -- I suggest you check your local library. Or, do you want an indepth analysis of a particular series of snail fossils and their distribution during the end of the Permian? -- I suggest you also check your local library, but just look in a different section. All the information you are asking for is available. It's just not all available from the same source at the same time. In fact, if ALL the science information was coming from one source which held ALL the answers to all questions, I'd agree that we were "preaching". We aren't. There's a difference between teaching and preaching and it's more than just the "T" -> "Pr"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think you are making this into some big formal deal, when all I really want, as an interested intelligent nonscientist, is to be able to picture the physical disposition of WHATEVER it is that is under discussion at a given time, in graspable general terms, not precise scientific terms. Otherwise I have to translate the terminology of great ages and supposed descent back into those physical terms and track down data somewhere myself, and this I'm not going to be able to do.
A gigantic data base in ordinary English would be nice but it's not necessary. All that's necessary is that those who understand a particular example present the physical facts underlying the point they want to make, and put it into ordinary English. It's not this big deal you are making it out to be. But also, if we keep discussing this it gets us off topic. As I presented it in the OP, it is merely a point of form that I'd love you all to follow for the sake of making it easier for me to VISUALIZE the actual physical situation. It is only having a picture of the physical situation that will make it possible for me to think about it. And if I have to track down data in order to understand what you are saying, and figure out the physical situation myself from evolutionist and scientific terminology that I don't fully grasp, there is simply no point to such a discussion for me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are addressing the post that got me suspended for a day, Nuggin, as being off topic. I might be able to answer you without going off topic again, but I'm not going to try it tonight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: You are addressing the post that got me suspended for a day, Nuggin, as being off topic. I might be able to answer you without going off topic again, but I'm not going to try it tonight. I don't think you'll have any trouble staying on-topic while responding to Nuggin. For reference, these are the passages from your Message 42 that I felt ignored my request to stay on topic:
And no, Arach, you are wrong. Evolutionists have ALWAYS preached, this is not just a reaction against current creationist political efforts. It was preached to us in high school in the fifties already. It's a matter of what they want to present to the public and they'd rather present their interpretive scenarios than the facts that underlie them. They'd rather tell us that a particular fossil is a certain number of millions of years old and lived in a particular environment than give us the facts from which to decide for ourselves. There's something that smacks of mystification in this, but it's standard. We aren't presented a stack of physical strata with its interestingly peculiar sediment layers and peculiar fossil contents, we are presented with scenarios about life on earth millions of years ago. If you'd like to discuss whether scientists hide details from the public on purpose in order to promote unsubstantiatable viewpoints, please propose a thread and I will promote it as soon as practical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When you say "kinda" are the modern fossil ferns found in anywhere near the quantity of what should be expected of an evolving species that is still abundantly represented on earth? I don't have a clue what you think evolution says about abundance so the question doesn't really make much sense. If you are asking if modern ferns are as abundant as they were before grass or flowering plants the answer is no, nowhere near as abundant. In the era of ferns there was simply nothing else to compete with them so they were very, very abundant.
I mean, the differences are not a problem for floodists, but if earlier forms of life, forms of which are clearly abundant among us today, only "kinda" continue into upper strata, that is, are very sparsely represented as fossil imprints, I would think that might pose a problem for evolutionists. Why would you think that?
OK I'm glad to have that said with such absolute certainty. Yes. But this is no problem for a floodist, and I would think you'd know what a floodist would say about this by this point. Yes, floodists have said it is not a problem but not one, not one single floodist period has ever presented a model that can explain it. Hopefully we can get a thread after you've had a chance to go over this one where we can look at that in a similar manner. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024