Morrison Formation and plant fossils. More from the PPU....
richardal...@googlemail.com
"This huge formation contains millions of preserved plant eating
dinosaur bones but hardly any plant fossils.34,35 Could the
difference in preservation between dinosaur bones and hard woody plant
remains be that significant? - especially when large seems of coal and
other finely preserved plant fossils are abundant elsewhere?"
The reason is that at the time the Morrison Formation was laid down,
it had a seasonal, semi-arid climate. This is similar to the Savannahs
of Africa. The large herbivorous dinosaurs were adapted to such a
climate, and their large size conferred adaptive advantage during
droughts.
Of course, the reason why well-preserved plant fossils are abundant
elsewhere is that they come from different environments.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-8373(198021)6%3A2%3C208%3ATAPOTD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F
Taphonomy and Paleoecology of the Dinosaur Beds of the Jurassic
Morrison Formation
Peter Dodson, A. K. Behrensmeyer, Robert T. Bakker, John S. McIntosh
Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring, 1980), pp. 208-232
Abstract
The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation has yielded one of the richest
dinosaur faunas of the world. Morrison sediments are distributed over
more than a million square kilometers in the western United States and
represent a mosaic of riverine, lacustrine and floodplain environments
developed on a vast alluvial plain nourished by debris from the
ancestral Rocky Mountains. Plant productivity must have been
reasonably high to support abundant large-bodied herbivores, but the
absence of coals, scarcity of small aquatic vertebrates, the abundance
of oxidized sediments, and presence of calcretes lead us to believe
that water was periodically in short supply. A strongly seasonal
climate may have necessitated annual large-scale movements of large
herbivores, accounting in part for their remarkably broad and uniform
geographic distribution. Dinosaur diversity is lower in the Morrison
than in the Late Cretaceous, and taphonomic alteration is higher.
Massed accumulations of thousands of bones are characteristic of the
Morrison. Morrison dinosaurs were not confined to specific
depositional environments but were distributed across the complete
spectrum of available habitats, from lakes to dry floodplains; this
type of distribution is similar to that of large terrestrial mammals
such as elephants and rhinos and is different from that of hippos and
crocodiles. Common Morrison taxa were Camarasaurus, Apatosaurus,
Diplodocus, Allosaurus and Stegosaurus; these genera probably
constituted a true dinosaur community. Stegosaurus may have been
partially segregated from the other genera, and Camptosaurus more
strongly so. Camarasaurus and Diplodocus were gregarious, with
juveniles and subadults of the former particularly common; Apatosaurus
was less abundant and more solitary in its habits. Juveniles and
subadults are known for a number of dinosaurs.
http://tiny.cc/hJj5z
Jurassic "savannah"--plant taphonomy and climate of the Morrison
Formation (Upper Jurassic, Western USA)
Judith Totman ParrishCorresponding Author Contact Information, a,
Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding
Author, Fred Petersonb and Christine E. Turnerb
Abstract
The Morrison Formation contains six plant taphofacies: Wood, whole-
leaf, leaf-mat, root, common carbonaceous debris, and rare
carbonaceous debris. None of these taphofacies is common in the
Morrison; particularly striking is the paucity of wood, even in more
reducing environments. The flora of the Morrison Formation is distinct
in the Kimmeridgian and Tithonian parts of the section. The plant
taphofacies are consistent with a predominantly herbaceous vegetation.
Evidence from the plant taphofacies, floras, and sedimentology of the
Morrison is consistent with a warm, seasonal, semi-arid climate
throughout, changing from dry semi-arid to humid semi-arid from the
Kimmeridgian to the Tithonian parts of the formation.
http://tiny.cc/fVO0s
The implications of a dry climate for the paleoecology of the fauna of
the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation
George F. EngelmannCorresponding Author Contact Information, a,
Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding
Author, E-mail The Corresponding Author, E-mail The Corresponding
Author, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Daniel J. Chureb and Anthony
R. Fiorilloc
Abstract
In light of diverse geological evidence that indicates a seasonal,
semiarid climate for the time of deposition of the Morrison Formation,
one can assume these general environmental conditions for the purpose
of reconstructing the ancient ecosystem. Wet environments that
preserved plant fossils and some invertebrates and small vertebrates
in the Morrison can be interpreted as representing local conditions
limited in space and/or time. These elements of the biota and the
smaller dinosaurs were probably restricted to such wetland areas at
times of environmental stress.
A diverse fauna of large, herbivorous, sauropod dinosaurs ranged
throughout the environment. Although this seems to be inconsistent
with an environment with sparse resources, large size confers
physiologic advantages that are adaptive for just such conditions. The
scaling effect of large size makes large herbivores very efficient
relative to their size in needing proportionately less food and food
of poorer quality than smaller herbivores. They can also survive
starvation longer and travel more efficiently to reach widely
separated resource patches. Although few in number at any time, the
sauropod dinosaurs are locally abundant and seemingly ubiquitous in
the fossil record of the Morrison Formation because of
overrepresentation of their highly preservable remains in an
attritional fossil assemblage.
Author Keywords: Morrison Formation; Dinosaur; Sauropod; Climate;
Paleoecology; Jurassic
http://tiny.cc/3tmuj
Reconstruction of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation extinct
ecosystem--a synthesis
Christine E. TurnerCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail
The Corresponding Author and Fred Peterson
U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS-939, Denver, CO 80225-0046, USA
Available online 2 March 2004.
Abstract
A synthesis of recent and previous studies of the Morrison Formation
and related beds, in the context of a conceptual climatic/hydrologic
framework, permits reconstruction of the Late Jurassic dinosaurian
ecosystem throughout the Western Interior of the United States and
Canada. Climate models and geologic evidence indicate that a dry
climate persisted in the Western Interior during the Late Jurassic.
Early and Middle Kimmeridgian eolian deposits and Late Kimmeridgian
alkaline, saline wetland/lacustrine deposits demonstrate that dryness
persisted throughout the Kimmeridgian. Tithonian-age coal reflects
lower evaporation rates associated with a slight cooling trend, but
not a significant climate change.
With a subtropical high over the Paleo-Pacific Ocean and atmospheric
circulation generally toward the east, moisture carried by prevailing
winds "rained out" progressively eastward, leaving the continental
interior--and the Morrison depositional basin--dry. Within the basin,
high evaporation rates associated with the southerly paleolatitude and
greenhouse effects added to the dryness. Consequently, the two main
sources of water--groundwater and surface water--originated outside the
basin, through recharge of regional aquifers and streams that
originated in the western uplands. Precipitation that fell west of the
basin recharged aquifers that underlay the basin and discharged in
wetlands and lakes in the distal, low-lying part of the basin.
Precipitation west of the basin also fed intermittent and scarce
perennial streams that flowed eastward. The streams were probably
"losing" streams in their upstream reaches, and contributed to a
locally raised water table. Elsewhere in the basin, where the
floodplain intersected the water table, small lakes dotted the
landscape. Seasonal storms, perhaps in part from the Paleo-Gulf of
Mexico, brought some precipitation directly to the basin, although it
was also subjected to "rain out" en route. Thus, meteoric input to the
basin was appreciably less than groundwater and surface water
contributions.
The terrestrial Morrison ecosystem, which can be likened to a
savannah, expanded with the northward retreat of the Late Jurassic
Western Interior Seaway. The ecosystem was a complex mosaic, the
components of which shifted through time. Riparian environments
probably were the most diverse parts of the ecosystem, where a multi-
storeyed canopy supported a diverse fauna, from insects to dinosaurs.
Equable conditions also existed in wetlands, lakes, and elsewhere on
the floodplain when seasonal rainfall brought an herbaceous
groundcover to life. Eolian environments and alkaline, saline wetlands
were inhospitable to life.
Large herbivorous dinosaurs were adapted to this semi-arid landscape.
Their size was an adaptive asset based on considerations of food
requirements associated with a low metabolism and was also an
advantage for migration during drought. Some of the large sauropods
were adapted to browsing the higher vegetation associated with
riparian environments; others to grazing the herbaceous groundcover on
the floodplain and charophytes in the wetlands. The extensive distal
wetlands may, in fact, have been refugia for some of these herbivores
during the dry season and droughts. Extended periods of drought
account for some of the dinosaur death assemblages; yet, the ecosystem
could also sustain the most unusual life forms that ever roamed the
Earth.
Author Keywords: Morrison Formation; Upper Jurassic; Ecosystem
reconstruction; Western Interior USA
By the way, Sean: If any of this is not clear, I can provide numerous
more references.
RF
Inez
> From Sean's site:
> "This huge formation contains millions of preserved plant eating
> dinosaur bones but hardly any plant fossils.34,35 Could the
> difference in preservation between dinosaur bones and hard woody plant
> remains be that significant? - especially when large seems of coal and
> other finely preserved plant fossils are abundant elsewhere?"
>
I don't understand what the implication is here. If there were plant
eating dinosaurs, surely there must have been plants, right? If there
is a passage in the bible that says that before the flood there were
lots of dinosaurs that looked like plant eaters but really were
photosynthetic, it's missing from my copy.
Wouldn't flood geology predict that either the flood left no fossils
of a given type at all or else a mammoth all-inclusive layer of
fossils? I mean, same conditions world wide, right? So either those
conditions make fossils or else they don't. So if the flood made
dinosaur fossils but not plant fossils in the Morisson Formation, how
do you explain the fact that there are plant fossils in other
formations?
Seanpit
have had to be like if the basic theory that the Morrison formation
represents vast spans of time is true. These authors do not and would
not even consider the possibility that perhaps the Morrison formation
is a record of sudden catastrophe instead.
I mean really, the Morrison contains fossils of millions of large
dinosaurs, many requiring the input of 3 or 4 tons of vegetation
daily. Yet, the Morrison contains very few plant fossils and is also
essentially barren of the "palynomorphs" (pollen and spores) which are
produced by plants. Pollen preservation should be much more widespread
and common if your authors are correct in their interpretation of the
Morrison being representative of some great Savannah existing over
many millions of years.
Instead, given such a sparse source of energy, one wonders how the
large dinosaurs could survive the assumed long ages while the Morrison
Formation was being deposited. It just doesn't add up quite right.
Back in 1980 Dodson admitted in literature that the, "absence of
evidence for abundant plant life in the form of coal beds and organic
rich clays in much of the Morrison is puzzling."
Dodson, P., A. K. Behrensmeyer, R. T. Bakker and J. S. McIntosh. 1980.
Taphonomy and paleoecology of the dinosaur beds of the Jurassic
Morrison Formation. Paleobiology 6(2):218-219.
You can say that again. Your authors really haven't solved this
puzzle that I can see.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Your references only make speculation as to what the environment would
> have had to be like if the basic theory that the Morrison formation
> represents vast spans of time is true.
No they don't. They present the evidence from the sedimentary record
which leads the authors to conclude that the Morrison deposits were
laid down by a braided river system in a semi-arid environment. It
takes a long time to lay down the thickness of such sediments.
> These authors do not and would
> not even consider the possibility that perhaps the Morrison formation
> is a record of sudden catastrophe instead.
How on earth do you know that? The evidence shows that the sediments
were laid down by the same processes as we can observe in meandering
river basin today, not a sudden catastrophe.
>
> I mean really, the Morrison contains fossils of millions of large
> dinosaurs, many requiring the input of 3 or 4 tons of vegetation
> daily. Yet, the Morrison contains very few plant fossils and is also
> essentially barren of the "palynomorphs" (pollen and spores) which are
> produced by plants.
Well, the researchers at Colorado State University disagree with you:
http://www.colostate.edu/~cwis70/methodology.html
To quote from this web site:
"1. Paleoecology
Some fossils are important because of the information they provide
about their habitat. These environmentally sensitive fossils will be
studied in detail to elucidate local habitat. Such fossils include:
* Palynomorphs (spores and pollen), because of their abundance,
provide information on environmentally sensitive plants that are often
not preserved as body fossils. Over 200 palynomorph samples have
already been collected and processed from the Morrison for
biostratigraphic studies; these samples will be analyzed for
environmental implications."
Note the phrase "because of their abundance".
This rather contradicts your assertion that the Formation is "barren
of the palynomorphs"
> Pollen preservation should be much more widespread
> and common if your authors are correct in their interpretation of the
> Morrison being representative of some great Savannah existing over
> many millions of years.
As you have apparently been misinformed about the lack of pollen, your
argument rather falls appart, doesn't it?
>
> Instead, given such a sparse source of energy, one wonders how the
> large dinosaurs could survive the assumed long ages while the Morrison
> Formation was being deposited. It just doesn't add up quite right.
Well, why not address the evidence and provide an explanation which
can be tested against the evidence in that case?
>
> Back in 1980 Dodson admitted in literature that the, "absence of
> evidence for abundant plant life in the form of coal beds and organic
> rich clays in much of the Morrison is puzzling."
Isn't it interesting how much the study of palaeonecologies has
advanced over the past 28 years? This is the sort of question which
scientists use as a focus for research. That's why the papers I posted
are much more recent.
>
> Dodson, P., A. K. Behrensmeyer, R. T. Bakker and J. S. McIntosh. 1980.
> Taphonomy and paleoecology of the dinosaur beds of the Jurassic
> Morrison Formation. Paleobiology 6(2):218-219.
>
> You can say that again. Your authors really haven't solved this
> puzzle that I can see.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Citing a paper nearly 30 years old and blanket denial is not much of
an argument.
RF
_Arthur
wrote:
Sean, you didn't answer me: What is the Pitman Azimut for the Morrison
Formation ?
Inez
>
I put "Azimut" into Wikipedia and it tells me that it is an Italian
ship building company.
_Arthur
Look for azimuth, my typo, Inez.
Seanpit
> On Jan 7, 6:40 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Your references only make speculation as to what the environment would
> > have had to be like if the basic theory that the Morrison formation
> > represents vast spans of time is true.
>
> No they don't. They present the evidence from the sedimentary record
> which leads the authors to conclude that the Morrison deposits were
> laid down by a braided river system in a semi-arid environment. It
> takes a long time to lay down the thickness of such sediments.
Not if the true explanation is rapid flood deposition - which most
certainly can have a "braided" pattern.
> > These authors do not and would
> > not even consider the possibility that perhaps the Morrison formation
> > is a record of sudden catastrophe instead.
>
> How on earth do you know that? The evidence shows that the sediments
> were laid down by the same processes as we can observe in meandering
> river basin today, not a sudden catastrophe.
Nothing like the fossil assemblages of the Morrison formation are
being produced anywhere on Earth today by slow meandering river
basins. Again, there is the problem of constant bioturbation that
prevents fossilization and crisp layer formation without fairly rapid
and deep burial.
> > I mean really, the Morrison contains fossils of millions of large
> > dinosaurs, many requiring the input of 3 or 4 tons of vegetation
> > daily. Yet, the Morrison contains very few plant fossils and is also
> > essentially barren of the "palynomorphs" (pollen and spores) which are
> > produced by plants.
>
> Well, the researchers at Colorado State University disagree with you:
>
> http://www.colostate.edu/~cwis70/methodology.html
>
> To quote from this web site:
> "1. Paleoecology
> Some fossils are important because of the information they provide
> about their habitat. These environmentally sensitive fossils will be
> studied in detail to elucidate local habitat. Such fossils include:
>
> * Palynomorphs (spores and pollen), because of their abundance,
> provide information on environmentally sensitive plants that are often
> not preserved as body fossils. Over 200 palynomorph samples have
> already been collected and processed from the Morrison for
> biostratigraphic studies; these samples will be analyzed for
> environmental implications."
>
> Note the phrase "because of their abundance".
>
> This rather contradicts your assertion that the Formation is "barren
> of the palynomorphs"
The word "abundance" here is used as a relative term. Relative to
other forms of plant fossils in the Morrison formation pollen and
spore fossils may indeed be relatively abundant. That doesn't mean
that they were abundant enough to explain the plant life needed to
support millions of very large dinosaurs.
Dodson et. al., where "frustrated" to find that 10 of 12 samples
studied microscopically from the Morrison Formation were essentially
barren of "palynomorphs" (pollen and spores).
More recently (2004), Parrish et. al., wrote:
"The Morrison Formation contains six plant taphofacies: Wood,
whole-leaf, leaf-mat, root, common carbonaceous debris, and rare
carbonaceous debris. None of these taphofacies is common in the
Morrison; particularly striking is the paucity of wood, even in more
reducing environments."
> > Pollen preservation should be much more widespread
> > and common if your authors are correct in their interpretation of the
> > Morrison being representative of some great Savannah existing over
> > many millions of years.
>
> As you have apparently been misinformed about the lack of pollen, your
> argument rather falls appart, doesn't it?
You are reading more into your references than is really there. The
pollen in the Morrison formation is not "abundant" enough to explain
the animal life.
> > Instead, given such a sparse source of energy, one wonders how the
> > large dinosaurs could survive the assumed long ages while the Morrison
> > Formation was being deposited. It just doesn't add up quite right.
>
> Well, why not address the evidence and provide an explanation which
> can be tested against the evidence in that case?
>
> > Back in 1980 Dodson admitted in literature that the, "absence of
> > evidence for abundant plant life in the form of coal beds and organic
> > rich clays in much of the Morrison is puzzling."
>
> Isn't it interesting how much the study of palaeonecologies has
> advanced over the past 28 years? This is the sort of question which
> scientists use as a focus for research. That's why the papers I posted
> are much more recent.
Even recently published papers note that the lack of plant fossils in
the Morrison formation would make it rather difficult to support the
huge populations of large dinosaurs found in this region. They have
to come up with all kinds of intricate foraging and migration schemes
to at least try and make sense of it given their long-age paradigm.
> > Dodson, P., A. K. Behrensmeyer, R. T. Bakker and J. S. McIntosh. 1980.
> > Taphonomy and paleoecology of the dinosaur beds of the Jurassic
> > Morrison Formation. Paleobiology 6(2):218-219.
>
> > You can say that again. Your authors really haven't solved this
> > puzzle that I can see.
>
> Citing a paper nearly 30 years old and blanket denial is not much of
> an argument.
The argument is the same as it was 30 years ago. The evidence hasn't
changed in that amount of time either - only the very creative just-so
stories of evolutionists trying to explain a puzzle that is very
difficult indeed.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 11:47 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 6:40 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Your references only make speculation as to what the environment would
> > > have had to be like if the basic theory that the Morrison formation
> > > represents vast spans of time is true.
>
> > No they don't. They present the evidence from the sedimentary record
> > which leads the authors to conclude that the Morrison deposits were
> > laid down by a braided river system in a semi-arid environment. It
> > takes a long time to lay down the thickness of such sediments.
>
> Not if the true explanation is rapid flood deposition - which most
> certainly can have a "braided" pattern.
"Rapid flood deposition" does not build tens of meters of sedimentary
structures showing a wide range of different depositional
environments.
>
> > > These authors do not and would
> > > not even consider the possibility that perhaps the Morrison formation
> > > is a record of sudden catastrophe instead.
>
> > How on earth do you know that? The evidence shows that the sediments
> > were laid down by the same processes as we can observe in meandering
> > river basin today, not a sudden catastrophe.
>
> Nothing like the fossil assemblages of the Morrison formation are
> being produced anywhere on Earth today by slow meandering river
> basins.
Yes they are, in the African savannahs.
http://tiny.cc/OsU2Z
It's also worth noting that the Morrison Formation contains termite
nests as much as 40 meters tall.
http://www.colostate.edu/~cwis70/results.html
http://www.cityofmesa.org/swmuseum/exhibits/dinomt/jurassic.aspx
Perhaps you can explain how termites managed to build a nest of this
size during a catastrophic flood?
> Again, there is the problem of constant bioturbation that
> prevents fossilization and crisp layer formation without fairly rapid
> and deep burial.
What "problem of bioturbation"? Your problem, which is that massive
floods cause massive amounts of turbation. The papers whose abstracts
I have posted go into detail on the taphonomy of deposits in the
Morrison. For example, we find deposits of jumbled bones which have
been trampled over and broken covered with a layer of volcanic ash,
and buried under many meters of later sediment. How is that compatible
with a single massive flood?
>
> > > I mean really, the Morrison contains fossils of millions of large
> > > dinosaurs, many requiring the input of 3 or 4 tons of vegetation
> > > daily. Yet, the Morrison contains very few plant fossils and is also
> > > essentially barren of the "palynomorphs" (pollen and spores) which are
> > > produced by plants.
>
> > Well, the researchers at Colorado State University disagree with you:
>
> >http://www.colostate.edu/~cwis70/methodology.html
>
> > To quote from this web site:
> > "1. Paleoecology
> > Some fossils are important because of the information they provide
> > about their habitat. These environmentally sensitive fossils will be
> > studied in detail to elucidate local habitat. Such fossils include:
>
> > * Palynomorphs (spores and pollen), because of their abundance,
> > provide information on environmentally sensitive plants that are often
> > not preserved as body fossils. Over 200 palynomorph samples have
> > already been collected and processed from the Morrison for
> > biostratigraphic studies; these samples will be analyzed for
> > environmental implications."
>
> > Note the phrase "because of their abundance".
>
> > This rather contradicts your assertion that the Formation is "barren
> > of the palynomorphs"
>
> The word "abundance" here is used as a relative term.
It is? Have you talked to the people at Colorado State University
then?
You mean "abundance" as opposed to "barren" - i.e complete lack.
> Relative to
> other forms of plant fossils in the Morrison formation pollen and
> spore fossils may indeed be relatively abundant. That doesn't mean
> that they were abundant enough to explain the plant life needed to
> support millions of very large dinosaurs.
So what is wrong with the model which has been proposed, i.e. a semi-
arid seasonal environment similar to the savannahs of modern Africa?
> Dodson et. al., where "frustrated" to find that 10 of 12 samples
> studied microscopically from the Morrison Formation were essentially
> barren of "palynomorphs" (pollen and spores).
Techniques of studying such fossils have moved on rather a long way in
the past 30 years.
>
> More recently (2004), Parrish et. al., wrote:
>
> "The Morrison Formation contains six plant taphofacies: Wood,
> whole-leaf, leaf-mat, root, common carbonaceous debris, and rare
> carbonaceous debris. None of these taphofacies is common in the
> Morrison; particularly striking is the paucity of wood, even in more
> reducing environments."
This has nothing to do with pollen spores, Sean.
Surely even you know that pollen is not wood?
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6X-4C8381...
>
> > > Pollen preservation should be much more widespread
> > > and common if your authors are correct in their interpretation of the
> > > Morrison being representative of some great Savannah existing over
> > > many millions of years.
>
> > As you have apparently been misinformed about the lack of pollen, your
> > argument rather falls appart, doesn't it?
>
> You are reading more into your references than is really there. The
> pollen in the Morrison formation is not "abundant" enough to explain
> the animal life.
And we should accept your unadorned assertion that this is the case,
should we, Sean?
The researchers at Colorado State University say that pollen spores
are "abundant". Why should we read that as meaning rare?
>
> > > Instead, given such a sparse source of energy, one wonders how the
> > > large dinosaurs could survive the assumed long ages while the Morrison
> > > Formation was being deposited. It just doesn't add up quite right.
>
> > Well, why not address the evidence and provide an explanation which
> > can be tested against the evidence in that case?
>
> > > Back in 1980 Dodson admitted in literature that the, "absence of
> > > evidence for abundant plant life in the form of coal beds and organic
> > > rich clays in much of the Morrison is puzzling."
>
> > Isn't it interesting how much the study of palaeonecologies has
> > advanced over the past 28 years? This is the sort of question which
> > scientists use as a focus for research. That's why the papers I posted
> > are much more recent.
>
> Even recently published papers note that the lack of plant fossils in
> the Morrison formation would make it rather difficult to support the
> huge populations of large dinosaurs found in this region.
...and they provide a testable hypothesis which explain the relative
lack of abundance of plant fossils.
What is wrong with that explanation?
> They have
> to come up with all kinds of intricate foraging and migration schemes
> to at least try and make sense of it given their long-age paradigm.
So what testable hypothesis can you come up with as an alternative?
>
> > > Dodson, P., A. K. Behrensmeyer, R. T. Bakker and J. S. McIntosh. 1980.
> > > Taphonomy and paleoecology of the dinosaur beds of the Jurassic
> > > Morrison Formation. Paleobiology 6(2):218-219.
>
> > > You can say that again. Your authors really haven't solved this
> > > puzzle that I can see.
>
> > Citing a paper nearly 30 years old and blanket denial is not much of
> > an argument.
>
> The argument is the same as it was 30 years ago. The evidence hasn't
> changed in that amount of time either - only the very creative just-so
> stories of evolutionists trying to explain a puzzle that is very
> difficult indeed.
Another unsupported assertion from the Sean Pitman bullshit mill.
If you think that the explanations provided by the people who have
researched the taphonomy and ecology of the Morrison Formation are
poor, it's up to you to look at the evidence and provide an
alternative which can be tested against the evidence.
As you refuse even to look at the evidence, it's clear that you don't
have an alternative.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Greg G.
<snippage>
> Yes they are, in the African savannahs.http://tiny.cc/OsU2Z
> It's also worth noting that the Morrison Formation contains termite
> nests as much as 40 meters tall.http://www.colostate.edu/~cwis70/results.htmlhttp://www.cityofmesa.org/swmuseum/exhibits/dinomt/jurassic.aspx
>
> Perhaps you can explain how termites managed to build a nest of this
> size during a catastrophic flood?
That shows how antediluvian termites could build a tower as their
lower levels became flooded.
If the Morrison Formation was the result of rapid burial in a flood,
shouldn't we see more soft body parts of the dinosaurs? Should we find
abundant fossils of plants if nothing but hard body parts and spores
are fossilized?
--
Greg G.
Fred Astaire liked to dance in a tuxedo so he wouldn't get dizzy. He
was all dressed up and no vertigo.
.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 8, 3:27 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> > Yes they are, in the African savannahs.http://tiny.cc/OsU2Z
> > It's also worth noting that the Morrison Formation contains termite
>
> > Perhaps you can explain how termites managed to build a nest of this
> > size during a catastrophic flood?
>
> That shows how antediluvian termites could build a tower as their
> lower levels became flooded.
>
> If the Morrison Formation was the result of rapid burial in a flood,
> shouldn't we see more soft body parts of the dinosaurs? Should we find
> abundant fossils of plants if nothing but hard body parts and spores
> are fossilized?
>
Rapid burial in a flood is *not* particularly conducive to
fossilisation. Flood deposits tend to be highly turbated and
oxygenated, and packed with the bacteria which cause decay, and any
organic remains are rapidly destroyed. This is why silts left behind
by floods stink to high heaven.
RF
Inez
Thanks. I try to follow these discussions as best as my smallish
brain will allow.
Seanpit
< snip >
> > Nothing like the fossil assemblages of the Morrison formation are
> > being produced anywhere on Earth today by slow meandering river
> > basins.
>
> Yes they are, in the African savannahs.http://tiny.cc/OsU2Z
> It's also worth noting that the Morrison Formation contains termite
> nests as much as 40 meters tall.
http://www.colostate.edu/~cwis70/results.html
http://www.cityofmesa.org/swmuseum/exhibits/dinomt/jurassic.aspx
> Perhaps you can explain how termites managed to build a nest of this
> size during a catastrophic flood?
Sure - they aren't really termite nests. You heard me. Those
formations that are often called termite nests in the Morrison
Formation have recently been proven to be inorganic in origin - the
result of inorganic crystalline formation.
Chemical analysis done on these termite nests have shown that the
materials that make them up have essentially the same properties as
the surrounding "country rock" to within p-values of 0.001.
The organic carbon found in the concretions of the "termite nests" was
0.0342%. In the surrounding country rock it was 0.0957%. In the walls
of real termite nests, it is 0.427%.
Also, the same tube-like patterns are found throughout the surrounding
country rock as well as within the more identifiable concretions that
make up the supposed "termite nests".
"Petrographic analysis seems to invalidate the suggestion of a
fulgurite origin. Thus far, we have not found a convincing termite
nest architecture or termites, and this brings into question the
fossil termite nest interpretation. The rhizoconcretion interpretation
also appears to be problematic due to general morphological factors
and a paucity of ramifications. It may be that the concretionary
process follows in part the pattern of the abundant "tubes," of
organic or inorganic origin, that are already present in the country
rock. It is hoped that the data presented above will help elucidate
the origin of these intriguing structures."
Ariel A. Roth, Tom Zoutewelle, and Dwight Hornbacher, "COMPLEX
CONCRETIONS IN THE JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION", Geological Society of
America. 2006. Abstracts with Programs, Volume 38(6): p 7.
https://www.theox.org/images/images_A2115/Ch%203-TERMITE%20NESTS.pdf
For pictures of these features see my PP presentation (15 slides
down):
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sechlab/Local%20Settings/Temp/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/H2V1DQ0Q/Lecture%25204%2520-%2520The%2520Fossil%2520Record%2520(final)%5B1%5D.ppt#402,33,Slide
33
This published finding is a prediction of catastrophism, not the slow
accumulation of sediments you and mainstream science envision for the
Morrison formation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> For pictures of these features see my PP presentation (15 slides
> down):
>
> 33
Actually, the link should be:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Lecture%204%20-%20The%20Fossil%20Record%20(final).ppt
Rodjk #613
Its worse than that, Inez. Remember, in those days t-rex and the other
meat eaters were really plant eaters. So there must have been more
plants...
Rodjk #613
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:27 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Nothing like the fossil assemblages of the Morrison formation are
> > > being produced anywhere on Earth today by slow meandering river
> > > basins.
>
> > Yes they are, in the African savannahs.http://tiny.cc/OsU2Z
> > It's also worth noting that the Morrison Formation contains termite
> > nests as much as 40 meters tall.
>
>
> > Perhaps you can explain how termites managed to build a nest of this
> > size during a catastrophic flood?
>
> Sure - they aren't really termite nests. You heard me. Those
> formations that are often called termite nests in the Morrison
> Formation have recently been proven to be inorganic in origin - the
> result of inorganic crystalline formation.
>
> Chemical analysis done on these termite nests have shown that the
> materials that make them up have essentially the same properties as
> the surrounding "country rock" to within p-values of 0.001.
Which is hardly surprising, as termites build their nests from
material gathered from nearby, which in an arid environment is mainly
weathered country rock.
> The organic carbon found in the concretions of the "termite nests" was
> 0.0342%. In the surrounding country rock it was 0.0957%. In the walls
> of real termite nests, it is 0.427%.
Which is hardly surprising as they have not been fossilised in
sediments for a hundred million years.
>
> Also, the same tube-like patterns are found throughout the surrounding
> country rock as well as within the more identifiable concretions that
> make up the supposed "termite nests".
Which is hardly surprising, as termites are known to bore tunnels
through rock, and a wide network of underground passages spreads out
from their mounds.
>
> "Petrographic analysis seems to invalidate the suggestion of a
> fulgurite origin.
Who on earth ever suggested a fulgurite origin? Lighting strikes don't
create complex structures 40 meters deep.
> Thus far, we have not found a convincing termite
> nest architecture or termites, and this brings into question the
> fossil termite nest interpretation.
Ah, that favourite creationist word: "convincing". The scientists who
have studied these structures with an open mind are convinced.
> The rhizoconcretion interpretation
> also appears to be problematic due to general morphological factors
> and a paucity of ramifications. It may be that the concretionary
> process follows in part the pattern of the abundant "tubes," of
> organic or inorganic origin, that are already present in the country
> rock.
The "tubes" which the scientists who study the Morrison have concluded
are termite burrows, you mean?
> It is hoped that the data presented above will help elucidate
> the origin of these intriguing structures."
Bullshit. The "data" is a deliberate attempt to give a scientific
gloss to creationist nonsense.
>
> Ariel A. Roth, Tom Zoutewelle, and Dwight Hornbacher, "COMPLEX
> CONCRETIONS IN THE JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION", Geological Society of
> America. 2006. Abstracts with Programs, Volume 38(6): p 7.
>
> https://www.theox.org/images/images_A2115/Ch%203-TERMITE%20NESTS.pdf
>
So you have no publications in any peer-reviewed journal to offer,
only a poster presented by a creationist. You realise, I hope, that
there is no review on posters or presentation at symposia?
> For pictures of these features see my PP presentation (15 slides
> down):
>
> file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sechlab/Local%20Settings/Temp/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/H2V1DQ0Q/Lecture%25204%2520-%2520The%2520Fossil%2520Record%2520(final)%5B1%5D.ppt#402,33,Slide
> 33
>
> This published finding is a prediction of catastrophism, not the slow
> accumulation of sediments you and mainstream science envision for the
> Morrison formation.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Sean, even if Roth is correct, and these structures are not termite
mounds - and the reference you provide is hardly convincing - in what
possible way does "catastrophism" lead to the creation of large,
complex concretionary structures? How long do you think it would take
a structure like this to form?
RF
Glenn
> On Jan 9, 6:24 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> > "Petrographic analysis seems to invalidate the suggestion of a
> > fulgurite origin.
>
> Who on earth ever suggested a fulgurite origin? Lighting strikes don't
> create complex structures 40 meters deep.
>
Ah.
John Stockwell
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:27 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Nothing like the fossil assemblages of the Morrison formation are
> > > being produced anywhere on Earth today by slow meandering river
> > > basins.
>
> > Yes they are, in the African savannahs.http://tiny.cc/OsU2Z
> > It's also worth noting that the Morrison Formation contains termite
> > nests as much as 40 meters tall.
>
One talk at a GSA meeting does not a scientific fact make.
Particularly
a talk by creationist Ariel Roth. Chemical analysis? Did they do it
right? What was the total amount of carbon present? Likely there is
precious
little carbon of any variety available, particularly after
remineralization.
What level of cherrypicking of data did Roth go to in order to get
this
result????
There are plenty of Jurassic age termite mounds out there:
http://rainbow.ldgo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/termitemor.gif (in
Morrison)
http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/68.pdf
Bacially, it is an issue of paleo termite mounds without high levels
of organic
carbon (allegedly) not a conclusion that the mounds are not mounts.
(Unless
of course, Roth chose a particular termite burrow that he suspected in
advance
would support his idea.)
>
> https://www.theox.org/images/images_A2115/Ch%203-TERMITE%20NESTS.pdf
>
> For pictures of these features see my PP presentation (15 slides
> down):
>
> file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sechlab/Local%20Settings/Temp/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/H2V1DQ0Q/Lecture%25204%2520-%2520The%2520Fossil%2520Record%2520(final)%5B1%5D.ppt#402,33,Slide
> 33
>
> This published finding is a prediction of catastrophism, not the slow
> accumulation of sediments you and mainstream science envision for the
> Morrison formation.
It certainly is a case of wishful thinking on the part of
creationists. Like Generalisimo Francisco Franco, the Flood is still
dead.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
Seanpit
>
> > Chemical analysis done on these termite nests have shown that the
> > materials that make them up have essentially the same properties as
> > the surrounding "country rock" to within p-values of 0.001.
>
> Which is hardly surprising, as termites build their nests from
> material gathered from nearby, which in an arid environment is mainly
> weathered country rock.
Real turmite nests are built by mixing the surrounding materials with
organic saliva and bits of organic material, such as fragments of
plant materials. There are also specific patterns that real termites
use to build their nexts - patterns to the pathways and rooms built
within the nexts. The walls of real termite nests are also built with
rounded globs of mud put together to make linear patterns. None of
these patterns or materials are found in Morrison Formation "nests".
These formations simply do not look like termite nests at all given a
close morphologic inspection. They do not resemble terminte nests
chemically. And, on SEM analysis, they are made out of chrystaline
material that melds with the same crystaline material found in the
surrounding country rock.
These nests are rather a form of crystaline formation, not the
efforts
of termites. If you think otherwise, please do quote from a paper
that
lists off the detailed aspects of these supposed nests that is so
convincingly the result of termites.
> > The organic carbon found in the concretions of the "termite nests" was
> > 0.0342%. In the surrounding country rock it was 0.0957%. In the walls
> > of real termite nests, it is 0.427%.
> Which is hardly surprising as they have not been fossilised in
> sediments for a hundred million years.
Fossilization should have preserved at least the casts of the organic
materials that are usually used to build the walls of real termite
nests.
> > Also, the same tube-like patterns are found throughout the surrounding
> > country rock as well as within the more identifiable concretions that
> > make up the supposed "termite nests".
>
> Which is hardly surprising, as termites are known to bore tunnels
> through rock, and a wide network of underground passages spreads out
> from their mounds.
Not as widespread and uniform as that seen in these regions in the
Morrison Formation. Look at the pictures given in the linked PP
presentation. That sort of distribution of tunnuls is not seen in
termite nests today anywhere in the world.
> > "Petrographic analysis seems to invalidate the suggestion of a
> > fulgurite origin.
>
> Who on earth ever suggested a fulgurite origin? Lighting strikes don't
> create complex structures 40 meters deep.
That's why it's not a likely explanation . . .
> > Thus far, we have not found a convincing termite
> > nest architecture or termites, and this brings into question the
> > fossil termite nest interpretation.
>
> Ah, that favourite creationist word: "convincing". The scientists who
> have studied these structures with an open mind are convinced.
Your scientists have not done chemical analysis on these structures,
used SEM microscopes, or really compared the architecture of real
termite nests with the formations actually found in the Morrison
Formation. They aren't remotely close to being similar in any
respect. Mainstream scientists have so far based their conclusion of
"termite nests" on nothing more than a vague superfiscial
resemblance. No real detailed scientific investigation backs up these
bald assumptions. What detailed data is available, from the work of
Roth, clearly counters the assumption of a termite origin for these
structures.
> > The rhizoconcretion interpretation
> > also appears to be problematic due to general morphological factors
> > and a paucity of ramifications. It may be that the concretionary
> > process follows in part the pattern of the abundant "tubes," of
> > organic or inorganic origin, that are already present in the country
> > rock.
>
> The "tubes" which the scientists who study the Morrison have concluded
> are termite burrows, you mean?
Yes, those very "tubes", which really aren't actual "tubes" at all.
Rather, these structures are simply greater concentrations of
crystals
than is present in the surrounding country rock by a slight
percentage. There is no evidence of tunneling through the country
rock or the building of tube walls or termite nest walls. There is
simply no change is material chemistry or evidence for tube
structural
composition used by termites.
> > It is hoped that the data presented above will help elucidate
> > the origin of these intriguing structures."
> Bullshit. The "data" is a deliberate attempt to give a scientific
> gloss to creationist nonsense.
Rather, the data that is used to suggest a termitic origin for these
formations is a deliberate attempt to build up the ToE nonsense. It
is a worthless conclusion based on a complete misapprehension of the
data at hand.
> > Ariel A. Roth, Tom Zoutewelle, and Dwight Hornbacher, "COMPLEX
> > CONCRETIONS IN THE JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION", Geological Society of
> > America. 2006. Abstracts with Programs, Volume 38(6): p 7.
> >https://www.theox.org/images/images_A2115/Ch%203-TERMITE%20NESTS.pdf
> So you have no publications in any peer-reviewed journal to offer,
> only a poster presented by a creationist. You realise, I hope, that
> there is no review on posters or presentation at symposia? Any fool
> can present a poster, and many do.
Keep your eyes open. Roth informs me that the peer reviewed version
of this paper should appear shortly.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
If the "peer-reviewed" version is in the Creation Research Quarterly,
count me as unimpressed.
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Note the unmarked snip:
Seanpit
It will be coming out in a mainstream journal.
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> Note the unmarked snip:
>
> Sean, even if Roth is correct, and these structures are not termite
> mounds - and the reference you provide is hardly convincing - in what
> possible way does "catastrophism" lead to the creation of large,
> complex concretionary structures? How long do you think it would take
> a structure like this to form?
These are inorganic crystaline formations - which can be produced very
rapidly under catastrophic watery deposition of such large amounts of
sediments and chemicals which are prone to such crystalization under
such concentrations.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Mark VandeWettering
If you could shorten your posts another three characters, you wouldn't
appear so foolish.
Mark
John Stockwell
wrote:
Here is a real paper on Jurassic termite mounds:
http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/19/1/68
These are quite spectacular, interconnecting tunnels and the whole
nine yards.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
richardal...@googlemail.com
And once again we are supposed to take your unsupported assertion for
this, are we Sean?
"Catastrophic watery deposition" of sediments does *NOT* produce
large, and complex "inorganic crystaline formations".
And even if this were the case, it doesn't change the fact that there
are numerous other strands of evidence which show that the Morrison
Formation was laid down over a long period of time by rivers running
across a rather arid floodplain. I've posted a link to a complete
review paper on the Morrison Formation, so if you think that you can
provide a better explanation for the evidence it would be a good
starting point.
Not that you will, of course: it's one of those challenges I make
simply so that you can demonstrate your blatant and transparent
evasion once again. Who do you think you are fooling?
RF
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
John Stockwell
More likely by the slow replacement by mineralized waters. Indeed,
this is a typical Adventist game. Publish a marginal paper about
a particular case, with questionable science, and then conflate
it with *all* similar cases. You guys aren't interested in science,
but
in spindoctorable soundbites. It is the game of "out of context
quoting" taken to the realm of physical evidence.
-John
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Glenn
tunnels and the whole nine yards" is to imply that the article
associates the Morrison mounds as having such. Here are the two
references to the Morrison in the article itself:
"The environments reconstructed from certain parts of the Morrison
Formation (New Mexico, USA), which also bears fossil termite nests,
are excellent Late Jurassic analogues of the Clarens scenario. Those
rocks also document an erg setting in a semiarid climate where termite
nests indicate vegetated and well-drained soils (Hasiotis, 1999).
Spain et al. (1983) reported that certain clusters of modern, oriented
termite mounds of northern Australia are associated with seasonally
inundated drainage hollows."
and
"Undoubtedly, the Tuli findings are the oldest reported occurrence of
large, elaborate termite nests in the world. Similar large termite
nests from eolian environments were found in the Upper Jurassic
Morrison Formation (New Mexico, USA; Hasiotis and Demko, 1996;
Hasiotis et al., 1997, 2002)."
Appears the environment is what is being associated, the Morrison
mounds assumed to be termite mounds.
But then I clicked on one of the footnoted references, "Hasiotis et
al., 1997":
"Hasiotis, S.T., Peterson, F., Demko, T.M., and Turner, C., 1997.
Giant termite (Insecta: Isoptera) nests from the base of the Upper
Jurassic Morrison Formation, northwestern New Mexico:: Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Program, v. 28, p. A461."
See any similarity to that and Sean's article?:
"Ariel A. Roth, Tom Zoutewelle, and Dwight Hornbacher, "COMPLEX
CONCRETIONS IN THE JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION", Geological Society of
America. 2006. Abstracts with Programs, Volume 38(6): p 7."
Look at some of the other footnoted references concerning the
Morrison. Is the one marked "Geological Society of America Abstracts
with Program" not a "real" paper, John? Do "real" papers reference
"not real" papers?
Here are the other referenced cites:
"Hasiotis, S.T. 1999. Continental ichnofossils from the Upper Jurassic
Morrison Formation, Western Interior, USA: what organisms behavior
tells us about Jurassic environments and climates:: in Santucci, V.L.,
and McClelland, L., eds., NPS Paleontological Research 4, Technical
Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-99/03, p. 121-126."
"Hasiotis, S.T., and Demko, T.M., 1996. Terrestrial and freshwater
trace fossils, Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, Colorado Plateau::
in Morales, M., ed., The Continental Jurassic: Museum of Northern
Arizona Bulletin 60, p. 355-370."
"Hasiotis, S.T. 2002. Complex ichnofossils of solitary and social soil
organisms: understanding their evolution and roles in terrestrial
paleoecosystems:: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,
v. 192, p. 259-320."
I don't know if any of these are peer-reviewed, or accessible. Or
whether the authors are correct and Roth et al is wrong. A first guess
based on the titles is that the articles concern trace fossil
evidence, nothing about tunnels. But you can sure stick your neck out
with a single article and a little sarcasm.
Seanpit
>
> Here is a real paper on Jurassic termite mounds:http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/19/1/68
>
> These are quite spectacular, interconnecting tunnels and the whole
> nine yards.
Yeah - - Even within mainstream literature there are a number of
scientists who disagree with Bordy et al. here. For example, notice
the counter article by Genise et. al. that directly questions Bordy's
interpretation of termite nests at this S. African location and
questions the carefulness of Bordy's work.
"Instead, it is the understanding that the description and
affinities of the Tuli structures are not treated with the necessary
detail and their termitic origin was not demonstrated."
http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/extract/20/3/303
Sloppy work is all John - with an interpretation highly colored by
personal bias. You are looking at the data to superficially here.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ron O
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:27 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Nothing like the fossil assemblages of the Morrison formation are
> > > being produced anywhere on Earth today by slow meandering river
> > > basins.
>
> > Yes they are, in the African savannahs.http://tiny.cc/OsU2Z
> > It's also worth noting that the Morrison Formation contains termite
> > nests as much as 40 meters tall.
>
SNIP:
I think that you should wait until this gets published in a real
science journal after peer review. My guess is that all you will get
from waiting is crickets chirping.
Sean, are petrified trees really fossil trees even though they have
been mineralized?
I didn't even get where they verified that they were working on
concretions that had been previously identified as termite mounds, and
not just some concretions that they decided to study. Who identified
their samples as coming from fossil termite mounds?
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
2. Geologists have the bad habit of citing meeting abstracts as if they
were real papers. Forrest was right to denigrate this practice, but
wrong to attribute it strictly to creationists. I've seen it over and
over in paleontology papers. I've even been cited that way myself, which
is extra annoying. Meeting abstracts are useless as references, and
editors shouldn't allow them.
3. All the references you give other than that one are to peer-reviewed
publications.
Glenn
wrote:
"discoveries" are valid and if the Morrison mounds are "so obvious" or
"obvious as the nose on your face".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
"The oldest unambiguous termite fossils date to the early Cretaceous
although structures from the late Triassic have been interpreted as
fossilized termite nests.[6] Given the diversity of Cretaceous
termites, it is likely that they had their origin at least sometime in
the Jurassic."
"6. Gay and Calaby 1970 Termites of the Australian region. in; Krishna
K Weesner FM eds. Biology of Termites, Vol. II Academic Press NY
p401"
Seanpit
wrote:
>
> 1. Termite mounds *are* trace fossils.
They would be if they actually were termite mounds.
> 2. Geologists have the bad habit of citing meeting abstracts as if they
> were real papers. Forrest was right to denigrate this practice, but
> wrong to attribute it strictly to creationists. I've seen it over and
> over in paleontology papers. I've even been cited that way myself, which
> is extra annoying. Meeting abstracts are useless as references, and
> editors shouldn't allow them.
That's not completely true. While meeting abstracts are understood to
have less status than critically reviewed papers, they are still
interesting and do carry a degree of usefulness or at least interest -
especially considering the degree of establishment of the author of
the abstract.
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Glenn
wrote:
1a. Not all trace fossils are termite mounds.
>
> 2. Geologists have the bad habit of citing meeting abstracts as if they
> were real papers. Forrest was right to denigrate this practice, but
> wrong to attribute it strictly to creationists. I've seen it over and
> over in paleontology papers. I've even been cited that way myself, which
> is extra annoying. Meeting abstracts are useless as references, and
> editors shouldn't allow them.
Your opinion, for what it's worth. I choose to imagine what real life
circumstances may be.
>
> 3. All the references you give other than that one are to peer-reviewed
> publications.
Yet that "meeting abstract" was the sole reference that included
termite mounds in the title.
John Harshman
[snip]
> Wiki must be way out of date, especially if all these other
> "discoveries" are valid and if the Morrison mounds are "so obvious" or
> "obvious as the nose on your face".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
>
> "The oldest unambiguous termite fossils date to the early Cretaceous
> although structures from the late Triassic have been interpreted as
> fossilized termite nests.[6] Given the diversity of Cretaceous
> termites, it is likely that they had their origin at least sometime in
> the Jurassic."
>
> "6. Gay and Calaby 1970 Termites of the Australian region. in; Krishna
> K Weesner FM eds. Biology of Termites, Vol. II Academic Press NY
> p401"
I'm confused. How is this inconsistent with the Morrison structures
being termite mounds? Doesn't "oldest unambiguous termite fossils" refer
to body fossils?
John Harshman
I don't agree. Meeting abstracts are useless. They are frequently
written before the results they claim to report are actually obtained.
(Lead time, you know.) Fairly often the talk (or poster) they reference
is not actually given. They may be of interest, but they are not useful.
The point of citations is that the reader can go back and check the
claims made by the author; if you can't check the claims, which you
can't with an abstract, the citation is worthless. And are you actually
claiming that we should judge science by the "degree of establishment"
of the author?
John Harshman
True. But you were using a title that referred to trace fossils in order
to claim that the article must not have been referring to termite
mounds. See why that's invalid?
>> 2. Geologists have the bad habit of citing meeting abstracts as if they
>> were real papers. Forrest was right to denigrate this practice, but
>> wrong to attribute it strictly to creationists. I've seen it over and
>> over in paleontology papers. I've even been cited that way myself, which
>> is extra annoying. Meeting abstracts are useless as references, and
>> editors shouldn't allow them.
>
> Your opinion, for what it's worth. I choose to imagine what real life
> circumstances may be.
You choose to imagine a lot of things. Ask yourself what references in
scientific papers are for.
>> 3. All the references you give other than that one are to peer-reviewed
>> publications.
>
> Yet that "meeting abstract" was the sole reference that included
> termite mounds in the title.
You could of course use those other references to look up the actual
papers and see if there were any termite mounds in them. That's what
references are for. They are not for the purpose of having you guess
what's in the papers by their titles.
Glenn
wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Wiki must be way out of date, especially if all these other
> > "discoveries" are valid and if the Morrison mounds are "so obvious" or
> > "obvious as the nose on your face".
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
>
> > "The oldest unambiguous termite fossils date to the early Cretaceous
> > although structures from the late Triassic have been interpreted as
> > fossilized termite nests.[6] Given the diversity of Cretaceous
> > termites, it is likely that they had their origin at least sometime in
> > the Jurassic."
>
> > "6. Gay and Calaby 1970 Termites of the Australian region. in; Krishna
> > K Weesner FM eds. Biology of Termites, Vol. II Academic Press NY
> > p401"
>
> I'm confused.
On that, John, I wholeheartedly agree.
>How is this inconsistent with the Morrison structures
> being termite mounds?
You might benefit from actually reading what I write. If the Morrison
mounds are "so obviously" termite nests, that would be something akin
to "unambiguous", I should think. Your mileage may vary greatly. But
you may note, although you seem to have a real problem in other
similar situations, that I did not claim that the Wiki article was
inconsistent with the Morrison mounds being termite mounds.
>Doesn't "oldest unambiguous termite fossils" refer
> to body fossils?
I suggest you read it again and "interpolate", or "infer", which you
may prefer.
Glenn
wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
snip
> >>> I don't know if any of these are peer-reviewed, or accessible. Or
> >>> whether the authors are correct and Roth et al is wrong. A first guess
> >>> based on the titles is that the articles concern trace fossil
> >>> evidence, nothing about tunnels. But you can sure stick your neck out
> >>> with a single article and a little sarcasm.
>
> >> 1. Termite mounds *are* trace fossils.
>
> > 1a. Not all trace fossils are termite mounds.
>
> True. But you were using a title that referred to trace fossils in order
> to claim that the article must not have been referring to termite
> mounds. See why that's invalid?
Yes, because what you claim is not true nor a reasonable inference in
context of what I actually said. You *must* be joking, or a joke. Take
your pick.
>
snip
Seanpit
Why are you going off on some irrelevant tangent here? You seem to me
to only be taking away from the main point I was trying to make in
this particular post - i.e., that several scientists, mainstream
scientists, have published in literature their doubts as to the
interpretation of "termite mounds" that other scientists, like Bordy,
have claimed based on sloppy research. That's the main point here.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Glenn
wrote:
would just rather I didn't post at all. And I think that would be too
much to ask. It seems to me that if anything I am adding to the
argument against the structures being termite nests, not taking away
from it. But either way, it's my choice.
Although Wiki isn''t scientific literature, it is often used as
reference, and I think my point is valid that they are either way out
of date, or are accurately reflecting the current understanding, the
earliest unambiguous evidence of termites. You'd have a hard time
convincing anyone of termite nests before termites evolved, yet
unambiguous evidence of termite nests would be evidence of the
existence of termites. And the Wiki ref is better than what any evo
has offered so far, AFAIK.
John Harshman
You are truly incomprehensible.
John Harshman
> On Jan 9, 7:02 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
> wrote:
>> Glenn,
>>
>> Why are you going off on some irrelevant tangent here? You seem to me
>> to only be taking away from the main point I was trying to make in
>> this particular post - i.e., that several scientists, mainstream
>> scientists, have published in literature their doubts as to the
>> interpretation of "termite mounds" that other scientists, like Bordy,
>> have claimed based on sloppy research. That's the main point here.
>>
> I agree, but I don't see how I'm taking away from that, unless you
> would just rather I didn't post at all.
Put me down as being in favor of that.
> And I think that would be too
> much to ask. It seems to me that if anything I am adding to the
> argument against the structures being termite nests, not taking away
> from it. But either way, it's my choice.
> Although Wiki isn''t scientific literature, it is often used as
> reference, and I think my point is valid that they are either way out
> of date, or are accurately reflecting the current understanding, the
> earliest unambiguous evidence of termites. You'd have a hard time
> convincing anyone of termite nests before termites evolved, yet
> unambiguous evidence of termite nests would be evidence of the
> existence of termites. And the Wiki ref is better than what any evo
> has offered so far, AFAIK.
A little googling reveals that, as I suspected, the oldest termite body
fossils are Lower Cretaceous. Wikipedia is right, and the quote is not
referring to mounds.
Glenn
I didn't claim that the articles must have not been referring to
termite mounds.
I said as far as I knew from the titles themselves, the articles did
not refer to tunnels. That is a far cry from claiming that the
articles "must not have been" referring to tunnels, or mounds to use
your word. And added to what I also said, that I didn't have access to
them and didn't know who was right, it isn't possible to leap to the
conclusion you did unless you were stupid or lying. Satisfied?
John Harshman
Glenn
>
Good.
Glenn
wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
snip
>
> > And I think that would be too
> > much to ask. It seems to me that if anything I am adding to the
> > argument against the structures being termite nests, not taking away
> > from it. But either way, it's my choice.
> > Although Wiki isn''t scientific literature, it is often used as
> > reference, and I think my point is valid that they are either way out
> > of date, or are accurately reflecting the current understanding, the
> > earliest unambiguous evidence of termites. You'd have a hard time
> > convincing anyone of termite nests before termites evolved, yet
> > unambiguous evidence of termite nests would be evidence of the
> > existence of termites. And the Wiki ref is better than what any evo
> > has offered so far, AFAIK.
>
> A little googling reveals that, as I suspected, the oldest termite body
> fossils are Lower Cretaceous. Wikipedia is right, and the quote is not
> referring to mounds.
Could have fooled me:
> "The oldest unambiguous termite fossils date to the early Cretaceous
> although structures from the late Triassic have been interpreted as
> fossilized termite nests.[6] Given the diversity of Cretaceous
> termites, it is likely that they had their origin at least sometime in
> the Jurassic."
I'd say the author distinguishes "unambiguous" from "interpreted as"
in that quote.
Your mileage may vary greatly, John. Oh, you just demonstrated that.
Never mind.
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I didn't! I'd regard it as poor practice whoever did it.
> I've seen it over and
> over in paleontology papers. I've even been cited that way myself, which
> is extra annoying. Meeting abstracts are useless as references, and
> editors shouldn't allow them.
Sometimes it can be the only way to refer to work which you know has
been done but hasn't yet been published. Some researchers are
notorious for sitting on specimens for years, even decades, saving
them up as a research project for when they retire. All too often they
never get round to it. I know of one plesiosaur specimen which has
been sitting in a colleagues office since 1983, and which he produces
every five years or so with a few more scraps of information and a
different idea for what to call the new genus and species. It's
intensely frustrating, but the only way in which any reference can be
made to this specimen is as a conference presentation or pers. com.
RF
John Harshman
Many journals allow you to refer to unpublished work, just not as a
formal citation. J. Smith (pers. comm.) or J. Smith (unpublished data)
convey the idea without giving the impression that you're actually
citing something.
> Some researchers are
> notorious for sitting on specimens for years, even decades, saving
> them up as a research project for when they retire. All too often they
> never get round to it. I know of one plesiosaur specimen which has
> been sitting in a colleagues office since 1983, and which he produces
> every five years or so with a few more scraps of information and a
> different idea for what to call the new genus and species. It's
> intensely frustrating, but the only way in which any reference can be
> made to this specimen is as a conference presentation or pers. com.
The latter at least doesn't give a false impression. But that guy
deserves to be scooped. Is it a museum specimen? Can you apply to the
museum to borrow it? This idea that specimens belong to the collector
forever is pernicious.
Glenn
wrote:
Apparently PALAIOS does, the publisher of the article Stockwell
offered in "rebuttal" to the bad "bad creationist" article.
Seanpit
If that were the case, you think you would see the preservation of the
mud pellets used by termites to build their nests - to include their
linear arrangement and preservation of fossilized planet debris as
well.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/FossilRecord/Termite1.jpg
None of these features are found in these formations.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Termite
> Indeed,
> this is a typical Adventist game. Publish a marginal paper about
> a particular case, with questionable science, and then conflate
> it with *all* similar cases. You guys aren't interested in science,
> but in spindoctorable soundbites. It is the game of "out of context
> quoting" taken to the realm of physical evidence.
Your own paper that you referenced has been challenged in literature
by mainstream scientists who question the conclusion of termitic
origin. You are the one here who accepts superfiscial investigation
and conclusions without any real consideration of any potential
alternative explanations. That's rather sloppy "science".
> -John
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com