Message from discussion
Repost: The silliest thing Sea Pitman says
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Repost: The silliest thing Sea Pitman says
Date: 28 May 2005 19:30:33 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 226
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1117333833.624124.63190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <dE6ie.801$Uv2.94@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1116315917.408639.188980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1116317221.505354.135860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1116318679.867950.269180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1117293926.128219.100950@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1117298986.012688.137350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1117310927.814694.28100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1117320716.917991.105560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1117332822 70276 128.100.83.246 (29 May 2005 02:13:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 02:13:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.169.63.6
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.169.63.6;posting-account=hdVEiAwAAAANcocXPuSupyqXeZTaJLIU
Richard Forrest wrote:
- snip -
> So that's three papers for which he is principal author.
Brand, L. R., R. Esperante, A. V. Chadwick, O. Poma, and M. Alomia.
2004. Fossil whale preservation implies high diatom accumulation rate
in the Miocene-Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru. Geology, 32:165-168.
Brand, L. R. 1995. An improved high-precision Jacob's staff design.
Jour. Sedim. Res., A65:561.
Brand, L. R. 1992. Reply to comments on "fossil vertebrate footprints
in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for
underwater origin." Geology, 20:668-670.
Brand, L.R., and J. Kramer. 1996. Underprints of vertebrate and
invertebrate trackways in the Permian Coconino Sandstone in Arizona.
Ichnos, 4:225-230.
Brand, L. R. 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from
substrate differences. Jour. of Paleontol., 70:1004-1010.
Brand, L. R., H. T. Goodwin, P. G. Ambrose, and H. P. Buchheim. 2000.
Taphonomy of turtles in the Middle Eocene Bridger Formation, SW
Wyoming. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,
162:171-189.
Brand, L., P. C. Murphey, and J. E. Haessig. In press. Bedrock geologic
map of the Antelope Wash 7.5' Quadrangle, Sweetwater County, Wyoming.
Wyoming State Geological Survey Open File Map, 1 sheet (scale
1:24,000).
Brand, L., P. C. Murphey, and J. E. Haessig. In press. Bedrock geologic
map of the Linwood Canyon 7.5' Quadrangle, Sweetwater County, Wyoming.
Wyoming State Geologic Survey Open File Map, 1 sheet (scale 1;24,000)
Brand, L. R., M. Hussey, and J. Taylor. 2003. Decay and disarticulation
of small vertebrates in controlled experiments. Journal of Taphonomy,
1(2):69-95.
Esperante-Caamano, R., L. Brand, A. Chadwick, and O. Poma. 2002.
Taphonomy of fossil whales in the diatomaceous sediments of the
Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation, Peru. pp. 337-343 In: De Renzi, M.,
M. Alonso, M. Belinchon, E. Penalver, P. Montoya, and A. Marquez-Aliaga
(eds.). Current Topics on Taphonomy and Fossilization. International
Conference Taphos 2002. 3rd Meeting on Taphonomy and Fossilization,
Valencia, Spain.
Buchheim, H. P., L. R. Brand, and H. T. Goodwin. 2000. Lacustrine to
fluvial flood-plain deposition in the Eocene Bridger Formation.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 162:191-209.
- snip -
> > Again, this is not the main issue.
> > It is that when they are found,
> > together or not, the ratio of trackways
> > to fossilized bodies/skeletal
> > remains is different as one moves
> > up or down the column, with the
> > trackways being much more
> > abundant lower in the column.
>
> This could be nothing more than
> variation in reporting in the
> literature.
Don't you find it interesting that the "variation" in literature
reporting was so significantly skewed in so many journals and museum
records - in such a consistent manner? I mean, the data from many
sources basically agree with each other. There does indeed seem to be
a significant change in ratio of trackways to body fossils as one moves
up the column. Very strange, don't you think, that "data from about
800 published papers and from additional specimens in the American
Museum, U.S. National Museum, Yale University Peabody Museum, and the
Raymond Alf Museum" would all say pretty much the same thing?
http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm
> More recent trackways are
> under-reported because there are
> more abundant body fossils to
> investigate. It's worth noting that the
> footprints and trackways on the
> Yorkshire coast, of which there are
> thousands, are barely noted in the
> literature.
Brand discusses this argument in the same paper:
"In Mesozoic and Tertiary deposits containing larger, more conspicuous
tracks, smaller tracks may be more likely to be overlooked, and not
collected. This argument is weakened by the fact that small reptile
tracks are abundant in Triassic and Early Jurassic rocks, when dinosaur
tracks are also at their peak of abundance. It also does not explain
the near absence of amphibian and reptile tracks in Early Tertiary
deposits, which have no dinosaur tracks and few bird and mammal tracks
to divert attention from the smaller tracks."
http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm
- snip -
> > Where on Earth are ocean sediments that
> > have horseshoe craps running
> > around on them not subject to
> > bioturbation?
> >
>
> In hypersaline envirionments? Try the
> floor of the Dead Sea. I doubt
> that you'll find much bioturbation
> happening there.
Are there any horseshoe crabs or anything else living anywhere in the
Dead Sea to leave tracks and get fossilized ; )
- snip -
> > And what examples do you have of a
> > shallow sea environment that can
> > avoid bioturbation for even 10
> > thousand years?
> >
>
> Who said anything about 10,000 years?
> You're projecting, Sean.
You don't get it? If you have no examples of real time environments
that can avoid significant bioturbation for even a short period of
time, what on Earth makes you believe that such environments existed in
the past that could avoid any bioturbation whatsoever for millions of
years?
> > Why don't you tell me about them?
> > Tell me about the fossilization
> > taking place on the floor of the
> > Black Sea and how there is no
> > significant bioturbation going on here.
>
> Black Sea chemocline oscillations
> during the Holocene: molecular and
> isotopic studies of marginal sediments.
> Y. Huang; K.H. Freeman; R.T.
> Wilkina1; M.A. Arthur; A.D. Jones.
> Abstract:
>
> We measured 13C values of free and
> sulfur-bound lipids and framboidal
> pyrite-size distributions in three
> sediment cores from the southern
> margins of the Black Sea. The margin
> cores show a marked difference in
> the occurrence of biomarkers from
> green sulfur bacteria compared with
> the deep-basin cores, as a result of
> deepening of the chemocline
> resulting from enhanced mixing and/or
> decreased light-penetration as a
> consequence of high turbidity and
> productivity in shelf waters.
> Quantitation of biomarkers suggests
> that photic-zone anoxia along the
> shelf margin was generally absent
> during the deposition of unit I,
> although occurred during the
> deposition of Unit IIb at two sites.
And how does this indicate a lack of bioactivity/bioturbation that
would affect any organism creating trackways and or being fossilized
here? The authors even said that there was no evidence for anoxia
during deposition of unit I. How then was significant bioturbation
avoided during this time? Also, where do the authors note that
fossilization is currently going on in the Black Sea region - or a lack
of bioturbation?
Again, a significantly anoxic environment does not prevent scavenging
or bioturbation as far as I can tell. I mean, where are the fossils
being made today in this or any other region?
- snip -
> > Tar pits and deep mud don't explain
> > trackways and their preservation.
>
> You were talking about preserving
> things in very fine condition, not
> trackways, Sean.
In this particular thread, we were talking about trackways in
particular - at least I was. Certainly there are many ways to preserve
bodies in fine condition, but not so many ways to produce trackways in
fine condition or in a significantly different ratio as one moves up or
down the geologic column.
> > > Are you asserting that 4% is "a fair
> > > percentage of the thickness" of
> > > this section?
> >
> > Certainly! If a fossil's thickness
> > covers 4% of a layer that is
> > supposed to have taken a great deal
> > of time to form, there is
> > definitely a problem.
>
> You made the assertion that 4% is a
> fair percentage of the thickness of
> the section. I fail to see why this
> poses any problem for conventional
> models of sedimentation, and if it
> is perhaps you can explain why. I
> simply think that 4% is not a
> fair percentage of anything.
If a fossil covers 4% of a vertical measurement of a given layer, and
the layer is thought to have been laid down over the course of say, a
million years, you don't see a problem with that? This suggests that
it took an average of 40,000 years to create 4% of that layer - right?
> RF
Sean Pitman
DetectingDesign.com
|
