Pre-Cambrian Trilobites

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran stratum?

(No, I'm not a creationist)

[John Stockwell]

http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
You mean like these possible precursors to trilobites?

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 13, 5:51 pm, jjjungle...@gmail.com wrote:
> What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran stratum?
>
> (No, I'm not a creationist)

It would take more than one to be of any concern to evo authorities.
Yet let's not forget that massive gaps in the fossil record do not
concern evo authorities one bit.

Ray

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 5:51 pm, jjjungle...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran stratum?
>>
>> (No, I'm not a creationist)

.

>It would take more than one to be of any concern to evo authorities.

A couple of crabs or lobsters from the Precambrian would cause something
approaching a crisis.

>Yet let's not forget that massive gaps in the fossil record do not
>concern evo authorities one bit.

Have you forgotten that the gaps keep becoming smaller and more
numerous? Are the "authorities" wrong to take comfort from their
continuing success at decreasing the size of the gaps?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Dana Tweedy]

What "massive gaps" are you referring to?

DJT

[Glenn]

<jjjun...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ff09f122-5800-4dde...@googlegroups.com...

> What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran stratum?
>

We'd all fall off the Earth.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:51:59 -0700 (PDT), jjjun...@gmail.com wrote:

>What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran stratum?
>
>(No, I'm not a creationist)

If by "fully developed" you mean of the same forms as currently found
in Cambrian strata, there are three possibilities:

1. The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian stratum, and
later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum. I don't know if
evidence of that specific sequence of events has ever been found, but
I do know that secondary deposition happens often enough that
paleontologists have methods to test for it.

2. Trilobites arose earlier than was previously known. This would be
a noteworthy surprise, but such things have happened before, and will
likely happen again. That is the kind of event some Creationists like
to crow about, as they think it shows that scientists don't know what
they're talking about. But the net effect of an authentic find of
that kind would be to shift the timetable for life on Earth. It
wouldn't be quite the same thing as finding human footprints
authentically associated with dinosaur fossils, either
paleontologically or theologically.

3. The fossil is a deliberate hoax. That kind of thing has also
happened before, and will likely happen again. And yes,
paleontologists have methods to test for that also.

[jillery]

That is a way interesting website. I didn't know they had found such
specimens. Thank you for sharing this information.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 5:51 pm, jjjungle...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran stratum?
>>
>> (No, I'm not a creationist)
>
>It would take more than one to be of any concern to evo authorities.

Rightly so, as just one is almost certainly not authentic.

>Yet let's not forget that massive gaps in the fossil record do not
>concern evo authorities one bit.

Again rightly so, as gaps are expected. Indeed, it would be
remarkable that gaps didn't exist.

[jjjun...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:15:36 PM UTC-5, John Stockwell wrote:
> http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
>
> You mean like these possible precursors to trilobites?

Thats a really interesting site, John. Thanks.

The Spriggina floundersi fossil does indeed resemble a trilobite.

[J. J. Lodder]

Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 13, 5:51 pm, jjjungle...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran stratum
?
> >>
> >> (No, I'm not a creationist)
>
> .
>
> >It would take more than one to be of any concern to evo authorities.
>
> A couple of crabs or lobsters from the Precambrian would cause something
> approaching a crisis.

No more than human skulls found embedded in coal,

Jan

[Robert Carnegie]

I myself intend to avoid being fossilised. This week anyway.
In biological and evolutionary terms, fossils are dead, and,
therefore, are losers. Evolution is about being a winner.

"Lined in chalk" indeed. Or any other geological medium.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 14/06/2013 05:53, jillery wrote:
> 1. The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian stratum, and
> later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum. I don't know if
> evidence of that specific sequence of events has ever been found, but
> I do know that secondary deposition happens often enough that
> paleontologists have methods to test for it.

Point of pedantry. Fossils can be eroded and redeposited in younger
strata. This is known as reworking. They can't be redeposited in older
strata. What can happen is that (fossiliferous) sediments can be
deposited in fissures and caves and gullies in older strata. Sometimes
geologists fail to recognise that the fill is younger than the host
rock, or even that the fill is a fill, thereby getting the age wrong.

I.e. a tribolite fossil in Cambrian fill in Ediacaran strata might be
erroneously considered to be of Ediacaran age.

For younger rocks there is also the possibility of intrusive burials,
wherein an animal has dug a hole in (unconsolidated) rock*, and
deposited a body in the hole.

*In the case of humans intrusive burials in consolidated rock is also
possible.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

I suppose the people who believe in soft rocks might be confused by my
description. For everybody else, ie people with working brains, do
any of them consider a pocket of infill "stratum"?

[John Harshman]

He's trying to save your hypothesis. If you reject his "pocket of
infill", then how do you propose to have a Cambrian fossil find its way
into Ediacaran strata?

[jillery]

Why do you think I reject his "pockets of infill"? Did you not
understand my question? And do you have another "hypothesis" for how
fully formed trilobites might be found in Ediacaran strata besides the
three I mentioned?

[John Harshman]

I don't know. Why do you?

> Did you not
> understand my question?

It appears that I did not. What did you mean by it?

> And do you have another "hypothesis" for how
> fully formed trilobites might be found in Ediacaran strata besides the
> three I mentioned?

I do, but that wasn't the point, which was that your hypothesis 1 wasn't
well stated, and Ernest was trying to clarify. I don't think anyone is
claiming that you were wrong, just unclear.

As for other hypotheses, sure: 4. Time travel; 5. Mistaken dating of the
rocks. I think that covers it. There are more that have been
entertained, but they're too unlikely to be worthy of consideration: 6.
Rocks formed into organic shapes by mysterious natural forces; 7. rocks
were not formed over millions of years but were all deposited by a
worldwide flood; 8. Fossils placed by the FSM to annoy us. And so on.

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:21:44 -0700, John Harshman

Since you don't know, why do you ask questions which imply that I do?

>> Did you not
>> understand my question?
>
>It appears that I did not. What did you mean by it?

It really is a straightforward question. If you can't understand it,
I doubt your answer would be useful to me. Do you think "pockets of
infill" qualify as strata or not?

>> And do you have another "hypothesis" for how
>> fully formed trilobites might be found in Ediacaran strata besides the
>> three I mentioned?
>
>I do, but that wasn't the point, which was that your hypothesis 1 wasn't
>well stated, and Ernest was trying to clarify.
>
>I don't think anyone is
>claiming that you were wrong, just unclear.

Yeah, you claim that a lot, but you never say how I am so unclear that
you can't figure it out.

>As for other hypotheses, sure: 4. Time travel; 5. Mistaken dating of the
>rocks. I think that covers it. There are more that have been
>entertained, but they're too unlikely to be worthy of consideration: 6.
>Rocks formed into organic shapes by mysterious natural forces; 7. rocks
>were not formed over millions of years but were all deposited by a
>worldwide flood; 8. Fossils placed by the FSM to annoy us. And so on.

Considering the likelihood of the above, excepting 5., I didn't see
the point in mentioning them. Apparently you believe otherwise.

[John Harshman]

Uh-oh. Have we reached the stage of infinite regress of questions?
Here's another one: Do you understand that there are two grammatical
interpretations of "Why do you think I reject...?"

>>> Did you not
>>> understand my question?
>>
>> It appears that I did not. What did you mean by it?
>
> It really is a straightforward question. If you can't understand it,
> I doubt your answer would be useful to me. Do you think "pockets of
> infill" qualify as strata or not?

I think they don't.

>>> And do you have another "hypothesis" for how
>>> fully formed trilobites might be found in Ediacaran strata besides the
>>> three I mentioned?
>>
>> I do, but that wasn't the point, which was that your hypothesis 1 wasn't
>> well stated, and Ernest was trying to clarify.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is
>> claiming that you were wrong, just unclear.
>
> Yeah, you claim that a lot, but you never say how I am so unclear that
> you can't figure it out.

I wasn't actually trying to start a fight, you know.

>> As for other hypotheses, sure: 4. Time travel; 5. Mistaken dating of the
>> rocks. I think that covers it. There are more that have been
>> entertained, but they're too unlikely to be worthy of consideration: 6.
>> Rocks formed into organic shapes by mysterious natural forces; 7. rocks
>> were not formed over millions of years but were all deposited by a
>> worldwide flood; 8. Fossils placed by the FSM to annoy us. And so on.
>
> Considering the likelihood of the above, excepting 5., I didn't see
> the point in mentioning them. Apparently you believe otherwise.

I express my sincere regrets for ever responding to any post you make.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:42:49 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:21:44 -0700, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>>I don't think anyone is
>>claiming that you were wrong, just unclear.
>
>
>Yeah, you claim that a lot, but you never say how I am so unclear that
>you can't figure it out.

I'll try and help:

Here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/76232e22332ec69c

you said:
"The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian stratum, and

later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran **stratum**."

here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/db0e61cc8d7e64f4

Ernest replied:

"Point of ***pedantry***. Fossils [...] can't be redeposited in older
**strata**. "

This (as I believe you already know) is because strata refers to
sedimentary (layered) deposits.

Ernest then gave you a more pedantically correct description (which you
appear to have understood).

____________________________


I have very very often been corrected on small (and large) points such
as these in this group. The experience is often very painful, but I am
sure that by paying attention the clarity of my thinking has improved.

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:19:43 -0700, John Harshman

No, you started at the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" stage.

>>>> Did you not
>>>> understand my question?
>>>
>>> It appears that I did not. What did you mean by it?
>>
>> It really is a straightforward question. If you can't understand it,
>> I doubt your answer would be useful to me. Do you think "pockets of
>> infill" qualify as strata or not?
>
>I think they don't.

Neither do I. That means Ernest Major's pedantic point, which I
acknowledge is pedantically valid, is also inaccurate. An objective
of the pedantic game is to say something that's precisely correct but
not particularly relevant to the substance of the discussion.

>>>> And do you have another "hypothesis" for how
>>>> fully formed trilobites might be found in Ediacaran strata besides the
>>>> three I mentioned?
>>>
>>> I do, but that wasn't the point, which was that your hypothesis 1 wasn't
>>> well stated, and Ernest was trying to clarify.
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone is
>>> claiming that you were wrong, just unclear.
>>
>> Yeah, you claim that a lot, but you never say how I am so unclear that
>> you can't figure it out.
>
>I wasn't actually trying to start a fight, you know.

Neither was I, you know. And you still haven't said how you think I
was unclear.

>>> As for other hypotheses, sure: 4. Time travel; 5. Mistaken dating of the
>>> rocks. I think that covers it. There are more that have been
>>> entertained, but they're too unlikely to be worthy of consideration: 6.
>>> Rocks formed into organic shapes by mysterious natural forces; 7. rocks
>>> were not formed over millions of years but were all deposited by a
>>> worldwide flood; 8. Fossils placed by the FSM to annoy us. And so on.
>>
>> Considering the likelihood of the above, excepting 5., I didn't see
>> the point in mentioning them. Apparently you believe otherwise.
>
>I express my sincere regrets for ever responding to any post you make.

And yet here we are again.

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:58:12 -0700, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

You seem to have made the same mistake as John. I do not find the
experience painful. I am playing the pedantic game Ernest Major
declared. After all, how often does one get to mention soft rocks?

[Friar Broccoli]

I'm afraid I don't understand what that mistake was. Could you be more
specific?

>I do not find the experience painful.

Glad to here it.

>I am playing the pedantic game Ernest Major declared.

Oh.

> After all, how often does one get to mention soft rocks?

Ernest didn't (as far as I can tell) mention "soft rocks". So I find
this comment so unclear that I can't figure it out how to explain what
is unclear about it. It seems irrelevant.

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:42:51 -0700, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

See the line immediately below? That's your answer, before you asked
it.

>>I do not find the experience painful.
>
>Glad to here it.

And I'm glad you're "here"

>>I am playing the pedantic game Ernest Major declared.
>
>Oh.
>
>> After all, how often does one get to mention soft rocks?
>
>Ernest didn't (as far as I can tell) mention "soft rocks".

Good grief. Did I say Ernest mentioned it?

>So I find
>this comment so unclear that I can't figure it out how to explain what
>is unclear about it.

How does who mentioned it make it unclear?


>It seems irrelevant.


Per CurtJester, who asserted that fossils were pressed into soft rock
by the Biblical Flood. That might be how some people figured fossils
got into older strata.

I appreciate the spirit of your "help". Really. But could you work
on your application?

[Malte Runz]

"John Stockwell" skrev i meddelelsen
news:d2e6a124-08e5-4dc1...@googlegroups.com...

>
> http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
> You mean like these possible precursors to trilobites?

Hmm... They look like rabbits to me.


--
Malte Runz

[alias Ernest Major]

If you are taking that position then your original statement was not
unclear but wrong.

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

In hindsight I think he is distinguishing between a narrow (layered
sediments) and a broad (sediments of a particular age) usage of the word
stratum. I offer no explanation of where soft rocks come from.

>
> --
> Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:54:23 +0100, alias Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

[...]

>>>> It really is a straightforward question. If you can't understand it,
>>>> I doubt your answer would be useful to me. Do you think "pockets of
>>>> infill" qualify as strata or not?
>>>
>>> I think they don't.
>>
>>
>> Neither do I. That means Ernest Major's pedantic point, which I
>> acknowledge is pedantically valid, is also inaccurate.
>
>If you are taking that position then your original statement was not
>unclear but wrong.

Is there some rule in T.O. which I am unfamiliar, that poster aren't
supposed explain themselves when they make blanket assertions?

There is no "if". I do take that position. Now please explain how
that position makes my original statement wrong.

[jillery]

But I did.

[Burkhard]

On Jun 15, 8:46 am, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
> "John Stockwell"  skrev i meddelelsennews:d2e6a124-08e5-4dc1...@googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> >http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
> > You mean like these possible precursors to trilobites?
>
> Hmm... They look like rabbits to me.
>
> --
> Malte Runz

You have a point. To the uninitiated this:
http://www.trilobites.info/Spriggina_color.jpg
may look a bit like a fossilised rabbit ear.

but in reality, rabbits came much later, their aquatic precursor
terrorised the seas in Devonian time
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs36/f/2008/266/c/b/Prehistoric_Sea_Creature_by_Sergon.jpg

but modern rabbits can't be found before the Cretaceous , when they
caused the extinction of the dinosaurs
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs36/i/2008/261/5/0/Prehistoric_Carnivorous_Bunny_by_soulrailer.png

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes. They got them hoppy
legs and twitchy little noses. And what's with all the carrots? What
do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

[Ron O]

On Jun 15, 4:55 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 8:46 am, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
>
> > "John Stockwell"  skrev i meddelelsennews:d2e6a124-08e5-4dc1...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > >http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
> > > You mean like these possible precursors to trilobites?
>
> > Hmm... They look like rabbits to me.
>
> > --
> > Malte Runz
>
> You have a point. To the uninitiated this:http://www.trilobites.info/Spriggina_color.jpg
> may look a bit like a fossilised rabbit ear.
>
> but in reality, rabbits came much later, their aquatic precursor

> terrorised the seas in  Devonian timehttp://fc08.deviantart.net/fs36/f/2008/266/c/b/Prehistoric_Sea_Creatu...

>
> but modern rabbits can't be found before the Cretaceous , when they

> caused the extinction of the dinosaurshttp://fc01.deviantart.net/fs36/i/2008/261/5/0/Prehistoric_Carnivorou...

>
> Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes. They got them hoppy
> legs and twitchy little noses. And what's with all the carrots? What
> do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

YouTube has documentary footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

That's no ordinary rabbit.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:2m1pr8d7nuqnbamn7...@4ax.com...

I didn't go to youtube, was it the Cambrian rabbit?

[erik simpson]

Alas, the lagomorphs are generally thought to have appeared in the Eocene. However, the youtube video displays the cretaceous rabbit in action.

[Ron O]

On Jun 15, 11:32 am, erik simpson <eastside.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:49:53 AM UTC-7, Rolf wrote:

> > "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
>
> >news:2m1pr8d7nuqnbamn7...@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

Upon close analysis of the video you can infer that the carnivorous
lagomorph is being assisted by an invisible precambrian unicorn.

Ron Okimoto

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jtCdnZ-7Fo_...@giganews.com>,

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I do, but that wasn't the point, which was that your hypothesis 1 wasn't
> well stated, and Ernest was trying to clarify. I don't think anyone is
> claiming that you were wrong, just unclear.
>
> As for other hypotheses, sure: 4. Time travel; 5. Mistaken dating of the
> rocks. I think that covers it. There are more that have been
> entertained, but they're too unlikely to be worthy of consideration: 6.
> Rocks formed into organic shapes by mysterious natural forces; 7. rocks
> were not formed over millions of years but were all deposited by a
> worldwide flood; 8. Fossils placed by the FSM to annoy us. And so on.

RE 8. That would be an anti pasta monster that would place false
fossils.

See our alien progenitors came up with ante pasta and combining it
with pasta produced a powerful space drive.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:53:36 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

[...]

>> As for other hypotheses, sure: 4. Time travel; 5. Mistaken dating of the
>> rocks. I think that covers it. There are more that have been
>> entertained, but they're too unlikely to be worthy of consideration: 6.
>> Rocks formed into organic shapes by mysterious natural forces; 7. rocks
>> were not formed over millions of years but were all deposited by a
>> worldwide flood; 8. Fossils placed by the FSM to annoy us. And so on.
>
>RE 8. That would be an anti pasta monster that would place false
>fossils.
>
>See our alien progenitors came up with ante pasta and combining it
>with pasta produced a powerful space drive.

One of those must contain some kind of dark energy, as that space
drive rapidly clears the room of most people.

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 04:11:24 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No reply. I am disappointed, especially from Ernest Major. But I'll
go on without one.

Deleted from Ernest Major's reply to me was the original question from
the OP:

"What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran
stratum?"

From that, I thought it relevant to answer *how* that might come to
be, in order to make any discussion on "what if" meaningful. One of
the possibilities I suggested was that a preexisting trilobite fossil
could be naturally redeposited into older, earlier Ediacaran strata.
Note: Ernest Major identified the correct technical term for this
mechanism as "reworked".

IIUC Ernest Major's admittedly pedantic point, the OP's question
assumes an impossible condition, that a fossil from younger strata
literally can't be redeposited into older strata, because the reworked
process necessarily includes material from the original, younger
strata. So the reworked fossil is not literally *in* older strata,
but is merely surrounded by it.

I freely admit his is an interpretation I didn't consider before I
read it. On reflection, while technically correct, ISTM including
that distinction in this discussion at that initial stage would add
obfuscating detail, as would most pedantic points. My purpose was to
address the OP's question, not to give him a lecture on how he phrased
his question. Nor was I interested in hijacking the topic into a
discussion about reworking. So if I had to answer to answer the OP's
question again, I would answer it similarly, despite others' bald
assertions that my answer is unclear, inaccurate, and/or wrong.

As for John Harshman and Friar Broccoli, they divined my emotional
state based on their preconceptions, and incorrectly so, while
ignoring evidence from my post to the contrary. IOW they "read my
mind". This is a chronic and bad habit they share.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 16/06/2013 18:48, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 04:11:24 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:54:23 +0100, alias Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> It really is a straightforward question. If you can't understand it,
>>>>>> I doubt your answer would be useful to me. Do you think "pockets of
>>>>>> infill" qualify as strata or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither do I. That means Ernest Major's pedantic point, which I
>>>> acknowledge is pedantically valid, is also inaccurate.
>>>
>>> If you are taking that position then your original statement was not
>>> unclear but wrong.
>>
>>
>> Is there some rule in T.O. which I am unfamiliar, that poster aren't
>> supposed explain themselves when they make blanket assertions?
>>
>> There is no "if". I do take that position. Now please explain how
>> that position makes my original statement wrong.

You original statement was "The organism was originally fossilized in

Cambrian stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum."

Taken literally, that statement is an invalid explanation.

I interpreted your subsequent words to mean that you were rejecting
infill as your intended meaning, which leaves us without a
scientifically valid interpretation of your original words. After
subsequent posts I recognise that you might instead be equivocating on
the meaning of stratum. Unfortunately if you reject my usage of stratum
to describe infill deposits (which can be stratified - cave deposits
often are) that leaves your references to strata equally incorrect.

>
>
> No reply. I am disappointed, especially from Ernest Major. But I'll
> go on without one.
>
> Deleted from Ernest Major's reply to me was the original question from
> the OP:
>
> "What if a fully developed trilobite was found in an early Ediacaran
> stratum?"
>
> From that, I thought it relevant to answer *how* that might come to
> be, in order to make any discussion on "what if" meaningful. One of
> the possibilities I suggested was that a preexisting trilobite fossil
> could be naturally redeposited into older, earlier Ediacaran strata.
> Note: Ernest Major identified the correct technical term for this
> mechanism as "reworked".

Actually reworked fossils occur in *younger* beds.

>
> IIUC Ernest Major's admittedly pedantic point, the OP's question
> assumes an impossible condition, that a fossil from younger strata
> literally can't be redeposited into older strata, because the reworked
> process necessarily includes material from the original, younger
> strata. So the reworked fossil is not literally *in* older strata,
> but is merely surrounded by it.

But the younger beds could be infills of older beds - such as the case
of a Devonian (Old Red Sandstone) fossil being found in Permo-triassic
(New Red Sandstone) infill in Torridonian (Oldest Red Sandstone) (I
don't think this particular instance actually occurs.)

However, you seem to be taking an unreasonably literal interpretation of
the OP's question. What I assumed that he meant was that a trilobite of
Cambrian aspect (that is morphologically similar to trilobites found in
rocks of Cambrian age) was found in Ediacaran rocks - parallelling the
case of a hypothetical fossil rabbit being found in Cambrian rocks. In
that case he has not assumed an impossible condition.

>
> I freely admit his is an interpretation I didn't consider before I
> read it. On reflection, while technically correct, ISTM including
> that distinction in this discussion at that initial stage would add
> obfuscating detail, as would most pedantic points. My purpose was to
> address the OP's question, not to give him a lecture on how he phrased
> his question. Nor was I interested in hijacking the topic into a
> discussion about reworking. So if I had to answer to answer the OP's
> question again, I would answer it similarly, despite others' bald
> assertions that my answer is unclear, inaccurate, and/or wrong.
>
> As for John Harshman and Friar Broccoli, they divined my emotional
> state based on their preconceptions, and incorrectly so, while
> ignoring evidence from my post to the contrary. IOW they "read my
> mind". This is a chronic and bad habit they share.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:10:31 +0100, alias Ernest Major

<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

>On 16/06/2013 18:48, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 04:11:24 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:54:23 +0100, alias Ernest Major
>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> It really is a straightforward question. If you can't understand it,
>>>>>>> I doubt your answer would be useful to me. Do you think "pockets of
>>>>>>> infill" qualify as strata or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither do I. That means Ernest Major's pedantic point, which I
>>>>> acknowledge is pedantically valid, is also inaccurate.
>>>>
>>>> If you are taking that position then your original statement was not
>>>> unclear but wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there some rule in T.O. which I am unfamiliar, that poster aren't
>>> supposed explain themselves when they make blanket assertions?
>>>
>>> There is no "if". I do take that position. Now please explain how
>>> that position makes my original statement wrong.
>
>You original statement was "The organism was originally fossilized in
>Cambrian stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum."
>Taken literally, that statement is an invalid explanation.

All that you did here add more words, but you haven't explained how
you think my statement is an invalid explanation. I see nothing wrong
with it, literally, figuratively, or any way one might care to
interpret it.

>I interpreted your subsequent words to mean that you were rejecting
>infill as your intended meaning, which leaves us without a
>scientifically valid interpretation of your original words. After
>subsequent posts I recognise that you might instead be equivocating

Equivocating? Good grief, I'm still trying to figure out the basis of
your complaint.

>on
>the meaning of stratum. Unfortunately if you reject my usage of stratum
>to describe infill deposits (which can be stratified - cave deposits
>often are) that leaves your references to strata equally incorrect.

Which is why I asked my question. Yes, many things can be stratified,
including cave deposits. Being stratified is not a sufficient
condition for layers to be called strata in the geologic sense, as
with Cambrian and Ediacaran strata, which leaves your alternate
explanation incorrect.

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:10:31 +0100, alias Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

[...]

>You original statement was "The organism was originally fossilized in
>Cambrian stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum."
>Taken literally, that statement is an invalid explanation.
>
>I interpreted your subsequent words to mean that you were rejecting
>infill as your intended meaning, which leaves us without a
>scientifically valid interpretation of your original words. After
>subsequent posts I recognise that you might instead be equivocating on
>the meaning of stratum. Unfortunately if you reject my usage of stratum
>to describe infill deposits (which can be stratified - cave deposits
>often are) that leaves your references to strata equally incorrect.

Ok, so you regard my original statement is some combination of
unclear, incorrect, and equivocating. You make very clear your
opinion of it. However, I'm still hoping for a description of how you
feel my statement qualifies for any one of those adjectives.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 18/06/2013 11:45, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:10:31 +0100, alias Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> You original statement was "The organism was originally fossilized in
>> Cambrian stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum."
>> Taken literally, that statement is an invalid explanation.
>>
>> I interpreted your subsequent words to mean that you were rejecting
>> infill as your intended meaning, which leaves us without a
>> scientifically valid interpretation of your original words. After
>> subsequent posts I recognise that you might instead be equivocating on
>> the meaning of stratum. Unfortunately if you reject my usage of stratum
>> to describe infill deposits (which can be stratified - cave deposits
>> often are) that leaves your references to strata equally incorrect.
>
>
> Ok, so you regard my original statement is some combination of
> unclear, incorrect, and equivocating.

The apparent equivocation was not in your original statement, but in
subsequent posts.

You make very clear your
> opinion of it. However, I'm still hoping for a description of how you
> feel my statement qualifies for any one of those adjectives.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Arkalen]

For my sins I am actually a bit curious now so I'll butt in. Yay !

I believe that stripped of everything else, the disagreement comes to this :

Jillery suggested : "1. The organism was originally fossilized in

Cambrian stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum."

as an explanation for how a fully developed trilobite might have been
found in an early Ediacaran stratum, if such a discovery was made.

Ernest Major responded : "Fossils [...] can't be redeposited in older
strata."

(all the rest was giving a way you could think of fossils as being
redeposited in older strata, an interpretation that's been rejected by
both sides so it's irrelevant).

My curiosity is now twofold : when Jillery says the following : "All

that you did here add more words, but you haven't explained how you
think my statement is an invalid explanation."

Is that a request for an explanation as to why fossils can't be
redeposited in older strata (which Ernest Major only asserted as far as
I can tell) ?

If so I'd like to hear that explanation too, in case it's interesting
(I'm afraid it might not be, but as I said I'm curious now).

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:16:24 +0100, alias Ernest Major

And so it continues.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:04:26 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:

[...]

>(all the rest was giving a way you could think of fossils as being
>redeposited in older strata, an interpretation that's been rejected by
>both sides so it's irrelevant).

Assuming you mean Ernest and myself, then speaking only for myself, I
don't reject that interpretation.

>My curiosity is now twofold : when Jillery says the following : "All
>that you did here add more words, but you haven't explained how you
>think my statement is an invalid explanation."
>
>Is that a request for an explanation as to why fossils can't be
>redeposited in older strata (which Ernest Major only asserted as far as
>I can tell) ?

No, I don't requestion such from Ernest. More to the point, your
question doesn't even make sense.

>If so I'd like to hear that explanation too, in case it's interesting
>(I'm afraid it might not be, but as I said I'm curious now).

Again speaking for myself, nonexistent and irrelevant explanations are
not interesting. Of course YMMV.

[Arkalen]

Hmm. Then by "1. The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian
stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum." did you
maybe mean "we know fossils don't get redeposited into earlier strata,
but this knowledge is the kind of thing that would come into question if
we found a fully-developed trilobite in an Ediacaran stratum" ?

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:06:06 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:


[...]

>Hmm. Then by "1. The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian
>stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum." did you
>maybe mean "we know fossils don't get redeposited into earlier strata,
>but this knowledge is the kind of thing that would come into question if
>we found a fully-developed trilobite in an Ediacaran stratum" ?

Let's cut to the chase. How would you have answered the OP without
going off on a tangent about reworking?

[Arkalen]

I probably would have replied a lot like you because it hadn't occurred
to me that fossils can't be redeposited into earlier strata. Once Ernest
Major pointed it out it made sense to me that they can't; once the
organism to be fossilized comes along the earlier strata are already
rock so it can't get fossilized inside them.

So after Ernest Major's reply, unless he then gave a more detailed
explanation I could find loopholes in I'd abandon that whole first
paragraph. A hoax would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for
finding a trilobite in Ediacaran strata, and so would a mistaken dating
of the rocks. An earlier evolution of trilobites would be extremely
improbable but still the next most likely explanation. A Cambrian fossil
ending up in Ediacaran strata, given Ernest Major's post, would seem to
be improbable enough to be in the "time travel" class of improbable
explanations.

But I don't know enough geology to be that confident on that, hence why
I'd be interested in more detail on why fossils aren't redeposited in
earlier strata.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/18/13 7:41 AM, Arkalen wrote:
> [...]

> But I don't know enough geology to be that confident on that, hence why
> I'd be interested in more detail on why fossils aren't redeposited in
> earlier strata.

Fossils cannot be redeposited in earlier strata because whatever is
being deposited is, at the time, the earliest stratum possible, being
exactly zero years old. For the same reason, you cannot paint a house
with a layer of paint older than what is on the house already. The
*material* of the paint could be older, but the layer itself is new.

(You can, in unusual circumstances, deposit isolated pieces, but these
"erratics" end up on top of existing strata. I have never heard of a
fossil being an erratic or of an erratic falling into a hole in an old
stratum; I suppose either is possible, but both together would be rare
in the extreme.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:41:31 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:

>On 18/06/13 15:23, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:06:06 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Hmm. Then by "1. The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian
>>> stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum." did you
>>> maybe mean "we know fossils don't get redeposited into earlier strata,
>>> but this knowledge is the kind of thing that would come into question if
>>> we found a fully-developed trilobite in an Ediacaran stratum" ?
>>
>>
>> Let's cut to the chase. How would you have answered the OP without
>> going off on a tangent about reworking?
>>
>
>I probably would have replied a lot like you because it hadn't occurred
>to me that fossils can't be redeposited into earlier strata. Once Ernest
>Major pointed it out it made sense to me that they can't; once the
>organism to be fossilized comes along the earlier strata are already
>rock so it can't get fossilized inside them.

First, Ernest Major already gave a description of a mechanism I had in
mind when I wrote my original reply. My pedantic point to counter his
pedantic point is that those results could not be properly be
considered strata, not that such a thing doesn't happen, as you seem
to assume.

Second, there are in the Midwest large areas of exposed Pierre shale
hundreds of feet thick. It is the last substantial sediments laid
down by the Western Interior Seaway during the Upper Cretaceous before
continental uplift caused the waters to recede. The exposed shale is
so loose in places that it barely qualifies as rock. People working
along its cliffs and gullies must be ever mindful of dangerous land
slides and slumps.

Pierre shale typically overlies the chalky Niobrara Formation, which
is also loosely consolidated. Pierre shale is younger than the
Niobrara it overlies. Both are easily eroded, and both often form
deep gullies and looming cliffs. From time to time, fossils from the
overlying Pierre shale fall out and redeposit themselves onto the
Niobrara strata below, and are occasionally reburied within it. Since
the two layers are so distinctive, it's easy to tell when this has
happened and nobody should be fooled by it.

>So after Ernest Major's reply, unless he then gave a more detailed
>explanation I could find loopholes in I'd abandon that whole first
>paragraph. A hoax would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for
>finding a trilobite in Ediacaran strata, and so would a mistaken dating
>of the rocks. An earlier evolution of trilobites would be extremely
>improbable but still the next most likely explanation. A Cambrian fossil
>ending up in Ediacaran strata, given Ernest Major's post, would seem to
>be improbable enough to be in the "time travel" class of improbable
>explanations.
>
>But I don't know enough geology to be that confident on that, hence why
>I'd be interested in more detail on why fossils aren't redeposited in
>earlier strata.

Since Ernest baldly declared my posts to be some combination of
unclear, incorrect, and equivocating, I will yield additional
discussion on that point to him. Apparently I'm being shunned for
sins TBD, so I suspect he will be more open to discussion with you
than with me.

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:14:31 AM UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/18/13 7:41 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > But I don't know enough geology to be that confident on that, hence why
>
> > I'd be interested in more detail on why fossils aren't redeposited in
>
> > earlier strata.
>
>
>
> Fossils cannot be redeposited in earlier strata because whatever is
>
> being deposited is, at the time, the earliest stratum possible, being
>
> exactly zero years old. For the same reason, you cannot paint a house
>
> with a layer of paint older than what is on the house already. The
>
> *material* of the paint could be older, but the layer itself is new.
>
>
>
> (You can, in unusual circumstances, deposit isolated pieces, but these
>
> "erratics" end up on top of existing strata. I have never heard of a
>
> fossil being an erratic or of an erratic falling into a hole in an old
>
> stratum; I suppose either is possible, but both together would be rare
>
> in the extreme.)

A not uncommon occurrence is if you have an unconformity surface, fossils can be weathered out of a younger stratum and then be deposited
at the unconformity surface. So the fossils would be on top of the older material.

[Arkalen]

On 18/06/13 18:00, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:41:31 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/06/13 15:23, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:06:06 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Hmm. Then by "1. The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian
>>>> stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum." did you
>>>> maybe mean "we know fossils don't get redeposited into earlier strata,
>>>> but this knowledge is the kind of thing that would come into question if
>>>> we found a fully-developed trilobite in an Ediacaran stratum" ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's cut to the chase. How would you have answered the OP without
>>> going off on a tangent about reworking?
>>>
>>
>> I probably would have replied a lot like you because it hadn't occurred
>> to me that fossils can't be redeposited into earlier strata. Once Ernest
>> Major pointed it out it made sense to me that they can't; once the
>> organism to be fossilized comes along the earlier strata are already
>> rock so it can't get fossilized inside them.
>
>
> First, Ernest Major already gave a description of a mechanism I had in
> mind when I wrote my original reply. My pedantic point to counter his
> pedantic point is that those results could not be properly be
> considered strata, not that such a thing doesn't happen, as you seem
> to assume.

So what you had in mind when you said "The organism was originally

fossilized in Cambrian stratum, and later redeposited into earlier

Ediacaran stratum." was the mechanism Ernest Major described... The main
mechanism he described was Cambrian fill occurring in Ediacaran
strata... And your pedantic point is that this would not be considered
strata... and infill *is* what you were thinking of in original post...
in which you used the word "stratum"... Did the words "stratum" and
"strata" have different referents in those posts maybe ? Or you were
using the words in different ways ? Like in a general way in the first
post and strict pedantic way in the second ?

[jillery]

You said you were interested in more info about geology. Your
paragraph above doesn't sound like an interest in geology to me. Why
are you really pursuing this?

<snip ignored geology info>

[John Harshman]

I don't think so. I think she's thinking about one definition of "into
earlier Ediacaran stratum" (or "in" one) and the rest of us are thinking
of another. I think, now, that Jillery is counting Ernest's scenario of
deposition of younger sediments in holes in older sediments as "into".
Since she never sees anyone else's viewpoint she is incapable of either
seeing or explaining the confusion.

I'm pretty sure that nobody, including Jillery, would ever really claim
that undisturbed sedimentary layers could contain fossils younger than
those layers. But I'm willing to entertain possible refutations.

[John Harshman]

Reworking doesn't enter into it. Reworking explains older fossils in
younger deposits and is irrelevant to the question.

[Arkalen]

Mark Isaak gave the geological info I was asking for, and so did you
when you said Ernest Major had described the mechanism you had in mind
(i.e. there wasn't any actual counter-intuitive disagreement there to
wonder about, so Ernest Major's explanation was sufficient. And your
practical example of the process was appreciated).

Given you sated my curiosity about the geology of the matter by showing
I hadn't correctly understood your original point I moved on to my
curiosity as to what you meant in your first vs your second post. Not
exactly a change in subject; as I said in my first post here, my
curiosity was twofold to begin with.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:01:29 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Since she never sees anyone else's viewpoint she is incapable of either
>seeing or explaining the confusion.

Still practicing your mind reading and bald assertions. I suppose one
must practice these things.

[jillery]

I agree. You might mention this to Ernest Major.

[John Harshman]

Pretty sure he knows that. Your previous post implies that you don't, if
the question wasn't just rhetorical.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:12:46 -0700, John Harshman

Yet another bald assertion. I don't expect you to explain how my
previous post implies that I don't know reworking is irrelevant to the
question.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9jd2s81oukkoidaop...@4ax.com...

Welcome to your world.

[John Harshman]

Asking a question implies you're interested in the answer. Asking how
one would have done X without also having done Y implies that you don't
know how that would be done, which implies that you think one would have
to do Y in order to do X. Apparently that isn't what you meant. But what
did you mean?

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:23:21 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 6/18/13 10:24 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:12:46 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/18/13 9:41 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:02:17 -0700, John Harshman
>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/18/13 7:23 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:06:06 +0100, Arkalen<ark...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm. Then by "1. The organism was originally fossilized in Cambrian
>>>>>>> stratum, and later redeposited into earlier Ediacaran stratum." did you
>>>>>>> maybe mean "we know fossils don't get redeposited into earlier strata,
>>>>>>> but this knowledge is the kind of thing that would come into question if
>>>>>>> we found a fully-developed trilobite in an Ediacaran stratum" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's cut to the chase. How would you have answered the OP without
>>>>>> going off on a tangent about reworking?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Reworking doesn't enter into it. Reworking explains older fossils in
>>>>> younger deposits and is irrelevant to the question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree. You might mention this to Ernest Major.
>>>>
>>> Pretty sure he knows that.

Then why did he mention it in his first reply? And why didn't you
make your point to him then?

>>>Your previous post implies that you don't, if
>>> the question wasn't just rhetorical.
>>
>> Yet another bald assertion. I don't expect you to explain how my
>> previous post implies that I don't know reworking is irrelevant to the
>> question.
>
>Asking a question implies you're interested in the answer.

A reasonable assumption, which is true in this case.

>Asking how
>one would have done X without also having done Y implies that you don't
>know how that would be done,

Not even wrong. You infer it. As I already did it, I know how I
would do it. I imply that I'm interested in how it would be done by
the person to whom I'm directing the question, which in this specific
case was Arkalan. And surprise, she was considerate enough to answer
me.

> which implies that you think one would have
>to do Y in order to do X.

And since your condition is not even wrong, the conclusion above which
is based on it is meaningless. More to the point, and assuming your
"Y" is "fossil reworking", it's Ernest Major who injected that into
this topic. So once again, you should address your comments to him,
not me.

>Apparently that isn't what you meant. But what
>did you mean?

You're correct, that isn't what I meant. Which means AOTA is
pointless. I already answered your question before you even asked it,
in a previous post. But Ernest Major baldly asserted I was
"equivocating", so I have zero motive to discuss it further.

And I'll ask you a question I asked Arkalan; what is your point in
pursuing this?

[John Harshman]

I think he mentioned it in order to correct what he thought was your
mistaken invocation of it. He mentioned it in order to say that it
wasn't relevant, so there was no need to correct him.

>>>> Your previous post implies that you don't, if
>>>> the question wasn't just rhetorical.
>>>
>>> Yet another bald assertion. I don't expect you to explain how my
>>> previous post implies that I don't know reworking is irrelevant to the
>>> question.
>>
>> Asking a question implies you're interested in the answer.
>
>
> A reasonable assumption, which is true in this case.
>
>
>> Asking how
>> one would have done X without also having done Y implies that you don't
>> know how that would be done,
>
>
> Not even wrong. You infer it. As I already did it, I know how I
> would do it. I imply that I'm interested in how it would be done by
> the person to whom I'm directing the question, which in this specific
> case was Arkalan. And surprise, she was considerate enough to answer
> me.

One is always forced to infer another person's meaning from what that
person says. If that person is being clear, the inference is easy and
not very subject to error. If that person is not being clear, one should
expect clarification.

>> which implies that you think one would have
>> to do Y in order to do X.
>
>
> And since your condition is not even wrong, the conclusion above which
> is based on it is meaningless. More to the point, and assuming your
> "Y" is "fossil reworking", it's Ernest Major who injected that into
> this topic. So once again, you should address your comments to him,
> not me.
>
>
>> Apparently that isn't what you meant. But what
>> did you mean?
>
>
> You're correct, that isn't what I meant. Which means AOTA is
> pointless. I already answered your question before you even asked it,
> in a previous post. But Ernest Major baldly asserted I was
> "equivocating", so I have zero motive to discuss it further.
>
> And I'll ask you a question I asked Arkalan; what is your point in
> pursuing this?
>

I'm trying to find out what you meant. I will note that in this post you
never actually say. It wouldn't have been difficult, but you seem to
dislike clarification. Why? Is it that you think you were clear the
first time, and any request for clarification is implying that you're a
poor writer?

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:15:18 -0700, John Harshman

No he didn't. Ernest Major didn't say anything anywhere about it not
being relevant. He said what I described was not an accurate
description of fossil replacement. And I agreed, but that his point
had nothing to do with answering the OP's question.

>>>>> Your previous post implies that you don't, if
>>>>> the question wasn't just rhetorical.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another bald assertion. I don't expect you to explain how my
>>>> previous post implies that I don't know reworking is irrelevant to the
>>>> question.
>>>
>>> Asking a question implies you're interested in the answer.
>>
>>
>> A reasonable assumption, which is true in this case.
>>
>>
>>> Asking how
>>> one would have done X without also having done Y implies that you don't
>>> know how that would be done,
>>
>>
>> Not even wrong. You infer it. As I already did it, I know how I
>> would do it. I imply that I'm interested in how it would be done by
>> the person to whom I'm directing the question, which in this specific
>> case was Arkalan. And surprise, she was considerate enough to answer
>> me.
>
>One is always forced to infer another person's meaning from what that
>person says. If that person is being clear, the inference is easy and
>not very subject to error. If that person is not being clear, one should
>expect clarification.

Failure to correct or even acknowledge your false inference noted.

And you are back to your first stupid trick, of baldly asserting that
I am unclear, but refusing to explain how.

>>> which implies that you think one would have
>>> to do Y in order to do X.
>>
>>
>> And since your condition is not even wrong, the conclusion above which
>> is based on it is meaningless. More to the point, and assuming your
>> "Y" is "fossil reworking", it's Ernest Major who injected that into
>> this topic. So once again, you should address your comments to him,
>> not me.
>>
>>
>>> Apparently that isn't what you meant. But what
>>> did you mean?
>>
>>
>> You're correct, that isn't what I meant. Which means AOTA is
>> pointless. I already answered your question before you even asked it,
>> in a previous post. But Ernest Major baldly asserted I was
>> "equivocating", so I have zero motive to discuss it further.
>>
>> And I'll ask you a question I asked Arkalan; what is your point in
>> pursuing this?
>>
>I'm trying to find out what you meant.

No you're not. I've already said what I meant, so that doesn't wash.
Since you're not even trying to sound credible, I conclude you're just
making Yet Another Stupid Manufactured Argument.

>I will note that in this post you
>never actually say.

So what? There have been many posts in this thread.

>It wouldn't have been difficult, but you seem to
>dislike clarification. Why? Is it that you think you were clear the
>first time, and any request for clarification is implying that you're a
>poor writer?

Sorry, your bald assertions still don't work. You're a waste of time.

[John Harshman]

OK, I'm done. I predict you, however, will continue to respond every
time I post. So get in your last licks here: