Orientation of dinosaur bones.
richardal...@googlemail.com
"As far as the fossilized bones of large animals, such as the
dinosaurs and large mammals, they are also generally oriented in the
same direction for any given layer, and this is true the world over."
Can you provide a reference to support this assertion, Sean? I have
been collecting fossils and reading books and papers on the subject
for 40 years, and have never come across such an assertion.
A search in google scholar doesn't seem to offer much support either:
This quarry certainly doesn't show such orientation:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3360(199409)68%3A5%3C1118%3AGATOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
Geology and Taphonomy of the Coelophysis Quarry, Upper Triassic Chinle
Formation, Ghost Ranch, New Mexico
Hilde L. Schwartz, David D. Gillette
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 68, No. 5 (Sep., 1994), pp. 1118-1130
Abstract
The Coelophysis dinosaur quarry at Ghost Ranch, near Abiquiu, New
Mexico, is unique among Triassic fossil sites for its yield of
numerous complete and partial skeletons of a single species of
theropod dinosaur (Coelophysis bauri). Since its discovery in 1947 by
E. H. Colbert in the red siltstone beds of the Upper Triassic Chinle
Formation, the quarry has yielded the remains of at least 1,000
individuals from approximately 30 cubic meters of excavated material.
The main bone-bearing strata are abandoned channel deposits that are
part of a siltstone overbank sequence. The Coelophysis remains found
at the quarry are remarkably whole and well preserved, though they
range in degree of articulation from complete skeletons to isolated
limbs and bones. Skeletons, partial skeletons, and bones are crudely
aligned and show little evidence of predator or scavenger disturbance
or surface weathering. Geologic and taphonomic evidence suggests that
the dinosaurs preserved in the Ghost Ranch quarry were transported to
the site as carcasses by fluvial currents. The carcasses blocked a
small channel and were subsequently buried by silts. Petrographic
study and neutron activation analysis reveal no evidence of volcanic
ash, paleopathologic osteology, or unusual chemistry in the quarry
bone and sediments. The virtual monospecificity, taphonomy, and
ecology of the assemblage suggest that the dinosaurs perished due to a
regional environmental crisis, such as drought.
This one refers to "slight preferred orientation ", but it's about
frogs, not dinosaurs:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3360(199311)67%3A6%3C1016%3ACDAOCB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
Catastrophic Death Assemblage of Chelomophrynus bayi (Anura,
Rhinophrynidae) from the Middle Eocene Wagon Bed Formation of Central
Wyoming
Amy C. Henrici, Anthony R. Fiorillo
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 67, No. 6 (Nov., 1993), pp. 1016-1026
Abstract
A unique monospecific bonebed of rhinophrynid anurans was recently
discovered in the Wagon Bed Formation (Middle Eocene, Uintan), Hot
Springs County, Wyoming. The bonebed occurs on a single bedding plane
within a thin sandstone layer. This unit is part of a nearshore facies
of a calcium carbonate-rich lake in which the water was warm, shallow,
and quiet at the site of the mortality layer. A representative area of
this bonebed, approximately 450 square centimeters in size, provides
the basis for this taphonomic and paleoecologic study. This area
contains approximately 600 bones and at least 19 individuals are
represented. Skeletons are nearly completely disarticulated but
somewhat associated, bone modification features are absent, a slight
preferred orientation of the linear bones is present, and many of the
lighter, less dense skeletal elements are underrepresented. Scavengers
probably contributed to disarticulation of the skeletons. Bone
depletion occurred by a combination of the action of scavengers, weak
currents, and the sloughing off of body parts as the carcasses
floated. The assemblage was not subjected to extensive winnowing by
currents. All of the specimens within this assemblage represent young
adults. Because the frogs are all of the same ontogenetic age and the
deposit shows no signs of time averaging, the assemblage is
interpreted as the result of catastrophic death, possibly by disease,
of one age class. Either a population of frogs inhabited the site
where the mortality layer formed or the carcasses floated into it.
And tell you what, Sean:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qeRM16ndBx4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA121&dq=orientation+of+bones+in+bone+beds+geology&ots=W1Ln39ycWy&sig=ap501kZu7JZ236IB_NsfyTrk7_c#PPA121,M1
You can read *all* of this paper. Then perhaps you can explain why
your (or Chadwick's) flood model (you know, the one which you have
been working on for so many years) provides a better explanation for
the evidence than the conclusions of the authors of this paper.
By the way, there is no mention of orientation of bones in this
quarry.
You can also read the whole of this paper:
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/fossil_conference_6/benton.htm
BASELINE MAPPING OF FOSSIL BONE BEDS AT BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK
RACHEL C. BENTON (1), EMMETT EVANOFF (2), CARRIE L. HERBEL (3), AND
DENNIS O. TERRY, JR.(4)
Abstract--Through a three-year grant with the Natural Resources
Preservation Program (NRPP), Badlands National Park has begun
documenting the extent and location of its fossil resources. Due to
the great size of the park and the extent of exposed bedrock, the
scope of this project is limited to the lowest horizons within the
Scenic Member of the Brule Formation. To date, our team has documented
the distribution, composition, stratigraphic position, and
depositional setting of numerous fossil sites within three designated
areas, covering 3.5 map sections. In the coming years, this survey
will provide the basis for an effective paleontological inventory and
monitoring program and a predictive model for locating other fossil
accumulations within the lower Scenic Member of the Brule Formation.
After one summer of fieldwork, 351 new paleontological sites have been
documented and recorded into the Park's the Geographic Information
System (GIS) database. Many of these sites consist of bone horizons
with hundreds of specimens; however, only 231 specimens were
collected. The criteria used to collect specmimens included; threats
from erosion or poaching and the overall scientific value of the
fossil. Six stratigraphic marker beds occur over 30 km2 of the Scenic
Member outcrop. The marker beds provide stratigraphic control for
locating fossil localities within 1 meter vertical resolution. A broad
spectrum of paleosol development was also noted during the
sedimentological survey and it appears that the Scenic Member was
deposited on an irregular erosional surface, consisting of several
topographic highs and lows. Sedimentological interpretations of
particular marker beds and bone horizons will serve as valuable tools
for interpreting ancient climates and regional basin evolution.
Note: from the paper
"The bones instead occur as semi-articulated to disarticulated
elements which show no preferred orientation"
At last! A paper which describes orientation of bones!
http://tiny.cc/pJu6P
Preservation of large titanosaur sauropods in overbank fluvial facies:
A case study in the Cretaceous of Argentina
Bernardo J. González Rigaa, Corresponding Author Contact Information,
E-mail The Corresponding Author, E-mail The Corresponding Author and
Ricardo A. Astinib, E-mail The Corresponding Author
Abstract
Patagonia exhibits a particularly abundant record of Cretaceous
dinosaurs with worldwide relevance. Although paleontological studies
are relatively numerous, few include taphonomic information about
these faunas. This contribution provides the first detailed
sedimentological and taphonomical analyses of a dinosaur bone quarry
from northern Neuquén Basin. At Arroyo Seco (Mendoza Province,
Argentina), a large parautochthonous/autochthonous accumulation of
articulated and disarticulated bones that represent several sauropod
individuals has been discovered. The fossil remains, assigned to
Mendozasaurus neguyelap González Riga, correspond to a large (18-27-m
long) sauropod titanosaur collected in the strata of the Río Neuquén
Subgroup (late Turoronian-late Coniacian). A taphonomic viewpoint
recognizes a two-fold division into biostratinomic and fossil-
diagenetic processes. Biostratinomic processes include (1) subaerial
biodegradation of sauropod carcasses on well-drained floodplains, (2)
partial or total skeletal disarticulation, (3) reorientation of bones
by sporadic overbank flows, and (4) subaerial weathering. Fossil-
diagenetic processes include (1) plastic deformation of bones, (2)
initial permineralization with hematite, (3) fracturing and brittle
deformation due to lithostatic pressure; (4) secondary
permineralization with calcite in vascular canals and fractures, and
(5) postfossilization bone weathering. This type of bone
concentration, also present in Rincón de los Sauces (northern
Patagonia), suggests that overbank facies tended to accumulate large
titanosaur bones. This taphonomic mode, referred to as "overbank bone
assemblages", outlines the potential of crevasse splay facies as
important sources of paleontological data in Cretaceous meandering
fluvial systems.
So far there isn't much to support your contention, is there?
RF
Inez
> From Sean's site:
> "As far as the fossilized bones of large animals, such as the
> dinosaurs and large mammals, they are also generally oriented in the
> same direction for any given layer, and this is true the world over."
>
> Can you provide a reference to support this assertion, Sean? I have
> been collecting fossils and reading books and papers on the subject
> for 40 years, and have never come across such an assertion.
>
> A search in google scholar doesn't seem to offer much support either:
>
Even if true, how would that support a flood model?
Jim Willemin
ad807c...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
I myself would surely like to know how the flood had currents. Since
the rainfall was catastrophic, teh runoff must have scoured any exposed
areas to bedrock (cf. hydraulic mining) - thus teh fluvial flood model
is inapporpriate. What we are left with, then, are tidal currents as a
model for deposition during the Flood... and I rather suspect that some
quick calculations (which I am too lazy to do right now) might prove
illuminating in putting bounds on velocities.
The thought just struck me - where are the catastrophic inflow channels
in large enclosed basins with internal drainage (e.g. Salt Lake, Death
Valley, Dead Sea)? We see catastrophic outflow channels from glacial
Lake Bonneville and glacial Lake Missoula, for instance - where are the
catastrophic inflow channels?
Inez
> Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:de41a290-a7e6-4e25-af49-
> ad807c9c5...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
It seems to me that the real problem is that there's no way to tell
what happened to the water. Did God pull a plug at the bottom of the
ocean? Was it carried away in buckets by enchanted brooms a la
Fantasia? There's no way of knowing, so you can't know what effects
the water leaving would have.
Greg G.
Right. Bone orientation indicates water flow but water flows downhill,
so if they all pointed in the same direction, it would indicate where
the continental divide was at the time. Today, rivers flow from the
Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River. The Morrison Formation was
made before the Rocky Mountains arose.
If water flowing in the same direction implies there was a global
flood, then the fact that all the rivers and creeks in central Ohio
flow south means we're having a global flood right now.
--
Greg G.
Baby stork: Mama, where did I come from?
.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Orientation of dinosaur bones.
Some are quite gay, the ones for neck frills,
nose bugle resonators, and spiked tails come
to mind.
Some are quite straight, femurs usually are
in this lot.
Most of them, though, being long dead and
re-mineralized over time from bone to stone,
are pretty much indifferent on the whole
"gender behaviors" matter.
HTH
xanthian.
richardal...@googlemail.com
That's a different issue, which I will address if Sean comes back with
support for his assertion that bones of large animals are "generally
oriented in the same direction for any given layer, and this is true
the world over". I've found that there is little point in trying to
get an answer from more than one question at a time from Sean.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:de41a290-a7e6-4e25-af49-
> ad807c9c5...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
I think that the source for this that Arthur Chadwick's flood model,
which you can find here:
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/chadwick/default.html
It's a peculiar mixture of perfectly conventional palaeogeography and
some rather wierd assertions dressed up in technical terms to comfort
creationist readers with the idea that this is *real* science. For
example, we have the sentence "The patterns of paleocurrents observed
in the Paleozoic largely reflect these basinward trends, generally
heading across and along geoclinal axes.". A simpler way of saying the
same thing would be to say that water in the Paleozoic flowed downhill
to the sea.
He has a habit of making statements which beg so many questions that
the mind boggles. For example "At the onset of the flood, rain water
accumulated for many days, absorbed into the ground, and flowed down
toward the seas." We are talking of enough water to cause major
changes in sea level in his model, but are expected to simply take on
trust that rainfall could produce such an innundation.
He presents the utterly bizarre idea that decreasing salinity,
increased turbation and changes in temperature of the water in the sea
"resulted in the precise and successive destruction of various life
forms in the water column, as their limits of toleration were
reached." You don't need much knowledge of geology to recognise this
as simply ridiculous.
"The end of the Paleozoic and the beginning of Mesozoic was signaled
by the breaching of the coastal margins by the rising saline waters of
the Ocean. " He has previously asserted that the rise in sea levels
was caused by rainfall and "breaching of the hydrologic system." The
hydrologic system is a model of how water circulates in the
atmosphere, living organisms, on land and in the seas. I have no idea
of how this could be "breached". What he seems to be saying is that
sea levels rose because of the water flowing off the land, and that
the level of the sea rose until it was *higher* than the land so that
water started to flow *back* onto the land. There are certain issues
of rather basic logic here.
I'm perhaps guilty of cherry-picking here, but this rather stunned me:
"When ocean floor is subducted on one side of a continent, it must be
regenerated on the other side of the continent. This regeneration may
involve the continent overriding the ocean floor, or the expulsion of
massive quantities of molten magma into the ocean floor. In either
case, the process is considered to involve the production of heat or
molten rock."
"The continent overriding the ocean floor" is *subuction*! As for the
" expulsion of massive quantities of molten magma into the ocean
floor", why yes. This is what happens at mid-ocean ridges. We can
watch it happening.
This is from someone *teaches* geology. God help his students.
RF
Jim Willemin
news:8d59fca2-865e-4255...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 5, 12:09 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
<snip:
>> The thought just struck me - where are the catastrophic inflow
>> channels in large enclosed basins with internal drainage (e.g. Salt
>> Lake, Death Valley, Dead Sea)? We see catastrophic outflow channels
>> from glacial Lake Bonneville and glacial Lake Missoula, for instance
>> - where are the catastrophic inflow channels?
>
> I think that the source for this that Arthur Chadwick's flood model,
> which you can find here:
> http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/chadwick/default.html
>
Thanks, Richard. A quick perusal of that site convinces me that I have
never seen so much bullshit in one spot (except for the time I ran
across a book advocating a hollow earth). I get the impression that he
implies the entire Mesozoic happened during the year Noah was adrift.
As a geomorphologist, though, it strikes me that any pre-Flood landforms
ought to show some pretty impressive and unmistakeable features (e.g.
deltas and alluvial fans with blocks the size of cathedrals, if rainfall
was a major factor in causing the sea level rise - on the other hand, if
the major contributor was the 'fountains of the deep' increasing ocean
volume then any pre-Flood internal drainage basin ought to show some
spectacular landforms created when the rising sea level breached the
basin rim. No, the Flood story is best left as vague as possible - when
one begins to try and add details the absurdity of the idea increases
exponentially.
<snip examples of obfuscation and confusion and plain lunacy>
>
> This is from someone *teaches* geology. God help his students.
>
> RF
>
amen. Though I don't suppose many students from Southwestern Adventist
University, in Keene, Texas, plan on being professional geologists...