Fish Fossils - Reply to Keith Littleton's POTM
Sean Pitman M.D.
Littleton's recent "POTM" on talk.origins. I have been busy with
other interests lately, but I finally decided to make a response.
Keith did raise some very good points. After considering these
points, I have some more questions that I present line-by-line as they
arise:
Message-ID: <fd67d42a.02092...@posting.google.com>
Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
-
> > Glenn Morton
> > I got to thinking about your fossil fish argument.
> > I even went to your web page where you discussed this
> > argument in detail. Really, it is a very interesting
> > argument. It seems quite reasonable. Like you said,
> > I haven't heard it discussed much. Given this, I do
> > have some questions or thoughts for you.
> >
> > I'm sure you know of the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth can
> > be found in the geologic column as far back as "360
> > million years" and as recently as "80 million years."
> > Then, it disappears from the fossil record entirely.
> > It was thought to have been completely wiped out with
> > the dinosaurs, until 1938 when living Coelacanths were
> > found alive and well off the east coast of S. Africa.
-
> I know the "coelacanth". I know enough about them to know
> that the coelacanths found in Madagascar are neither the
> same type of coelacanth of fossils have been in rocks
> that are 360 million years ago nor the same type of
> coelacanth found in shallow marine strata that are about
> 80 million years old. The 360 million year old
> coelacanths are smaller, lack certain internal structures
> found in modern coelacanths and belong to a different
> genera and suborder. The modern coelacanths belong to a
> different genera than the 80 million year genera.
> technically speaking, the modern coelacanth of the
> genera Latimera, has no fossil record. Only the order
> and suborder that it belongs to has.
>
> If a person either goes to the nearest college library to
> research this topic or requests books by interlibrary
> loan, he / she can find:
>
> Coelacanth" W. W. Norton & Company, New York and
> London, 1991 ISBN 0-393-02956-5
>
> On page 78, last paragraph of that book, he would have read:
>
> "One point has to be emphasized; The living coelacanth
> is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that
> members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever
> been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species
> assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a
> fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil
> Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we
> could possibly include them in the same family. Beyond
> that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order
> Coelacanthini."
-
Kingdom: Anamilia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
Order: Coelacanthini
Family: Sarcopterygii
Genus: Latimeria
Species: chalumnae
Very interesting comments. However, it seems to me that you over
emphasize the differences between the living species Latimeria
chaumnae, and the fossilized species. The statement above that "no
other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a
fossil" seems to me to be a bit misleading. The fact of the matter is
that the skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the
upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths
caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from
the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths. (Forey, P. 1998. History of
the Coelacanth Fishes. Chapman & Hall.) There seems to be a tendency
to place very similar fossils in different categories based primarily
on the fact that they obviously lived so far apart in time that they
can't possible be members of the same species. This practice seems to
be the rule rather than the exception. So, to say that the L.
chaumnae species has never been found in the fossil record seems to me
to be stretching it a bit since this species classification is based
on very minor morphologic differences that are clearly within the
range of intra-species variation if the two fish were swimming side by
side today. It's kinda like putting the French and Italians in
different genus categories.
> > Why then did they disappear from the fossil record after
> > such a long presence there? Some argue that they used to
> > live in environments "conducive" to fossilization, but
> > now they live in caves and under the overhanging marine
> > reefs of volcanic islands that are not so conducive to
> > fossilization.
-
> This might be quite true, but there is a lack of such
> Tertiary, Mesozoic, or Paleozoic fossil bone beds that
> occur within sediments, which have accumulated in the
> caves and overhangs in reefs of volcanic islands. This
> is because these deposits have either subsided with the
> volcanic islands that they are associated with or have
> been subducted with the volcanic islands beneath
> continental plates. In the former case, the deposits
> associated with still extent volcanic islands are now
> underwater and buried beneath younger sediments that
> have continue to accumulate on top the islands as they
> sank. In the latter case, fragments of some volcanic
> islands have been scraped off during subduction, but
> for the most part, these fragments are badly mangled and
> metamorphosed to the point of badly mangling, even
> destroying any fossils that they might contain.
>
> Similarly, the deep sea sediments that might contain the
> fossils of coelacanths also have been largely subducted
> with slices and slivers of these being sediments being
> plastered against the continental margin just as mangled
> and metamorphosed as the volcanic islands. The deep sea
> sediments that are still undeformed lie at the ocean
> bottom and buried under younger sediments where nobody
> can get at them.
-
The subduction argument has been used to explain a lot of things and
it may in fact explain the absence of fossils from fish who preferred
living in volcanic caves and overhangs in very deep ocean habitats.
However, it seems like the theory of subduction itself is not
completely without its flaws. Evidence of significant subduction as a
means for sediment removal seems to be rather lacking as far as I can
tell. There is even argument as to what forces might be stable enough
to drive such prolonged subduction of huge portions of the earth's
crust over the course of hundreds of millions of years. In any case,
there have been recent finds of coelacanths off the coast of the
Comoro Islands in 1998 that do not live in very deep water (~200m) or
in caves. How did these coelacanths survive without being fossilized
over the course of 80 million years?
> > Interesting argument I think.
-
> It is interesting. I would be very interested in why Mr.
> Pitman expects paleontologists to be able to find fossils
> in sediments that are either underwater and buried
> beneath younger sediments or consist of badly deformed
> even metamorphosed sediments. If this argument is invalid,
> Mr. Pitman should have absolutely no trouble at all
> pointing specific outcrops of sedimentary strata where
> a person could look for the remains of coelacanths.
-
The vast majority of sedimentary layers in the geologic column were
formed underwater. I am rather surprised that anyone would argue this
point. For example, it is thought that all of the layers in the Grand
Canyon, save the Coconino Sandstone layer, was formed underwater.
Yet, there it is for all to see, above water. The coelacanths that
are fossilized, also lived underwater once upon a time. The argument
here is that their habitat was more conducive to fossilization than
the habitat of the modern coelacanths. Conduciveness is a bit
different from preservation potential however. Subduction arguments
do not argue so much against conduciveness, but against preservation
potential. However, we do have supposedly ancient deep sea sediments
preserved in the fossil record. Somehow they managed to survive
destruction by subduction. In any case, more populations of
coelacanths have been found that live in shallower waters that are not
protected by deep sea caves. Yet, these fishes somehow avoided
fossilization as well. This seems rather strange to me. Of course,
coelacanths are not the only ones to seemingly be raised up after tens
of millions of years of extinction. There are a large number of other
fossils to include entire orders of creatures that disappear from tens
of millions of years, and then reappear suddenly in the fossil record.
These examples are so common that they have been given the name,
"Lazarus Taxa."
> > Fossilization requires rapid burial or else decay will
> > obliterate all traces.
-
> This is not completely true. Bones can survive for over
> a year before being buried.
This depends upon the environment in which they are deposited as well
as the size of the bones. Also, well preserved fossils of completely
intact specimens, to include soft tissue impressions in fine detail,
as is the case with many of the coelacanth fossils, requires rapid
burial.
> In the case of shells, they
> can be washed around for decades, even hundred of years,
> before they are finally buried in the sediment to become
> fossils.
This also depends upon the environment and the size of the shell. The
fact of the matter is, even in the best of circumstances, even shells
are degraded fairly rapidly in exposed environments. They do not last
for hundreds of years of open exposure and weathering. In any case,
we are not talking shells here, but fish that are preserved intact,
often with delicate soft tissue impressions also preserved in fine
detail. This level of detail requires very rapid burial.
> Only in of the fossilization of soft parts is
> immediate burial required.
At least at this level, but also at the level of intact skeletons.
> This all has been documented
> by direct field observation and other studies. Contrary
> to what Mr. Pitman incorrectly claims, the hard part of
> animals can persist for a significant period of time
> before being finally buried.
Generally not. Even "hard parts" weather fairly rapidly in open
environments. Intact skeletons are especially prone to
disarticulation.
> In fact, the degree to which
> many fossil shells are either encrusted or have been
> bored by other organisms and bones show signs of either
> weathering or gnawing demonstrates that they were not
> rapidly buried before being fossilized.
Encrustation and boring can occur very rapidly after death and even
before the death of shelled creatures. Encrustation is quite commonly
observed in living animals that walk along with entire colonies of
other types of creatures living on their backs. Keeping a shell clean
of critters is a constant battle for the owner of a shell. The fact
that there are a significant percentage of fossilized shells preserved
in pristine condition speaks in favor of their rather rapid burial, en
mass.
> Of course, a
> bone or shell eventually has to be buried to be
> preserved.
-
> > It seems to me that fossilization is catastrophe
> > dependent.
-
> At this time, enough research has been done by geologists
> and paleontologists where the proposal that fossilization
> is catastrophe dependent can easily be demonstrated to be
> completely refuted.
>
> For example, in case of the preservation of bone,
> catastrophes have nothing to do fossilization. Location
> instead of catastrophe is an important part of whether
> a bone becomes preserved. A person need only look at the
> abundant fossil bones found in the Pleistocene to
> Holocene age fluvial sediments that underlie Yellow House
> Draw and many other stream and river valleys in the
> Southern High Plains of Texas and New Mexico (Holiday
> 1997).
>
> The bones of bison and other animals that fell on the
> uplands of the Southern High Plains between river
> valleys have decayed away. In these uplands, they either
> lay exposed on the surface where weathering and
> scavengers destroyed them.
>
> However, where the bones of these bison and other animals
> died upon the active floodplains of rivers and streams,
> the bones of a number of them were eventually buried in
> the sediments and some of these were indeed preserved. No
> catastrophe was involved. Rather, the day to day, year to
> year accumulation of sediments in lakes, in rivers, on
> floodplains, and as dunes in these river valleys buried
> and preserved these fossils. These fossils range in age
> from bison contemporaneous with the colleagues of Buffalo
> Bill to bison hunted by successive generations of Native
> Americans back to Folsum and Clovis cultures and
> mammoths, horses, and megafauna predating the Clovis
> cultures. These bones consists of both natural bone beds
> and kill sites. In the bottoms of Yellowhouse,
> Blackwater, and other draws in the Southern High Plains
> is an abundance showing that that the statement
> "fossilization is catastrophe dependent" is
> scientifically bankrupt. In these draws, fossils have
> been constantly formed for the past 12,000 years without
> any need for imaginary catastrophes. In case of
> Yellowhouse Draw, the occasional deposition of fluvial,
> lacustrine, and wind blown sediments along with very
> calcareous soils is enough for fossils to have been
> created over a long period of time (Holiday 1997).
You evidently fail to see the context of my statement that,
"fossilization is catastrophe dependent." The context was a
discussion of intact fish fossils. Fish simply do not lay on the
surface of the ocean floor very long and remain intact if they are not
buried quickly. The fossilized disarticulated bones of bison in river
valleys is hardly the issue. The fossil record shows clear evidence
of catastrophic burial on a huge scale. Catastrophic burial and
fossilization is the rule and not the exception in the fossil record.
Mass graveyards with bones piled thickly together are seen as well as
millions of well preserved shells and fish all fossilized together...
to include soft part preservation. The same is true for plants.
Fossilized trees also generally show evidence of watery transport and
rapid burial.
< snip long list of references which may be found at talk.origins >
> > From my understanding, practically all fossils of fish
> > show evidence of catastrophic burial... en masse. In
> > other words, the fish were alive and well when they were
> > suddenly buried alive.
-
> If Mr. Pitman would research the fossilziation of fish,
> he would find the statement "practically all fossils of
> fish show evidence of catastrophic burial" to be a rather
> gross exaggeration of what the facts show. For example,
> the research by Maisey (1991) of the origins of the
> Santana fossil fish clearly demonstrates the lack of
> catastophe in their formation. Rather, they represent
> fish that died and sank to the bottom of a large anoxic
> lake over a period of thousands of years. The decay of
> the fish on the bottom precipitated carbonate minerals
> that preserved them as fossils.
In modern times, how often do you see this picture proposed by Maisey
happening? Fish simply do not fossilize in modern "anoxic lakes" like
they did in the past. Some pictures of the Santana Fossils can be
seen at:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/rush/zoo402www/ichthyology7.html
They are surprisingly well preserved. They show excellent scale, fin,
and eye socket preservation. This seems rather strange to me because
many fish float when they die and rapidly decompose, even while
sinking. The scales are the first to go. They are also heavily
scavenged before there is a chance to be buried if burial does not
occur rapidly. A description of how these fish were fossilized in
this Brazilian lake reads, "Rhacolepis lived in a shallow marine
environment. Fossil specimens found today were fish that died and were
quickly covered with silt or mud. That mud or silt hardened over
millions of years and the fossil remains of those fish are found in
limestone nodules, completely preserved in 3 dimensions. These fish
had a pointed skull, small sharp teeth, and small rhomboidal scales."
As it turns out, the Santana "lake" was not thought to be "anoxic" at
all. Here is a description of this "environment": In the Early
Cretaceous period the Santana Formation was deposited in warm,
shallow, salty lagoons close to land."
Clearly then, the generally pristine condition of the fossilized fish
in the Santana Formation speaks for a very rapid burial of living or
very recently killed fish. The Santana Formation of Brazil contains
fish whose gills and muscles are so perfectly preserved that
geologists believe they were fossilized within five hours of death.
The foremost expert on these Brazilian fossils, Dr David Martill, has
called this "the Medusa effect", after the creature of Greek mythology
who could instantly turn people to stone just by looking at them.
> In case of the fossil
> fish found in the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland, studies
> by Trewin and Davidson (1995) demonstrated that these
> fossils are not the result of some mythical catastrophe.
> Instead, the fish died when the lake they lived in dried
> up and as the fish decayed in muddy bottom of the lake,
> carbonate mineral precipitated around them and preserved
> them as fossils.
Old Red Sandstone in England has billions upon billions of fish,
spread over 10,000 square miles, with as many as a thousand fish
fossils in one square yard. Trewin and Davidson also note a high level
of soft part preservation to include markings of internal organs as
well as eyes. I fail to see how this level of preservation is
possible without very rapid burial. Also, calcium carbonate can
precipitate without water evaporating. For example, an unusual
combination of natural processes can take place to form the mineral
travertine. The process begins when water becomes elevated in
dissolved CO2(g) through interactions with the soil zone, carbonate
aquifers, organic material, or regional geothermal activity. Upon
emerging, the carbon dioxide outgasses as the water begins to
equilibrate with atmospheric conditions. This outgassing results in an
increase of calcite (CaCO3) in the water above saturation. Increased
calcite concentration eventually surpasses a critical level of
supersaturation and CaCO3 begins to precipitate as travertine.
Precipitates can occur on both organic or inorganic substrates. The
rapid burial of mass quantities of organic material, as if found in
the Old Red Sandstone formation, would produce very large quantities
of CO2.
> Finally, there are cases of massive fish
> kills resulting in the accumulation of entire schools of
> fish at the bottom of a lake where they were eventually
> buried. However, as documented by Weigelt (1989) way back
> in 1927, fish kills occur without the need for any
> catastrophe.
Yes, fish kills can occur without any deluge-type catastrophe.
However, massive fish kills in oceans and lakes do not generally
result in fossilization nor are they preserved in fine detail as we
see in the massive fish kills of the fossil record.
> Having sailed and fished the bays, bayous, and rivers
> of Louisiana, I can personally vouch that natural fish
> kills involving entire shoals of fish are quite common
> in nature. In them, the fish die in a state of agony
> without the need of a catastrophe. This observation is
> documented in numerous published papers. As Weigelt
> (1989, page 163) observes:
No one is questioning this fact. I have personally observed massive
fish kills myself. The question here though is if these massive fish
kills result in massive fossilization beds as we see in the fossil
record. As far as I can tell the answer is no. Why? because the fish
in these massive fish kills rapidly decompose before they have a
chance to be buried. In order to preserve the fine detail that we see
in the fossil fish kills of the past, rapid burial is required.
> "Reports of enormous fish kills are plentiful: Almost
> every ten years, a red mite appears in Walvis Bay,
> South Africa and causes a fish kill of such magnitude
> that the water is said to be completely covered with
> dead fish.
Again, were these fish kills fossilized? I think not. Not only do
you have to present how massive quantities of fish can all die
together, but also how they can all be fossilized in relatively good
condition... by slow burial. This has not been observed. This sort
of fossilization simply requires a rapid burial event.
> Poisoning by minerals and gases have likewise often
> been observed. Another example is the massive die-
> off of fish during the iron "bloom" in Siberian rivers,
> which Baron von Toll has reported in detail. In west
> Texas and in many other areas, when the water level in
> the rivers is low, there is a bloom of algae, and vast
> numbers of fish die from carbon dioxide poisoning.
> Changes in salinity very frequently cause fish to die.
> Freyberg (55) observed in Mar Chiquita, Argentina (a
> basin of concentrated salt solution into which,
> however, a completely isolated source of fresh water
> emptied) large accumulations of fish that had died
> and been preserved by the salt solution and had then
> floated ashore, where they were mummified. Freshwater
> fish in coastal lakes die off when there is an ingress
> of salt water. The most well-known instance occurred
> when the narrow neck of land that separated the
> Limfjord from the ocean to the west broke in 1825.
> After a storm tide, salt water entered and killed all
> the freshwater fish, which floated ashore in
> unbelievable numbers; some were even buried along with
> eelgrass beneath the sand carried ashore by the
> storm tide."
Were they fossilized in mass?
> Weigelt (1989, page 164) also observed:
>
> "Andree (9) reports on the natural mass death of the
> fish Mallotus villosus Muller, which occurs annually
> after the breeding season and which, ac cording to A.
> Jort, regularly coincides with radical temperature
> changes in the Barents Sea. The floors of calm bays
> and inlets of the harbors at Disko and Lodden,
> Greenland, can be completely covered with fish
> carcasses. Remains of Mallotus villosus form the growth
> centers of concretions known as 'marlekor' found in the
> late glacial, polar sea clays in Greenland and Norway."
Again, do these dead fish mats fossilize en masse? Nope. Not unless
they are rapidly buried.
> If a person looks at the taphonomy and sedimentology of
> the fossil fish beds in detail, the evidence for them
> having been formed catastrophically either turns out to
> be wishful thinking or not credible evidence at all of
> any catastrophe having created them.
I disagree. Evidence for rapid or catastrophic burial seems clearly
evident.
> References cited:
>
> Maisey, John G. (1991) Fossil forensics. In J. G.
> Maisey, ed., Santana fossils; an illustrated atlas.
> T.F.H. Publ.. Neptune City, New Jersey.
>
> Trewin, N. H., and Davidson, R. G. (1995) An Early
> Devonian lake and its associated biota in the Midland
> Valley of Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society
> of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences. vol. 86, Part 4,
> pp. 233-246.
>
> Weigelt J. (1989) Recent Vertebrate Carcasses and their
> Paleobiological implications. University of Chicago Press.
> Chicago, Illinois.
-
> > There are even some fossils of fish in the middle of
> > eating other fish.
>
> There two problems here. First, these fossils are very
> extremely rare. So rare, that they are only indicative of
> very rare events.
Just imagine how many fish are eating other fish at any one moment in
time. A relatively small percentage... right? Considering this, the
fact that we have fossils of this event frozen in time is pretty
amazing indeed. We would expect a relatively few examples given a
catastrophic scenario.
> Finally, these fossils only demonstrate
> how some Young Earth creationists are incapable of
> recognizing a fish that choked on trying to eat a fish
> far larger than it could swallow.
-
Really? The fish choked to death? Then both of the fishes drifted
down to the bottom of the lake and were perfectly preserved somehow
without any significant evidence of decay or predation? Come on now.
How often do you see fish choking on other fish today? Have you ever
seen a fish choking on another fish that it is trying to eat? But
hey, lets just say that it can happen. A fish can have eyes bigger
than its mouth. It tries to eat something that is just too big to
handle. Its meal gets stuck and its gills get blocked, and so it
suffocates to death. However rare this event might be, how rare would
it be for these two struggling fish avoid being eaten by some other
predator or scavenger before they became buried in the scavenger rich
mud at the bottom? Really, how rare would this be? I doubt it would
ever happen once in ten million years without some sort of rapid
burial event occurring at exactly the same time.
> > Also, many of them show statistically significant
> > alignment with each other. In other words, they are
> > generally found in the same plane of orientation such
> > as would be expected from a current deposit.
-
> Bottom currents are not unique to catastrophes. There
> are currents at the bottom of lakes, streams, and so
> forth.
Not generally as widespread as we see in the fossil record.
> Just a regular flood will create such
> orientations.
That's true.
> Also, you greatly exaggerate the degree
> that such fossil deposits show orientations. For
> example, the Santana fossil deposits and the Old Red
> Sandstone fossil fish don't show such orientations.
> Many of the Miocene diatomite fossil fish don't show
> such orientation. Basically, the presence of a current
> is **not** evidence of a catastrophe and **not** all
> fossil fish deposits even show the alignment and
> orientation that indicated the presence of a current.
-
How did I "greatly exaggerate" by saying that "many of them show"
alignment? I certainly did not say that all of them or even most of
them showed alignment. However, many fossils do show alignment with
each other... especially larger fossils, like dinosaurs and trees.
However, even smaller fossils such as shells, leaves and fish can and
often do show stream orientation. Does this, by itself, mean that
they were buried catastrophically? No. The evidence for sudden
burial is found in the condition of the specimens themselves. Stream
orientation, when present, only helps to show that these animals
probably didn't die and sink slowly to the body of some still, anoxic
lake bed, to be gradually buried over an extended course of time.
> > The same orientation can be generally seen with other
> > types of fossils such as plants, shells, dinosaurs, etc.
-
> Some of the bone beds in the fluvial sediments underlying
> Yellowhouse Draw near Lubbock, Texas in Southern High
> Plains show the exact same type of orientation. It would
> be foolish to argue that because these bones are
> oriented, that they were deposited by a catastrophe.
> They, like the oriented dinosaur bones and plants are
> not oriented because of a catastrophe. Rather, they just
> were by the currents of either the river or flood that
> moved them around and preserved them by dumping sediments
> on them.
-
Ok, if you don't want to call stream orientation catastrophic, that's
fine with me. But, the fact remains that water currents were involved
with many of these fossilized burials... sometimes on a massive scale.
> > How then did the Coelacanth avoid such catastrophic
> > burials when it hadn't been able to avoid them for
> > hundreds of millions of years?
-
> There weren't any catastrophic burials. The problem is
> that very little of the rock, in which the fossils of
> coelacanth would occur, is available for people to find
> their fossils in.
That's a fine theory, but again, the coelacanth is not the only
creature to emerge almost unchanged from tens of millions of years of
extinction. Also, coelacanths have now been found who's habitat is
not "protected" by caves and overhangs or extreme depths. The
Latimeria manadoensis is "almost identical" both in phenotype and
maybe even habitat the Macropoma lewesiensis. So how did the L.
manadoensis avoid fossilization over 80 million years? Maybe poor
environment for fossilization? Maybe, along with many other "Lazarus
Taxa" who seem to be able to avoid fossilization the same way?
> Also, with a relatively small numbers
> of coelacanths, their fossils would be very hard to find
> even if large amounts of these rocks were available for
> inspection.
-
Perhaps. But over the course of 80 million years, with millions of
generations of coelacanths and population fluctuations, it still seems
pretty impressive to me that they avoided fossilization so well.
> > With these thoughts in mind, let me pose a hypothetical
> > for you to shoot down (That's the whole point of
> > hypothetical questions you know... to be shot down. That
> > is the goal of the scientific method. Once a person stops
> > trying to shoot down hypothesis and theories of
> > science, science is not longer science.).
> > What if the fish found in the lower layers of the geologic
> > column were "sorted" according to various factors such as
> > environmental habitat and body composition (to include
> > size, shape, and density)?
-
> ....stuff about hydraulic sorting omitted...
>
> What I would like to know is how hydraulic sorting can
> distribute intact fossil reefs throughout the entire
> geological column.
How do you know that they are "intact"?
> How does hydraulic sorting explain
> the biostratigraphy of microfossils?
Hydraulic sorting doesn't explain the biostratigraphy of microfossils.
There are other ways that sorting can happen you know. The natural
habitat itself acts as a sorter. Also, the same species can have a
different look in different environments. Phenotypic variation does
not always depend upon genotypic change, but can often change in tune
with changing environmental needs. Such changes that are based in
environmental changes are called, "ecophenotypic variations."
Microfossils, such as foraminifers, demonstrate a wide variety of
ecophenotypes. In fact, many phenotypes that were once thought to
represent different species groups are now known to represent
difference phenotypic variations within the same species.
> What I would like Young Earth creationists to explain is
> why microfossils which lived in the same ocean are so
> nicely stratified according to age. First go read
> "Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the
> Flood" by Glenn R. Morton at:
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm
>
> He gives a few of innumerable examples where foraminifera
> and other microsfossils are found in the same stratigraphic
> sequence over large areas, even world-wide. A person cannot
> explain this in terms of either location or habitat zonation.
Actually, a person can explain this in terms of both location as well
as habitat zonation.
> Since they are essentially the same size and weight,
> hydraulic sorting cannot be used as an explanation.
Yes, that's generally true.
> The
> only explanation is that the foraminifera are found neatly
> zoned by depth is because they lived at different times as
> the strata accumulated.
Well, this is not the only possible explanation.
> The Young Earth creationist global flood model cannot
> account for vertical distribution of microsfossils as
> illustrated in the "MMS GOMR Resource Evaluation
> Paleontological Laboratory, Biostratigraphic Chart." with
> a link at "Scientific and Technical Papers of the Gulf of
> Mexico OCS Region" at:
>
> http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/papers.html
>
> This chart can be downloaded from:
>
> http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf
> http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.cdr
>
> This chart shows the vertical sequence in which all over
> the entire northern Gulf of Mexico how over a 100 different
> microfossils occur within a pile sediments over 15,000 to
> 20,000 feet thick. In oil well after oil well and in
> surface exposure after surface exposure, the sequence of
> microfossils shown in this chart can be found. For
> example, Hyalina "B" is always found in the sediments
> above the sediments containing Angulogerina "A." It, in
> term, overlies sediments containing Cristellaria "S",
> Globorotalia miocenica and Globorotalia menardii, and
> Bolivina imporcata. These microfossils are found
> above sediments containing Lenticulina 1, Cassidulina "L",
> and Saracenaria "H". In addition, the geologic periods
> also occur in the same order in oil well after oil well
> as well as in surface exposures. Hydraulic sorting cannot
> explain this vertical distribtion of microfossils as Glenn
> argues on his web page.
Hydraulic sorting is not needed to explain these phenotypic
distributions. Tammy Tosk, also a geologist, disagrees with Glenn
Morton's conclusions. She describes how foraminifers can be sorted
according to other factors besides hydraulic sorting such as ecologic
zonation. Her discussion can be found at:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15008.htm
> Have Fun
> Keith Littleton
> New Orleans, LA
You too ; )
Sean
Pokemoto
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.sta
nford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.)
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:17:48 +0000 (UTC)
>Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>Lines: 787
>Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID: <fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
>X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1038179869 73886 128.100.83.246 (24 Nov 2002
>23:17:49 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:17:49 +0000 (UTC)
>
SNIP:
>Very interesting comments. However, it seems to me that you over
>emphasize the differences between the living species Latimeria
>chaumnae, and the fossilized species. The statement above that "no
>other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a
>fossil" seems to me to be a bit misleading. The fact of the matter is
>that the skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the
>upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths
>caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from
>the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths. (Forey, P. 1998. History of
>the Fishes. Chapman & Hall.) There seems to be a tendency
>to place very similar fossils in different categories based primarily
>on the fact that they obviously lived so far apart in time that they
>can't possible be members of the same species. This practice seems to
>be the rule rather than the exception. So, to say that the L.
>chaumnae species has never been found in the fossil record seems to me
>to be stretching it a bit since this species classification is based
>on very minor morphologic differences that are clearly within the
>range of intra-species variation if the two fish were swimming side by
>side today. It's kinda like putting the French and Italians in
>different genus categories.
There is all one small problem with this. We have the Coelacanth mitochondrial
sequence and guess what? it is exactly what we predicted it would be. This
means that this sequence has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years
from the common ancestor of mammals and lobefin fish. You have to explain why
the sequence is what we predict if evolution were true. Why would lobefin fish
be more closely related to land vertebrates than teleosts like Carp? Why are
the branch lengths what we would predict if we shared a common ancestor with
lobefin fish? Ooops, you can't explain this data, but biological evolution
can. What is your prediction of what the sequence should be? Why doesn't your
prediction match with reality?
And it just isn't Coelocanths. We have living representitives of jawless fish
and guess where the DNA sequence puts them? We have boneless cordates and
guess where the DNA sequence puts them?. The morphologists didn't have DNA
data when they came to their conclusions. Why is the DNA data consistent with
their evolutionary predictions?
DNA data backs up the predictions for fish to land vertebrate evolution. No
matter how you nit pick the data you can't get around that fact. If we didn't
have these living fossils you'd have more to complain about, but don't complain
about something that destroys your own argument. If we had a couple of living
representitives of dinosaurs we could end the bird-dino debate. Extinction
bites, but we are all very glad when we still have a living representitive to
work with, so we don't have to guess anymore.
Ron Okimoto
R. Baldwin
news:fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com...
[big snip]
> The subduction argument has been used to explain a lot of things and
> it may in fact explain the absence of fossils from fish who
preferred
> living in volcanic caves and overhangs in very deep ocean habitats.
> However, it seems like the theory of subduction itself is not
> completely without its flaws. Evidence of significant subduction as
a
> means for sediment removal seems to be rather lacking as far as I
can
> tell. There is even argument as to what forces might be stable
enough
> to drive such prolonged subduction of huge portions of the earth's
> crust over the course of hundreds of millions of years. In any
case,
> there have been recent finds of coelacanths off the coast of the
> Comoro Islands in 1998 that do not live in very deep water (~200m)
or
> in caves. How did these coelacanths survive without being
fossilized
> over the course of 80 million years?
[huge snip]
I have personally seen and felt the overwhelming evidence for the
theory of subduction. In the Pacific Northwest, we have a volcanic
mountain range (the Cascade Mountains) running parallel to an ocean
trench about 50-miles distant, as is found in other parts of the
world. We find evidence of earlier, extinct volcanic ranges parallel
to evidence of older ocean shores. We find partially metamorphosed
ocean sediment in the Cascades. We have earthquakes. We have uplifted
ocean floor along the coast, where we can see pillow basalts that
formed underwater. We have trench filling thrust up to form the
Olympic Mountain range. Your suggestion that the theory of subduction
is flawed is simply laughable.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Sean Pitman M.D." <Sean...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com...
>
>> The subduction argument has been used to explain a lot of things
>> and it may in fact explain the absence of fossils from fish who
>> preferred living in volcanic caves and overhangs in very deep
>> ocean habitats. However, it seems like the theory of subduction
>> itself is not completely without its flaws.
...
> Your suggestion that the theory of subduction is flawed is simply
> laughable.
Evolution-denial seems to require a commitment to chain in denials
of all the other branches of science as well.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Greg
snipsnip
>
> Very interesting comments. However, it seems to me that you over
> emphasize the differences between the living species Latimeria
> chaumnae, and the fossilized species. The statement above that "no
> other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a
> fossil" seems to me to be a bit misleading. The fact of the matter is
> that the skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the
> upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths
> caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from
> the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths. (Forey, P. 1998. History of
> the Coelacanth Fishes. Chapman & Hall.) There seems to be a tendency
> to place very similar fossils in different categories based primarily
> on the fact that they obviously lived so far apart in time that they
> can't possible be members of the same species. This practice seems to
> be the rule rather than the exception. So, to say that the L.
> chaumnae species has never been found in the fossil record seems to me
> to be stretching it a bit since this species classification is based
> on very minor morphologic differences that are clearly within the
> range of intra-species variation if the two fish were swimming side by
> side today. It's kinda like putting the French and Italians in
> different genus categories.
Here's a picture of each:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/february/coela2.htm
Not that I have any qualifications or training in comparative anatomy
but they look enough alike to be coelacanths but the snout looks much
different. I wouldn't expect them to be classified as the same
species. Coelacanths didn't change much over 380 million years yet
they are different enough to be classified into several genera.
>
>
snip
My friend had an oscar with some catfish in an aquarium. Though they
were about the same size when he started, eventually the oscar decided
to eat one of the catfish. Catfish have spines in their pectoral fins
that are extended when they are seized. The oscar survived for a day
or two with the catfish in its mouth. My friend was able to save the
catfish after the oscar died. I expect that sort of thing happens
quite a bit or catfish wouldn't have those fins.
>
snip
>
> Perhaps. But over the course of 80 million years, with millions of
> generations of coelacanths and population fluctuations, it still seems
> pretty impressive to me that they avoided fossilization so well.
How do you know they have avoided fossilization? How long does it take
for deep water sedimentary rocks to become strata of dry land where
fossils can be found? 80 million years (less for younger fossils) does
not seem all that long for that.
snip
> > Have Fun
> > Keith Littleton
> > New Orleans, LA
>
>
> You too ; )
> Sean
--
Greg
How do people who don't believe in evolution explain their cravings
for banana sandwiches?
Adam Marczyk
> Littleton's recent "POTM" on talk.origins. I have been busy with
> other interests lately, but I finally decided to make a response.
> Keith did raise some very good points. After considering these
> points, I have some more questions that I present line-by-line as they
> arise:
[snip]
> > "One point has to be emphasized; The living coelacanth
> > is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that
> > members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever
> > been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species
> > assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a
> > fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil
> > Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we
> > could possibly include them in the same family. Beyond
> > that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order
> > Coelacanthini."
>
> Kingdom: Anamilia
> Phylum: Chordata
> Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
> Order: Coelacanthini
> Family: Sarcopterygii
> Genus: Latimeria
> Species: chalumnae
>
> Very interesting comments. However, it seems to me that you over
> emphasize the differences between the living species Latimeria
> chaumnae, and the fossilized species. The statement above that "no
> other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a
> fossil" seems to me to be a bit misleading. The fact of the matter is
> that the skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the
> upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths
> caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from
> the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths. (Forey, P. 1998. History of
> the Coelacanth Fishes. Chapman & Hall.)
Even if what you say is true, and Greg's post seems to show that the
morphological variation between the two species is actually fairly significant,
then so what? Evolution does not require that species constantly change in
appearance.
[snip]
> This practice seems to
> be the rule rather than the exception. So, to say that the L.
> chaumnae species has never been found in the fossil record seems to me
> to be stretching it a bit since this species classification is based
> on very minor morphologic differences that are clearly within the
> range of intra-species variation if the two fish were swimming side by
> side today. It's kinda like putting the French and Italians in
> different genus categories.
You seem big on that whole "intra-species" variation thing. Do you think the
"minor morphological differences" between, say, a tuna and a carp are small
enough to justify defining them as the same species? How about between a lion
and a tiger? A dog and a cat? (What are the morphologic differences between dogs
and cats, anyway?)
[snip]
> > This might be quite true, but there is a lack of such
> > Tertiary, Mesozoic, or Paleozoic fossil bone beds that
> > occur within sediments, which have accumulated in the
> > caves and overhangs in reefs of volcanic islands. This
> > is because these deposits have either subsided with the
> > volcanic islands that they are associated with or have
> > been subducted with the volcanic islands beneath
> > continental plates. In the former case, the deposits
> > associated with still extent volcanic islands are now
> > underwater and buried beneath younger sediments that
> > have continue to accumulate on top the islands as they
> > sank. In the latter case, fragments of some volcanic
> > islands have been scraped off during subduction, but
> > for the most part, these fragments are badly mangled and
> > metamorphosed to the point of badly mangling, even
> > destroying any fossils that they might contain.
> >
> > Similarly, the deep sea sediments that might contain the
> > fossils of coelacanths also have been largely subducted
> > with slices and slivers of these being sediments being
> > plastered against the continental margin just as mangled
> > and metamorphosed as the volcanic islands. The deep sea
> > sediments that are still undeformed lie at the ocean
> > bottom and buried under younger sediments where nobody
> > can get at them.
>
> The subduction argument has been used to explain a lot of things and
> it may in fact explain the absence of fossils from fish who preferred
> living in volcanic caves and overhangs in very deep ocean habitats.
> However, it seems like the theory of subduction itself is not
> completely without its flaws.
You've got to be kidding. Are you denying everything that's been done in the
last several decades of geology, as well as in the last century and a half of
evolution? On what basis? (The argument you present below is essentially an
argument from ignorance.)
> Evidence of significant subduction as a
> means for sediment removal seems to be rather lacking as far as I can
> tell. There is even argument as to what forces might be stable enough
> to drive such prolonged subduction of huge portions of the earth's
> crust over the course of hundreds of millions of years.
Who is making these arguments?
> In any case,
> there have been recent finds of coelacanths off the coast of the
> Comoro Islands in 1998 that do not live in very deep water (~200m) or
> in caves. How did these coelacanths survive without being fossilized
> over the course of 80 million years?
How do you know they weren't fossilized? Have studies been done searching for
fossils on the ocean floor? If you know of any such, please enlighten us.
> > > Interesting argument I think.
>
> -
>
> > It is interesting. I would be very interested in why Mr.
> > Pitman expects paleontologists to be able to find fossils
> > in sediments that are either underwater and buried
> > beneath younger sediments or consist of badly deformed
> > even metamorphosed sediments. If this argument is invalid,
> > Mr. Pitman should have absolutely no trouble at all
> > pointing specific outcrops of sedimentary strata where
> > a person could look for the remains of coelacanths.
>
> -
>
> The vast majority of sedimentary layers in the geologic column were
> formed underwater. I am rather surprised that anyone would argue this
> point. For example, it is thought that all of the layers in the Grand
> Canyon, save the Coconino Sandstone layer, was formed underwater.
> Yet, there it is for all to see, above water. The coelacanths that
> are fossilized, also lived underwater once upon a time. The argument
> here is that their habitat was more conducive to fossilization than
> the habitat of the modern coelacanths. Conduciveness is a bit
> different from preservation potential however. Subduction arguments
> do not argue so much against conduciveness, but against preservation
> potential. However, we do have supposedly ancient deep sea sediments
> preserved in the fossil record. Somehow they managed to survive
> destruction by subduction.
"Somehow"? Do you think there's a mystery here? Not all deep-sea regions are
near subduction zones; this was just as true in the past as it is in the
present. Also, even though these areas may have been underwater at one time,
they *were* still over continental crust, which for the most part is never
subducted (because it's lighter and less dense).
> In any case, more populations of
> coelacanths have been found that live in shallower waters that are not
> protected by deep sea caves. Yet, these fishes somehow avoided
> fossilization as well. This seems rather strange to me. Of course,
> coelacanths are not the only ones to seemingly be raised up after tens
> of millions of years of extinction. There are a large number of other
> fossils to include entire orders of creatures that disappear from tens
> of millions of years, and then reappear suddenly in the fossil record.
> These examples are so common that they have been given the name,
> "Lazarus Taxa."
I don't doubt this, because the geologic record is largely incomplete. This is
not explicable if the geologic record resulted from a global flood dumping huge
volumes of sediment - in that case we should expect massive, thorough
preservation throughout all strata, and *no* strata anywhere (such as the Grand
Canyon Coconino Sandstone, which you alluded to above) which are aeolian,
volcanic (other than pillow lava) or any other type which could not form
underwater.
> > > Fossilization requires rapid burial or else decay will
> > > obliterate all traces.
>
>
> > This is not completely true. Bones can survive for over
> > a year before being buried.
>
> This depends upon the environment in which they are deposited as well
> as the size of the bones. Also, well preserved fossils of completely
> intact specimens, to include soft tissue impressions in fine detail,
> as is the case with many of the coelacanth fossils, requires rapid
> burial.
I strongly doubt that. Fossils deposited in anoxic lakes, for example, often
preserve soft tissue information without requiring rapid burial, as decay
doesn't occur down there. (IIRC, these are the conditions thought to have
existed during the time the Yixian Formation in China, which has given us so
many excellently preserved examples of feathered theropods, was formed.)
[snip]
> > If Mr. Pitman would research the fossilziation of fish,
> > he would find the statement "practically all fossils of
> > fish show evidence of catastrophic burial" to be a rather
> > gross exaggeration of what the facts show. For example,
> > the research by Maisey (1991) of the origins of the
> > Santana fossil fish clearly demonstrates the lack of
> > catastophe in their formation. Rather, they represent
> > fish that died and sank to the bottom of a large anoxic
> > lake over a period of thousands of years. The decay of
> > the fish on the bottom precipitated carbonate minerals
> > that preserved them as fossils.
>
> In modern times, how often do you see this picture proposed by Maisey
> happening? Fish simply do not fossilize in modern "anoxic lakes" like
> they did in the past.
Explain this statement, please?
> Some pictures of the Santana Fossils can be
> seen at:
>
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/rush/zoo402www/ichthyology7.html
>
> They are surprisingly well preserved. They show excellent scale, fin,
> and eye socket preservation. This seems rather strange to me because
> many fish float when they die and rapidly decompose, even while
> sinking.
They float *because* they begin to decompose and fill up with gas. Decomposition
does not occur in anoxic waters, which is why they're so good at preservation.
[snip]
> > Finally, these fossils only demonstrate
> > how some Young Earth creationists are incapable of
> > recognizing a fish that choked on trying to eat a fish
> > far larger than it could swallow.
>
>
> Really? The fish choked to death? Then both of the fishes drifted
> down to the bottom of the lake and were perfectly preserved somehow
> without any significant evidence of decay or predation? Come on now.
> How often do you see fish choking on other fish today? Have you ever
> seen a fish choking on another fish that it is trying to eat? But
> hey, lets just say that it can happen. A fish can have eyes bigger
> than its mouth. It tries to eat something that is just too big to
> handle. Its meal gets stuck and its gills get blocked, and so it
> suffocates to death. However rare this event might be, how rare would
> it be for these two struggling fish avoid being eaten by some other
> predator or scavenger before they became buried in the scavenger rich
> mud at the bottom? Really, how rare would this be? I doubt it would
> ever happen once in ten million years without some sort of rapid
> burial event occurring at exactly the same time.
But the geologic record, of course, is far longer than ten million years, and so
contains more opportunities for such a rare event to occur.
[snip]
> > How does hydraulic sorting explain
> > the biostratigraphy of microfossils?
>
> Hydraulic sorting doesn't explain the biostratigraphy of microfossils.
> There are other ways that sorting can happen you know. The natural
> habitat itself acts as a sorter.
Elaborate, please.
> Also, the same species can have a
> different look in different environments. Phenotypic variation does
> not always depend upon genotypic change, but can often change in tune
> with changing environmental needs. Such changes that are based in
> environmental changes are called, "ecophenotypic variations."
> Microfossils, such as foraminifers, demonstrate a wide variety of
> ecophenotypes. In fact, many phenotypes that were once thought to
> represent different species groups are now known to represent
> difference phenotypic variations within the same species.
That still doesn't explain their vertical sorting, which was his point.
> > What I would like Young Earth creationists to explain is
> > why microfossils which lived in the same ocean are so
> > nicely stratified according to age. First go read
> > "Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the
> > Flood" by Glenn R. Morton at:
> >
> > http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm
> >
> > He gives a few of innumerable examples where foraminifera
> > and other microsfossils are found in the same stratigraphic
> > sequence over large areas, even world-wide. A person cannot
> > explain this in terms of either location or habitat zonation.
>
> Actually, a person can explain this in terms of both location as well
> as habitat zonation.
I fail to see how. Whatever zonation conditions existed before the flood would
be pretty thoroughly destroyed once the violent turbulence of the waters began.
(This is a remarkable flood you believe in. On the one hand it can be violent
and catastrophic enough to produce vast formations such as the Grand Canyon,
whereas on the other it can be so slow and gentle that it buries successive
foraminifera layers without so much as disturbing their relative sorting.)
[snip]
I think your case in general is weak. I don't doubt that the geologic record
contains numerous instances of local catastrophes, but for you to attempt to
yoke these together into one global catastrophe cannot be sustained. The
geologic record contains aeolian (wind-blown) layers that cannot be deposited
underwater. It contains igneous strata other than pillow lava, none of which can
occur underwater. It has layers that preserve fine details such as footprints
and handprints, mud cracks, animal burrows, delicate nests, raindrop imprints,
none of which could be preserved during a catastrophic flood. It contains layers
that were tilted, folded and eroded before the next layer was laid down -
impossible during a flood. It contains numerous fine-grained layers of laminated
sediment which would have to form with impossible speed and precision during a
flood. The global flood was a primitive 19th-century notion that was only
sustainable when geology as we know it was a science in its infancy. The
creationists' attempts to resurrect it speak only of their superstitious bias
against the truth and cannot possibly be borne out by any rational consideration
of the actual evidence.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
Sean Pitman M.D.
> I have personally seen and felt the overwhelming evidence for the
> theory of subduction. In the Pacific Northwest, we have a volcanic
> mountain range (the Cascade Mountains) running parallel to an ocean
> trench about 50-miles distant, as is found in other parts of the
> world. We find evidence of earlier, extinct volcanic ranges parallel
> to evidence of older ocean shores. We find partially metamorphosed
> ocean sediment in the Cascades. We have earthquakes. We have uplifted
> ocean floor along the coast, where we can see pillow basalts that
> formed underwater. We have trench filling thrust up to form the
> Olympic Mountain range. Your suggestion that the theory of subduction
> is flawed is simply laughable.
"Simply Laughable"? Perhaps, but I am not the only one who thinks
that there are some problems with the theory. Don't get me wrong, I
do think that some subduction has taken place. I just don't know
about the degree or timing of this subduction. One problem is the
mechanism for moving continents around. There seems to be some
argument on just how this is done over a prolonged period of time,
such as 200 million years or so (Kundt and Jessner 1986, Loper
1985, Lowman 1985a, Pavoni 1986, Runcorn 1980, Walzer and Maaz 1983).
Some evidence also suggests that some of the continents have very deep
"roots" with depths of over 700km (Kerr 1986, Lay 1988, Lowman 1985a).
Explanations seem lacking how just how such massive and deeply rooted
plates can be floated around and pushed under one another so easily
and steadily over a very prolonged course of time. Just last month I
saw a PBS television program dealing with plate tectonics. Some
geologists interviewed on this program argued that the proposed
"convection currents" just are not powerful enough to force oceanic
plate subduction. The movement of plates with such deep roots seems
so incredible that a fixed-earth plate-tectonic model has been
proposed that requires subduction zones which have not been suspected
before and for which there is little evidence (Lowman 1985b, Lowman
1986, Martin 1987, Schmidt and Embleton 1986). Another difficulty is
that both the African and the Antarctic tectonic plates are almost
completely surrounded by spreading ridges with no significant
subduction zones on their boundaries (Bevis and Payne 1983; Karig
1978). Consequently, the subduction zones available to accommodate the
spreading are not near by; and these expansion ridges themselves would
have to migrate toward distant subduction zones. In fact, models of
relative plate motions have not been unambiguously established yet,
particularly for the circum-Pacific (Kamp and Fitzgerald 1987).
These problems have led some to question the very concept of
subduction. Some argue that the slabs that are supposedly being
thrust under continental plates show caracteristics of tension rather
than compression and that there is little evidence of sediment
accretion in subduction trenches (Carey 1988, ch. 13). Some even go so
far as to argue in favor of "eduction" instead of "subduction" of
mantle material at the edges of continental shelfs (Chudinov 1981).
To explain some of these problems and yet maintain the theory of
subduction, some have proposed that the slabs sink at their edges
under their own weight more than they are being "pushed" under other
plates by the forces of expanding central ridges (Jurdy 1987,
Sekiguchi 1985, Spence 1986, Spence 1987). In this way, the tensional
characteristics frequently found in subduction zones might be
explained. Of course, this assumes that the oceanic plates were less
dense than the mantle when they were first formed at the ridges and
that they have cooled to a point of becoming more dense than the
mantle so that they sink back into it (Grow and Bowin 1975, Kerr 1988,
Park 1988). Obviously though, the ridges themselves are "cooler" than
the mantle. So, what does cooling have to do with anything? Also,
the question remains as to why an oceanic slab should descend under a
continental shelf (Mueller and Panza 1986). Others agree that
subduction models are difficult to support because subduction destroys
most of its evidence; so "little is yet known about its
mechanics"(Anderson 1981, Rea and Duncan 1986). Additional problems
have been raised by Uyeda(1986). Subduction is a complex process
involving an interplay of various forces that are difficult to
quantify (Jarrard 1986).
At least by the early to late 1980s, no agreement had been reached as
to an accepted model of subduction. Note the conclusion of the 1982
U.S. Geodynamics committee workshop: "No generally accepted models
exist for the initiation of [subduction]", "rates and mechanisms of
assimilation of models for the heating of subducted slabs [are] wholly
inadequate", and "gravity profiles across subduction zones and the
published geoid data do not reflect the thermally predicted excess
mass" (Lithosphere 1983, pp. 28, 29).
Then, there are the controversial theories of the Australian geologist
S. Warren Carey, which I do not necessarily agree with and which I
believe have been generally discredited, but it is interesting how he
came to propose his "expanding earth" model (The Expanding Earth,
1976. S. Warren Carey. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 488 pp.) He states, "Subduction exists
only in the minds of its creators" (p. 16) and "the Pacific subduction
zones like all other subduction zones are myths" (p. 50). This is the
crucial difference between standard plate tectonic theory and Carey's
expansion model, for both schools of thought agree on sea-floor
spreading but differ on the interpretation of the trenches (p. 54).
Arguments that he uses to support these contentions are:
a.Lack of off-scraping of trench deposits (pp. 56, 59-60).
b.Thinning and necking of earth's crust in area of trenches
and other topographic evidence that indicates the trenches
are tensional rifts, not compressional features (pp. 28, 52,
59, 63-65).
c.Increase in heat flux at trenches and orogenic belts which
is not consistent with subduction (pp. 58, 69).
d.No indication from seismic data that the Moho bends down at the
trenches(p. 62).
e.Magnetic anomalies get older away from the Aleutian trench as
though it were a spreading zone (p. 59).
Carey also cites studies which claim that seismic (p. 74) and
paleomagnetic data (p. 195) have been screened and selectively
interpreted to be consistent with assumed subductions.
Perhaps these questions have been completely resolved over the past
10-20 years? If so, I have yet to see that there is general agreement
about subduction theory. Maybe those in this forum can enlighten me
as to the general agreement as to the processes of subduction theory.
Sean
References:
Kundt, W. and A. Jessner. 1986. Volcanoes, fountains, earthquakes, and
continental motion — what causes them? Journal of Geology 60:33-40.
Loper, D. E. 1985. A simple model of whole-mantle convection. Journal
of Geophysical Research 90(B2):1809-1836.
Lowman, P. D., Jr. 1985. Mechanical obstacles to the movement of
continent-bearing plates. Geophysical Research Letters 12:223-225.
Lowman, P. D., Jr. 1985b. Plate tectonics with fixed continents: a
testable hypothesis-I. Journal of Petroleum Geology 8:373-388.
Lowman, P. D., Jr. 1986. Plate tectonics with fixed continents: a
testable hypothesis-II. Journal of Petroleum Geology 9:71-88.
Pavoni, N. 1986. Regularities in the pattern of major fault zones of
the earth and the origin of arcs. In Wezel 1986a, pp. 63-78.
Runcorn, S. K. 1980. Mechanism of plate tectonics: mantle convection
currents, plumes, gravity sliding or expansion? Tectonophysics
63:297-307.
Walzer, U. and R. Maaz. 1983. On intermittent lower-mantle convection.
In Carey 1983a, pp. 329-340.
Kerr, R. A. 1986. The continental plates are getting thicker. Science
232:933-934.
Kerr, R. A. 1988. The mantle's structure — having it both ways.
Science 240:1735.
Lay, T. 1988. The deep roots of continents. Nature 333:209-210.
Martin, B. D. 1987. Comments on "Plate-tectonics with fixed
continents: a testable hypothesis-I and II". Journal of Petroleum
Geology 10:351-352.
Schmidt, P. W. and B. J. J. Embleton. 1986. Comments on "Plate
tectonics with fixed continents: a testable hypothesis-II" by P. D.
Lowman, Jr. Journal of Petroleum Geology 9:349-351.
Bevis, M. and B. Payne. 1983. A new Palaeozoic reconstruction of
Antarctica, Australia and South America. In Carey 1983a, pp. 207-213.
Karig, D. E. 1978. The expanding Earth (A Review of Carey, 1976).
Journal of Geology 86:280-281.
Kamp, P. J. J. and P. G. Fitzgerald. 1987 Geologic constraints on the
Cenozoic Antarctica-Australia-Pacific relative plate motion
circuit.Geology 15:694-697.
Carey, S. W. 1988. Theories of the Earth and universe. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California.
Chudinov, Yu. V. 1981. The expanding Earth and tectonic movements:
direction of movements in marginal oceanic zones. Geotectonics
15:11-22.
Jurdy, D. M. 1987. Plates and their motions. Reviews of Geophysics
25:1286-1292.
Sekiguchi, S. 1985. The magnitude of driving forces of plate motion.
Journal of Physics of the Earth 33:369-389.
Spence, W. 1986. The 1977 Sumba Earthquake series: evidence for slab
pull force acting at a subduction zone. Journal of Geophysical
Research 91(B7):7225-7239.
Spence, W. 1987. Slab pull and the seismotectonics of subducting
lithosphere. Reviews of Geophysics 25:55-69.
Grow, J. A. and C. O. Bowin. 1975. Evidence for high-density crust and
mantle beneath the Chile Trench due to the descending lithosphere.
Journal of Geophysical Research 80:1449-1458.
Park, R. G. 1988. Geological structures and moving plates. Blackie &
Son, Ltd., Glasgow, Scotland and London.
Mueller, S. and G. F. Panza. 1986. Evidence of a deep-reaching
lithospheric root under the Alpine arc. In Wezel 1986a, pp. 93-113.
Anderson, R. N. 1981. Surprises from the Glomar Challenger. Nature
293:261-262.
Rea, D. K. and R. A. Duncan. 1986. North Pacific Plate convergence: a
quantitative record of the past 140 m.y. Geology 14:373-376.
Uyedu, S. 1986. Facts, ideas and open problems on trench-arc-backarc
systems. In Wezel 1986a, pp. 435-460.
Jarrard, R. D. 1986. Relations among subduction parameters. Reviews of
Geophysics 24:217-284.
Lithosphere. 1983. The lithosphere: report of a workshop. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
John Harshman
Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
Aside from problems such as ignoring the differences between oceanic and
continental crust, is there a particular reason why your most recent
references for this little piece are 14 years old, and references
average several years older? Have there been no advances our
understanding of plate tectonics in all that time?
Where did you get this? The age of the references would suggest that you
found it intact somewhere instead of coming up with it yourself. It's
considered good form to cite your real source, in addition to the
sources used by the source.
This is also an excellent example of your favorite tactic: if we don't
know everything, then we must know nothing. Surely we know enough to see
that oceanic crust is arise at mid-ocean ridges and disappearing (by
some means or other) at trenches. Otherwise the age-distribution of
oceanic crust can't be explained.
By the way, if you really want answers to all this, wouldn't it be wise
to post to a sci.geology group?
Note this little switch. You go right from talking about the roots of
continents (alleged to be as much as 700km deep) to "pushed under one
another", e.g. subduction, which of course only happens to oceanic
crust, ignoring the difference.
> Just last month I
> saw a PBS television program dealing with plate tectonics. Some
> geologists interviewed on this program argued that the proposed
> "convection currents" just are not powerful enough to force oceanic
> plate subduction.
But we can understand the phenomenon well enough to know that it happens
without being able to demonstrate its mechanism, can't we?
> The movement of plates with such deep roots seems
> so incredible that a fixed-earth plate-tectonic model has been
> proposed that requires subduction zones which have not been suspected
> before and for which there is little evidence (Lowman 1985b, Lowman
> 1986, Martin 1987, Schmidt and Embleton 1986).
Sounds weird to me. And how do you account for measured motions of the
continents (by laser) over the last several years?
Let's use correct terminology here. Lithospheric plates are composed of
crust *and* mantle material. The crust material (on top) will be less
dense than the mantle at any temperature. The mantle material (on the
bottom) will be the same density as other mantle material at the same
temperature. Of course as it cools it may become denser than the
underlying parts of the mantle.
> Obviously though, the ridges themselves are "cooler" than
> the mantle.
Obviously? What part of the ridges? Not the part that consists of magma,
certainly. You mean the solid parts. Sure. But the crust away from the
surface, at the ridges, is hotter than the older crust far from the
ridge (and possibly hotter than some parts of the mantle). Consider two
objects of identical size and shape, one of them 3/4 g/cc and one of
them 1/2 g/cc. Both will float in water, but the top of the denser one
is still much lower than the top of the lighter one. Right? It's easier
to subduct a denser rock than a lighter rock.
> So, what does cooling have to do with anything?
You assume both homogeneity of plates with depth (false) and that there
are only two relevant degrees of density: less than mantle and greater
than mantle (false).
> Also,
> the question remains as to why an oceanic slab should descend under a
> continental shelf (Mueller and Panza 1986). Others agree that
> subduction models are difficult to support because subduction destroys
> most of its evidence; so "little is yet known about its
> mechanics"(Anderson 1981, Rea and Duncan 1986). Additional problems
> have been raised by Uyeda(1986). Subduction is a complex process
> involving an interplay of various forces that are difficult to
> quantify (Jarrard 1986).
>
> At least by the early to late 1980s, no agreement had been reached as
> to an accepted model of subduction. Note the conclusion of the 1982
> U.S. Geodynamics committee workshop: "No generally accepted models
> exist for the initiation of [subduction]", "rates and mechanisms of
> assimilation of models for the heating of subducted slabs [are] wholly
> inadequate", and "gravity profiles across subduction zones and the
> published geoid data do not reflect the thermally predicted excess
> mass" (Lithosphere 1983, pp. 28, 29).
>
> Then, there are the controversial theories of the Australian geologist
> S. Warren Carey, which I do not necessarily agree with and which I
> believe have been generally discredited,
Stop right there. Why are you bringing up a discredited theory? What
does it do except muddy the issue?
I'm not a geologist. I know enough to doubt much of your understanding
here, but not to answer all your questions. But this hardly seems like
an attempt to shed light on anything. All you are doing is implying that
any theory that doesn't explain everything, right now (or right 14 years
ago, actually) must be worthless. Does that make any sense?
>
Inconsistencies in your citations (below) lead me to wonder whether you
have read any of these yourself. Have you? At the very least,
alphabetical sorting by author is customary and would have been only
polite.
Is this a valid reference? Context would suggest that this is an edited
volume, and Carey merely the editor. If he has his own chapter (and you
attribute views to him above) then that should be cited separately.
Wezel? Where's Wezel? There's no Wezel at all, much less multiple
citations from 1986. Very suspicious.
> Jarrard, R. D. 1986. Relations among subduction parameters. Reviews of
> Geophysics 24:217-284.
>
> Lithosphere. 1983. The lithosphere: report of a workshop. National
> Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
>
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
Ron Okimoto
"Sean Pitman M.D." wrote:
> > R. Baldwin
>
> > I have personally seen and felt the overwhelming evidence for the
> > theory of subduction. In the Pacific Northwest, we have a volcanic
> > mountain range (the Cascade Mountains) running parallel to an ocean
> > trench about 50-miles distant, as is found in other parts of the
> > world. We find evidence of earlier, extinct volcanic ranges parallel
> > to evidence of older ocean shores. We find partially metamorphosed
> > ocean sediment in the Cascades. We have earthquakes. We have uplifted
> > ocean floor along the coast, where we can see pillow basalts that
> > formed underwater. We have trench filling thrust up to form the
> > Olympic Mountain range. Your suggestion that the theory of subduction
> > is flawed is simply laughable.
>
> "Simply Laughable"? Perhaps, but I am not the only one who thinks
> that there are some problems with the theory. Don't get me wrong, I
> do think that some subduction has taken place. I just don't know
> about the degree or timing of this subduction. One problem is the
> mechanism for moving continents around. There seems to be some
> argument on just how this is done over a prolonged period of time,
> such as 200 million years or so (Kundt and Jessner 1986, Loper
> 1985, Lowman 1985a, Pavoni 1986, Runcorn 1980, Walzer and Maaz 1983).
> Some evidence also suggests that some of the continents have very deep
> "roots" with depths of over 700km (Kerr 1986, Lay 1988, Lowman 1985a).
Snip:
Not that I don't think that you have read all these papers, but they
suspiciously all end in the 1980's. Where are the references from the
1990's and the last three years? Remember the honest thing to do is to
cite your actual source. If it is a creationist source we know that it is
90% bull and we can ignore your quotes. You know this too, or you would
do the honest thing. Remember that reference to a slug? You keep denying
that you act like one.
How do all these quotes help your idea of how the plates move. Remember
the YEC guys think that the plates all moved to their present positions in
just one or a few years. Doesn't look like that is possible for deep
rooted plates, does it?
Ron Okimoto
>
> Sean
>
> References:
KelvynT
>In article <fd67d42a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
>
>Aside from problems such as ignoring the differences between oceanic and
>continental crust, is there a particular reason why your most recent
>references for this little piece are 14 years old, and references
>average several years older? Have there been no advances our
>understanding of plate tectonics in all that time?
>
>Where did you get this? The age of the references would suggest that you
>found it intact somewhere instead of coming up with it yourself. It's
>considered good form to cite your real source, in addition to the
>sources used by the source.
<big snip>
Well, here's a good sized chunk of it. Fom a 1988 article by a certain
Prof. Bill Mundy, who doesn't seem make it into Sean's bibliography.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
Kelvyn
Robin Levett
Sean, can we agree that you have lifted much of this from:-
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
Can we also agree that you have not credited that site with having
done so?
Have you complained about being described as possessing the
integrity of a slug?
<snip references>
--
The end of the world is off topic in sci.geo.satellite-nav and
probably
also on sci.astro.amateur - "Graham" (crossposted also to
sci.geo.geology)
John Harshman
KelvynT <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Yes, that looks like a good part of it, if not all. I note that this is
a creationist source, and that the other article on that site looks like
it may be a source for some of Dr. Sean's other geological
pronouncements too. Another case of creationist recycling. I think Dr.
Sean has managed to garble a couple of Mundy's attempted points as well.
Jon Fleming
>> Uyedu, S. 1986. Facts, ideas and open problems on trench-arc-backarc
>> systems. In Wezel 1986a, pp. 435-460.
>
>Wezel? Where's Wezel? There's no Wezel at all, much less multiple
>citations from 1986. Very suspicious.
Could well be a cut-and-paste job ...
Noelie S. Alito
news:harshman.diespamdie-...@news.infinet.mindspring.com...
> In article <fd67d42a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
>
> Aside from problems such as ignoring the differences between oceanic and
> continental crust, is there a particular reason why your most recent
> references for this little piece are 14 years old, and references
> average several years older? Have there been no advances our
> understanding of plate tectonics in all that time?
>
> Where did you get this? The age of the references would suggest that you
> found it intact somewhere instead of coming up with it yourself. It's
> considered good form to cite your real source, in addition to the
> sources used by the source.
>
> This is also an excellent example of your favorite tactic: if we don't
> know everything, then we must know nothing. Surely we know enough to see
> that oceanic crust is arise at mid-ocean ridges and disappearing (by
> some means or other) at trenches. Otherwise the age-distribution of
> oceanic crust can't be explained.
>
> By the way, if you really want answers to all this, wouldn't it be wise
> to post to a sci.geology group?
Would they waste their time on this Knowlege of the Ancients?
Yikes! I missed that. As far as we've just been taught in our
undergraduate class, the current deepest "continental root" is
under the Himalayas, around 70 (seventy) km, though there is
evidence of some past crustal rock reaching down as far as 100km.
The deepest recorded earthquakes for subducting plates, IIRC,
are on the order of 700 (seven hundred) km.
<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/image_glossary/benioff.html>
> > Just last month I
> > saw a PBS television program dealing with plate tectonics. Some
> > geologists interviewed on this program argued that the proposed
> > "convection currents" just are not powerful enough to force oceanic
> > plate subduction.
>
> But we can understand the phenomenon well enough to know that it happens
> without being able to demonstrate its mechanism, can't we?
There are several competing explanations for the driving mechanism
behind various aspects of plate tectonics. AIUI, the leading
contenders are that the plates are [also] *pulled*, either by the
mantle heat/depth/density dynamics or positive feedback due to
what happens to plate material where it's pulled under the [volcano]
zone of the continent. The relatively thin ocean plates aren't
considered structurally strong enough for the original pushing-alone
mechanism.
> > The movement of plates with such deep roots seems
> > so incredible that a fixed-earth plate-tectonic model has been
> > proposed that requires subduction zones which have not been suspected
> > before and for which there is little evidence (Lowman 1985b, Lowman
> > 1986, Martin 1987, Schmidt and Embleton 1986).
>
> Sounds weird to me. And how do you account for measured motions of the
> continents (by laser) over the last several years?
I still don't understand that "700 km" number, but such a keel could,
depending on the dynamics at different depths of the mantle, either
hold continents in place (leaving the bulk of the relative movement
to ocean plates), or conversely increase the lateral movement of
that continent. Either way, as long as the many ocean plates are
not tied down, there is plenty of room for crustal movement. (And
somebody should tell the Indian plate that it is not supposed to be
ramming into the Asian plate.)
> > Another difficulty is
> > that both the African and the Antarctic tectonic plates are almost
> > completely surrounded by spreading ridges with no significant
> > subduction zones on their boundaries (Bevis and Payne 1983; Karig
> > 1978). Consequently, the subduction zones available to accommodate the
> > spreading are not near by; and these expansion ridges themselves would
> > have to migrate toward distant subduction zones. In fact, models of
> > relative plate motions have not been unambiguously established yet,
> > particularly for the circum-Pacific (Kamp and Fitzgerald 1987).
The plate motions are *measured* and *known*. Many aspects of
various driving models have been tested since 1987, so they've been
able to throw out some of the first ones proposed. Furthermore
cheap computrons and more extensive measurement technology
have enabled geophysicists to test and extend knowlege of the
mantle dynamic. Although we are dealing with well-understood
physical properties (heat, density, inertia, and so forth), having
the means of modeling how plates on a spheroid move relative
to one another is a fairly recent technological accomplishment.
> > These problems have led some to question the very concept of
> > subduction. Some argue that the slabs that are supposedly being
> > thrust under continental plates show caracteristics of tension rather
> > than compression and that there is little evidence of sediment
> > accretion in subduction trenches (Carey 1988, ch. 13). Some even go so
> > far as to argue in favor of "eduction" instead of "subduction" of
> > mantle material at the edges of continental shelfs (Chudinov 1981).
> >
> > To explain some of these problems and yet maintain the theory of
> > subduction, some have proposed that the slabs sink at their edges
> > under their own weight more than they are being "pushed" under other
> > plates by the forces of expanding central ridges (Jurdy 1987,
> > Sekiguchi 1985, Spence 1986, Spence 1987). In this way, the tensional
> > characteristics frequently found in subduction zones might be
> > explained. Of course, this assumes that the oceanic plates were less
> > dense than the mantle when they were first formed at the ridges and
> > that they have cooled to a point of becoming more dense than the
> > mantle so that they sink back into it (Grow and Bowin 1975, Kerr 1988,
> > Park 1988).
>
> Let's use correct terminology here. Lithospheric plates are composed of
> crust *and* mantle material. The crust material (on top) will be less
> dense than the mantle at any temperature. The mantle material (on the
> bottom) will be the same density as other mantle material at the same
> temperature. Of course as it cools it may become denser than the
> underlying parts of the mantle.
Ah, beat me to it. (And the physics of rock does indicate that cool
ocean plate lithosphere material is denser than the mantle--especially
after some of the lighter topping has been taken off at the point of
subduction.)
> > Obviously though, the ridges themselves are "cooler" than
> > the mantle.
>
> Obviously? What part of the ridges? Not the part that consists of magma,
> certainly. You mean the solid parts. Sure. But the crust away from the
> surface, at the ridges, is hotter than the older crust far from the
> ridge (and possibly hotter than some parts of the mantle). Consider two
> objects of identical size and shape, one of them 3/4 g/cc and one of
> them 1/2 g/cc. Both will float in water, but the top of the denser one
> is still much lower than the top of the lighter one. Right? It's easier
> to subduct a denser rock than a lighter rock.
>
> > So, what does cooling have to do with anything?
>
> You assume both homogeneity of plates with depth (false) and that there
> are only two relevant degrees of density: less than mantle and greater
> than mantle (false).
Analysis of subduction volcanism show that a major contributor to
the melting of _crustal_ volcanic rock is the H20-rich topping to
the subducting plate. Those who refuse to do the differential
equations are condemned to talk nonsense. ;-)
> > Also,
> > the question remains as to why an oceanic slab should descend under a
> > continental shelf (Mueller and Panza 1986). Others agree that
> > subduction models are difficult to support because subduction destroys
> > most of its evidence; so "little is yet known about its
> > mechanics"(Anderson 1981, Rea and Duncan 1986). Additional problems
> > have been raised by Uyeda(1986). Subduction is a complex process
> > involving an interplay of various forces that are difficult to
> > quantify (Jarrard 1986).
> >
> > At least by the early to late 1980s, no agreement had been reached as
> > to an accepted model of subduction. Note the conclusion of the 1982
> > U.S. Geodynamics committee workshop: "No generally accepted models
> > exist for the initiation of [subduction]", "rates and mechanisms of
> > assimilation of models for the heating of subducted slabs [are] wholly
> > inadequate", and "gravity profiles across subduction zones and the
> > published geoid data do not reflect the thermally predicted excess
> > mass" (Lithosphere 1983, pp. 28, 29).
> >
> > Then, there are the controversial theories of the Australian geologist
> > S. Warren Carey, which I do not necessarily agree with and which I
> > believe have been generally discredited,
>
> Stop right there. Why are you bringing up a discredited theory? What
> does it do except muddy the issue?
<snipping 1976(?) theory>
> > Perhaps these questions have been completely resolved over the past
> > 10-20 years? If so, I have yet to see that there is general agreement
> > about subduction theory. Maybe those in this forum can enlighten me
> > as to the general agreement as to the processes of subduction theory.
The motion of the plates has been confirmed by ever-increasing number
of satellites capable of such fine measurements. The earthquake patterns,
for which we also have ever-refined detection capability, shows conforms
to the angled plate-plate contact of the subduction zone. In addition,
the combination of increased seismic sensing coverage and availabilty
of computers has shown through tomography (know how a CAT scan
is generated?) the interior earth structures of subducting plate remnants.
The motions of the plates are pretty much a given, and now the
geophysicists are duking it out over the relative contributions of
various mechanisms.
As far as continental thickness is concerned, the "Moho discontinuity"
which indicates the bases of the continents was first discovered in 1909
(over 90 years ago), and has been measured in excruciating detail by
newer technology. Those pesky satellites (and other ground-based
measures) have confirmed areas of crustal thickening as well as
isostatic rebound (how the continental crust floats higher when weight
is removed by erosion or melting). This is not a dead planet.
> I'm not a geologist. I know enough to doubt much of your understanding
> here, but not to answer all your questions. But this hardly seems like
> an attempt to shed light on anything. All you are doing is implying that
> any theory that doesn't explain everything, right now (or right 14 years
> ago, actually) must be worthless. Does that make any sense?
Perhaps this purported _pathologist_ can tell us whether diagnostic
equipment has changed at all since 1987? (I mean, they should
know about technological improvements, right?)
> Inconsistencies in your citations (below) lead me to wonder whether you
> have read any of these yourself. Have you? At the very least,
> alphabetical sorting by author is customary and would have been only
> polite.
<snipping all references but this>
> >
> > Carey, S. W. 1988. Theories of the Earth and universe. Stanford
> > University Press, Stanford, California.
>
> Is this a valid reference? Context would suggest that this is an edited
> volume, and Carey merely the editor. If he has his own chapter (and you
> attribute views to him above) then that should be cited separately.
<...>
> Wezel? Where's Wezel? There's no Wezel at all, much less multiple
> citations from 1986. Very suspicious.
He went by his maiden name.
Noelie
--
nnooee...@mmaaiill.uutteexxaass.eedduu
Noelie S. Alito
> "Sean Pitman M.D." <Sean...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:fd67d42a.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > Sean
> >
>
> Sean, can we agree that you have lifted much of this from:-
>
> http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
>
> Can we also agree that you have not credited that site with having
> done so?
>
> Have you complained about being described as possessing the
> integrity of a slug?
>
> <snip references>
At this point, *I* will complain, on behalf of the slugs.
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <fd67d42a.02112...@posting.google.com>
>
>> R. Baldwin
>
>> I have personally seen and felt the overwhelming evidence for the
>> theory of subduction. In the Pacific Northwest, we have a volcanic
>> mountain range (the Cascade Mountains) running parallel to an ocean
>> trench about 50-miles distant, as is found in other parts of the
>> world. We find evidence of earlier, extinct volcanic ranges parallel
>> to evidence of older ocean shores. We find partially metamorphosed
>> ocean sediment in the Cascades. We have earthquakes. We have uplifted
>> ocean floor along the coast, where we can see pillow basalts that
>> formed underwater. We have trench filling thrust up to form the
>> Olympic Mountain range. Your suggestion that the theory of subduction
>> is flawed is simply laughable.
>
>"Simply Laughable"? Perhaps, but I am not the only one who thinks
>that there are some problems with the theory.
Oh no Dr. Pittman. THere are other kooks who agree with you.
You're iun *good* company.
Don't get me wrong, I
>do think that some subduction has taken place. I just don't know
>about the degree or timing of this subduction. One problem is the
>mechanism for moving continents around. There seems to be some
>argument on just how this is done over a prolonged period of time,
>such as 200 million years or so (Kundt and Jessner 1986, Loper
>1985, Lowman 1985a, Pavoni 1986, Runcorn 1980, Walzer and Maaz 1983).
>Some evidence also suggests that some of the continents have very deep
>"roots" with depths of over 700km (Kerr 1986, Lay 1988, Lowman 1985a).
> Explanations seem lacking how just how such massive and deeply rooted
>plates can be floated around and pushed under one another so easily
>and steadily over a very prolonged course of time.
ROFL.
Continents are passengers on plates. Plates are essentially the tops of
convection cells in the mantle.
Today, nobody seriously proposes *Continental Roots* down to 700km. Second
those roots are not Continental material, so the name is a misnomer.
Sean, you're the quintesential example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.
Just last month I
>saw a PBS television program dealing with plate tectonics. Some
>geologists interviewed on this program argued that the proposed
>"convection currents" just are not powerful enough to force oceanic
>plate subduction.
How old was that program? Second that makes no sense. My guess is you have no
understanding of what you heard.
Lithospheric slabs subduct because they are negatively bouyant. They sink, Mr
Pittman. It is the sinking of slab, Mr Pittman, that prinicipally drives mantle
convection.
The movement of plates with such deep roots seems
>so incredible that a fixed-earth plate-tectonic model has been
>proposed that requires subduction zones which have not been suspected
>before and for which there is little evidence (Lowman 1985b, Lowman
>1986, Martin 1987, Schmidt and Embleton 1986) Another difficulty is
>that both the African and the Antarctic tectonic plates are almost
>completely surrounded by spreading ridges with no significant
>subduction zones on their boundaries (Bevis and Payne 1983; Karig
>1978).
So what, Mr. Pittman?
Consequently, the subduction zones available to accommodate the
>spreading are not near by; and these expansion ridges themselves would
>have to migrate toward distant subduction zones.
Indeed this happens Mr. Pittman. Why in fact it is happening off the West coast
of the US, as the last remnants of the Farallon plate and a ridge are
subducting off the coasts of Oregon and Washington.
Do look at a tectonic map sometime.
It will do you a world of good.
In fact, models of
>relative plate motions have not been unambiguously established yet,
>particularly for the circum-Pacific (Kamp and Fitzgerald 1987).
Which areas of the Pacific and at what level of precision?
Certainly tectonics in PNG is complicated. You think relative motion along the
San Andreas is not well described over the past couple of million years?
>
>These problems have led some to question the very concept of
>subduction. Some argue that the slabs that are supposedly being
>thrust under continental plates show caracteristics of tension rather
>than compression and that there is little evidence of sediment
>accretion in subduction trenches (Carey 1988, ch. 13).
What Horse shit. Some trenches like the Chiliean, don't have huge pile of
sediment. OTOH, have a gander at the accretionary wedge complex off of
Barbados.
If thats little evidence, I'd like to see what a lot is.
Some even go so
>far as to argue in favor of "eduction" instead of "subduction" of
>mantle material at the edges of continental shelfs (Chudinov 1981).
Carey was champion of the Expanding Earth Hypothesis, which is refuted on
several grounds, Not the least of which is the dynamics of the Earth-Moon
system.
You should pick your allies more carefully. Carey was the Geology equivalent of
Fred Hoyle.
>
>To explain some of these problems and yet maintain the theory of
>subduction, some have proposed that the slabs sink at their edges
>under their own weight more than they are being "pushed" under other
>plates by the forces of expanding central ridges (Jurdy 1987,
>Sekiguchi 1985, Spence 1986, Spence 1987).
THis is called the *ridge push* force. It is essentially the hydraulic head
resulting from the cahnge of bathymetry. Ridges are elevated with respect to
trenches, and as the lithosphere acts a stress guide, this contribution along
with the negative bouyancy of contributes to the driving forces of mantle
convection.
In this way, the tensional
>characteristics frequently found in subduction zones might be
>explained.
What you're referring to is back-arc spreading. Trenches roll-back. That is,
the trench migrates oceanward. As it does so, it exerts a stress on the
overiding plate which in some cases pulls it apart, forming a rift in a
back-arc basin.
How one concludes the above means* no subduction*, I have no idea. But then
again, if you've uncrtically read Carey, its not surprising. For the record,
Jurdy was my first graduate advisor. None of this work has any bearing on the
whether subduction is real. It is. THis work addresses the process of
subduction, not its reality.
Of course, this assumes that the oceanic plates were less
>dense than the mantle when they were first formed at the ridges and
>that they have cooled to a point of becoming more dense than the
>mantle so that they sink back into it (Grow and Bowin 1975, Kerr 1988,
>Park 1988).
They are. They are also very thin at this point.
Obviously though, the ridges themselves are "cooler" than
>the mantle.
>So, what does cooling have to do with anything?
Well what do you think should happen Dr. Pittman? The stuff should good down,
right where it comes up?
You are just full of surprises.
The cooling increases the density and thickness of the lithosphere, and as such
increases the buoyancy of the lithosphere and significantly adds to the forces
driving convection.
> Also,
>the question remains as to why an oceanic slab should descend under a
>continental shelf (Mueller and Panza 1986).
Funny, I don't find it a remaining question.
In fact I can think good reasons where subdcution might initiate at a
continental shelf.
Others agree that
>subduction models are difficult to support because subduction destroys
>most of its evidence; so "little is yet known about its
>mechanics"(Anderson 1981, Rea and Duncan 1986). Additional problems
>have been raised by Uyeda(1986). Subduction is a complex process
>involving an interplay of various forces that are difficult to
>quantify (Jarrard 1986).
First off, in 1981, there was no seismic tomography, there was no residual
sphere analysis etc. Today, there is conclusive evidence that indeed subduction
takes place, and that in some areas slabs can be traced to depths of 1400km or
so, at which point they are approximately thermally equilibrated with the
mantle.
Why is it Mr. Pittman, that you have no references from the 90's? More willful
ignorance on your part? Or do you think geophysics research stopped circa 1986?
>
>At least by the early to late 1980s, no agreement had been reached as
>to an accepted model of subduction. Note the conclusion of the 1982
>U.S. Geodynamics committee workshop: "No generally accepted models
>exist for the initiation of [subduction]", "rates and mechanisms of
>assimilation of models for the heating of subducted slabs [are] wholly
>inadequate", and "gravity profiles across subduction zones and the
>published geoid data do not reflect the thermally predicted excess
>mass" (Lithosphere 1983, pp. 28, 29).
Thats the initiation of subduction Mr. Pittman. Not subduction. But nascent
subduction zones are known, and we have some pretty good clues as to the
mechanism.
See for example Kronke and Walker "Evidence for the Formation of a New Trench
in the Western Pacific" Eos vol 67., no 12, pgs 145-146, 1986
>
>Then, there are the controversial theories of the Australian geologist
>S. Warren Carey, which I do not necessarily agree with and which I
>believe have been generally discredited,
*quite*
but it is interesting how he
>came to propose his "expanding earth" model (The Expanding Earth,
>1976. S. Warren Carey. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
>Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 488 pp.) He states, "Subduction exists
>only in the minds of its creators" (p. 16) and "the Pacific subduction
>zones like all other subduction zones are myths"
<Gibberish snipped>
The convergence of Pacific subduction zones is well establish by satellite
geodesy. Which didn't exist in 1981.
Only self deluded morons unable to cope with reality believe otherwise. Any
idiot who can perform a search with google on Plate Tectonics GPS can see this
for themselves.
The simple fact is Mr. Pittman. you have not searched the literature yourself.
And you certianly haven't burdened yourself with anything current.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Harlequin
m:
> In article <bbv7uugs5f03injvu...@4ax.com>,
> KelvynT <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:01:30 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman wrote:
>>
[Snip: John Harshman notices just how ancient Dr. Pitman's
references are.]
>> Well, here's a good sized chunk of it. Fom a 1988 article by a
>> certain Prof. Bill Mundy, who doesn't seem make it into Sean's
>> bibliography. http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
>
> Yes, that looks like a good part of it, if not all. I note that this
> is a creationist source, and that the other article on that site looks
> like it may be a source for some of Dr. Sean's other geological
> pronouncements too. Another case of creationist recycling. I think Dr.
> Sean has managed to garble a couple of Mundy's attempted points as
> well.
As self-declared (as of two minutes ago) and utterly unqualified academic
dean of the University of Ediacara, I hereby assign Sean Pitman an
F for the course and place him an academic probation. Any further
plagiarism or any other academic violations of Exodus 20:15 will
result in him being expelled and all earned credits being revoked.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
Vote for The Talk.Origins Archive at
http://www.coolsiteoftheday.com/csotm.html
June
> >Subject: Re: Fish Fossils - Reply to Keith Littleton's POTM
> >From: Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.)
> >Date: 11/26/02 9:03 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <fd67d42a.02112...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >> R. Baldwin
> >
[snip Sean's disinformation, obfuscations, and outdated information]
>
>
> First off, in 1981, there was no seismic tomography, there was no residual
> sphere analysis etc. Today, there is conclusive evidence that indeed
> subduction takes place, and that in some areas slabs can be traced to
> depths of 1400km or so, at which point they are approximately thermally
> equilibrated with the mantle.
>
> Why is it Mr. Pittman, that you have no references from the 90's? More
> willful ignorance on your part? Or do you think geophysics research
> stopped circa 1986?
Just some interesting data/pictures, some gathered since the 1980s (I
believe).
I really like this page because it has satellite images of features that
are evidence of plate tectonics.
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/plate-tectonics.html
This is just one page from an excellent USGS site re introduction to
plate tectonics.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/understanding.html
The Hawaiian hot spot and the sea mount/island chain that is some of the
evidence for movement of the Pacific plate.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/Hawaiian.html
Great site with satellite laser ranging (SLR) graphic data showing
worldwide continental movements.
http://cddisa.gsfc.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html
Even if we had no clue as to the mechanisms, the evidence for the
existence and movement of plates on the Earth's outer layer is pretty
overwhelming. Features like the Hawaiian Island chain are compelling
evidence of these movements continuing for many millions of years.
Here's just an example.
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
>
> The simple fact is Mr. Pittman. you have not searched the literature yourself.
> And you certianly haven't burdened yourself with anything current.
Obviously.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> requires a creationist"
--
My 2¢ B-}
June
Sean Pitman M.D.
<snip>
> Not that I don't think that you have read all these papers, but they
> suspiciously all end in the 1980's.
Obviously I haven't read all of these papers nor did I wish to
indicate that I had. This area is not (obviously) my area of training
or special interest, although I do find it interesting. It was
nothing more than a side point to my reply to Keith Littleton's post.
And yet, this small side comment seems to have drawn a lot of
attention. My main contention here is not to say that subduction does
not happen. I think that subduction does happen and has happened. My
question concerns the driving force behind subduction and if such
forces might have acted at different rates, even dramatically
different rates, in the past. Previously I had read a couple of papers
dealing with this issue and used information from these. In fact, my
main questions (with the references used here) come from a paper that
can be found at:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
> Where are the references from the
> 1990's and the last three years?
I figure you could point me to some good ones that are more recent. I
haven't had the chance yet to look into something more recent as of
yet. Perhaps all of the answers to the process of subduction have
been answered in the last 15 years?
> Remember the honest thing to do is to
> cite your actual source.
Oh please. This is not a review for publication here. This is a
discussion forum. It's obvious that I took the information from
another source. I didn't even TRY to hide it. It is actually very
easy to find the source that I took the information from if one so
chooses. Do you think I thought that you guys wouldn't figure this
out? Not a chance! I knew that you would know that this was
secondary source material. It is blatantly obvious. I also knew that
someone would go and look up the original source since I practically
quoted it verbatim. The source in this case happens to be a YEC
source, and actually pretty reliable as far as YEC sources go. I
wanted feedback on their information without a knee jerk response that
was based only on the fact that they are YECs. This anti-YEC bias
seems to distract from the actual issues at hand. I have also often
quoted evolutionary sources in this forum, such as talk.origins, for
the same purpose. There is a lot of yelling about YEC sources, without
really answering the actual questions that I am interested in. That
is why I presented these questions in this way. Of course many of
those in this forum spend more time yelling about sources than
discussing the issues raised. Also, many in this forum quote secondary
sources all the time without referring to the secondary source (such
as talk.origins itself). That's fine with me since I am more
interested in the ideas than I am concerned with where the ideas came
from. Of course, there are times when one needs to have actually read
all the original source material in question. In those cases, I have
indicated those original papers that I have personally read.
> If it is a creationist source we know that it is
> 90% bull and we can ignore your quotes.
That's the whole point. There is a strong bias against anything that
comes from a YEC source. In fact, it is so strong that anything
coming from a YEC source can be automatically ignored... not even
answered in any sort of serious manner. As it turns out, the quotes
themselves are not misleading in this case. They actually do
represent the thinking of the early to late 1980's concerning the
theory of plate tectonics. The 1990's may have resolved these issues,
but I doubt it as I have seen recent discussions about this issue that
seem to indicate no greater agreement as to the actual mechanisms
involved.
> You know this too, or you would
> do the honest thing. Remember that reference to a slug? You keep denying
> that you act like one.
Really? Still the "slug" thing? You would like to think so.
However, I have been quite honest and up front with you, especially
you. I have told you who I am (a real name and not a pseudonym),
where I work, my educational and cultural background, what ideas are
my own and what ideas have come from elsewhere, that I believe
evolutionary sources are generally better than YEC sources, that I
have been wrong when I see that I am wrong, that I am biased, and a
number of other things that few others in this forum are as willing to
admit or reveal. I have also made a conscious attempt to respond to
those who attack me personally, such as yourself, in a courteous an
professional manner. Really now, you still want to call me a slug?
If so, fine. I'm not here for you or to change your mind. Your
beliefs on the topic of evolution are really is not my concern. I am
here for myself and to refine my own thoughts about a very wide range
of issues that I find personally intriguing. Your passion, however,
is admirable.
> How do all these quotes help your idea of how the plates move.
They don't. They are only presented to question that idea that
anybody really knows how they move. We all believe that they do move
and have moved, but exactly how they move is still generally not
understood.
> Remember
> the YEC guys think that the plates all moved to their present positions in
> just one or a few years. Doesn't look like that is possible for deep
> rooted plates, does it?
It is true that YECs in general think that the plates have moved
rapidly in the past and have arrived at their current positions over
the course of several thousand years, but certainly not millions of
years. The fact that the continents themselves seem to fit together
fairly well, speaks in favor of their separation and relative
movements. However, the fact that they STILL fit together so well is
interesting if this separation occurred 200 or so million years ago.
One might think that erosive forces such as subduction and general
weathering would have changed the shapes of the continents over the
course of 200 million years so that they would no longer fit so neatly
together. Perhaps not, but I have yet to hear a good reason that
explains their obviously matching shapes over such a long course of
time. Off the cuff, I am thinking that a sudden release of a huge
amount of energy, such as might have been delivered by a very large
asteroid impact, might have split the plates apart with such force
that they moved with relatively high speeds initially, only to slow
down as they crashed into one another, building mountains and ocean
trenches fairly rapidly.
> Ron Okimoto
Sean The Slug
Harlequin
news:fd67d42a.02113...@posting.google.com:
> Ron Okimoto
>
> <snip>
>
>> Not that I don't think that you have read all these papers, but they
>> suspiciously all end in the 1980's.
>
> Obviously I haven't read all of these papers nor did I wish to
> indicate that I had.
[snip]
But you _did_ indicate that you had. When you cite a paper
you are outright claiming to have checked it. If you got
the reference from another source and have not actually
read the paper than you must cite the source were you
actually got the information.
>> Remember the honest thing to do is to
>> cite your actual source.
>
> Oh please.
Oh please is right. There is simply NO exceptions to
the requirement that the actual source of information
be cited.
> This is not a review for publication here.
That is simply irrelevent. A citation is a statement
of where you got your information -- period.
> This is a
> discussion forum.
And being a discussion forum justifies giving false
citations?
> It's obvious that I took the information from
> another source.
The only reason it was obvious was from the dates of
the citations and what is known about you personally
in this newsgroup.
I didn't even TRY to hide it. It is actually very
> easy to find the source that I took the information from if one so
> chooses. Do you think I thought that you guys wouldn't figure this
> out? Not a chance! I knew that you would know that this was
> secondary source material. It is blatantly obvious.
[snip]
This sounds a lot like after the fact rationalization.
Saying that it should be obvious is not a legit excuse
nor does it make it justifiable. From now on,
give your actual source of information explicately and do not cite
what you have not personally examined. If you got information from
an article on web cite it and people in the newsgroup can check
examine its references.
And besides, it is less work on you to simply give your actual
source of information. Unless of course your are simply cuting
and pasting large section of another source. But I hope you
would not do that for very obvious reasons...
Keith Littleton
in Message-ID: <fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com>
Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
>There have been many who have asked me to specifically
>reply to Keith Littleton's recent "POTM" on talk.origins.
>I have been busy with other interests lately, but I
>finally decided to make a response. Keith did raise
>some very good points. After considering these points,
>I have some more questions that I present line-by-line
>as they arise:
If Sean can take the time to respond to my POTM, I
certainly can reply to his reply. I warn people that
this is very long post. :-)
>>genera technically speaking, the modern coelacanth of
>>the genera Latimera, has no fossil record. Only the
>>order and suborder that it belongs to has.
>>
>>If a person either goes to the nearest college library
>>to research this topic or requests books by
>>interlibrary loan, he / she can find:
>>
>> Coelacanth" W. W. Norton & Company, New York and
>> London, 1991 ISBN 0-393-02956-5
>>
>> On page 78, last paragraph of that book, he would have read:
>>
>> "One point has to be emphasized; The living coelacanth
>> is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that
>> members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever
>> been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species
>> assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a
>> fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil
>> Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we
>> could possibly include them in the same family. Beyond
>> that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order
>> Coelacanthini."
>
>Kingdom: Anamilia
>Phylum: Chordata
>Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
>Order: Coelacanthini
>Family: Sarcopterygii
>Genus: Latimeria
>Species: chalumnae
-
What does this Prove?? :-) :-) From what I have read
everybody agrees that the modern coelacanths belong to
the genera Latimeria
-
>Very interesting comments.
-
Pitman's comments are very interesting because what Forey
(1998) states and illustrates in "History of the
Coelacanth Fishes" completely refutes what Mr. Pitman
has to say below.
-
>However, it seems to me that you over emphasize the
>differences between the living species Latimeria
>chaumnae, and the fossilized species. The statement
>above that "no other species assignable to the Genus
>Latimeria has been found as a fossil" seems to me to
>be a bit misleading.
-
According to Forey (1998), which you cite below for some
unknown reason, I haven't overemphasized the differences
between the living species, Latimeria chaumnae, and the
fossilized species. Forey (1998) presents both data and
number of observations that demonstrated that Mr. Pitman
is quite wrong about my statement being misleading. If
anything, Mr. Pitman's use of Forey (1998), below, to
support his position extremely misleading.
-
>The fact of the matter is that the skeleton of Macropoma
>lewesiensis, which is known from the upper Cretaceous,
>is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths caught
>off Sodwana Bay, , and differs little from the skeleton
>of most Devonian coelacanths. (Forey, P. 1998. History
>of the Coelacanth Fishes. Chapman & Hall.)
-
The fact of the matter is that Forey (1998) provides
explicit detail about the distinctive differences
between Macropoma lewesiensis and Latimeria chalumnae.
There is a picture of both Macropoma and Latimeria at:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/february/coela2.htm
Looking at the picture, a person can see substantial
differences in the fins, tail, lobe fin, and drastic
changes in the structure of head. Mistaking Macropoma
and Latimeria the same animal is like mistaking
Chimpanzees and Baboons for the same animals. Neither
of these genera are virtually identical to each other
as significant differences does exist between the two.
-
>There seems to be a tendency to place very similar
>fossils in different categories based primarily on the
>fact that they obviously lived so far apart in time that
>they can't possible be members of the same species.
>This practice seems to be the rule rather than the
>exception.
-
Mr. Pitman is wrong again in his rather imaginative and
wildly inaccurate understanding of paleontology. The
degree to which different fossils live apart in time has
nothing to with how fossils are classified. If he and
other Young Earth creationists would look objectively at
fossils like Macropoma lewesiensis and living animals
like Latimeria chalumnae, they would find there do exist
significant differences and that these differences are
significant enough to prove that they are different
animals. Their similarities only show that they are very
closely related with Latimeria chalumnae likely having a
coelacanth very much like Macropoma lewesiensis as its
ancestor. The main difference between coelacanths and
main other orders is that they have evolved at a much
slower rate than them. There is nothing in the various
models of evolution that require that different orders
must evolve all at the same rate. However, Young Earth
creationists, as far as "living fossils" simply deny
that obvious differences exist and engage in
postulating all sort of fiction about how conventional
paleontologists defines species and genera in order to
deny that these differences do exits.
A brief explanation of how fossil are named can be found
in page 3 of the "Fossil Record by Clifford A. Cuffey at:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_03.htm
Part of problem is that popular articles about the
coelacanth tend to be very careless about how they
discuss the coelacanths. To catch the attention the
attention of the reading public, such articles over-
exaggerate and hype the "living fossils" angle and end
up over-exaggeration the similarities between living and
fossil coelacanths. As a result, when people get most of
their information about coelacanths form popular
articles, instead of bothering to read and understand
what has been published in the technical literature,
they end up with wildly wrong-headed ideas of what they
are talking about.
-
>So, to say that the L. chaumnae species has never been
>found in the fossil record seems to me to be stretching
>it a bit since this species classification is based
>on very minor morphologic differences that are clearly
>within the range of intra-species variation if the two
>fish were swimming side by side today. It's kinda like
>putting the French and Italians in different genus
>categories.
-
The differences between Latimeria and Macropoma are not
"very minor morphologic differences that are clearly
within the range of intra-species variation" as was quite
incorrectly and laughably stated. The claim that
Latimeria and Macropoma are no different than French and
Italians is simply not substantiated by the
characteristics of these genera as is quite evident in
the picture at:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/february/coela2.htm
Looking at this picture, a person can see extensive
differences in the shape of skull and the bones that
compose it, the lobe fin, tail, and disappearance of
bones from the upper and lower fins. These differences
are why led Thompson (1991) stated:
"One point has to be emphasized; the living coelacanth
is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that
members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever
been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species
assignable to the genus Latimeria have been found as
a fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil
genus, Macropoma are quite closely related, and we
could possibly include them in the same family. ..."
The fact there is some question about whether Macropoma
and Latimeria even belong to same family is indicative
that despite the similarities between these genera,
the differences between are real and significant enough
to exclude the possibility that they are either the same
species or genera as Mr. Pittman advocated.
References Cited:
Forey, P. L. (1998) History of the coelacanth fishes.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Thompson, K. S. (1991) Living Fossil: Story of the
Coelacanths. W. W> Norton And Company, NY
-
-
The fact of the matter is that there is an huge amount of
evidence out that demonstrates that subduction is a real
and ongoing process and large amounts of sediments and
ocean floor have been subducted back down into the mantle.
The process of subduction can be inferred from focal
mechanisms of earthqukes, seismic imaging of the Earth's
crust and mantle, and the use of global positioning and
satellite laser ranging systems. There are numerous web
pages about all of this to be found on the Internet.
1. Modern plate tectonics
http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/plates_move/active_tectonics/index.htm
2. Subduction zones - Lecture by Rob van der Hilst
http://quake.mit.edu/hilstgroup/MantleConvection/310398_notes.html
>Evidence of significant subduction as a means for
>sediment removal seems to be rather lacking as far as
>I can tell.
Mr. Pitman is quite wrong about claiming that the
"Evidence of significant subduction as a means for
sediment removal seems to be rather lacking as far as
I can tell." For example using seismic tomography,
conventional geologists can map, in the subsurface, the
large slabs of oceanic sediments and crust that have been
subducted over the millions year into the mantle. The
volume of these slabs demonstrate that large volumes of
oceanic sediment and crust have been subducted into the
mantle. Some web pages illustrating this evidence are:
1. Subduction On Creationism & Plate Tectonics
http://www.tim-thompson.com/subduction.html
2. The Fate of Slabs Inferred from Seismic Tomography
and 130 Million Years of Subduction by Lianxing Wen and
Don L. Anderson.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~wen/Sub130Paper/sub130.html
3. Seismic Tomography
http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/Input/martin/physics212/seismictomo.html
In fact volcanic chains such as the Japanese Islands, the
Cascade Mountains, Indonesia, and many others consist
largely of the oceanic sediments and crust that was
subducted and partially melted to create the magma that
was extruded to form these volcanic mountains.
-
>There is even argument as to what forces might be stable
>enough to drive such prolonged subduction of huge
>portions of the earth's crust over the course of
>hundreds of millions of years.
-
Actually there a considerably number of papers, numbering
in the several hundreds. The overall consensus of
numerous attempts to model the process of subduction is
that it is indeed very stable and capable of prolonged
subduction of the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions
of years.
-
>In any case, there have been recent finds of coelacanths
>off the coast of the Comoro Islands in 1998 that do not
>live in very deep water (~200m) or in caves. How did
>these coelacanths survive without being fossilized over
>the course of 80 million years?
-
The fact of the matter is that the Comoro Islands are a
volcanic archipelago of four islands and several islets
located in the western Indian Ocean about 188 miles east
of Africa and 188 miles northwest of Madagascar at the
northern end of the Mozambique Channel that separates
Africa and Madagascar. The ocean surrounding the Comoro
Islands ranges in depth from 3,400 to 3,700 meters
(10,400 to 11,300 feet) (Department of Defense 1992,
1996). Therefore, by any standard, the ocean "off the
coast of the Comoro Islands" is very deep water that
completely falsifies Mr. Pitman's statement about the
coelacanths offshore of the Comoro Islands don't live in
very deep water.
Contrary to what Mr. Pitman stated above. Even if the
coelacanths live in the upper 100 to 300 meters (304 to
914 feet) of the ocean, when they die their remains will
eventually accumulate at the bottom of the Mozambique
Channel. Undoubtedly, the bones of coelacanths have
dropped of the bottom of the Mozambique Channel and
been buried and fossilized in these sediments. However,
it should be quite obvious that none of these
hypothetical coelacanths fossils are in a position to be
found by conventional geologists because of the lack of
outcrops of any of these sediments on land. Also, the
great depths precludes their recovery. Undoubtedly,
fossils of these coelacanths exist. However, they occur
in a position where it is impossible for Mr. Pitman to
expect that conventional paleontologists can recover
them. Whenever the Mozambique Channel closes in the far
geologic future, the sediment and Comoro Islands will
likely be either largely destroyed or intensively
metamorphosed to the point of destroying the vast
majority of coelacanth fossils that have accumulated at
the Mozambique Channel.
For a map showing the bathmetry of the ocean floor
around the Comoro Islands a person can go to:
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/img_topo2/agulhas2.jpg
References Cited:
Department of Defense (1992) Comoros Islands, Indian
Ocean. bathmetric map, scale, 1:300,000. map number
61ACO61310
Department of Defense (1996) Tanjona Bobaomby to Nosy-Be.
bathmetric map, scale 1:300,000. map number 61ACO61410.
-
>>It is interesting. I would be very interested in why
>>Mr. Pitman expects paleontologists to be able to find
>>fossils in sediments that are either underwater and
>>buried beneath younger sediments or consist of badly
>>deformed even metamorphosed sediments. If this
>>argument is invalid, Mr. Pitman should have absolutely
>>no trouble at all pointing specific outcrops of
>>sedimentary strata where a person could look for the
>>remains of coelacanths.
>-
>The vast majority of sedimentary layers in the geologic
>column were formed underwater. I am rather surprised
>that anyone would argue this point.
-
Mr. Pitman seems to be unaware of the fact that because
sediment was deposited underwater fails miserably to
means that a person would have any chance of finding
in them any fossil coelacanths dating to the last 80
million years
Given that coelacanths disappeared from non-marine
environments, e.g. lakes and streams during the Jurassic-
Cretaceous, it is rather useless to look for fossils of
coelacanths dating to the last 80 million years in
underwater sediments deposited in lakes. For example,
the strata of the Green River Formation were deposited
underwater, but it would be rather silly for anyone to
argue that coelacanths should be found in these sediments
because they are formed underwater. Contrary to what Mr.
Pitman believes, it is rather hopeless, if not rather
laughable, for someone to look for coelacanths in
the deposits of a freshwater interior lake for fossils
of coelacanths that are 80 million years or less old.
The best chance that a person has for finding fossil
coelacanths would be in underwater sediments deposited in
ocean basins adjacent to coasts and oceanic islands that
that now outcrop onshore. The fact of the matter is that
such onshore outcrops of deep sea sediments dating to
the last 80 millions are quite rare. In addition, those
which exist, have often been so very badly mangled by
metamorphism and tectonics as to have destroyed any
fossils they might have contained. As a result, the
absence of fossils coelacanths for the last 80 million
years can easily be explained from the paucity of rocks
of the right age and sedimentary environment to contain
fossils.
-
>For example, it is thought that all of the layers in the
>Grand Canyon, save the Coconino Sandstone layer, was
>formed underwater.
-
Mr., Pitman is very incorrect "it is thought that all of
the layers in the Grand Canyon, save the Coconino
Sandstone layer, was formed underwater." Contrary to
what Mr. Pitman stated, conventional geologists have
argued that other strata exposed in the Grand Canyon in
addition to the Coconino Sandstone, are either in part
or completely of nonmarine origin. These other strata
are:
1. The Watahomigi Formation (30 to 90 meters (100 to
300 ft) thick) in the Supi Group contains mudstone
redbeds, which are regarded as terrestrial coastal
plain deposits, in addition to marine carbonates.
2. The Manakacha Formation (46 to 90 meters (150 to 300
ft) thick) in the Supai Group consists of red mudstones
and quartz sandstones that are, respectively, interpreted
to be either alluvial or coastal plain sediments and the
deposits of sand dunes.
3. The Wescogame Formation (30 to 61 meters (100 to 200
ft) thick) in the Supai Group is regarded as being much
of the origin as the Manakacha Formation. It interfingers
with marine carbonates.
4. The Esplande sandstone in Supai Group is regarded as
consisting of fresh water, lacustrine carbonates, eolian
sandstones, and terrestrial redbeds.
5. Hermit Shale (15 to 240 meters (50 to 800 ft thick )
is regarded to consist of sediments deposited in coastal
plain and alluvial flood plains.
6. In the eastern Grand Canyon, the Brady Canyon
member (85 meters (280 ft) thick) of the Toroweap
Formation is regarded as being of terrestrial origin,
eolian dunes, although it grades westward into marine
limestones.
As a person can read above and in Beus and Morales
(1990), There are several stratigraphic units, in
addition to the Coconino Sandstone, which conventional
geologists regard to be nonmarine in origin. The
statement "it is thought that all of the layers in the
Grand Canyon, save the Coconino Sandstone layer, was
formed underwater." is simply not true.
Reference Consulted
Beus, S. S., and M. Morlaes (1990) Grand Canyon Geology
Oxford University Press, New York.
-
>Yet, there it is for all to see, above water.
-
Yes, the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon is all above
water for all to see. However, it is completely useless
for finding fossils of coelacanths that are less than 80
million years old as Mr. Pitman clearly doesn't seem to
understand. First, even the marine strata of the Grand
Canyon is a hopeless place to look for the "missing"
fossil coelacanths of the last 80 million years. The
youngest strata exposed strata in the Grand Canyon is the
Kaibab Formation is regarded as being 250 to 350 million
years old. As a result, it is 170 to 270 million years
too old to contain any coelacanth fossils that would
fill in the 80 million year old gap in the fossil record
of coelacanths being discussing. Because it, and the
underlying marine strata are older than 80 million years,
a person might find some coelacanth fossils in the
shallow marine sediments. However, none of these fossils
will be of the right age to fill in the gap in the fossil
record of coelacanths from now to 80 million years ago.
There are sediments in the area of the Grand Canyon that
have accumulated over the last 80 million years. However,
the majority consist of sediments of nonmarine in origin.
Thus, it is obviously hopeless strata in which to look
for missing coelacanths. It might be possible to find
fossil coelacanths in the Mancos Shale. Unfortunately,
this unit dates to the beginning of the interval, for
which coelacanth fossils are lacking, and any fossils
from it would do nothing to close the gap. The only
conclusion that a geologist can come to is that Mr.
Pitman's proposal to look either the Grand Canyon
or Grand Canyon region for the remains of coelacanths
will do nothing to solve the problem. Maybe, Mr. Pitman
might be better off looking in the Paleocene of Denmark
where a bone, possibly from a coelacanth, has been
found by Orvig (1986).
---
Of course, if Mr. Pitman still believes that he can find
fossils of Latimeria chalumnae in the Grand Canyon, I
will not try dissuade him from making a fool of himself
and wasting money. (of course, when he comes back after
searching the area for five years and finding nothing,
I will post a loud and clear, "I told you so" to
talk.origins newsgroup.
The geological section that lies above the strata exposed
in the Grand Canyon is discussed in "Jurassic - Cenozoic
Strata of the Colorado Plateau" at:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2b.htm
and in "Triassic Strata of the Colorado Plateau" at:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm
Reference Cited:
Orvig, T., (1986) Vertebrate bone from the Swedish
Paleocene. Geologiska Foreningens i Stockholm
Forhandingar. vol. 108, pp. 139-141.
-
>The coelacanths that are fossilized, also lived
>underwater once upon a time. The argument here is that
>their habitat was more conducive to fossilization than
>the habitat of the modern coelacanths. Conduciveness is
>a bit different from preservation potential however.
>Subduction arguments do not argue so much against
>conduciveness, but against preservation potential.
-
How does "Conduciveness" differ from "preservation
potential"? Since "Conduciveness" is totally dependant
on preservation potential, separating the two is rather
meaningless in this discussion. But I guess whatever
turns you on is OK with me. :-) :-) Still Mr. Pitman
doesn't make much sense here.
-
>However, we do have supposedly ancient deep sea
>sediments preserved in the fossil record.
-
This is true. The problem is that much of the deep sea
sediments, which survive destruction, are far too old
to contain coelacanth fossils from the 80 million year
gap in their fossil record. There are very few and very
restricted places where relatively undeformed deep sea
strata from the 0 to 80 million year period are exposed.
These outcrops are so restricted that it is entirely
possible for coelacanths to have lived off the coasts of
Indonesia, South Africa, and Comoros Islands for the past
80 million years and not find any evidence of them
because there are no onshore exposures of sedimentary
marine rocks containing their fossils in these regions.
-
>Somehow they managed to survive destruction by
>subduction.
-
If Mr. Pitman would bother read about the concepts he
trashes, he find that a small percentage of oceanic crust
and sediments, along with the tops of seamounts, is
scraped off during subduction and accreted to the
continental. The survival of small pieces of oceanic
strata is perfectly explained within the subduction
model. Thus, the "somehow" in this sentence is entirely
unnecessary.
-
>In any case, more populations of coelacanths have been
>found that live in shallower waters that are not
>protected by deep sea caves.
-
Obviously. Mr. Pitman means the coelacanths found in 60
meters (196 feet) of water off of the coast of St. Lucia
Wetland Park in South Africa. Still 196 feet is awfully
deep water that in which it virtually, if not actually,
impossible to any sort of fossil hunting in even if
outcrops of fossil bearing strata existed on ocean
bottom.
-
>Yet, these fishes somehow avoided fossilization as well.
-
Again, Mr. Pitman doesn't understand why coelacanth
fossils are not found in South Africa. It has nothing to
do with the coelacanths magically avoiding fossilization.
Undoubtedly, coelacanth die and sink to the bottom where,
at least, a percentage are buried, covered with
sediments, and are fossilized. The problem is that all of
this is occurring deep in the ocean. As a result, any
fossil South African coelacanths lie buried beneath water
and sediment where no paleontologist or geologist can
find them. The South African coelacanths live in
shallower waters than the others, 60 meters is still far
too deep for conventional geologists and paleontologists
to go fossil hunting in.
-
> This seems rather strange to me.
-
There is nothing strange about this. If there are no
outcrops where geologists and paleontologists can find
fossil coelacanths, no fossil coelacanths will be found.
An example of outcrops control what fossils geologists
and paleontologists find occurred in Louisiana
"recently". Prior to the middle 1990's vertebrate fossils
from the Miocene strata of Louisiana were unknown, except
for a fragment ancestral elephant tooth even after over
40 years of study of the Fleming Group. During the 1990's
erosion caused by military maneuvers and a fill dirt pit
open up five to six exposures on Fort Polk. In less than
five to six years of study of these exposures over 160
species of fossil animals were recovered from these
manmade outcrops. The Fleming Group contained numerous
fossils and many geologists and paleontologists studied
the Fleming Group. It is just that outcrops of fresh,
fossil bearing strata didn't exist. As in Louisiana, if
outcrops of strata containing the fossil coelacanths are
not available for geologists to look at, fossils of
coelacanths cannot and will be found.
-
>Of course, coelacanths are not the only ones to
>seemingly be raised up after tens of millions of years
>of extinction. There are a large number of other
>fossils to include entire orders of creatures that
>disappear from tens of millions of years, and then
>reappear suddenly in the fossil record. These examples
>are so common that they have been given the name,
>"Lazarus Taxa."
-
There is nothing puzzling or mysterious about all of
this. If strata containing fossils of these animals are
either not exposed or don't exist, then it is completely
ridiculous to expect fossils of these animals to be
found.
-
>>>Fossilization requires rapid burial or else decay will
>>>obliterate all traces.
>This is not completely true. Bones can survive for over
>a year before being buried.
-
>This depends upon the environment in which they are
>deposited as well as the size of the bones.
-
This is true. Far more important than rapid burial, the
location of where the remains of an animal come to rest
is likely the most important factor in determining
whether or not they are preserved. If preserved, it also
determined how well or how badly the remains will be
preserved
-
>Also, well preserved fossils of completely intact
>specimens, to include soft tissue impressions in fine
>detail, as is the case with many of the coelacanth
>fossils, requires rapid burial.
-
Rapid burial is a major, although not always a necessary
part of the preservation of completely intact specimens
including impressions of soft parts. However, Mr.
Pitman's is completely wrong that a global catastrophe,
e.g. the Noachian Flood, is needed for rapid burial.
In case of the Mazon Creek fossils, the animals and
plants were rapidly buried when periodic floods dumped
freshwater and sediment into a deltaic estuary / bay
(Baird 1990, pp. 279, 281, Baird et al. 1986). Once
buried, bacterial decay of these organisms caused the
precipitation of a siderite concretion that quickly
encased it and preserved its form (Baird 1990, Fig. 3).
The organism itself is not really fossilized, but left
as a phosphatic film or impression preserved by the
concretion as is characteristic of all of the soft-
bodied fossils found in these concretions including the
famous Tully monster. There are many non-catastrophic
processes that cause rapid burial of fossils.
References Cited:
Baird, G. C. (1990) Mazon Creek. In D. E. G. Briggs and
P. R. Crowther (ed.), Palaeobiology: A Synthesis. Oxford
Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, pp. 279-282.
Baird, G. C., S. D. Sroka, C. D. Shabica, and G. J. Kuecher
(1986) Taphonomy of Middle Pennsylvanian Mazon Creek area
fossil localities, Northeast Illinois: significance of
exceptional fossil preservation in syngenetic concretions.
Palios, vol. 1, pp. 271-285.
Web Pages:
Mazon Creek fossils at:
http://museum.state.il.us/exhibits/mazon_creek/index.html
http://museum.state.il.us/exhibits/mazon_creek/about_mazon_creek.html#HowFormed
Pictures of Mazon Creek Fossils can be found at:
1. http://museum.state.il.us/exhibits/mazon_creek/
about_mazon_creek.html#Animals
(The above URL needs to be reassembled to work)
2. http://search-desc.ebay.com/search/
search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&query=%22mazon+creek%22&cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2
Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&ht=1&from=R10&currdisp=2&itemtimedisp=1&st=2&SortProperty=
MetaEndSort&srchdesc=y&BasicSearch=
(The above URL needs to be reassembled to work)
-
>>In the case of shells, they can be washed around for
>>decades, even hundred of years, before they are finally
>>buried in the sediment to become fossils.
>
>This also depends upon the environment and the size of
>the shell. The fact of the matter is, even in the best
>of circumstances, even shells are degraded fairly rapidly
>in exposed environments. They do not last for hundreds
>of years of open exposure and weathering.
-
This not always true. Shell can, in fact, exist for
hundreds of years of lying on the ground and weathering.
Proof of this are beach ridges in the Louisiana chenier
plain and elsewhere that are composed of shell and which
have not weathered away after a couple of thousand years.
Addition proof consists of Native American shell middens
composed entirely of shell, which haven't weathered away
after thousands of years of weathering. The fact that
even after a thousand years or more, a person can still
find shell middens and shell beaches in Louisiana and all
over the world clearly refutes Mr. Pitman's argument that
shells do not last for hundreds of years in any situation
or location. However, the local environment does play a
major role in the durability of shell.
In marine environments, it is true that shells are not
continuously exposed at the surface. Rather as they "wash
around", they are periodically buried and unburied by
storms and the daily shifting of sand along the beach and
within the nearshore environment. The more time a shell
spends buried in the sand and the more solidly built a
shell is the more likely it will survive long enough to
be eventually buried and preserved as a fossil.
Finally, taphonomists have conducted studies with shells,
in which they placed shells on the bottom of specific
areas of the ocean. The locations were marked and tagged
so they could come back to the location and observed what
happened to the shells. One important finding was in
some areas characterized by mud bottoms where the shells
became buried without any sedimentation happening at all.
In this case, the churning of the ocean bottom by various
organisms was sufficient to bury anything left on it. In
addition, Behrensmeyer (1991:606) found on land that
bones could be rapidly buried by trampling. In certain
circumstances not only is a global catastrophe unneeded
for the rapid burial of shells and bones, but also the
deposition of any sediments is unnecessary for shells and
bones to be buried. Whether a bone or shell will buried
and how fast all depends on the local environment in
which it comes to rest.
References Cited:
Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1991) Vertebrate Paleoecology in a
Recent East African Ecosystem. In J. Gray, A. J. Boucot,
and W. B. N. Berry, eds., pp. 591-615, Communities of
the Past. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co, Stroudsburg.
-
>In any case, we are not talking shells here, but fish
>that are preserved intact, often with delicate soft
>tissue impressions also preserved in fine detail.
-
However, intact fossil fish are a very rare, very small
percentage of all the fossils to be found. Shells,
including the tests of foraminifer and other
microfossils, and isolated bones likely comprise, I
would guess, about 99.999+ percent of the fossils to be
found. Complete and intact fossils of fish and other
vertebrates are an insignificant percentage all fossils
that can be found in the geologic column. The fossil fish
with soft delicate tissue preserved are likely only a
minority of all of fossil fish with intact skeletons that
are found. Although showy, eye-catching, and, thus, easy
to hype, intact fossil fish are completely
unrepresentative and atypical of fossils that are
normally found in sedimentary rocks.
To some extent the focus that Young Earth creationists
have on the exceptional intact fossil fish skeleton and
soft bodied fossils is in part a debating technique.
First, these fossils, unlike the average shell and
disarticulated bone, are for more showy and eye-catching.
They attract the attention of the general public to whom
they are trying convert to their point of view. Also, if
Young Earth creationists can also make the general public
falsely believe that soft-bodied fossils and articulated
fish and other vertebrate fossil are far more common and
abundant than they really are, they make the occurrence
of these fossils a matter far more mysterious than
it really is. Thus, it is important to emphasis that
intact fossil fish are in fact quite rare in respect to
the disarticulated bones of fish and articulated
skeletons are grossly atypical in terms of the state in
which fossils are normally preserved.
From just the very small percentages of intact fossil
fish found relative to disarticulated fish bones and
all other poorly preserved fossils, it is quite obvious
that the conditions under which intact fossil fish are
created are overall rare. In addition, the processes,
which create fossil fish are very limited in the area
over which they operate. This is not the signature of
a global catastrophe, but rather an limited area, e.g.
a very large or lagoon, and time during which the
conditions are just right for the fossilization of fish,
-
>This level of detail requires very rapid burial.
>Only in of the fossilization of soft parts is
>immediate burial required.
-
When soft tissue is fossilized, rapid fossilization and
eventual burial are general requirements. However, as
noted above, a global catastrophe is not required for
either rapid or eventual burial to take place. Even when
rapid burial occurs, it can be caused by any number of
non-catastrophic processes, such as a volcanic eruption,
landslide, undersea slump, single turbidity current,
river flood, diurnal tidal currents, hurricane, typhoon,
and so forth. Only someone completely uninformed about
these and similar geologic processes would argue that
only a catastrophic event, e.g. a mythical and
imaginary Noachian Flood to explain the rapid burial of
fossils.
Glen Morton discusses "Non-Catastrophic and Modern
Fossilization" at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
In a brief review published research on how fossils are
made, Glenn documents numerous papers, which document
modern examples that refute Mr. Pitman's claim that a
world-wide catastrophe of any sort is needed for the
preservation of soft-bodied fossils.
-
>At least at this level, but also at the level of
>intact skeletons.
-
Rapid burial helps, but is not always absolutely needed
for the preservation of intact fossil fish skeletons.
Briggs et al. (1993) noted that the decay rate can be
inhibited by both temperature and salinity and the
process of fossilization may continue for weeks. Rapid
burial is a great asset in terms of preservation, but
fossilization can begin even before the fossil fish is
buried. In cases where either a fossils falls into
toxic anoxic or highly saline bottom waters that
preclude scavenging.
Again, a person needs to remember that the preservation
of intact skeletons, whether they be fossil fish or any
other vertebrates are quite rare events. The vast
majority of vertebrate fossils are not intact skeletons.
The vast majority, which lie in the 99.999+ range of
vertebrate fossil, are disarticulated fossils. Many of
these scattered bones, commonly show the effects of
weathering and having been gnawed on, which clearly
demonstrate that many fossils were not rapidly buried.
In fact the effects of weathering and animals on the
bones show that they lay exposed for an extended period
of time and were **not** the remains of animals killed
and rapidly buried by a global catastrophe. Of course,
Young earth creationists don't want to talk about these
fossils. Rather, they want to focus largely on the more
showy and attention getting intact fossils that are quite
unrepresentative of the typical fossil a person normally
finds in the field.
There is additional discussion in the web page on
"Non-Catastrophic and Modern Fossilization" at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
-
>>This all has been documented by direct field
>>observation and other studies. Contrary to what Mr.
>>Pitman incorrectly claims, the hard part of animals
>>can persist for a significant period of time before
>>being finally buried.
>
>Generally not. Even "hard parts" weather fairly
>rapidly in open environments.
-
Contrary to what Mr. Pitman claims, bones does not always
weather rapidly in "open environments". If a person reads
through the published, a person finds that the rate at
which a fossil bone weathers all depends the location of
the bone in questions. On acidic soils and where there is
wide variation in temperature and moisture, the rates of
bone weathering can be quite rapid as Mr. Pitman states.
In other environments and on calcareous soils, bones can
last 8 to 15 years, which by my standard is not "fairly
rapidly" as documented by Behrensmeyer (1991). The is a
relatively long period of time during which at least a
few of these bones can be either buried by trampling,
wash into a nearby stream, or buried by river flood and
preserved and fossilized.
-
>Intact skeletons are especially prone to disarticulation.
-
This is true. However, this is why the vast majority of
vertebrate fossils found are disarticulated. Conventional
geologists and paleontologists would agree on this point.
-
>>In fact, the degree to which many fossil shells are
>>either encrusted or have been bored by other organisms
>>and bones show signs of either weathering or gnawing
>>demonstrates that they were not rapidly buried before
>>being fossilized.
-
>Encrustation and boring can occur very rapidly after
>death and even before the death of shelled creatures.
>Encrustation is quite commonly observed in living
>animals that walk along with entire colonies of
>other types of creatures living on their backs.
>Keeping a shell clean of critters is a constant battle
>for the owner of a shell.
-
Encrustation and boring can occur "rapidly". However,
relative a global flood that lasts about an year, the
rates of encrustation and boring can be quite "slow".
It takes several weeks to a month for the degree of
boring seen in many fossil shells. At this rate, a bed
containing bored and encrusted shells represents a
period of several weeks during which no sedimentation
occurred. When a person finds dozens to hundreds of such
beds within thousands of feet of sediment allegedly
deposited during such a flood, the amount of time that
sediment wasn't being deposited, while the shells weren't
being bored, during the accumulation of this stack of
sediment far exceeds the amount of time that Noah's
Flood is alleged to have taken place. The time during
which encrustation and boring was taking place would
have required unbelievable and unrealistic rates of
sedimentation even when the time for the accumulation
of these sediments happened to be a positive number.
Mr. Pitman's comments about encrusting and boring "even
before the death of shelled creatures." fails miserably
as an explanation. The types of borings and encrustation
that are seen on many fossils are simply not the type
which are formed during the life of an animal. They are
the type which form after it dies. Some examples, are the
encrusting fossils found on the articulated skeleton of a
Basilosaurus found at Montgomery Landing in Louisiana
(Lancaster 1986) and the encrusted ammonites found in
Jurassic black shale deposits, known both as the
"Posidonienschiefer" and "Posidonia Shale" which occur
in southwestern Germany. Within marl beds, that lie
between beds of black shale, fossils of ammonites lying
on their site are abundant. These ammonites are always
encrusted and bored on the side facing upward indicating
that the encrustation and boring occurred after the
ammonite had died and its shell had settled flat on the
bottom of the sea floor. Such ammonites must have lay
on the bottom for months while other animals grew on it
and bored into it shell. The encrusting fossils show
that only after a period of many months or even years
was the ammonite finally buried (Kaufman 1981,
Wild 1990).
In the "Posidonienschiefer" and "Posidonia Shale",
Kaufman (1981) and Wild (1990) observed direct evidence
of "bacterial decay and scavenging" of ichthyosaur
fossils also indicating long period during which the
upper surface of their carcasses were exposed before
being buried. The evidence of decay in many ichthyosaur
skeletons, although still articulated, and the
scavenging indicate that these sediments did not
accumulate at a catastrophically rapid rate as claimed
by Young Earth creationists. They also indicate that these
and better preserved intact ichthyosaur skeletons are
not indicative of rapid burial associated with
catastrophic event.
References Cited
Kaufman, Erie G. (1981) Ecological reappraisal of the
German Posidonienschiefer. in J. Gray, A. J. Boucot, W. B.
N. Berry, eds., Communities of the Past. Huthchinson Ross
Publishing Company. Strousburg, PA.
Lancaster, W. C. (1986) The taphonomy of an archaeocete
skeleton and its associated fauna. In J. A. Schiebout
and W. van den Bold, eds., pp. 119-131, Montgomery
Landing Site, Marine Eocene (Jackson) of Central
Louisiana. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies.
Wild, R. (1990) Taphonomy; Taphonomy of fossil-
lagerstatten; Holzmaden. In Palaeobiology; a synthesis,
D. E. G. Briggs and P. R. Crowther, eds., pp. 282-28.
Blackwell Science Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom.
- ------
>The fact that there are a significant percentage of
>fossilized shells preserved in pristine condition speaks
>in favor of their rather rapid burial, en mass.
-
"Pristine condition" LOL :-) In the real world, there is
a big difference between what a person finds in outcrops
and what is illustrated in the carefully selected
figures that Young Earth creationists use to illustrate
their pamphlets and books. In the field a person would
find that the vast majority of fossils are not in anyway
anything approaching pristine condition. In addition,
the pictures found in scientific journals are biased
towards the well preserved / "pristine" specimens
because those are the specimens most useful for
describing new fossils, discussing taxonomy, and
interpreting the anatomy of fossils. Of course, the
readers of National Geographic and rock, mineral, and
fossil magazines expect to see gorgeous pictures of
fossils in the issues they pay for. The pictures of
fossils published in the religious, scientific, or
popular publications portray an extremely biased view
of the typical condition of the average fossil.
For any collection of pristine shells, there are bed
upon bed of fossil hash in the geologic record. For each
intact skeleton of a fish or any other vertebrate, there
are millions of isolated bones and bone fragment. The
reality of the fossil record is that "fossilized shells
preserved in "pristine condition" are only a very small
percentage of the fossils found in geologic record. The
the vast majority of fossils consists either of fossil /
shell hash or isolated, often broken, pieces of bone.
If "pristine fossils" were as common as Mr. Pitman
believes them to be, the law of supply and demand being
what it is, a person wouldn't find these fossils selling
for tens of dollars to thousands of dollars on Ebay. The
inexpensive fossils are typically either rather beat up,
poorly preserved, or fragments. For example, if there are
"billions and billions" of well-preserved fossil fish in
Old Red Sandstone, as claimed by Mr. Pitman, they should
be easy enough to find where they should sell for only a
few pennies each. Instead, prices for common fish fossils
from the Old Red Sandstone range from 40.00 to 70.00
dollars a fish to 125.00 to over a 1,000 dollars a fish
for the larger and less common varieties. There is no
cartel like DeBeers or OPEC controlling the price of
fossil fish from the Old Red Sandstone.
-
....text deleted...
-
>>t this time, enough research has been done by
>>geologists and paleontologists where the proposal that
>>fossilization is catastrophe dependent can easily be
>>demonstrated to be completely refuted.
-
Glen Morton briefly reviews this research in "Non-
Catastrophic and Modern Fossilization" at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
-
When Young Earth creationists, including you, discuss
the topic of "fossilization is catastrophe dependent."
you don't limit yourself to fish fossils. If you are
talking only about fish fossils, you shouldn't use such
a broad, all-encompassing statement like "fossilization
is catastrophe dependent." Instead, you should indicate
that you are specifically discussing fish fossils by
making any statement more specific such as saying
"fossilization of fish is catastrophe dependent".
-
>Fish simply do not lay on the surface of the ocean floor
>very long and remain intact if they are not buried
>quickly.
-
Since fossil fish beds are more common associated with
lake deposits, not oceans, I will discuss lakes, not
oceans or seas. However, there are fossil fish-bearing
deposits associated with seas and oceans such as Miocene
diatomites in California, Pennsylvanian shales in the
Mid-west United States, and Jurassic shales in Germany.
I would be interested to know how Mr. Pitman knows that
fish simply do lay on the bottom of either a lake, ocean,
or lagoon after they die. Has he personally studied
enough anoxic and highly saline bottoms of stratified
lakes to make this generalization? Or has he mastered
the paranormal technique of remote viewing, where he can
sit in his armchair and search lake bottom after lake
bottom for dead fish? :-) :-) :-) [ For the record, I
believe that the technique of remote viewing is New Age
hogwash.]
In case of anoxic and highly saline lake bottoms, the
bottom of a stratified lake or lagoon can be devoid of
life, while the upper water layers of them can have fish
happily swimming in it. In such case, the bottom of the
lake or lagoon will be too toxic for any sort of life to
exist. If bottom scavengers are absent from the bottom of
a lake or lagoon because it is devoid of oxygen or too
saline for them, then dead fish can lie on the bottom of
the lake or lagoon. Even off of the coast of Louisiana,
a large anoxic dead zone appears, in which the bottom is
annually devoid of all life.
Finally, Mr. Pitman seems completely unaware of the fact
that many lakes lack a well defined bottom on which dead
fossil would lie, as on a dinner plate, for scavengers to
dine on. In many lakes, the half meter to couple of meters
consists of a semifluid muck. This muck is sediment that
has settled out of the water column and has just started
to dewater and consolidated into relatively firm sediment.
It is incapable of supporting even the weight of dead
fish. In such cases, the fish "buries" itself as the
weight of a dead fish cause it sink into the lake bottom
a fraction of to many centimeters as a person would sink
if he or she walked onto quicksand. In such cases, "rapid
burial" of the fish results only the weight of the dead
fish without the assistance of any type of catastrophe.
-
>The fossil record shows clear evidence of catastrophic
>burial on a huge scale. Catastrophic burial and
>fossilization is the rule and not the exception in the
>fossil record.
-
Young Earth creationists keep repeating this over and
over again as their central dogma and mantra. However,
as Glen Morton comments on in his web site on "Non-
Catastrophic and Modern Fossilization" at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm ,
the fossil bones , fossil fish, fossil leaves, fossil
shells, which Mr. Pitman and other Young Earth
creationists use as their evidence for catastrophe are
easily explained by non-catastrophic processes that can
either be observed happening today or replicated in the
laboratory. The fact of the matter fossilization is
still happening with every flood, with every sandstorm,
and in the bottom of many lakes and oceans.
-
>Mass graveyards with bones piled thickly together are
-
Just as I thought. Although Mr. Pitman was "only" talking
about fossil fish, he starts talking about bone beds, like
those found at the Lubbock Lake Site above. I guess my
previous discussion about how fossil graveyards can be
found forming in the Southern High Plains of Texas as
a result of non-catastrophic processes is not as
"off-topic" as Mr. Pitman claimed it to be. :-) :-) :-)
Previous arguments by Mr. Pitman has previously that the
articulated skeletons of fossil vertebrates can only be
preserved by rapid burial and, thus, a diagnostic sign of
the catastrophic origin of bone beds are easily refuted.
They are refuted by well-preserved and articulated
vertebrate skeletons are associated with the Lubbock
Lake and other similar Holocene bones beds. For example,
at the Olsen-Chubbock Site on the eastern Colorado
Plains, out of the remains of about 190 bison recovered
from the site about 14 were completely articulated and
another 27 nearly completely articulated. The remainder
of the animals were in various stages of disarticulation
depending the degree that the Paleo-Indians had butchered
them. Some of these sub-fossil, bison skeletons were
found to be either fully or almost fully articulated
despite being thousands of years old and at one time
expose to surface weathering and disturbance. The other
subfossil bison skeletons were completely and partially
disarticulated when the bison were processed for food.
According to the arguments of Mr. Pitman about how
quickly bone disintegrates and skeletons are quickly
disarticulated when they are not immediately buried, the
none of the bison bones found at the Olsen-Chubbock Site
neither should have been preserved nor, at least,
remained articulated. Yet, despite the fact that the dead
bison left behind at the Olsen-Chubbock Site were neither
buried by the Native Americans who killed them nor
quickly buried by some catastrophic event, a bone bed,
which Young Earth creationists, often call a "mass
graveyard", was preserved and the bones of the animals in
it remained articulated. The Olsen-Chubbock and other
similar archaeological sites clearly refute the
contention that imaginary /mythical global catastrophes
are needed to rapidly bury bone in order for it to be
preserved and fossilized. These bone beds and their
articulated skeletons show that catastrophic burial is
unneeded to explain the occurrence of articulated fossil
skeletons. At such sites, the role of catastrophic
processes can be confidently excluded in the preservation
of bone beds and articulated skeletons.
Furthermore, with such bone beds it is repeatedly
demonstrated that the preservation of bone and
articulated skeletons, can repeatedly be the result of
non-catastrophic processes, e.g. slopewash, overland,
flow, overbank flooding, and blowing sand. That Olsen-
Chubbock Site is only one of many such sites where both
bone and articulated skeletons are preserved shows that
when conditions are favorable for the preservation of
bone and articulation, both occurred on a regular and
predictable basis. For example, bones beds containing
well preserved bone, including some articulated skeletons
can be found at the Bison Licking Site (northwest
Kansas), Bonfire Shelter Site (Southern Texas), the
Cooper Site (northwest Oklahoma), The Certain Site
(central Oklahoma), and the Cooper Site (north-central
Oklahoma). An observant person looking at the general
distribution of these sites might correctly infer that
one factor governing the preservation of bone and the
articulation of bones at these sites is not their "rapid"
burial by some sort of global catastrophe. Rather, this
person can ready infer that regional climate and the
calcareous nature of the soils and sediments in which
they eventually became buried.
For examples of the degree of articulation, which
according to Mr. Pitman's arguments shouldn't exist
except for bone beds rapidly buried by a catastrophic
flood, that can be found in bone beds buried by non-
catastrophic events, a person can look at pictures
from the Bison Licking Site in northwest Kansas at:
http://www.sdsmt.edu/wwwsarc/projects/buff/2000/00fig4.html
http://www.sdsmt.edu/wwwsarc/projects/buff/2000/00fig5.html
This site is thousands of years old and was not "rapidly
buried" by a global catastrophe and yet the bones are
very well preserved and many of them are still
articulated as the pictures show.
-
>seen as well as millions of well preserved shells and
>fish all fossilized together...to include soft part
>preservation.
-
Again Mr. Pitman, like many Young Earth creationists, is
misrepresenting the nature of the fossil record. What
he quite uninformed about is that for each well preserved
shell, there are huge volumes of shell / fossil hash in
the geologic record. For each intact skeleton of a fish
or any other vertebrate, there are thousands of isolated
bones and bone fragment. The reality of the fossil record
is that the millions of well-preserved shells that he
discusses about are only a minor percentage of all of
the fossils found in geologic record, while the vast
majority of fossils consists of fossil / shell hash. As
a person who has collected fossils for all of his life,
I know from experience there are many outcrops of fossil
bearing strata that consist of nothing but fossil / shell
hash consisting of badly fragmented and worn fossil
fragments. This hash of fossil shells consists of the
remains of shells that weren't buried soon enough to
prevent weathering, scavenging, boring, and "washing
about" in rivers, oceans, and seas from reducing them to
small fragments called "hash" by geologists and
paleontologists.
-
>The same is true for plants. Fossilized trees also
>generally show evidence of watery transport and
>rapid burial.
-
I have to wonder if Mr. Pitnman and other Young Earth
creationists look hard and objectively at what is
happening in the world around them? If Mr. Pitman would
watch any river or major stream during a flood, he would
find large volumes of wood, leaves, and other woody
debris being carried down them. A very small percentage,
but still substantial volume, of this material is
eventually buried in floodbasins (e.g. Atchafalaya Basin),
deltas, and floodplains of these rivers. The buried plant
material that is buried non-catastrophically in these
areas can be readily seen in cores taken for the building
of bridges, dikes, and other structures across them.
An example of plant material buried and preserved by
non-catastrophically processes in a modern lake was
described by Glen Morton in the thread "Re:
fossilization" posted to the ASA Evolution mailing list
on January 26, 1998 at:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199801/0176.html
In the article, Glen Morton Stated:
"As to leaves, I would suggest looking at Robert A.
Spicer, "The sorting and Deposition of Allochthonous
Plant material in a Modern Environment at Silwood
Lake, Silwood Park, Berkshire, England" U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1143 (1981) p. 43.
Cores taken from the lake show several layers of leaf
litter still preserved at various depths. Core RB1 has
leaves from the surface to .1 meter. A leaf layer at
.25 m, .575 m, .6 m, 1.0-1.1 m, 1.3 m, 1.45 m.
Core DF1 has leaves in the sediment from .6 -.9 m
and from 1.1 m to 1.2 m.
Other cores shown in Figure 44 show other buried and
preserved leaf beds in the shallowest portion of the
leaves."
More information can be found at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
Reference Cited:
Spicer in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1143
described in detail how well preserved plant material is
buried by non-catastrophic processes.
The leaves found in Silwood Lake are typical of what is
found in many lakes as demonstrated by the recovery of
plant macrofossils, some thousands of years old from
cores taken from hundreds of lakes all over the world as
can be seen in " TERRESTRIAL AND LIMNIC MACROFOSSILS" at:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/parcs/chapter3.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/plantmacros.html
The abundance of plant fossils in the sediments that
underlie modern lakes completely refute that catastrophic
global flooding is required for the formation of fossil
leaves. In fact, recently published research demonstrated
that fossilization of plant material like leaves starts
even before its burial. For example, Dunn (1997) found:
"Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant
detritus are colonized and decomposed by a variety of
microorganisms and macroinvertebrates. However, decay
of whole plant organs such as leaves can take as long
as months to years, which provides a window of time
during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can
commence before much decomposition can occur."
As far as how the actual fossilization occurs, Dunn
(1997) stated:
"Terrestrial leaf fossils often form through authigenic
preservation in which the leaf surface is coated by a
variety of minerals, especially iron oxides. The
mechanism of this fossilization is unclear, because the
largely hydrophobic leaf surfaces do not readily bind
metal ions. Previously proposed mechanisms for mineral
encrustation include precipitation of minerals in
sediment pore space and precipitation of iron oxides at
the surface by decay-produced CO2. Here we demonstrate
that diverse bacterial species rapidly colonize leaf
surfaces and form a biofilm within days of the leaf's
entry into a stream environment. Experimental
mineralization of fresh and biofilm-coated leaves
indicates that leaves without biofilm do not
mineralize, but leaves with biofilms rapidly adsorb
metal ions such as Fe3+ onto the anionic biofilm
surface where the ions form ferrihydrite. Once
these mineralized leaves are buried by the sediment,
they are more likely to be converted to fossils than
non-mineralized leaves. Examination of a fossil leaf
surface by scanning electron microscopy shows bacteria-
sized structures resembling those found in biofilms.
These experimental data imply that bacterial
colonization of leaves may be an essential prerequisite
for authigenic preservation."
Reference Cited:
Dunn, K. A., R. J. C. McLean, G. R. Upchurch, and
R. L. Folk (1997) Enhancement of Leaf Fossilization
Potential by Bacterial Biofilms. vol. 25, no. 12,
pp. 1119-1222
An examination of sediments associated with modern river
systems also readily and completely refutes the claim by
Mr. Pitman that plant material is preserved only
catastrophic processes. If Mr. Pitman would bother to
study both these deposits in person and what have written
about them, he would that the point bar, abandoned
channel, and backswamp deposits, none of which were
created by catastrophic processes, contain an abundance
of subfossil wood, leaves, pollen, and other plant
material in them. Immense amounts of subfossil wood,
leaves, and other plant material, all buried and
preserved by non-catastrophic processes can be found
preserved in the sediments underlying the alluvial
valleys of modern rivers and streams.
In fact, the non-catastrophic burial was effective at
burying and preserving entire canoes, boats, and ships
in river sediments. Some examples are discussed in the
January 10, 1998 issue of "Science News". In it Perkins
(1998) discussed various historic shipwrecks that have
been found by archaeologists in the last few years. Two
of these shipwrecks, the "Arabia" which found beneath a
Kansas cornfield and the "Bertrand" found near Missouri
Valley, Iowa sank and later buried intact by the shifting
of the Missouri River rather then by any catastrophe.
Recently, the relatively intact hull of a riverboat with
the bones of horses that perished on it was found in the
point bar deposits of the Red River in Louisiana as have
the relatively intact remains of the Civil War gunboat
"U.S.S. Eastport" and the late 1880s steamboat "S. S.
Dix" (Albertson (1995, 1996).
All of these riverboats and gunboat were buried by the
gradual shifting of a river, not by any "rapid catastrophic
burial." Once buried, their hulls have remained intact
for over a hundred years because of the completely water-
logged and saturated nature of fluvial sediments. These
buried ships further refute the claim that "rapid
catastrophic burial" is required for the burial and
preservation of much smaller logs, leaves, and plant
material. Instead, more mundane and non-catastrophic
processes, i.e. the meanderng of rivers, are capable of
burying and preserving plant materials as fossils.
Similar remains of wooden ships have been found all
along the Mississippi, Missouri, and other rivers. All
over coastal Louisiana, the wooden remains of shipwrecks,
including the Civil War "Arrow," be found within the
rivers and bayous of Louisiana (Pearson et al. 1991).
One of many other cases is an intact, 400 to 500 year old
Native American dugout canoe that was found deeply buried
in fluvial sediments along Steele Bayou, an abandoned
channel of the Mississippi River. This was designated as
Site 22WS776 (Fuller 1992).
The abstract for Fuller (1992) states:
"In August of 1989 a dugout canoe was discovered
during dredging operations in Steele Bayou in
Washington County, Mississippi. The canoe, was
found in the bank of a section of the bayou that flows
through Swan Lake, a relict meander loop of the
Mississippi River. After inspection of the canoe and
its location, archaeologists with the Vicksburg District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Mississippi
Department of Archives and History made
arrangements to temporarily protect the vessel and
to have it recovered and preserved."
The abstract for Fuller (1992) further states:
"When recovered the canoe was found to be entirely
complete and amazingly well preserved. Analyses and
interpretations of the canoe and its setting indicate
it is late Mississippian in age, probably dating
around A.D. 1500-1600. Associated artifacts and
biotic remains are believed to be accumulations of
redeposited, water-borne materials that collected
in and around the flow shadow created by the canoe.
The position and condition of the vessel suggest it
may have been abandoned at the location where it was
found. After recovery and recordation, the canoe was
transported to the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge
headquarters where it will undergo conservation."
Within the river deposits associated with this canoe, the
archaeologists found the teeth and bones of reptiles and
fish and the shells of freshwater snails and mussels that
had accumulated naturally. Also, an abundance of wood
and other plant material was recovered from these
sediments (Fuller 1992).
It is quote clear from the above examples that the burial
and preservation of organic materials, i.e. shells and
wood, doesn't not required catastrophic processes. In
the above cases, the normal shifting of a river is
sufficient to bury and preserve objects as large as
riverboats such that they might eventually be preserved
within the sedimentary record. According to Mr. Pitman's
criteria, if the above canoe was a fossil, its "amazingly
well preserved" condition would be immediate and
definitive evidence of it having been buried by a global
catastrophe. Only in this case, the role of catastrophic
processes in the burial of this canoe can be excluded
with absolute confidence.
References Cited;
Fuller, R. S. (1992) Archaeological Recovery and Analysis
of an Indian Dugout Canoe (Site 22 WS 776) Discovered in
the Bank of Steele Bayou, Swan Lake, Washington County,
Mississippi. Final report by Coastal Environments, Inc.
prepared under Contract Number DACW38-89-D-0038,
Delivery Order no. 7, for the Vicksburg District U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Pearson, C. E., B. L. Guevin, and A. R. Saltus (1991)
Remote Sensing Survey of the Lower Pearl and West Rivers,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Final report by Coastal
Environments, Inc. prepared under Contract Number
DACW38-89-D-0038, Delivery Order no. 8, for the Vicksburg
District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Perkins, S. (1998) Freshwater Finds: Inland Waters Yield
a Trove of Artifact, History, and Mystery. Science News.
vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 17-32.
-----
More examples of wooden shipwrecks preserved by non-
catastrophic processes are discussed by Glen Morton at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
Having personally inspected polystrate trees in the Black
Warrior Basin of Alabama, I can easily conclude that Mr.
Pitman is also totally wrong about any of them showing
any "evidence of watery transport". For more information
about the polystrate trees in the Black warrior Basin
coal fields, a person can go read:
Gastaldo, R. A. (1990) Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests
in the Mary Lee coal zone, Warrior Basin, Alabama.
in R. A. Gastaldo and others, pp. 41-54, Carboniferous
Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the Mary Lee
Coal Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. Guidebook
for the Field Trip VI, Alabama Geological Survey,
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Modern equivalents of these and other coal measure
polystrate fossils have been found in borrow pits, dug
canals, and other excavations in the Atchafayala Basin,
marshes that border Lake Pontchartrain and Maurepas,
parts of the Mississippi Delta, and the modern floodplain
of the Mississippi River. Studies are in progress on
these recent, buried polystrate forests. It would be
absolutely absurd and laughable for Mr. Pitman to argue
that these buried polystrate fossil forests were created
by catastrophic processes.
-
.... text deleted...
-
>>>From my understanding, practically all fossils of fish
>>>show evidence of catastrophic burial... en masse. In
>>>other words, the fish were alive and well when they were
>>>suddenly buried alive.
-
That fossil fish frequently show evidence of having
partially decomposed and more than a few show some sign
of disarticulation of their skeleton, it is quite clear
that the fish were dead and rotting when they were
buried. Classic examples of decomposition and partially
disarticulation of fossil fish are found in the
Achanarras fish bed of the Old Red Sandstone as
illustrated by Figures 15, 18, and 12b of Trewin (1986).
In addition, Trewin (1986) noted that even the well-
preserved fossil fish from the Achanarras fish bed,
e.g. Figure 12a, show a concave-upward spinal curvature
indicative of rigor mortis and bloating from
decomposition. Such fossils show that these fossil fish
certainly weren't alive when they were buried.
Reference Cited
Trewin, N. H. (1986) Palaeoecology and sedimentology of
the Achanarras fish bed of the Middle Old Red Sandstone,
Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
vol. 77, pp. 21-46.
-
>> If Mr. Pitman would research the fossilization of
>>fish, he would find the statement "practically all
>>fossils of fish show evidence of catastrophic burial" to
>>be a rather gross exaggeration of what the facts show.
>>For example, the research by Maisey (1991) of the
>>origins of the Santana fossil fish clearly demonstrates
>>the lack of catastrophe in their formation. Rather, they
>>represent fish that died and sank to the bottom of a
>>large anoxic lake over a period of thousands of years.
>>The decay of the fish on the bottom precipitated
>>carbonate minerals that preserved them as fossils.
>
>In modern times, how often do you see this picture
>proposed by Maisey happening?
-
Because geologists and paleontologists don't have
x-ray vision which can allow them see beneath lakes,
this is a difficult process to "see" happening. The
murky and low visibility of many lake bottoms make
them very difficult to examine what is happening
even though a person could use either scuba gear or
remote controlled vehicles to inspect the bottom.
I don't know of anyone, either Young Earth creationist
nor conventional paleontologist, who has actually tried
to inspect the bottom of a number of lakes to try and
find fish fossilizing at the bottom of lake. At this
point, observations and data needed to answer this
question, as far as I have found, have not been
collected. As a result, neither I nor Mr. Pitman can
answer this question.
It would be very difficult, even if a person did
visually inspect the bottom of several lakes to actually
find fish in the process of being fossilized. As I have
previously noted, many lakes lack a well defined bottom
on which dead fossil would lie and a person could be
easily located. In many lakes, the half meter to couple
of meters of sediments underlying the bottom consists
of a semifluid to fluid muck. This muck is sediment that
has settled out of the water column and has just started
to dewater and consolidate into relatively firm sediment
capable of supporting the weight even of dead fish. In
such cases, the fish "buries" itself as the weight of
fish will cause it sink and simply "disappear" into
the lake bottom. Thus, it is extremely difficult for
study, even find such fish, on the lake bottom. This
is a major reason people have not tried to do such
research.
-
>Fish simply do not fossilize in modern "anoxic lakes"
>like they did in the past.
-
From what I have seen published in the scientific
literature, the data and observations need to make
this conclusion have not been collected. As a result,
Mr. Pitman has neither the data nor the observations
to support the claim that "Fish simply do not fossilize
in modern "anoxic lakes" like they did in the past."
This is nothing more than his highly fallible personal
opinion, which lacks any hard data to support it.
However, using the published literature, a person can
test whether the formation of well-preserved fish fossils
is restricted to strata that Young Earth creationists
regard as having formed during their postulated Noachian
Flood. Although there is incredibly wide range of
disagreement of where the boundary between "Flood" and
"post-Flood" deposits belong among Young Earth
creationists, the vast majority of Young Earth
creationists agree with Oard (1990a, 1990b) that the
sediments which conventional geologists as belonging to
the Pleistocene Period were deposited during an Ice Age
that came immediately after the global catastrophic
flood, which Pitman argues was when all of the fossil
fish beds were deposited. If Mr. Pitman is correct about
the statement fossilization of fish being catastrophe
dependent, then a person should not be able to find any
examples of fossil fish in the "Post-flood" deposits,
which conventional geologists and paleontologists have
classified as belonging to either the Pleistocene Epoch
or the Quaternary Period.
Glen Morton did a brief examination of the scientific
literature for what has been published about Quaternary
/ Pleistocene fossil fish, which he has published some of
the result of at:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199801/0164.html
and
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
One article that Mr. Morton found was Weeks (1953), which
was published about 49 years ago. In this paper, Week
(1953) discussed and illustrated fossil fish-bearing that
were only a few thousand years old. In respect to these
concretions, Weeks (1953) stated:
"Among the most interesting occurrences of fish-bearing
concretions are those that are being found in Recent or
sub-Recent marine clays in various places along the
coasts of Greenland and northern Canada. Figure 5 shows
one of these specimens from the American Museum which
Dr. Scaeffer kindly permitted the writer to have
photographed. The concretions occur in marine clays
which apparently were raised above sea level by the
isostatic rebound that followed the melting of the
Pleistocene ice cap. The fact that concretions have
already been developed in these very young clays seems
significant."
In another case, fossils of land-locked Kokanee salmon
have been recovered from nodules that eroded from
outcrops of Pleistocene clay on the shore of Kamloops
Lake, British Columbia. The fossil salmon, which are
found in these concretions belong to the genus
Oncorhynchus.
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/gsc/calgary/canpal/pastlives/37_e.html
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/gsc/calgary/canpal/pastlives/images/groupnod.jpg
In another case, similar, abundant intact fossil fish,
of a wide variety of genera, are found in Pleistocene age
nodules from sediments of glacial Lake Champlain near
Ottawa, Ontario. These fossil fish are discussed by
McAllister et al. (1981, 1986).
The occurrence of intact fossil fish in both Holocene
Pleistocene strata elsewhere in the world, e.g. Norway,
which Young Earth creationists would interpret as being
been deposited after the catastrophic flood and of being
of non-catastrophic origin clearly refutes the claim by
Mr. Pitman that the fossilization of fish either occurred
only during a postulated Global floor and is catastrophe
dependent.
References Cited:
McAllister, D. E., S. L. Cumbaa, and C. R. Harington
(1981) Pleistocene Fishes (Coregonus, Osmerus,
Microgadus, Gasterosteus) from Green Creek, Ontario,
Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. vol. 18,
pp. 1356-1364.
McAllister, D. E., C. R. Harington, and S. L. Cumbaa
(1986) Fossil fish in peri-Champlain Sea deposits in
Eastern Canada. In GAC, MAC, CGU 1986 joint annual
meeting; program with abstracts. Geological Association
of Canada; Mineralogical Association of Canada;
Canadian Geophysical Union, Joint Annual Meeting.
vol. 11, p. 100.
Oard. M. J. (1990) A Post-flood ice-age model can
account for Quaternary features. Origins vol. 17,
no. 1, pp. 8-26.
Oard, M. J., (1990) An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis
Flood." Institute for Creation Research Monograph.
Weeks, L. G. (1953) Environment and Mode of Origin and
Facies Relationships of Carbonate Concretions in Shales.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 23, no. 3,
pp. 162-173.
-
....text deleted...
>> In case of the fossil fish found in the Old Red
>>Sandstone of Scotland, studies by Trewin and Davidson
>>(1995) demonstrated that these fossils are not the
>>result of some mythical catastrophe. Instead, the fish
>>died when the lake they lived in dried up and as the
>>fish decayed in muddy bottom of the lake, carbonate
>>mineral precipitated around them and preserved them
>>as fossils.
>
>Old Red Sandstone in England has billions upon billions
>of fish, spread over 10,000 square miles, with as many
>as a thousand fish fossils in one square yard.
-
First, Mr. Pitman presents a fictional statistic in his
defense. The claim of there being "billions upon billions
of fish" in the Old Red Sandstone sound like a somewhat
twisted parody of Carl Sagan and his "Cosmos" television
series. A few Young Earth creationist publications have
written about "billions of billions" of fish fossils
having been found in the Old Red Sandstone. However,
they, e.g. the Evolution Cruncher", don't provide any
citation as to who calculated this figure and how it
was calculated. Apparently, the reader is left to accept
as a matter of faith that either Mr. Pitman or the author
either counted all of these billions and billions of fish
or somehow found a way to accurately estimate the number
of fossil fish in Old Red Sandstone.
The area over which the fossils have been found, 10,000
square miles, is entirely consistent with deposition of
the flagstones, which contain the intact fossil fish,
within prehistoric lakes. There are several modern lakes
and inland seas that are and exceed this size. This area
is only a fraction of the size of the five largest lakes
now known to exist. These five lakes are:
1. Caspian Sea (Asia-Europe) - 143,244 square miles
2. Superior (North America) - 31,700 square miles
3. Victoria (Africa) - 26,828 square miles
4. Aralb (Asia) - 24,904 square miles
5. Huron (North America) - 23,010 square miles
These figures are from "What Are The Five Largest Lakes
In The World?" at:
http://mbgnet.mobot.org/fresh/lakes/largest.htm
In addition, Lake Michigan has a surface area of 22,400
square miles, Aral Sea has a surface area of 26,166
square miles, Great Bear Lake (Canada) has a surface area
of 12,800 square miles, and Great Slave Lake (Canada) has
an area of 11,172 square miles. This data is from:
http://www.schoolofflyfishing.com/resources/worldslakes.htm
The area covered by the fossil-bearing flagstones in the
Old Red Sandstone is comparable to the extent to many
modern lakes. As a result, a mythical global catastrophe
is not needed to explain the area covered by fossil-
bearing flagstones within the "Old Red Sandstone".
As far as the there being "as many as a thousand fish
fossils in one square yard" to be found in the flagstone
beds found in the Old Red Sandstone, I have yet to find
the primary source for this figure. The creationist
articles, which use this figure, fail to provide either
a primary source or information about who calculated
this figure.
However, I emailed a couple of fossil collectors /
advocational paleontologists in the United Kingdom.
They consider this figure to be almost unbelievably high
for the Old Red Sandstone and at best an estimate of the
maximum density of fossil fish for a very small area of
a few meters extent. In their opinion, a person is lucky
to find 5 to 15 intact fossil fish per square yard along
a single bedding plane within the Old Red Sandstone. I
will attempt to find some values for the density of intact
fish fossils within the Old Red Sandstone flagstones from
the published literature. (Unfortunately, I can't provide
the names of the fossil hunters because they depend on a
very ardent Young Earth creationist land owner for access
to some very nice fossil beds.)
-
>Trewin and Davidson also note a high level of soft part
>preservation to include markings of internal organs as
>well as eyes. I fail to see how this level of
>preservation is possible without very rapid burial.
-
The phrase "high level of soft part preservation" grossly
distorts and misrepresents the degree of preservation of
the fossil fishes that Davidson and Trewin (1999) and
Trewin and Davidson (1999) found at Tynet Burn and Gamrie
in northeast Scotland. The fossil fish, which had some
evidence of eyes and internal organs, were limited only to
"a number of rare specimens of acanthodians from both
sites". The very few fossil fish exhibiting faint
indications of internal organs are a distinct minority
of the 208 fossil fish collected by Trewin and Davidson
(1999) and 547 museum specimens of fossil fishes from
Tynet Burn that they studied. In addition, concerning the
preservation of fossil fish from Tynet Burn, Trewin and
Davidson (1999), stated:
"Fish remains from Tynet Burn show a range from full
articulation of carcasses with preservation of delicate
fin webs, through complete disarticulation into
isolated scales and bones (Fig. 10)."
In addition, most of the nodule beds, lying below the
nodule bed excavated and studied by Trewin and Davidson
(1999) at Tynet Burn, contain only an abundance of
completely disarticulated fish scales and bones from
which less than a half dozen complete fish have been
collected over the last hundred years. It is inaccurate
and highly misleading to describe a few fossil fish
having indistinct remnants of internal organs, when
hundreds of other fossil fishes lacking any indication
of such soft parts and abundant completely disarticulated
remains of many, possibly thousands of more fish, from
adjacent beds, as being indicative of an exceptional and
high level of soft part preservation within these strata
overall.
The "high level of preservation" of the eyes and internal
organs is also overemphasized. The fossil eyes are
dark 'spots' in the heads of acanthodians that are found
only at the Gamrie locality. The fossil eyes were not
found at Tynet Burns. These eyes are nothing more than
circular dark stains that would be unrecognizable as
eyes, except for their shape and location. The fossil
internal organs also consist of indistinct "dark traces',
lacking internal structure, that were recognized as
internal organs largely because they occur within the
fossil fish's body cavity at locations analogous with the
sites of internal organs in modern fishes (Davidson and
Trewin 1999). This rather crude level of the preservation
of internal structures as structureless smudges can be
explained by known and observed non-catastrophic
processes of fossilization like those discussed by
Briggs et al. (1997).
In other fossil fish beds in Old Red Sandstone, e.g.
Trewin (1986), none of the thousands of fossil fishes
that have been excavated and studied exhibited no
preservation of soft parts. As previously discussed,
many of these fossil fish show clear evidence of rigor
mortis and decomposition before burial. Extremely rare
soft parts preserved as structureless smudges hardly
qualifies as "high level of preservation" relative the
innumerable disarticulated fossil fishes, the numerous
partially disarticulated fossil fishes, and intact
fossil fish showing evidence of decomposition found in
the Old Red Sandstone.
References cited:
Briggs, D. E. G., P. R. Wilby, B. P. Perez-Moreno, J. L.
Sanz, and M. Fregenal-Martinez (1997) The mineralization
of dinosaur soft-tissue in the Early Cretaceous of
Las Hoyas, Spain. Journal of the Geological Society,
London vol. 154, pp. 587-588.
Davidson, R. G. and N. H. Trewin (1999) Unusual soft
tissue preservation in Middle Devonian fish-bearing
nodule beds. Palaeontological Association 43nd Annual
Meeting, University of Manchester 19-22 December 1999,
Manchester, United Kingdom.
Trewin, N. H. (1986) Palaeoecology and sedimentology of
the Achanarras fish bed of the Middle Old Red Sandstone,
Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
vol. 77, pp. 21-46.
Trewin, N. H. and R. G. Davidson (1999) Lake level
changes, sedimentation and faunas in a Middle Devonian
basin-margin fish bed. Journal of the Geological Society
of London. vol. 156, part 3, pp. 535-548.
Some on-line information about these fossil beds is
available in "Historical Articles" at:
http://www.caithness.org/history/articles/orcadianmiddleoldredsandstone.htm
....scientifically bankrupt mumble jumble about carbonate
precipitation and so forth deleted...
-
>>Having sailed and fished the bays, bayous, and rivers
>>of Louisiana, I can personally vouch that natural fish
>>kills involving entire shoals of fish are quite common
>>in nature. In them, the fish die in a state of agony
>>without the need of a catastrophe. This observation is
>>documented in numerous published papers. As Weigelt
>> 1989, page 163) observes:
-
>No one is questioning this fact. I have personally
>observed massive fish kills myself. The question
>here though is if these massive fish kills result
>in massive fossilization beds as we see in the fossil
>record.
-
Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that it is
entirely possible that fossil fish can be preserved
under non-catastrophic conditions as discussed in
detail by:
Martill, D. M. (1993) Soupy Substrates: A Medium
for the Exceptional Preservation of Ichthyosaurs
of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Jurassic) of Germany.
Kaupeia. vol. 2, pp. 77-97.
Wilby, P. R., D. E. G. Briggs, P. Bernier, and C
Gallard (1996) Role of Microbial Mats in the
Fossilization of Soft Tissues. Geology. vol. 24,
no. 9, pp. 787-790.
Glen Morton also briefly discusses such experiments at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
-
>As far as I can tell the answer is no.
-
Again, how does Mr. Pitman know that the answer is "no"?
-
>Why? because the fish in these massive fish kills
>rapidly decompose before they have a chance to be
>buried.
-
Fish kills do ***not*** have to be rapidly buried to be
preserved. If the fish sinks to the bottom of a lake or
lagoon that is too anoxic and saline for predators and
scavengers to exist, they will not be eaten. On the
bottom, fossilization can occur as a direct result
of this rapid decomposition. Experimental studies have
demonstrated that dead animals can fossilized over a
matter of weeks.
-
>In order to preserve the fine detail that we see in the
>fossil fish kills of the past, rapid burial is required.
-
As a I have stated before, it is documented in the
scientific literature by many published peer-reviewed
scientific papers that some stratified lakes and lagoons
have either highly anoxic or saline bottom waters that
are toxic to scavengers and predators. in these lakes,
fish do not have to be rapidly buried for them to be
fossilized, eventually buried and preserved. Also, when
burial occurs, Mr. Pitman falsely presumes that the
burial, whether it be rapid or otherwise, that it is
always associated with catastrophic events, e.g. global
floods There are many non-catastrophic ways in which
burial, rapid or otherwise, of a carcass can occur. For
example, a fish can be rapidly buried by falling onto
and sinking into the semi-fluid and fluid bottom of lake.
-
>>"Reports of enormous fish kills are plentiful: Almost
>>every ten years, a red mite appears in Walvis Bay,
>>South Africa and causes a fish kill of such magnitude
>> that the water is said to be completely covered with
>>dead fish.
>
>Again, were these fish kills fossilized?
-
Given that nobody, whom I can find, has examined the
bottom of Walvis Bay for subfossil fish, that is an
impossible question for either Mr. Pitman or me to
answer.
-
>I think not.
-
Mr. Pitman has no data, evidence, or observations to
support this opinion. As far as I can find, neither Mr.
Pitman nor anybody else has gone out into Walvis Bay and
either cored or dug up the bottom of it looking for
subfossil fish. As a result, Mr. Pitman has no way of
knowing whether or not that some of the fish from these
fish kills have or have not been preserved and are in the
process of being fossilized. Lacking such information,
a person would have to have the psychic ability of remote
viewing in order to know whether or not any of these fish
have been preserved and fossilized.
-
>Not only do you have to present how massive quantities
>of fish can all die together, but also how they can all
>be fossilized in relatively good condition... by slow
>burial. This has not been observed.
-
Mr. Pitman is wrong again about this process not having
been observed. Experimental studies, e.g. Briggs and Kear
(1993), Briggs et al. (1993), Hof and Briggs (1997) and
others have replicated the conditions that can be found
in numerous stratified water bodies. They clearly
demonstrated **how** fish and soft-bodied animals can be
fossilized, as they slowly decay, before being buried.
If Mr. Pitman needs to take the time to visit a college
library, search bibliographic databases, and read the
published papers that describe and document the results
of such experiments. In them, he would find that the
question about "how they can all be fossilized in
relatively good condition" has been answered by numerous
scientific experiments.
References Cited:
Briggs D. E. G. and A, J, Kear (1993) Fossilization of
Soft Tissue in the Laboratory. Science 259: 1439-1442
Briggs, D. E. G. A. J. Kear, D. M. Martill, and P. R.
Wilby (1993) Phosphatization of soft-tissue in
Experiments and Fossils," Journal of the Geological
Society, London. vol. 150, pp. 1035-1038.
Hoff, C. H. J., and D. E. G. Briggs (1997) Decay and
mineralization of Mantis Shrimps (Stomatopa: Crustacea) -
a key to their fossil record. Palios. vol. 12, no. 5.
pp. 420-438.
-
>This sort of fossilization simply requires a rapid
>burial event.
-
Again, there are numerous published papers that present
experimental studies that refute Mr. Pitman's mistaken
notion that "This sort of fossilization simply requires
a rapid burial event". The papers include:
Briggs D. E. G. and A, J, Kear (1993) Fossilization of
Soft Tissue in the Laboratory. Science 259: 1439-1442
Briggs, D. E. G. A. J. Kear, D. M. Martill, and P. R.
Wilby (1993) Phosphatization of soft-tissue in
Experiments and Fossils," Journal of the Geological
Society, London. vol. 150, pp. 1035-1038.
Hoff, C. H. J., and D. E. G. Briggs (1997) Dacey and
mineralization of Mantis Shrimps (Stomatopa: Crustacea)
- a key to their fossil record. Palios. vol. 12, no. 5.
pp. 420-438.
Martill, D. M. (1993) Soupy Substrates: A Medium
for the Exceptional Preservation of Ichthyosaurs
of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Jurassic) of Germany.
Kaupeia. vol. 2, pp. 77-97.
Wilby, P. R., D. E. G. Briggs, P. Bernier, and C
Gallard (1996) Role of Microbial Mats in the
Fossilization of Soft Tissues. Geology. vol. 24,
no. 9, pp. 787-790.
Glen Morton also briefly discusses such experiments at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
....redundant text and questions deleted...
-
>>If a person looks at the taphonomy and sedimentology of
>>the fossil fish beds in detail, the evidence for them
>>having been formed catastrophically either turns out to
>>be wishful thinking or not credible evidence at all of
>>any catastrophe having created them.
>
>I disagree. Evidence for rapid or catastrophic burial
>seems clearly evident.
-
Unfortunately, none of the evidence is as "clear" as
Mr. Pitman believes it to be as I have discussed at
length above.
-
>>>There are even some fossils of fish in the middle of
>>>eating other fish.
>>There two problems here. First, these fossils are
>>very extremely rare. So rare, that they are only
>>indicative of very rare events.
>
>Just imagine how many fish are eating other fish at any
>one moment in time. A relatively small percentage...
>right?
-
Yes, it is very common for fish to be eating each other.
Also, it is not uncommon for a fish to choke on another
fish and die. However, now all of these fish get
fossilized. Rarity is not in the fishing eating and some
stupid fish choking, but in the fish becoming fossilized.
-
>Considering this, the fact that we have fossils of
>this event frozen in time is pretty amazing indeed.
>We would expect a relatively few examples given a
>catastrophic scenario.
-
The fish is only frozen in time in the sense that once
it got a fish stuck in its throat and choked to death,
the fish swallowed remained stuck in its throat. If
the bottom conditions, where the dead fishes sunk to the
were not favorable for the fossilization, they were not
preserved. If the waters bottom of the lake, lagoon, or
sea had were anoxic and very highly saline or the bottom
consisted of soupy sediments, there was some chance
that they would have been fossilized. Whether these fish
were fossilized or not had nothing to do with
catastrophes. Rather, it is all a matter of the specific
environmental conditions at the bottom of the lake,
ocean, or lagoon in which they died.
-
>>>Finally, these fossils only demonstrate how some Young
>>>Earth creationists are incapable of recognizing a fish
>>>that choked on trying to eat a fish far larger than it
>>>could swallow.
-
>Really? The fish choked to death?
-
Unlike God, fish are not infallible. They do makes
mistakes and they can make misjudgments. Why do get the
feeling that Mr. Pitman is arguing that like God, fish
are infallible and incapable of making mistakes? :-) :-)
Could Mr. Pitman being advocating a new theological
doctrine, the principle of Pisces Infallibility ?? :-) :-)
-
>Then both of the fishes drifted down to the bottom
>of the lake and were perfectly preserved somehow
>without any significant evidence of decay or predation?
-
As I have previously explained, if the dead fish live in
a stratified lake or lagoon, they can quickly fall down
into bottom waters that are too toxic or saline for any
type of scavengers can live. Once on the bottom, the dead
fish can decompose unmolested. The decomposition will
start the fossilization process. In time, the typical
sedimentation that occurs in lakes will bury it and
preserve the dead fish as fossils. If the bottom of the
lake, lagoon, or sea was soupy, both fishes would have
sank and disappeared into the bottom as would someone
stepping into quicksand.
-
>Come on now.
>How often do you see fish choking on other fish today?
>Have you ever seen a fish choking on another fish that
>it is trying to eat?
-
Yes, Mr. Pitman is advocating Pisces Infallibility. He is
claiming that fish, like God, are infallible and are
incapable of making any mistakes. :-) :-) :-) Wait until
some neopagans find out that an Evangelical Christian is
claiming that fish are infallible as God. :-) :-)
Seriously, I talk with marine biologists at the Mineral
Management Services and they have seen at multiple times
fish floating on the surface which had died from trying
to swallow bigger than it can eat and choking on it.
Whether Mr. Pitman wants to believe it or not, fish are
fallible and do make fatal mistakes.
-
>But hey, lets just say that it can happen.
>A fish can have eyes bigger than its mouth.
-
Yes, it does happen because fish, contrary to Mr.
Pitman's doctrine of Pisces Infallibility, fish can and
do make mistakes.
-
>It tries to eat something that is just too big to
>handle. Its meal gets stuck and its gills get blocked,
>and so it suffocates to death. However rare this event
>might be, how rare would it be for these two struggling
>fish avoid being eaten by some other predator or
>scavenger before they became buried in the scavenger
>rich mud at the bottom?
-
Again, if the lake, lagoon, or sea is stratified. The
bottom layer of water can be quite toxic being either
too anoxic, too saline, or too full of hydrogen sulfide
for any predators or scavengers to live. In such lakes,
both scavengers and predators will be absent from the
bottom waters and from the bottom. Anything that falls
into the bottom water layer, will not be eaten by either
predators or scavengers. On the bottom, it will simply
decay and, if the conditions are right, the decay will
start to fossilize it. (Alternatively, if the bottom of
lake, sea, or ocean is soupy, then the dead fish will
rapidly sink into the bottom where other animals cannot
eat them. There, they can decay and, as a result of them
decaying, become fossilized. In this case, both rapid
burial and fossilization go together.
....
>>>Also, many of them show statistically significant
>>>alignment with each other. In other words, they are
>>>generally found in the same plane of orientation such
>>> as would be expected from a current deposit.
-
In terms of fossil fish, this not always the case. In
many fossil fish deposits, the distribution of fish is
completely random indicating that there weren't any
***bottom*** currents washing fish back and forth and
dumping sediments on top of them. Some fossil fish
deposits show some orientation. However, it would take
only the weakest of currents to orient dead fish lying
on the bottom of a lake. Extremely strong currents like
those associated with Mr. Pitman's catastrophic Noachian
Flood likely would have so strong that they would have
immediately shredded decaying fish whose bones would
have had only decayed muscles holding them together.
Evan moderate to very strong currents of non-catastrophic
origin would have shredded decaying fish.
-
>>Bottom currents are not unique to catastrophes. There
>>are currents at the bottom of lakes, streams, and so
>>forth.
-
>Not generally as widespread as we see in the fossil
>record.
-
Here, Mr. Pitman needs to learn more of what he talking
about. If a person compares modern sediments from both
terrestrial and underwater environments, a person find
just as much cross-bedding and orientation of fossils as
is seen in the rock record. Documentation of this claim
can be found in any good book on sedimentary structures
and facies. Some "good books" on this subject are:
Boggs, S. (1995) Principles of Sedimentology and
Stratigraphy, 2nd Edition: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 774p
Collinson, J. D., and T. D. Thompson (1989) Sedimentary
Structures. Chapman and Hall, London.
Pettijohn, F. J., and P. B. Potter (1964) Atlas and
Glossary of Primary Sedimentary Structures. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin.
Walker, R. G., and N. P. James (1992) Facies Models:
Response to Sea Level Change. Geological
Association of Canada, Ontario, Canada.
However, in case of Precambrian sediments, they
contain far more cross-bedding than a person would
normally find in modern sediments because burrowing
animals weren't around to churn sediments and destroy
the sedimentary structures that they contain.
-
....test deleted ...
-
> Also, you greatly exaggerate the degree
> that such fossil deposits show orientations. For
> example, the Santana fossil deposits and the Old Red
> Sandstone fossil fish don't show such orientations.
> Many of the Miocene diatomite fossil fish don't show
> such orientation. Basically, the presence of a current
> is **not** evidence of a catastrophe and **not** all
> fossil fish deposits even show the alignment and
> orientation that indicated the presence of a current.
-
>However, many fossils do show alignment with each
>other...especially larger fossils, like dinosaurs and
>trees. However, even smaller fossils such as shells,
>leaves and fish can and often do show stream
>orientation. Does this, by itself, mean that
>they were buried catastrophically? No.
>
>The evidence for sudden burial is found in the condition
>of the specimens themselves. -
-
As discussed above, the above statement is totally
incorrect. The condition of all of the specimens, which
Mr. Pitman offered as evidence of catastrophic processes
can all be explained by non-catastrophic processes that
have either been observed in the field or replicated by
laboratory experiments representative of known natural
condition. A very small part of the evidence provided
by Mr. Pitman appears to be fictional in nature.
-
>Stream orientation, when present, only helps to show
>that these animals probably didn't die and sink slowly
>to the body of some still, anoxic lake bed, to be
>gradually buried over an extended course of time.
-
First, the correct terminology is "current orientation"
not "stream orientation". Second, any fossil fish that
actually died in a stream would typically not be
preserved in a stream as the current would readily shred
decaying fish carcasses to pieces. Finally, the type of
laminated sediments found associated with fossil fish
are deposited by neither streams nor the strong and
churning currents that would characterize any global
catastrophe. Thus, it doesn't make any sense to interpret
the orientation of fossil fish found in lake sediments
to be stream orientation. It would be possible for a very
gentle, light, brief currents to orient dead fish on a
lake bottom. Such currents briefly occur even in the
most stagnant, as when the waters in the lake overturn
each year. If persistent currents existed on the bottom
of a lake, these currents would quickly disarticulate
the fish as would the currents of Mr. Pitman's global
catastrophic flood.
-
>>Some of the bone beds in the fluvial sediments
>>underlying Yellowhouse Draw near Lubbock, Texas in
>>Southern High Plains show the exact same type of
>>orientation. It would be foolish to argue that because
>>these bones are oriented, that they were deposited by a
>>catastrophe. They, like the oriented dinosaur bones and
>>plants are not oriented because of a catastrophe.
>>Rather, they just were by the currents of either the
>>river or flood that moved them around and preserved
>>them by dumping sediments on them.
-
>Ok, if you don't want to call stream orientation
>catastrophic, that's fine with me.
-
LOL,LOL. If water flowing in a stream or river is regarded
as "catastrophic", then the term becomes meaningless as by
that definition wind blowing sand in a sandstorm is just as
"catastrophic". By your previous definition, a person has to
ask; "What isn't "catastrophic?". Orientation of wood, of
leaves, of bones is produced everyday by non-catastrophic
processes in all sorts of natural environments.
-
>But, the fact remains that water currents were involved
>with many of these fossilized burials... sometimes on a
>massive scale.
-
Rivers and streams, both at flood and non-flood stage
orient logs and anything in their beds on a massive.
Tides orient logs, shells, bones, and anything else in
their channels every day on massive scale. Geostrophic
and other bottom currents in bays, lagoons, and all
over the continental shelf orient whatever is lying
exposed on the bottom. The fact of the matter is non-
catastrophic processes orient all sorts of things on
a massive scale daily. Even lahars produce orientation
on a massive scale. Non-catastrophic processes actively
produced current orientation on daily basis somewhere
in the world.
-
....redundant questions about coelacanths already
answered in at the beginning of my reply deleted...
-
>>What I would like to know is how hydraulic sorting can
>>distribute intact fossil reefs throughout the entire
>>geological column.
-
>How do you know that they are "intact"?
-
It is very easy to tell an intact reef from a pile of
shells and other fossils. If anyone what to learn what
the criteria for determining if a reef is intact or not,
they find it in any combination of the following books.
Flugel, E. (1982) Microfacies Analysis of Limestones.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Friedman, G. M.(1969) Depositional Environments in
Carbonate Rocks. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Laporte, L. F., ed., (1974) Reefs in Time and Space,
Selected Examples from the Recent and Ancient: SEPM.
Special Publication no. 18. Society for Sedimentary
Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
James, N. P. (1983) Chapter 8 - Reef Environment. In
P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore, eds.,
pp. 346-453, Carbonate Depositional Environments.
Memoir no. 33, American Association Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Wilson, J. L. (1975) Carbonate Facies in Geologic
History. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Also, people can read "Fossil Reefs, Flood Geology, and
Recent Creation" at:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/roth.htm
-
>>How does hydraulic sorting explain the biostratigraphy
>>of microfossils?
>
>Hydraulic sorting doesn't explain the biostratigraphy
>of microfossils. There are other ways that sorting can
>happen you know. The natural habitat itself acts as a
>sorter.
Given that planktonic foraminifers, coccoliths,
radiolarians, pterodpods, diatoms, are globally
distributed and independent of bottom environments with
the oceans and seas now and in the past, "natural
habitat" is an intellectually bankrupt way of explaining.
Also, natural habitat doesn't why if the Noachian Flood,
while it eroding, transporting, and redepositing piles of
sediments didn't simply mix everything together
regardless.
-
>Also, the same species can have a different look in
>different environments. Phenotypic variation does
>not always depend upon genotypic change, but can often
>change in tune with changing environmental needs. Such
>changes that are based in environmental changes are
>called, "ecophenotypic variations." Microfossils, such
>as foraminifers, demonstrate a wide variety of
>ecophenotypes. In fact, many phenotypes that were once
>thought to represent different species groups are now
>known to represent difference phenotypic variations
>within the same species.
-
I let three different micropaleotologists, with whom
I work read the above paragraph. All three of them, each
with Ph.Ds., were of the opinion that this was some the
worst scientific gibberish that they ever seen written
about micropaleontology by anybody, including scientific
creationists, except possibly for the reports that a
certain Japanese micropaleontologist published on his
discovery of Paleozoic human fossils. However, the
"research" published on the human fossils, called
"Minman", they judged to be far more entertaining.
For people interested in the highly entertaining reports
about a conventional micropaleontologist that ended up
selling reale estate in the twilight zone when he
started finding Paleozoic human fossils in limestone
outcrops in Japan. Although they lack any scientific value,
they are a delight to read and chuckle about.
Okamura, C. (1987) New facts; Homo and all Vertebrata
were born simultaneously in the former Paleozoic in Japan.
Original Report of the Okamura Fossil Laboratory. no. 15,
pp. 355-573. Okamura Fossil Laboratory. Nagoya, Japan.
Okamura, C. (1982) Period of the Far Eastern
minicreatures. Original Report of the Okamura Fossil
Laboratory. no. 14, pp. 165-346. Okamura Fossil
Laboratory. Nagoya, Japan.
....more micropaleontological fantasy deleted...
-
>Hydraulic sorting is not needed to explain these
>phenotypic distributions. Tammy Tosk, also a geologist,
>disagrees with Glenn Morton's conclusions. She describes
>how foraminifers can be sorted according to other factors
>besides hydraulic sorting such as ecologic zonation
-
Interested lurkers should also look into:
1. Pollen Order Presents Problems for the Flood by Glenn R. Morton
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/pollen.htm
2. Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model by Patrick Spears at:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/iso.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/
Then, there is Glen's original web page, which started this
last part of the discussion in "Microfossil Stratigraphy
Presents Problems for the Flood" by Glenn R. Morton at;
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm
>>Have Fun
>>Keith Littleton
>>New Orleans, LA
>
>You too ; )
>Sean
I had lots of fun. :-) :-)
Yours,
Kieth
P.S. A final coelacanth reference, which I didn't use.
Schwimmer, D. R., J. D. Stewart, and G. D. Williams
(1994) Giant fossil coelacanths of the Late Cretaceous
in the eastern United States. Geology. vol. 22,
pp.503-
and a reference about intact fossil fish actually
being observed to form in a modern lake:
Wilcox, D. A., and S. W. Effler (1981) Formation of alewife
concretions in polluted Onondaga Lake. Environmental
Pollution, Series B, vol. 2, pp. 203-215.
Bigdakine
>From: Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.)
>Message-id: <fd67d42a.02113...@posting.google.com>
>
>Ron Okimoto
>
><snip>
>
>> Not that I don't think that you have read all these papers, but they
>> suspiciously all end in the 1980's.
>
>Obviously I haven't read all of these papers nor did I wish to
>indicate that I had. This area is not (obviously) my area of training
>or special interest, although I do find it interesting. It was
>nothing more than a side point to my reply to Keith Littleton's post.
>And yet, this small side comment seems to have drawn a lot of
>attention. My main contention here is not to say that subduction does
>not happen. I think that subduction does happen and has happened. My
>question concerns the driving force behind subduction and if such
>forces might have acted at different rates, even dramatically
>different rates, in the past.
used information from these. In fact, my
>main questions (with the references used here) come from a paper that
>can be found at:
>
>http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
>
I wasn't aware that *Origins* was a Geophysics Journal.
>
>> Where are the references from the
>> 1990's and the last three years?
>
>I figure you could point me to some good ones that are more recent. I
>haven't had the chance yet to look into something more recent as of
>yet. Perhaps all of the answers to the process of subduction have
>been answered in the last 15 years?
The questions which haven't been answered have little bearing the *driving*
forces. What drives subduction is the ridge push force and negative buoyancy of
the slab. These forces are balanced by viscous drag with the rest of the
mantle. Complications arise for the way slabs interact with the transition
zone. Some slabe penetrate through; others are blocked. In the big picture,
what debates do take place concerning the role of phase changes and jumps in
mantle viscosity are *very small* potatoes indeed.
And contrary to what Mudy may have implied, the largest earthquakes recorded
with modern instruments are subduction zone events, and all with a thrust
mechanism; i.e., not tensional.
Paleomagnetic studies, magnetic anomalies on the sea-floor, etc., do not
support an order of magnitude change in plate velocities over the phanerazoic.
In fact, not even a factor of two. The Earth is a sizeable body, changes in its
overall thermal state occur slowly. There is paleomagnetic evidence to support
the idea that plate tectonics was significantly quicker billions of years ago,
and theoretical reasons to expect that to be so.
Have a gander at "Subduction: Top to Bottom" Edited by Bebout.
>
>> Remember the honest thing to do is to
>> cite your actual source.
>
>Oh please. This is not a review for publication here. This is a
>discussion forum.It's obvious that I took the information from
>another source. I didn't even TRY to hide it. It is actually very
>easy to find the source that I took the information from if one so
>chooses. Do you think I thought that you guys wouldn't figure this
>out? Not a chance! I knew that you would know that this was
>secondary source material. It is blatantly obvious. I also knew that
>someone would go and look up the original source since I practically
>quoted it verbatim. The source in this case happens to be a YEC
>source, and actually pretty reliable as far as YEC sources go.
Thats a rather low standard to work with. But in this case Mundy was better
than average. Although still with a number of problems.
I
>wanted feedback on their information without a knee jerk response that
>was based only on the fact that they are YECs.
This anti-YEC bias
>seems to distract from the actual issues at hand. I have also often
>quoted evolutionary sources in this forum, such as talk.origins, for
>the same purpose. There is a lot of yelling about YEC sources, without
>really answering the actual questions that I am interested in. That
>is why I presented these questions in this way. Of course many of
>those in this forum spend more time yelling about sources than
>discussing the issues raised. Also, many in this forum quote secondary
>sources all the time without referring to the secondary source (such
>as talk.origins itself). That's fine with me since I am more
>interested in the ideas than I am concerned with where the ideas came
>from. Of course, there are times when one needs to have actually read
>all the original source material in question. In those cases, I have
>indicated those original papers that I have personally read.
>
>> If it is a creationist source we know that it is
>> 90% bull and we can ignore your quotes.
>
>That's the whole point. There is a strong bias against anything that
>comes from a YEC source.
THis bias comes from experience. We've seen it all before, and far too many
times. Rather than harping on our *biases* your time might be better spent in
trying to get your YEC colleagues to avoid their own biases and stop
misrepresenting the literature.
<snip>
R. Baldwin
news:kzGdnTQ0CMx...@ctc.net...
[incredibly huge snip]
114KB! I am in awe, sir. Good show. ;)
Ron Okimoto
I'm going to piggyback here because this post says what I would have
said, but I'd like to add a few things. If Sean wants feedback he can
ask for feedback. He did not in this case. Anyone will look at the
post and see that he was putting this material up as evidence that he
had some type of point to make. He wasn't asking about if the
evidence was worth something. He knew it was a YEC source, and he is
probably right that it is a more credible YEC source than most, but it
is still a YEC source and as such, I'd bet that he hasn't found a
credible argument that backs the YEC postion from any YEC source. He
knows that the material is most likely to be flawed, but he can't keep
himself from using it, and he can't be bothered to tell anyone else
that he knows the material is likely to be bogus, but he is using it
anyway.
Sean, think about doing this, every time you are going to use
creationist bull place a disclaimer in front of it, "This is from a
source that I know is bogus and over 90% of the claims from this
source cannot be backed up with reality." Then think about whether it
would be worth using this material in this newsgroup, let alone, at a
church meeting. Why would creationist use this bogus material in
church meetings when the audience would be willing to accept anything
that they say. Why lie when you don't have to? Why do you lie when
you don't have to, or do you think that you are justified in your
actions? When you write something as if it were your own, you are
repeating a lie and you are giving the audience the idea that you
realize it is a lie, but you think that it is worth repeating. Give
the source, and people will realize that you are just ignorant and got
sucked up in the deception of the original author. It is not only the
honest thing to do, but it would put the blame, more on the original
source.
If you know that the source has displayed poor scholarship, and/or
deceptive methods, you should tell your audience that fact before you
use something from that source. It is called the lie of ommission
when you, purposely, leave essential details out of your argument and
expect people to make reasoned conclusions from your argument.
I don't think that all YECs are dishonest, just gullible. You keep
doing things that look dishonest, and it is just my opinion that you
know better, so you are dishonest. You admit that most (All? have you
found one that you would put forward as an honest argument? What is
it? Poor scholarship isn't an honest argument it is just poor
scholarship.) of the creationist arguments that you have checked out
or had your nose rubbed in the deception are bogus, but you continue
to use them without verification.
Ron Okimoto
David Jensen
>On Nov 24, 2002 23:17:48 +0000 (UTC) and
>in Message-ID: <fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com>
>Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
>
>>There have been many who have asked me to specifically
>>reply to Keith Littleton's recent "POTM" on talk.origins.
>>I have been busy with other interests lately, but I
>>finally decided to make a response. Keith did raise
>>some very good points. After considering these points,
>>I have some more questions that I present line-by-line
>>as they arise:
>
>If Sean can take the time to respond to my POTM, I
>certainly can reply to his reply. I warn people that
>this is very long post. :-)
Wonderful work. Will this end up on talkorigins.org?
buf3
> On Nov 24, 2002 23:17:48 +0000 (UTC) and
> in Message-ID: <fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com>
> Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
I am one of the (probably hundreds) of lurkers on this site and I
think that this thread (especially the above post) is one of the more
interesting things I have read. It has made my day. I am having fun!
Thank you for your time; it is not wasted.
Gene Myers
Sean Pitman M.D.
You wrote:
> The questions which haven't been answered have little bearing the *driving*
> forces. What drives subduction is the ridge push force and negative buoyancy of
> the slab. These forces are balanced by viscous drag with the rest of the
> mantle. Complications arise for the way slabs interact with the transition
> zone. Some slabe penetrate through; others are blocked. In the big picture,
> what debates do take place concerning the role of phase changes and jumps in
> mantle viscosity are *very small* potatoes indeed.
>
> And contrary to what Mudy may have implied, the largest earthquakes recorded
> with modern instruments are subduction zone events, and all with a thrust
> mechanism; i.e., not tensional.
>
>
> Paleomagnetic studies, magnetic anomalies on the sea-floor, etc., do not
> support an order of magnitude change in plate velocities over the phanerazoic.
> In fact, not even a factor of two. The Earth is a sizeable body, changes in its
> overall thermal state occur slowly. There is paleomagnetic evidence to support
> the idea that plate tectonics was significantly quicker billions of years ago,
> and theoretical reasons to expect that to be so.
>
> Have a gander at "Subduction: Top to Bottom" Edited by Bebout.
Since you evidently work at the Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics, your
views obviously carry more weight on this topic. You also tend to
speak more to the relevent issues at hand than some others in this
forum. I was wondering then how you might answer my question as to
how the continents maintained their matching shapes over the course of
200+ million years? But, you snipped this question out and didn't
reply to it. I am especially curious as to how this can be explained.
I am also wondering what your take might be on David Pratt's paper
first published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no.
3, pp. 307-352, 2000 (
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm ) ? I also
found the publisher's comments interesting:
Editorial, JSE 14:3, 2000, p. 305
"Even recently accepted theories may quickly become too
dogmatically held. I had thought that plate tectonics, for example,
which just a few decades ago justified Wegener's heresy, remained the
generally accepted scientific wisdom, but to my surprise, there exists
a group of dissenting geologists who publish a newsletter with
discussions of the geological phenomena for which plate tectonics does
not provide a satisfactory explanation. David Pratt reviews the
situation in this issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Editorial essay: What's an editor to do?, JSE 16:2, 2002, pp.
267-8
So far as is humanly possible, I don't judge a manuscript before
I've read it ... I also don't prejudge manuscripts according to who
the author is (unless, of course, I am already familiar with the work
that author produces). ... On an Internet discussion-group featuring
geology, the article about plate tectonics we had published (Journal
of Scientific Exploration, 14, 2000, 307-52), by David Pratt, was
criticized because of Pratt's views about Theosophy as revealed on a
Web-site; my invitation to participants in that news group was that
they send, for publication in the Journal, critiques of the contents
of the article instead of ad hominem remarks. To date, no such
critique has been received. (Pratt's manuscript had received mixed
reviews, and I solicited more than the usual number of informed
opinions before accepting it for publication. Those who had advised
against publication were invited to have some or all of their comments
published together with the article itself, but declined the
opportunity.) ...
For my part I expect others not to reject my opinions on other
subjects just because I hold the belief, to them absurd, that Loch
Ness Monsters are real animals. Similarly, I don't reject a manuscript
just because its author is a Theosophist, a creation scientist, or
holds any other beliefs that I happen not to share."
In his paper, Pratt reiterates many of the same questions pointed out
by earlier authors who question certain aspects of plate tectonic
theory. Concerning fairly recent seismic data Pratt states that,
"Seismic tomography has merely reinforced the message that continental
cratons, especially those of Archean and Early Proterozoic age, are
"welded" to the underlying mantle, and that the concept of thin (less
than 250-km-thick) lithospheric plates moving thousands of kilometers
over a global asthenosphere is unrealistic. Nevertheless, many
textbooks continue to propagate the simplistic
lithosphere-asthenosphere model, and fail to give the slightest
indication that it faces any problems (e.g. McLeish, 1992; Skinner and
Porter, 1995; Wicander and Monroe, 1999)... Far from being
homogeneous, "plates" are actually "a megabreccia, a 'pudding' of
inhomogeneities whose nature, size and properties vary widely"
(Chekunov, Gordienko, and Guterman, 1990, p. 404). The crust and
uppermost mantle are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate,
jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, generally a few hundred
kilometers across, and of varying internal structure and strength.
Pavlenkova (1990, p. 78) concludes: "This means that the movement of
lithospheric plates over long distances, as single rigid bodies, is
hardly possible. Moreover, if we take into account the absence of the
asthenosphere as a single continuous zone, then this movement seems
utterly impossible.'"
As far as the driving force of plate movement, such as "convection
current" and "slab pull" and "ridge push" theories, Pratt comments
that, "The driving force of plate movements was initially claimed to
be mantle-deep convection currents welling up beneath midocean ridges,
with downwelling occurring beneath ocean trenches. Since the existence
of layering in the mantle was considered to render whole-mantle
convection unlikely, two-layer convection models were also proposed.
Jeffreys (1974) argued that convection cannot take place because it is
a self-damping process, as described by the Lomnitz law. Plate
tectonicists expected seismic tomography to provide clear evidence of
a well-organized convection-cell pattern, but it has actually provided
strong evidence against the existence of large, plate-propelling
convection cells in the upper mantle (Anderson, Tanimoto, and Zhang,
1992). Many geologists now think that mantle convection is a result of
plate motion rather than its cause, and that it is shallow rather than
mantle deep (McGeary and Plummer, 1998)... The favored plate-driving
mechanisms at present are "ridge-push" and "slab-pull," though their
adequacy is very much in doubt. Slab-pull is believed to be the
dominant mechanism, and refers to the gravitational subsidence of
subducted slabs. However, it will not work for plates that are largely
continental, or that have leading edges that are continental, because
continental crust cannot be bodily subducted due to its low density,
and it seems utterly unrealistic to imagine that ridge-push from the
Mid-Atlantic Ridge alone could move the 120°-wide Eurasian plate
(Lowman, 1986). Moreover, evidence for the long-term weakness of large
rock masses casts doubt on the idea that edge forces can be
transmitted from one margin of a "plate" to its interior or opposite
margin (Keith, 1993)."
As far as continental drift over vast distances is concerned, Pratt
comments that, "Geological field mapping provides evidence for
horizontal crustal movements of up to several hundred kilometers
(Jeffreys, 1976). Plate tectonics, however, claims that continents
have moved up to 7000 km or more since the alleged breakup of Pangaea.
Measurements using space-geodetic techniques -- very long baseline
interferometry (VLBI), satellite laser-ranging (SLR), and the global
positioning system (GPS) -- have been hailed by some workers as having
proved plate tectonics. Such measurements provide a guide to crustal
strains, but do not provide evidence for plate motions of the kind
predicted by plate tectonics unless the relative motions predicted
among all plates are observed. However, many of the results have shown
no definite pattern, and have been confusing and contradictory, giving
rise to a variety of ad-hoc hypotheses (Fallon and Dillinger, 1992;
Gordon and Stein, 1992; Smith et al., 1994)... Trans-Atlantic drift
has not been demonstrated, because baselines within North America and
western Europe have failed to establish that the plates are moving as
rigid units; they suggest in fact significant intraplate deformation
(Lowman, 1992b; James, 1994). Space-geodetic measurements to date have
therefore not confirmed plate tectonics. Moreover, they are open to
alternative explanations (e.g. Meyerhoff et al., 1996a; Storetvedt,
1997; Carey, 1994). It is clearly a hazardous exercise to extrapolate
present crustal movements tens or hundreds of millions of years into
the past or future. Indeed, geodetic surveys across "rift" zones (e.g.
in Iceland and East Africa) have failed to detect any consistent and
systematic widening as postulated by plate tectonics (Keith, 1993)."
As far as your use of paleomagnetism to support the idea of a slow
drift, Pratt comments, "That paleomagnetism can be unreliable is well
established (Barron, Harrison, and Hay, 1978; Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff,
1972). For instance, paleomagnetic data imply that during the
mid-Cretaceous Azerbaijan and Japan were in the same place (Meyerhoff,
1970a)! The literature is in fact bursting with inconsistencies
(Storetvedt, 1997). Paleomagnetic studies of rocks of different ages
suggest a different polar wander path not only for each continent, but
also for different parts of each continent. When individual
paleomagnetic pole positions, rather than averaged curves, are plotted
on world maps, the scatter is huge, often wider than the Atlantic.
Furthermore, paleomagnetism can determine only paleolatitude, not
paleolongitude. Consequently, it cannot be used to prove continental
drift. Paleomagnetism is plagued with uncertainties. Merrill,
McElhinny, and McFadden (1996, p. 69) state: "there are numerous
pitfalls that await the unwary: first, in sorting out the primary
magnetization from secondary magnetizations (acquired subsequent to
formation), and second, in extrapolating the properties of the primary
magnetization to those of the earth's magnetic field." The
interpretation of paleomagnetic data is founded on two basic
assumptions: 1. when rocks are formed, they are magnetized in the
direction of the geomagnetic field existing at the time and place of
their formation, and the acquired magnetization is retained in the
rocks at least partially over geologic time; 2. the geomagnetic field
averaged for any time period of the order of 105 years (except
magnetic-reversal epochs) is a dipole field oriented along the earth's
rotation axis. Both these assumptions are questionable."
As far as sea floor spreading from mid-oceanic ridges, Pratt comments
that, "Younger, shallow-water sediments are often located farther from
the axial zones of the ridges than older ones -- the opposite of what
is required by the plate-tectonics model, which postulates that as
newly-formed oceanic lithosphere moves away from the spreading axis
and cools, it gradually subsides to greater depths. Furthermore, some
areas of the oceans appear to have undergone continuous subsidence,
whereas others underwent alternating subsidence and elevation. The
height of the ridge along the Romanche fracture zone in the equatorial
Atlantic is 1 to 4 km above that expected by seafloor-spreading
models. Large segments of it were close to or above sea level only 5
million years ago, and subsequent subsidence has been one order of
magnitude faster than that predicted by plate tectonics (Bonatti and
Chermak, 1981)... According to the seafloor-spreading model, heat flow
should be highest along ocean ridges and fall off steadily with
increasing distance from the ridge crests. Actual measurements,
however, contradict this simple picture: ridge crests show a very
large scatter in heat-flow magnitudes, and there is generally little
difference in thermal flux between the ridge and the rest of the ocean
(Storetvedt, 1997; Keith, 1993). All parts of the Indian Ocean display
a cold and rather featureless heat-flow picture except the Central
Indian Basin. The broad region of intense tectonic deformation in this
basin indicates that the basement has a block structure, and presents
a major puzzle for plate tectonics, especially since it is located in
a "midplate" setting... Smoot and Meyerhoff (1995) have shown that
nearly all published charts of the world's ocean floors have been
drawn deliberately to reflect the predictions of the plate-tectonics
hypothesis. For example, the Atlantic Ocean floor is unvaryingly shown
to be dominated by a sinuous, north-south midocean ridge, flanked on
either side by abyssal plains, cleft at its crest by a rift valley,
and offset at more or less regular 40- to 60-km intervals by
east-west-striking fracture zones. New, detailed bathymetric surveys
indicate that this oversimplified portrayal of the Atlantic Basin is
largely wrong, yet the most accurate charts now available are widely
ignored because they do not conform to plate-tectonic preconceptions."
Pratt even challenges the notion that the ocean floors are "younger"
than the continental shelves. "The oldest known rocks from the
continents are just under 4 billion years old, whereas -- according to
plate tectonics -- none of the ocean crust is older than 200 million
years (Jurassic). This is cited as conclusive evidence that oceanic
lithosphere is constantly being created at midocean ridges and
consumed in subduction zones. There is in fact abundant evidence
against the alleged youth of the ocean floor, though geological
textbooks tend to pass over it in silence... In 33 cases depositional
contacts were observed, but the basalt sometimes contained sedimentary
clasts, suggesting that there might be older sediments below. Indeed,
boreholes that have penetrated layer 2 to some depth have revealed an
alternation of basalts and sedimentary rocks (Hall and Robinson, 1979;
Anderson et al., 1982). Kamen-Kaye (1970) warned that before drawing
conclusions on the youth of the ocean floor, rocks must be penetrated
to depths of up to 5 km to see whether there are Triassic, Paleozoic,
or Precambrian sediments below the so-called basement... Plate
tectonics predicts that the age of the oceanic crust should increase
systematically with distance from the midocean ridge crests. Claims by
DSDP scientists to have confirmed this are not supported by a detailed
review of the drilling results. The dates exhibit a very large
scatter, which becomes even larger if dredge hauls are included. On
some marine magnetic anomalies the age scatter is tens of millions of
years (Meyerhoff et al., 1992a). On one seamount just west of the
crest of the East Pacific Rise, the radiometric dates range from 2.4
to 96 million years. Although a general trend is discernible from
younger sediments at ridge crests to older sediments away from them,
this is in fact to be expected, since the crest is the highest and
most active part of the ridge; older sediments are likely to be buried
beneath younger volcanic rocks. The basalt layer in the ocean crust
suggests that magma flooding was once ocean-wide, but volcanism was
subsequently restricted to an increasingly narrow zone centered on the
ridge crests. Such magma floods were accompanied by progressive
crustal subsidence in large sectors of the present oceans, beginning
in the Jurassic (Keith, 1993; Beloussov, 1980)... The numerous finds
in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans of rocks far older than
200 million years, many of them continental in nature, provide strong
evidence against the alleged youth of the underlying crust. In the
Atlantic, rock and sediment age should range from Cretaceous (120
million years) adjacent to the continents to very recent at the ridge
crest. During legs 37 and 43 of the DSDP, Paleozoic and Proterozoic
igneous rocks were recovered in cores on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and
the Bermuda Rise, yet not one of these occurrences of ancient rocks
was mentioned in the Cruise Site Reports or Cruise Synthesis Reports
(Meyerhoff et al., 1996a). Aumento and Loncarevic (1969) reported that
75% of 84 rock samples dredged from the Bald Mountain region just west
of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge crest at 45°N consisted of continental-type
rocks, and commented that this was a "remarkable phenomenon" -- so
remarkable, in fact, that they decided to classify these rocks as
"glacial erratics" and to give them no further consideration. Another
way of dealing with "anomalous" rock finds is to dismiss them as ship
ballast. However, the Bald Mountain locality has an estimated volume
of 80 km³, so it is hardly likely to have been rafted out to sea on an
iceberg or dumped by a ship! It consists of granitic and silicic
metamorphic rocks ranging in age from 1690 to 1550 million years, and
is intruded by 785-million-year mafic rocks (Wanless et al., 1968).
Ozima et al. (1976) found basalts of Middle Jurassic age (169 million
years) at the junction of the rift valley of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
and the Atlantis fracture zone (30°N), an area where basalt should
theoretically be extremely young, and stated that they were unlikely
to be ice-rafted rocks. Van Hinte and Ruffman (1995) concluded that
Paleozoic limestones dredged from Orphan Knoll in the northwest
Atlantic were in situ and not ice rafted."
As far as "subduction zones" Pratt comments: "Benioff zones are
distinct earthquake zones that begin at an ocean trench and slope
landward and downward into the earth. In plate tectonics, these
deep-rooted fault zones are interpreted as "subduction zones" where
plates descend into the mantle. They are generally depicted as
100-km-thick slabs descending into the earth either at a constant
angle, or at a shallow angle near the earth's surface and gradually
curving around to an angle of between 60° and 75°. Neither
representation is correct. Benioff zones often consist of two separate
sections: an upper zone with an average dip of 33° extending to a
depth of 70-400 km, and a lower zone with an average dip of 60°
extending to a depth of up to 700 km (Benioff, 1954; Isacks and
Barazangi, 1977). The upper and lower segments are sometimes offset by
100-200 km, and in one case by 350 km (Benioff, 1954, Smoot, 1997a).
Furthermore, deep earthquakes are disconnected from shallow ones; very
few intermediate earthquakes exist (Smoot, 1997a). Many studies have
found transverse as well as vertical discontinuities and segmentation
in Benioff zones (e.g. Carr, Stoiber, and Drake, 1973; Swift and Carr,
1974; Teisseyre et al., 1974; Carr, 1976; Spence, 1977; Ranneft,
1979). The evidence therefore does not favor the notion of a
continuous, downgoing slab... Plate tectonicists insist that the
volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume
subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of midocean ridges are supposedly
producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add
the 9000 km of "collision zones," the figure is still only half that
of the "spreading centers" (Smoot, 1997a). With two minor exceptions
(the Scotia and Lesser Antilles trench/arc systems), Benioff zones are
absent from the margins of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern
Oceans. Many geological facts demonstrate that subduction is not
taking place in the Lesser Antilles arc; if it were, the continental
Barbados Ridge should now be 200-400 km beneath the Lesser Antilles
(Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1974a). Kiskyras (1990) presented
geological, volcanological, petrochemical, and seismological data
contradicting the belief that the African plate is being subducted
under the Aegean Sea.
Africa is allegedly being converged on by plates spreading from
the east, south, and west, yet it exhibits no evidence whatsoever for
the existence of subduction zones or orogenic belts. Antarctica, too,
is almost entirely surrounded by alleged "spreading" ridges without
any corresponding subduction zones, but fails to show any signs of
being crushed. It has been suggested that Africa and Antarctica may
remain stationary while the surrounding ridge system migrates away
from them, but this would require the ridge marking the "plate
boundary" between Africa and Antarctica to move in opposite directions
simultaneously (Storetvedt, 1997)!
If up to 13,000 kilometers of lithosphere had really been
subducted in circum-Pacific deep-sea trenches, vast amounts of oceanic
sediments should have been scraped off the ocean floor and piled up
against the landward margin of the trenches. However, sediments in the
trenches are generally not present in the volumes required, nor do
they display the expected degree of deformation (Storetvedt, 1997;
Choi, 1999b; Gnibidenko, Krasny, and Popov, 1978; Suzuki et al.,
1997). Scholl and Marlow (1974), who support plate tectonics, admitted
to being "genuinely perplexed as to why evidence for subduction or
offscraping of trench deposits is not glaringly apparent" (p. 268).
Plate tectonicists have had to resort to the highly dubious notion
that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a
Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace. Moreover, fore-arc
sediments, where they have been analyzed, have generally been found to
be derived from the volcanic arc and the adjacent continental block,
not from the oceanic region (Pratsch, 1990; Wezel, 1986). The very low
level of seismicity, the lack of a megathrust, and the existence of
flat-lying sediments at the base of oceanic trenches contradict the
alleged presence of a downgoing slab (Dickins and Choi, 1998).
Attempts by Murdock (1997), who accepts many elements of plate
tectonics, to publicize the lack of a megathrust in the Aleutian
trench (i.e. a million or more meters of displacement of the Pacific
plate as it supposedly underthrusts the North American plate) have met
with vigorous resistance and suppression by the plate-tectonics
establishment.
Subduction along Pacific trenches is also refuted by the fact
that the Benioff zone often lies 80 to 150 km landward from the
trench; by the evidence that Precambrian continental structures
continue into the ocean floor; and by the evidence for submerged
continental crust under the northwestern and southeastern Pacific,
where there are now deep abyssal plains and trenches (Choi, 1987,
1998, 1999c; Smoot 1998b; Tuezov, 1998). If the "Pacific plate" is
colliding with and diving under the "North American plate", there
should be a stress buildup along the San Andreas Fault. The deep Cajon
Pass drillhole was intended to confirm this but showed instead that no
such stress is present (C. W. Hunt, 1992).
In any case, there is much much more that I will not post here. For
those who are interested in reading Pratt's entire paper, the link is
listed above. Of course you, Dr. Weinstein, say that you have "heard
it all." Well, for those of us who don't have the background that you
have in this area of science and who haven't "heard it all", please do
detail how Pratt's views are way off base here. It is not an "old"
paper either, but was published in 2000 in a peer reviewed scientific
journal. I am curious as to what your take will be.
> Stuart
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> requires a creationist"
Sean
Robin Levett
But perhaps he should if the author's Theosophy influences his
treatment of the evidence and sources he relies upon.
>
> In his paper, Pratt reiterates many of the same questions
pointed out
> by earlier authors who question certain aspects of plate
tectonic
> theory.
<large snippage of quotes from Pratt's article that Stuart will no
doubt deal with in his own time and way>
> In any case, there is much much more that I will not post here.
For
> those who are interested in reading Pratt's entire paper, the
link is
> listed above. Of course you, Dr. Weinstein, say that you have
"heard
> it all." Well, for those of us who don't have the background
that you
> have in this area of science and who haven't "heard it all",
please do
> detail how Pratt's views are way off base here. It is not an
"old"
> paper either, but was published in 2000 in a peer reviewed
scientific
> journal. I am curious as to what your take will be.
I don't now about Stuart, but I do question the suggestion that
the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a "peer-reviewed"
scientific journal in any other sense than that in which Creation
Science Quarterly is "peer-reviewed".
My problem with the article is that, given Pratt's Theosophy
(which is a view he can legitimately hold), and the fact that he
allows that non-scientific viewpoint to colour his presentation of
scientific evidence (which is not legitimate), I wouldn't trust
his representation of the articles he cites as far as I could
throw him. Take a gander at:-
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/age.htm
Juts one short quote to give a flavour:-
"Scientists recognize that light elements can turn into heavier
ones by means of nuclear fusion, but the prevailing belief is that
this can take place only at temperatures of millions of degrees,
such as are thought to exist in stars. However, biologist Louis
Kervran and a number of other researchers have demonstrated that,
in both living organisms and the mineral world, some common
elements are transmuted into heavier elements without the need for
extremely high temperatures and pressures, and some are transmuted
into lighter elements [11]. Orthodox science does not bother to
study these subtle, alchemical processes because it is already
convinced that they cannot exist."
Biological cold fusion anyone?
Sean, you have been chided for relying on YEC sources, rather than
original papers, because you have agreed that much YEC writing is
"unreliable". Did you really think that a Theosophical source
would be considered any more reliable?
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Harlequin
news:v4akuu8dfgvhup9p1...@4ax.com:
This might be a good one to nominate for PotM.
But if not, at the very least I think Adam should edit
T.O. Archive's copy Littleton's PotM to include
a link to Pitman's reply and to Littleton's response to
that reply.
(And if anyone out there would like contribute to the Archive,
Littleton's posts might provide ideas and a great resource.)
R. Baldwin
> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
> news:v4akuu8dfgvhup9p1...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 03:23:17 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> > Keith Littleton <NOfoss...@katie.vnet.net> wrote in
> > <kzGdnTQ0CMx...@ctc.net>:
> >
> >
> >>On Nov 24, 2002 23:17:48 +0000 (UTC) and
> >>in Message-ID: <fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com>
> >>Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
> >>
> >>>There have been many who have asked me to specifically
> >>>reply to Keith Littleton's recent "POTM" on talk.origins.
> >>>I have been busy with other interests lately, but I
> >>>finally decided to make a response. Keith did raise
> >>>some very good points. After considering these points,
> >>>I have some more questions that I present line-by-line
> >>>as they arise:
> >>
> >>If Sean can take the time to respond to my POTM, I
> >>certainly can reply to his reply. I warn people that
> >>this is very long post. :-)
> >
> > Wonderful work. Will this end up on talkorigins.org?
>
> This might be a good one to nominate for PotM.
Seconded. You beat me to it. It took a while to finish due to its
length, and as soon as I finished your nomination popped up. This is
one of the best posts in a long time. I especially liked the bit about
Pisces Infallibility.
Bigdakine
>From: Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.)
>Message-id: <fd67d42a.02120...@posting.google.com>
>Since you evidently work at the Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics, your
>views obviously carry more weight on this topic. You also tend to
>speak more to the relevent issues at hand than some others in this
>forum. I was wondering then how you might answer my question as to
>how the continents maintained their matching shapes over the course of
>200+ million years? But, you snipped this question out and didn't
>reply to it. I am especially curious as to how this can be explained.
Why shouldn't it?
>
>I am also wondering what your take might be on David Pratt's paper
>first published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no.
>3, pp. 307-352, 2000 (
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm ) ? I also
>found the publisher's comments interesting:
>
Funny, I thought we were discussing subduction. Now we are discussing the
history of plate tectonics and mantle convection through yet another
second-hand source?
You'll get a response from me in a couple of days.
Quoting Jeffrys on mantle convection?
LOL
Stanley Friesen
>> is flawed is simply laughable.
>
>"Simply Laughable"? Perhaps, but I am not the only one who thinks
>that there are some problems with the theory.
I do not know of any current *geologist* who thinks so, however. And
they are the ones whose knowledge of the evidence makes them qualified
to make this judgement.
>Don't get me wrong, I
>do think that some subduction has taken place. I just don't know
>about the degree or timing of this subduction. One problem is the
>mechanism for moving continents around. There seems to be some
>argument on just how this is done over a prolonged period of time,
>such as 200 million years or so (Kundt and Jessner 1986, Loper
>1985, Lowman 1985a, Pavoni 1986, Runcorn 1980, Walzer and Maaz 1983).
Oh, lets see, 20 year old articles debating certain specific details of
an otherwise accepted theory. Big deal :->
And note that the depth of cycling in the mantle was not, at that time,
fully appreciated. It is only fairly recently that good evidence that
hot spots derive from the core-mantle boundary has been found.
>Some evidence also suggests that some of the continents have very deep
>"roots" with depths of over 700km (Kerr 1986, Lay 1988, Lowman 1985a).
Yes, so what?
> Explanations seem lacking how just how such massive and deeply rooted
>plates can be floated around and pushed under one another so easily
Umm, *continental* plates do *not* subduct. Only oceanic plate
subducts. When two pieces of continental plate collide, they *crumple*.
A good current example of this is the Himalayas - which are the result
of the collision of India with Asia. Note the total absence of a trench
(subduction zone) between India and Asia.
If you are to criticize a theory, you need to understand it first.
>and steadily over a very prolonged course of time. Just last month I
>saw a PBS television program dealing with plate tectonics.
When was it filmed? PBS has a major tendency to recycle old specials.
>Some
>geologists interviewed on this program argued that the proposed
>"convection currents" just are not powerful enough to force oceanic
>plate subduction.
Quite so, this is why other forces are considered as part of the theory
- forces such as gravity.
> The movement of plates with such deep roots seems
>so incredible that a fixed-earth plate-tectonic model has been
>proposed that requires subduction zones which have not been suspected
>before and for which there is little evidence (Lowman 1985b, Lowman
>1986, Martin 1987, Schmidt and Embleton 1986).
More old stuff, long since rejected.
>Another difficulty is
>that both the African and the Antarctic tectonic plates are almost
>completely surrounded by spreading ridges with no significant
>subduction zones on their boundaries (Bevis and Payne 1983; Karig
>1978). Consequently, the subduction zones available to accommodate the
>spreading are not near by;
So? Why do they need to be near by?
>and these expansion ridges themselves would
>have to migrate toward distant subduction zones.
So? What is wrong with spreading zones migrating?
> In fact, models of
>relative plate motions have not been unambiguously established yet,
>particularly for the circum-Pacific (Kamp and Fitzgerald 1987).
Duh. This is a complex problem of measurement and analysis. It is not
easy to do. This is not in any way a problem with the *theory*.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Matt Silberstein
<NOfoss...@katie.vnet.net>:
[snip]
>Looking at the picture, a person can see substantial
>differences in the fins, tail, lobe fin, and drastic
>changes in the structure of head. Mistaking Macropoma
>and Latimeria the same animal is like mistaking
>Chimpanzees and Baboons for the same animals. Neither
>of these genera are virtually identical to each other
>as significant differences does exist between the two.
Big good post, small minor suggestion: "animal" is the wrong term
above. Species maybe, but not animal.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Stupendous -
The only word that starts off as an insult and ends up as a compliment...
Except, of course, for "Jerking"
Tony Martin
John Wilkins
> In talk.origins I read this message from Keith Littleton
> <NOfoss...@katie.vnet.net>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Looking at the picture, a person can see substantial
> >differences in the fins, tail, lobe fin, and drastic
> >changes in the structure of head. Mistaking Macropoma
> >and Latimeria the same animal is like mistaking
> >Chimpanzees and Baboons for the same animals. Neither
> >of these genera are virtually identical to each other
> >as significant differences does exist between the two.
>
> Big good post, small minor suggestion: "animal" is the wrong term
> above. Species maybe, but not animal.
>
> [snip]
>
It is common to speak of "organism" or "animal" when "species" is meant.
However, for those unversed in the usages of biology, this leads to
confusion, and eventually to essentialism.
A nice quote:
"The history of research into the philosophy of language is full of
_men_ (who are rational and mortal animals), _bachelors_ (who are
unmarried adult males), and _tigers_ (though it is not clear whether we
should define them as feline animals or big cats with a yellow coat and
black stripes)." Umberto Eco, _Kant and the Platypus_, p9.
--
John Wilkins
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Sean Pitman M.D.
> >I am also wondering what your take might be on David Pratt's paper
> >first published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no.
> >3, pp. 307-352, 2000 (
> >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm ) ? I also
> >found the publisher's comments interesting:
> >
>
> Funny, I thought we were discussing subduction. Now we are discussing the
> history of plate tectonics and mantle convection through yet another
> second-hand source?
The process of subduction is intimately related to the theory of plate
tectonics and mantle convection. Pratt's paper does cover some of the
history involved as well as past and present problems with the overall
theory of plate tectonics as well as specific problems with
subduction. Also, Pratt's paper is not a "second-hand source." It is
the original paper directly referenced.
> You'll get a response from me in a couple of days.
It's been more than a couple of days now... and I'm still curious just
where Pratt got it wrong.
< snip >
> Stuart
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> requires a creationist"
Sean
John Harshman
Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
> Stuart
>
> > >I am also wondering what your take might be on David Pratt's paper
> > >first published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no.
> > >3, pp. 307-352, 2000 (
> > >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm ) ? I also
> > >found the publisher's comments interesting:
> > >
> >
> > Funny, I thought we were discussing subduction. Now we are discussing the
> > history of plate tectonics and mantle convection through yet another
> > second-hand source?
>
> The process of subduction is intimately related to the theory of plate
> tectonics and mantle convection. Pratt's paper does cover some of the
> history involved as well as past and present problems with the overall
> theory of plate tectonics as well as specific problems with
> subduction. Also, Pratt's paper is not a "second-hand source." It is
> the original paper directly referenced.
>
> > You'll get a response from me in a couple of days.
>
> It's been more than a couple of days now... and I'm still curious just
> where Pratt got it wrong.
I admit that I'd be interested in Stuart's response, too, though not for
the same reasons. It's perfectly acceptable for you to bug him.
But in the meantime, have you considered responding to a great many
other posts, especially (from my point of view) mine, and most
specifically my attempt to start a new thread just for you about
phylogeny (Pitman's [insert adjective] phylogenetics)?
John Harshman
> Stuart
>
> > >I am also wondering what your take might be on David Pratt's paper
> > >first published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no.
> > >3, pp. 307-352, 2000 (
> > >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm ) ? I also
> > >found the publisher's comments interesting:
> > >
> >
> > Funny, I thought we were discussing subduction. Now we are discussing the
> > history of plate tectonics and mantle convection through yet another
> > second-hand source?
>
> The process of subduction is intimately related to the theory of plate
> tectonics and mantle convection. Pratt's paper does cover some of the
> history involved as well as past and present problems with the overall
> theory of plate tectonics as well as specific problems with
> subduction. Also, Pratt's paper is not a "second-hand source." It is
> the original paper directly referenced.
>
> > You'll get a response from me in a couple of days.
>
> It's been more than a couple of days now... and I'm still curious just
> where Pratt got it wrong.
I admit that I'd be interested in Stuart's response, too, though not for
Bigdakine
>From: Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.)
>Message-id: <fd67d42a.02121...@posting.google.com>
>
>Stuart
>
>> >I am also wondering what your take might be on David Pratt's paper
>> >first published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no.
>> >3, pp. 307-352, 2000 (
>> >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm ) ? I also
>> >found the publisher's comments interesting:
>> >
>>
>> Funny, I thought we were discussing subduction. Now we are discussing the
>> history of plate tectonics and mantle convection through yet another
>> second-hand source?
>
>The process of subduction is intimately related to the theory of plate
>tectonics and mantle convection. Pratt's paper does cover some of the
>history involved as well as past and present problems with the overall
>theory of plate tectonics as well as specific problems with
>subduction. Also, Pratt's paper is not a "second-hand source." It is
>the original paper directly referenced.
>
>> You'll get a response from me in a couple of days.
>
>It's been more than a couple of days now... and I'm still curious just
>where Pratt got it wrong.
Again my response is contingent on you agreeing that any further replies from
you must address the primary literature. You haven't written abck about thtat.
You see I'm not going to bother to debunk one kook site after another. At some
point you'll have to agree to say uncle and agree that YEC, at least as a
scientific hypothesis, is defunct.
You see, I get real tired of playing stump the geophysicist.
And Pratt's paper isn't primary literature, rather it is his often erroneous
interpretation of the literature. Pratt's basic problem is that he references
papers which only agree with his POV; sure you can find some papers here and
there written by people still in denial about certain things.
Some very general comment from memory are that Pratt seems to think that the
changing relationship between PT and mantle convection through time is some
sort of major difficulty. Theories change. They evolve, and thats a good thing.
In the early days, mantle convection and PT were sort of seprate entities unto
themselves; different discplines indeed. PT was and is largely data oriented,
eq slip vectors, magnetic anomalies, transform fault azimuths, etc. etc..
Mantle convection was this thing happening beneath all that.
Today we recognize that plate tectonics is *mantle convection*. While that is a
change in POV, I don't consider it earth shattering in the grand scheme of
things.
As to the plate driving forces, that issue was answered long ago in studies by
Forsythe and Uyeda and Chapple and Tullis, both being published in the
mid-70's.
As Olson, Schubert and Turcotte show in their recent tome "Mantle Convection",
this is quite the case.
The fastest plates have similar speeds, they also have the greatest percentage
of boundary being slab. As such they indicate the terminal velocity of slab in
the mantle. It takes an unrepentant fool to deny this correlation. At the other
end, we have the slowest plates; these have the greatest continental area on a
percentage basis. Perhaps these indicate the speed of the mantle *wind* in the
upper mantle.
Pratt seems to think thsi a problem but its not so.
For a visual comparison between instantaneous plate motions derived from GPS
and the NUVEL1 Pt model see:
http://icarus.unavco.ucar.edu/science_support/crustal_motion/dxdt/
Generally pretty good. Wouldn't you agree?
I won't be back in town until January sometime, you'll have to wait until then.
But in the meantime, I expect you to stipulate to the conditions I raised
above.
Sean Pitman M.D.
Your most recent reply was quite interesting indeed. Again, your
points have raised a few more questions. You put a lot into this post
and I respect and appreciate that. In any case, I apologize for not
getting back with you before now, but I have been pretty busy and
getting busier. But, the holidays have been good, with lots of
friends and family around. Hopefully the same was/is true for you and
others following this thread.
< Snip previous intro >
> If Sean can take the time to respond to my POTM, I
> certainly can reply to his reply. I warn people that
> this is very long post. :-)
Likewise… This post is equivalent to about 75 typewritten pages
(12-font TNR) and will be posted, because of length, in segments.
< Snip more intro stuff >
> >Kingdom: Anamilia
> >Phylum: Chordata
> >Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
> >Order: Coelacanthini
> >Family: Sarcopterygii
> >Genus: Latimeria
> >Species: chalumnae
> -
> What does this Prove?? :-) :-) From what I have read
> everybody agrees that the modern coelacanths belong to
> the genera Latimeria
This was not intended to prove anything except to show some sort of
reference for the benefit of those who might be following this thread.
If you would click on the link under the picture you would end up at
the main webpage for "Science in Africa." On this page you will find
the statement, "The skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known
from the upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the
coelacanths caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs
little from the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths."
Even so, the picture comparisons do show some obvious differences, but
these do not seem to me to be as striking as you seem to be
indicating. The lobe fins themselves are almost identical. The tail
is also practically identical excepting for comparisons of the
"supplementary tail fin." The problem here is that the supplementary
tail fin was left out of the drawing of the fossil coelacanth,
Macropoma lewesiensis. This is because, "Details of the fossil's
supplementary tail fin are insufficiently known to allow restoration."
This leaves, basically, the "drastic changes in the structure of the
head."
It appears that the two heads are in fact very similar as far as the
number, relative position, and general shape of the bones in the two
creatures. It seems like the main differences can be found in the
relative size of the various bones or portions of the bones. These
differences give Macropoma a longer and more pointed snout than is
found in Latimeria as well as a bit of an overbite.
Based on these rather minor differences, these two creatures are
classed, not just as different species, but as members of different
genus groups. Are these differences really greater than the range of
comparable differences found within the range of other species, such
as domestic dogs or even modern humans? Consider, for example, the
differences between a German Shepherd and a bulldog. The German
Shepherd has a long, narrow snout with an overbite, while a bulldog
has a short, flat snout with an underbite. These differences might
even be called "drastic." If the bulldog phenotype where found only
in the fossil record and the German Shepherd were living today, would
they be classed in the same species or even genus groups when compared
side-by-side? I doubt it…
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/february/coela.htm
> >There seems to be a tendency to place very similar
> >fossils in different categories based primarily on the
> >fact that they obviously lived so far apart in time that
> >they can't possible be members of the same species.
> >This practice seems to be the rule rather than the
> >exception.
>
> Mr. Pitman is wrong again in his rather imaginative and
> wildly inaccurate understanding of paleontology. The
> degree to which different fossils live apart in time has
> nothing to with how fossils are classified. If he and
> other Young Earth creationists would look objectively at
> fossils like Macropoma lewesiensis and living animals
> like Latimeria chalumnae, they would find there do exist
> significant differences and that these differences are
> significant enough to prove that they are different
> animals. Their similarities only show that they are very
> closely related with Latimeria chalumnae likely having a
> coelacanth very much like Macropoma lewesiensis as its
> ancestor. The main difference between coelacanths and
> main other orders is that they have evolved at a much
> slower rate than them. There is nothing in the various
> models of evolution that require that different orders
> must evolve all at the same rate. However, Young Earth
> creationists, as far as "living fossils" simply deny
> that obvious differences exist and engage in
> postulating all sort of fiction about how conventional
> paleontologists defines species and genera in order to
> deny that these differences do exits.
No one is denying that differences exist between fossil creatures and
their modern-day counterparts. Also, no one is saying that different
creatures must evolve at the same rate. What I am wondering about
however is if such morphologic differences are necessarily outside the
normal range of species variation. Since a single gene pool can
produce "drastic" differences in phenotypic forms, how are scientists
so sure of their fossil classification models? Often only slight
phenotypic differences are enough to place a fossil creature in a
different species, genus or even family group than its modern-day
counterpart or than its counterpart found elsewhere in the geologic
column. The problem is that differences, even fairly significant
differences are known to exist between members of the same gene pool.
Because of this fact, taxonomic classification models can be quite
subjective and even misleading.
For example, scientists from Berkeley have noted that, "the planktonic
larvae of many marine invertebrates are commonly described as separate
species when they are first discovered in the ocean. Only later when
they can be reared in the laboratory can the link to their adult form
be recognized. Similarly, the different life stages of many fungi are
given different names because they have different physical forms and
hosts. Only through detailed inoculation studies can mycologists work
out which forms are members of the same life cycle. Since some fungi
may have more than five discrete life cycle stages, this can be a long
process. Similar problems exist for some marine algae and
multiple-host parasitic organisms of many kinds. Even among
well-studied vertebrates, some tropical birds have been described as
separate species until they are observed to mate and rear young
together."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/IB181/VPL/Pres/Pres1.html
"Detailed study of large sympatric populations and fossil assemblages
of the highly variable species Elphidium excavatum (Terquem) [Benthic
foraminifera] collected from 20 widely spaced locations indicates that
a variety of morphotypes of Elphidium can be linked to one another in
a number of interlocking intergradational series. Ten morphotypes are
recognized and grouped as formae (ecophenotypes) of Elphidium
excavatum (Terquem); these morphotypes *were previously considered as
22 independent taxa* by various authors… Although all of these formae
belong to the same species, it is suggested [by the authors] that the
distinction among them should be retained because of their potential
as a valuable interpretive tool in paleo-ecological and
biostratigraphic studies of Holocene and Pleistocene sediments."
http://www.dal.ca/~es/abstract/ab_th_83.htm
"Because they are based on different stages in the life-cycle, fossil
dinoflagellates and living dinoflagellates have largely received two
sets of names, the equivalencies of which are becoming increasingly
well known. For example, Gonyaulax spinifera (the "type species" of
Gonyaulax) and related species are known to produce cysts assignable
to the genus Spiniferites. Indeed, it is generally informally
acknowledged that Spiniferites and Gonyaulax are taxonomic synonyms.
For several reasons this synonymy has not been formally proposed: 1)
the fossil generic name Spiniferites is senior to the extant name
Gonyaulax and acceptance of the synonymy would bring considerable
changes to the nomenclature of this major extant genus (and
conservation of Gonyaulax would cause a reciprocal chaos among fossil
names); 2) the exact correspondence of Spiniferites species with
Gonyaulax species is not clear; and 3) it is impossible to establish
whether earlier representatives of the genus Spiniferites were cysts
with a thecate stage identical to living Gonyaulax. In other words, to
many researchers, it is useful and desirable to retain both Gonyaulax
and Spiniferites while acknowledging that they may represent the same
biological taxon."
Greuter, W. et al., 1996. Taxon 45: 349-372.
J. SKOG (Secretary CFP) Viginia, USA js...@gmu.edu
R. FENSOME (Chair CFP) Dartmouth, Canada fen...@agc.bio.ns.ca
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:BIHHVeBCEnEC:iop.biodiversity.org.uk/iopnews/59f/7.htm+different+names+fossil+taxa&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
The naming of hominid fossils not immune from this subjective problem.
In a March 2002 statement, Tim White, who co-directs the Laboratory
for Human Evolutionary studies said, "There's been a recent tendency
to give a different name to each of the fossils that comes out of the
ground, and that has led to what we think is a very misleading
portrayal of the biology of human evolution… But when you find a
fossil like this one so similar to Asian and European ones, it
indicates the same species." "This whole species question is all about
what you accept as a sharp enough distinction to tell you that it is a
separate species," said Susan Anton, a Rutgers University
anthropologist. "This particular skull is not going to solve that
problem."
http://www.versiontech.com/origins/news/news_article.asp?news_id=113
Specific hominid fossils, such as the Solo fossils, have presented a
bit of a problem as far as classification in concerned. "When they
were first discovered, von Koenigswald believed them to be "tropical
Neanderthalers." In 1963, Bernard Campbell classified them as Homo
sapiens soloensis. Santa Luca, in 1980, classified them as Homo
erectus erectus, with Milford Wolpoff declaring that they were not
Homo erectus. Still others called them "archaic Homo sapiens." Because
of their obvious similarity to the other Japanese and Chinese
"classic" Homo erectus material, most investigators today recognize
them as Homo erectus. The Solo fossils do, however, have a larger
cranial capacity than does the average Homo erectus skull. For this
reason, many evolutionists could not resist the temptation to consider
the Solo people as "transitional" between Homo erectus and modern
humans. Unfortunately, since evolutionists believe that modern humans
arrived on the scene by 100,000 YBP, transitional fossils at 27,000
YBP will not fit… It is now known that there are many late-date
Australian fossils almost identical to the Solo (Ngandong) people."
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-286.htm
The classifications of plants is classically prone to give different
names to very similar plants or even parts of the same plant. Bill
DiMichele, a paleobotanist, notes, "The problem of organ association
is one of the reasons why paleobotanists insist on so many different
names for isolated parts of the same whole plant. Furthermore, there
are phenotypic convergences that can cause great confusion, such
leaves of virtually identical morphology borne on ferns and seed
plants. Separate names for each fossil plant organ can be carried to
extremes, however, and not all paleobotanists, myself included, favor
the attribution of separate names to organs otherwise known in
attachment (yes, this is still done routinely, no kidding)."
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sepm/palaios/9810/dimichele.html
The Mazon Creek flora is incredibly diverse. Over 400 species from at
least 130 genera have been identified from Mazon Creek nodules.
However, the number of different kinds of plants represented is very
difficult to determine. There are at least two reasons for this
difficulty. The first reason is the convention among paleobotanists
that separate plant parts receive different names. This procedure
tends to inflate the number of plant names. The second reason is that
paleobotanists are still trying to determine which taxa are valid.
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/mazon_creek/about_mazon_creek.html
According to Meyen and Traverse the problems of naming fossils are as
follows. 1. Living plants are assignable to a single taxon at any rank
whereas fossil plants with dispersed parts and no observable original
connections may be referred to several taxa of the same rank and have
different names (Stigmaria, Lepidodendron, Lepidostrobus) 2. In living
plants, all individuals belonging to a species belong to the same
genus, etc. whereas in fossil plants various specimens of a species
may or may not belong to the same genus and the genus may belong to
different families when the complete plant is considered (Stigmaria
may belong to genera assigned to Lepidodendraceae, Sigillariaceae, or
Lepidocarpaceae). 3. Living plants are assigned to a complete
hierarchy of taxa whereas fossil plants may be assigned only to genera
with higher rankings unknown (some leaf genera might belong to
pteridosperms, ferns, or cycads). 4. Living plants cannot be assigned
to different genera based upon different types of preservation whereas
fossil plants may be. 5. Different ontogenetic phases of the living
plant do not normally serve as a distinction for a taxon whereas in
fossil plants this is possible (seeds, microspores, megaspores,
cysts). They concluded that fossil plant nomenclature requires only
two special circumstances be reflected in the ICBN: 1) the possibility
to keep genera of fossil plants outside the hierarchy of formally
named higher taxa; and 2) the possibility to retain names of taxa
established for various parts.
http://iop.biodiversity.org.uk/iopnews/59f/7.htm
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:BIHHVeBCEnEC:iop.biodiversity.org.uk/iopnews/59f/7.htm+different+names+fossil+taxa&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
As it turns out, "Intraspecific variation is ubiquitous in systematic
characters, yet systematists often do not deal with polymorphism
explicity. For example, morphological systematists typically exclude
characters in which any or "too much" polymorphism is observed, and
molecular systematists often avoid intraspecific variation by sampling
a single individual per species. Recent empirical studies have
suggested that polymorphic characters contain significant phylogenetic
information but are more homoplastic than fixed characters… Excluding
polymorphic characters decreased accuracy under almost all conditions
examined, even when only the more variable characters were excluded.
Sampling a single individual per species also consistently decreased
accuracy. Thus, two common approaches for dealing with intraspecific
variation in morphological and molecular systematics can give
relatively poor estimates of phylogeny. In contrast, the unweighted
frequency method, including polymorphic characters and sampling a
reasonable number of individuals per species (n ;me 5), can give
accurate results under a variety of conditions."
http://systbiol.org/issues/46_2/46_2abstracts.html
> A brief explanation of how fossil are named can be found
> in page 3 of the "Fossil Record by Clifford A. Cuffey at:
>
> http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_03.htm
This webpage does detail somewhat how classification is done.
However, it fails to explain how different species names are assigned
to fossil creatures where the differences themselves are less
pronounced than certain differences which exist within different
members of the same living species.
> Part of problem is that popular articles about the
> coelacanth tend to be very careless about how they
> discuss the coelacanths. To catch the attention the
> attention of the reading public, such articles over-
> exaggerate and hype the "living fossils" angle and end
> up over-exaggeration the similarities between living and
> fossil coelacanths. As a result, when people get most of
> their information about coelacanths form popular
> articles, instead of bothering to read and understand
> what has been published in the technical literature,
> they end up with wildly wrong-headed ideas of what they
> are talking about.
Partly true, but exaggerated. The fact of the matter is that living
coelacanths are not significantly different from those in the fossil
record. There are differences, but these differences are not
necessarily greater than differences that exist within modern gene
pools of mating individuals.
> >So, to say that the L. chaumnae species has never been
> >found in the fossil record seems to me to be stretching
> >it a bit since this species classification is based
> >on very minor morphologic differences that are clearly
> >within the range of intra-species variation if the two
> >fish were swimming side by side today. It's kinda like
> >putting the French and Italians in different genus
> >categories.
> -
> The differences between Latimeria and Macropoma are not
> "very minor morphologic differences that are clearly
> within the range of intra-species variation" as was quite
> incorrectly and laughably stated. The claim that
> Latimeria and Macropoma are no different than French and
> Italians is simply not substantiated by the
> characteristics of these genera as is quite evident in
> the picture at:
>
> http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/february/coela2.htm
>
> Looking at this picture, a person can see extensive
> differences in the shape of skull and the bones that
> compose it, the lobe fin, tail, and disappearance of
> bones from the upper and lower fins.
There are differences in the shape of the skull, but these differences
do not seem more pronounced than the differences in the shapes of the
skulls between certain members of the same species (such as among
domestic dogs) living today. The lobe fins are almost identical.
Differences of the tail cannot be properly evaluated as you suggest,
"by looking at the picture" since this "supplementary tail fin" was
not even reconstructed in the drawing of Macropoma. Also, it does not
seem to me like the bones from the upper and lower fins "disappeared",
as you suggest, from Macropoma, but were simply not included in the
drawing. Obviously the upper and lower fins of the fossilized
coelacanths do in fact have bones in them for it is this arrangement
of bones in these very fins that was and is thought to be similar to
the limbs of certain land animals.
http://www.sciencenews.org/20010505/bob13.asp
> These differences are why led Thompson (1991) stated:
>
> "One point has to be emphasized; the living coelacanth
> is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that
> members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever
> been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species
> assignable to the genus Latimeria have been found as
> a fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil
> genus, Macropoma are quite closely related, and we
> could possibly include them in the same family. ..."
>
> The fact there is some question about whether Macropoma
> and Latimeria even belong to same family is indicative
> that despite the similarities between these genera,
> the differences between are real and significant enough
> to exclude the possibility that they are either the same
> species or genera as Mr. Pittman advocated.
There are differences… yes. Are these differences significant enough
to put Macropoma and Latimeria in different genera? It depends upon
what is means to classify different morphologies in different species
or genus groups. Does it mean that these animals did not belong to
the same gene pool? In other words, does it mean that these animals
were incapable of interbreeding? If so, then I'm not so sure that
such classifications can be supported by such differences that are
clearly within the range of modern intra-species variation.
< Snip >
There are those who strongly and convincingly disagree with these
statements, such as the David Pratt. He details his points in a paper
published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 307-352, 2000.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
> >There is even argument as to what forces might be stable
> >enough to drive such prolonged subduction of huge
> >portions of the earth's crust over the course of
> >hundreds of millions of years.
> -
> Actually there a considerably number of papers, numbering
> in the several hundreds. The overall consensus of
> numerous attempts to model the process of subduction is
> that it is indeed very stable and capable of prolonged
> subduction of the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions
> of years.
This is not necessarily so… See above link to David Pratt's paper.
> >In any case, there have been recent finds of coelacanths
> >off the coast of the Comoro Islands in 1998 that do not
> >live in very deep water (~200m) or in caves. How did
> >these coelacanths survive without being fossilized over
> >the course of 80 million years?
> -
> The fact of the matter is that the Comoro Islands are a
> volcanic archipelago of four islands and several islets
> located in the western Indian Ocean about 188 miles east
> of Africa and 188 miles northwest of Madagascar at the
> northern end of the Mozambique Channel that separates
> Africa and Madagascar. The ocean surrounding the Comoro
> Islands ranges in depth from 3,400 to 3,700 meters
> (10,400 to 11,300 feet) (Department of Defense 1992,
> 1996). Therefore, by any standard, the ocean "off the
> coast of the Comoro Islands" is very deep water that
> completely falsifies Mr. Pitman's statement about the
> coelacanths offshore of the Comoro Islands don't live in
> very deep water.
Come on now. You are better than this! It is very obvious that my
statement was intended to describe the depth at which the Camoro
Island coelacanths live, not the total depth of the ocean in which
they live. Your description of these depths, although interesting, is
irrelevant to my comment and certainly does not "completely falsify"
it.
> Contrary to what Mr. Pitman stated above. Even if the
> coelacanths live in the upper 100 to 300 meters (304 to
> 914 feet) of the ocean, when they die their remains will
> eventually accumulate at the bottom of the Mozambique
> Channel. Undoubtedly, the bones of coelacanths have
> dropped of the bottom of the Mozambique Channel and
> been buried and fossilized in these sediments. However,
> it should be quite obvious that none of these
> hypothetical coelacanths fossils are in a position to be
> found by conventional geologists because of the lack of
> outcrops of any of these sediments on land. Also, the
> great depths precludes their recovery. Undoubtedly,
> fossils of these coelacanths exist. However, they occur
> in a position where it is impossible for Mr. Pitman to
> expect that conventional paleontologists can recover
> them. Whenever the Mozambique Channel closes in the far
> geologic future, the sediment and Comoro Islands will
> likely be either largely destroyed or intensively
> metamorphosed to the point of destroying the vast
> majority of coelacanth fossils that have accumulated at
> the Mozambique Channel.
Actually, it seems as though the coelacanths of the Comoro Islands
live just above the steep slopes of these volcanic islands. Some
scientists, such as Hans Fricke, a coelacanth specialist, suggests
that "these slopes are too steep to hold sediments that could rapidly
cover a dead fish and thus begin the fossilization process." It also
seems unlikely that a dead fish would role all the way down these
uneven slopes to be buried, as you suggest, "at the bottom of the
Mozambique Channel."
> For a map showing the bathmetry of the ocean floor
Perhaps. However, 80 million years is a fair amount of time. One
might think that surviving populations of deep-sea coelacanths might
fluctuate in size. They might even "evolve" the ability to populate
rivers and lakes again. Is it not strange that in 80 million years,
the surviving populations of coelacanths never found opportunity to
evolve back the ability to live in their former habitats… where they
were previously so successful?
> The best chance that a person has for finding fossil
> coelacanths would be in underwater sediments deposited in
> ocean basins adjacent to coasts and oceanic islands that
> that now outcrop onshore. The fact of the matter is that
> such onshore outcrops of deep sea sediments dating to
> the last 80 millions are quite rare. In addition, those
> which exist, have often been so very badly mangled by
> metamorphism and tectonics as to have destroyed any
> fossils they might have contained. As a result, the
> absence of fossils coelacanths for the last 80 million
> years can easily be explained from the paucity of rocks
> of the right age and sedimentary environment to contain
> fossils.
Perhaps. But it still seems strange to me that the coelacanth
maintained such a high preference for fossilization poor environments
for so long without taking advantage of its former stomping grounds.
One can only imagine that the required evolution would have been a
fairly short step for these surviving colonies. Why then did they not
take advantage of these potential environments over the course of 80
million years?
> >For example, it is thought that all of the layers in the
It seems as I have made a great error in saying that all of the layers
of the Grand Canyon, save the Coconino Sandstone layer were formed
under water. However, it seems like many of your examples of
non-water formed layers were in fact formed by water.
The Watahomigi Formation was formed by water. Just because it is felt
to have been a coastal plain deposit does not mean that it was not
formed by water born sediments.
The Manakacha Formation and the Wescogame Formation are also generally
formed by water born sediments. The idea that sand dune deposits
intermingle with waterborne deposits is noted however.
The Esplande sandstone also seems to have been generally deposited by
water, fresh or not. The idea that some sand dune deposits
intermingle with the waterborne deposits is also duly noted.
The Hermit Shale is also considered to be deposited by water.
The idea that the Brady Canyon formation was formed by sand dunes and
grades into marine sediment is also duly noted.
In any case, just because a layer is thought to be of "non-marine"
origin does not mean that it was not formed by water. Not all water
is marine in origin. Also, certain of the layers that are thought to
have been formed by sand dunes, such as the famous Coconino Sandstone
layer, may have been formed underwater as well. Leonard R. Brand, a
geologist, did some pretty interesting experiments with lizards and
salamanders. He studied the footprints that they made as they walked
across sand. He compared these tracks to the fossilized tracks in
the Coconino Sandstone. He concluded that these tracks appear to have
been made underwater.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
> Reference Consulted
>
> Beus, S. S., and M. Morlaes (1990) Grand Canyon Geology
> Oxford University Press, New York.
> -
> >Yet, there it is for all to see, above water.
> -
> Yes, the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon is all above
> water for all to see. However, it is completely useless
> for finding fossils of coelacanths that are less than 80
> million years old as Mr. Pitman clearly doesn't seem to
> understand.
In using the Grand Canyon as an example of layers that were deposited
by water and which are now revealed, I was not indicating that I
thought fossils coelacanths younger than 80 million years could be
found in the layers exposed by the Grand Canyon. After all, the
youngest layers in the Grand Canyon are thought to be far older than
80 million years. Where exactly did I make this proposal? I never
proposed looking for coelacanths in the Grand Canyon at all.
< snip long section on how coelacanths can't be found in the Grand
Canyon
> Maybe, Mr. Pitman
> might be better off looking in the Paleocene of Denmark
> where a bone, possibly from a coelacanth, has been
> found by Orvig (1986).
It seems as though you have missed the point of my original question.
I am not looking for coelacanths younger than 80 million years nor do
I expect that they will be found. What I am wondering is how
coelacanths avoided fossilization for 80 million years. Granted, you
have given some reasonable and potentially correct explanations.
However, the fact that they are not found over such a span of time
still seems incompletely answered in my mind. You have pointed out
that they probably lived in areas that were not conducive to
fossilization or fossil preservation. Perhaps this solves all the
problems. It still seems strange to me though that these coelacanth
populations would have remained in such protected habitats for such a
long span of time. Perhaps they did… but really, this is not a main
problem of mine in interpreting the geologic column as being formed
over hundreds of millions of years.
> Of course, if Mr. Pitman still believes that he can find
> fossils of Latimeria chalumnae in the Grand Canyon, I
> will not try dissuade him from making a fool of himself
> and wasting money. (of course, when he comes back after
> searching the area for five years and finding nothing,
> I will post a loud and clear, "I told you so" to
> talk.origins newsgroup.
It may be very possible for you to tell me, "I told you so" to many
other things… but not to finding Latimeria chalumnae in the Grand
Canyon because I never proposed such a thing. In any case, it seems
like you just really want to prove me wrong and then rub it in my face
when you do. It is just so nice to be right isn't it? Being able to
tell crazy people like me, "I told you so" would be such a
satisfaction now wouldn't it? I am wondering though, what will happen
if you are right about evolution? Where will it all end? Will you
even be around to tell me, "I told you so"?
< Snip >
> >The coelacanths that are fossilized, also lived
> >underwater once upon a time. The argument here is that
> >their habitat was more conducive to fossilization than
> >the habitat of the modern coelacanths. Conduciveness is
> >a bit different from preservation potential however.
> >Subduction arguments do not argue so much against
> >conduciveness, but against preservation potential.
> -
> How does "Conduciveness" differ from "preservation
> potential"?
If fossils can be made in a particular environment, then that
environment is "conducive" to fossilization. Once a fossil is made,
it must be preserved from being destroyed if it is to be of some use
to scientists millions of years down the line. If the place that the
fossil is made is close to some subduction zone, it might be
destroyed. So, even though the environment in this area might make
fossils readily, it will not preserve them very long once they are
made.
> Since "Conduciveness" is totally dependant
> on preservation potential, separating the two is rather
> meaningless in this discussion.
Actually, as I see it, or at least in the context that I am using the
words, conduciveness is not dependant upon preservation potential at
all. Just because a fossil can be formed in a given environment does
not mean that the fossil will be preserved for millions of years once
it is formed.
> But I guess whatever
> turns you on is OK with me. :-) :-) Still Mr. Pitman
> doesn't make much sense here.
Hopefully I cleared things up for you…
> >However, we do have supposedly ancient deep sea
> >sediments preserved in the fossil record.
> -
> This is true. The problem is that much of the deep sea
> sediments, which survive destruction, are far too old
> to contain coelacanth fossils from the 80 million year
> gap in their fossil record.
This also seems strange to me. Why are deep-sea sediments, that were
preserved in the past, not preserved so well in the last 100 million
years?
> There are very few and very
> restricted places where relatively undeformed deep sea
> strata from the 0 to 80 million year period are exposed.
> These outcrops are so restricted that it is entirely
> possible for coelacanths to have lived off the coasts of
> Indonesia, South Africa, and Comoros Islands for the past
> 80 million years and not find any evidence of them
> because there are no onshore exposures of sedimentary
> marine rocks containing their fossils in these regions.
Given certain basic assumptions, this seems to be a plausible theory.
> >Somehow they managed to survive destruction by
> >subduction.
> -
> If Mr. Pitman would bother read about the concepts he
> trashes, he find that a small percentage of oceanic crust
> and sediments, along with the tops of seamounts, is
> scraped off during subduction and accreted to the
> continental. The survival of small pieces of oceanic
> strata is perfectly explained within the subduction
> model. Thus, the "somehow" in this sentence is entirely
> unnecessary.
There are those who find this theorized "scraping off" of oceanic
sediment rather lacking. There simply is not enough evidence of
scraped-off sediment if steady subduction has been occurring over the
past 200+ million years or so. (See the link to Pratt above)
Are you telling me that there are no exposed sedimentary layers in the
fossil record formed over the past 80 million years that were formed
in water as deep as 60 meters? If not, then I see your point.
However, if there are layers that were formed under at least 60 meters
of water, that are now uplifted and exposed on dry land, then there
might be a bit of a problem. Perhaps not since those coelacanths that
live in shallower waters might still live in areas that are not so
conducive to fossil formation. However, if fossilization did take
place, once upon a time, at depths of 60 meters, one might expect that
certain of these areas would eventually be uplifted and exposed on dry
land were geologists and paleontologists could find them.
In any case, this is not the most common argument that I have heard as
to why living coelacanths are not found in the fossil record. The
most common hypothesis that I have come across is that their
environment just was not conducive to fossilization. Your proposal
that fossilization does occur, but that scientists just can't get to
the fossils, seems to be somewhat original. I'm not saying that it is
necessarily a bad hypothesis. It is just that I haven't heard it from
many others.
< snip >
> >Of course, coelacanths are not the only ones to
> >seemingly be raised up after tens of millions of years
> >of extinction. There are a large number of other
> >fossils to include entire orders of creatures that
> >disappear from tens of millions of years, and then
> >reappear suddenly in the fossil record. These examples
> >are so common that they have been given the name,
> >"Lazarus Taxa."
> -
> There is nothing puzzling or mysterious about all of
> this. If strata containing fossils of these animals are
> either not exposed or don't exist, then it is completely
> ridiculous to expect fossils of these animals to be
> found.
Really? It's a simple as that? An entire taxa can just disappear and
then reappear after millions of years? If taxa can pop in and out of
the fossil record after 5 or 10 million years, then why didn't the
coelacanth pop back into the record sometime during a span of 80
million years? I know I know… coelacanths don't evolve very fast and
they stuck with environments that did not make or preserve fossils
well. This certainly is potential answer, but I still find "Lazarus
Taxa" a curious phenomenon.
> >>>Fossilization requires rapid burial or else decay will
> >>>obliterate all traces.
> >This is not completely true. Bones can survive for over
> >a year before being buried.
> -
> >This depends upon the environment in which they are
> >deposited as well as the size of the bones.
> -
> This is true. Far more important than rapid burial, the
> location of where the remains of an animal come to rest
> is likely the most important factor in determining
> whether or not they are preserved. If preserved, it also
> determined how well or how badly the remains will be
> preserved
I mostly agree, except for your statement that location is "far more
important than rapid burial" for fossilization. When dealing with the
finely preserved detail of many fish fossils, rapid burial seems to be
of primary importance.
> >Also, well preserved fossils of completely intact
> >specimens, to include soft tissue impressions in fine
> >detail, as is the case with many of the coelacanth
> >fossils, requires rapid burial.
> -
> Rapid burial is a major, although not always a necessary
> part of the preservation of completely intact specimens
> including impressions of soft parts. However, Mr.
> Pitman's is completely wrong that a global catastrophe,
> e.g. the Noachian Flood, is needed for rapid burial.
At this point, the Noachian Flood, is not the main question. The
question is only one of the general requirement for rapid burial of
dead or dying fish for the preservation of such fine detail. My
original argument was that very rapid burial was generally required
for fossilization in the context of finely detailed fish fossils. You
jumped all over this statement saying basically that I had made the
most outrageous proposal imaginable. Now, you basically agree that
rapid burial is generally required, but argue that even if this is in
fact true, that the hypothesized Noachian Flood is not needed for such
rapid burials. That's fine. All I am proposing, at this point, is
the general importance of rapid burial for fossilization.
> In case of the Mazon Creek fossils, the animals and
> plants were rapidly buried when periodic floods dumped
> freshwater and sediment into a deltaic estuary / bay
> (Baird 1990, pp. 279, 281, Baird et al. 1986). Once
> buried, bacterial decay of these organisms caused the
> precipitation of a siderite concretion that quickly
> encased it and preserved its form (Baird 1990, Fig. 3).
> The organism itself is not really fossilized, but left
> as a phosphatic film or impression preserved by the
> concretion as is characteristic of all of the soft-
> bodied fossils found in these concretions including the
> famous Tully monster. There are many non-catastrophic
> processes that cause rapid burial of fossils.
It depends upon what you mean when you use the term "catastrophic".
It seems more like you are concerned with the scale of the catastrophe
more than you are with the idea of rapid burial by some smaller or
"local" catastrophes. I mean, from the perspective of those fish and
those environments that were destroyed and buried in these "periodic
floods", these were catastrophic events. You see, at this point I am
not talking so much about the scale, but only about the fact that
rapid or "catastrophic" burial occurred… sometimes on a relatively
massive scale. The preservation of certain details, such as fish
gills, requires an extremely sudden burial and fossilization process.
I'm sure you would agree. That is all I am saying here.
< snip >
> >>In the case of shells, they can be washed around for
> >>decades, even hundred of years, before they are finally
> >>buried in the sediment to become fossils.
> >
> >This also depends upon the environment and the size of
> >the shell. The fact of the matter is, even in the best
> >of circumstances, even shells are degraded fairly rapidly
> >in exposed environments. They do not last for hundreds
> >of years of open exposure and weathering.
> -
> This not always true. Shell can, in fact, exist for
> hundreds of years of lying on the ground and weathering.
Can you give a specific example or reference to back up this
statement? How a relatively fragile shell can withstand hundreds of
years of weathering is beyond me.
> Proof of this are beach ridges in the Louisiana chenier
> plain and elsewhere that are composed of shell and which
> have not weathered away after a couple of thousand years.
> Addition proof consists of Native American shell middens
> composed entirely of shell, which haven't weathered away
> after thousands of years of weathering. The fact that
> even after a thousand years or more, a person can still
> find shell middens and shell beaches in Louisiana and all
> over the world clearly refutes Mr. Pitman's argument that
> shells do not last for hundreds of years in any situation
> or location. However, the local environment does play a
> major role in the durability of shell.
Are you talking about individual shells or layers that are composed of
shells? The Louisiana Chenier Plain has complexes that are composed
of sand with shells scattered throughout in "stringers, lenses, and
decimeter thick tabular beds." Obviously we are not talking about the
erosion of a single shell exposed to hundreds of years of weathering
here. If you are talking shell beds, then that is a completely
different story. However, what you originally said or seemed to say,
that individual shells could be washed around for decades or even
hundreds of years before being fossilized, is not supported here. How
do you think much of the shell content of beach sand is made?
Individual shells simply cannot withstand being washed around for
hundreds of years.
http://www.geol.lsu.edu/anderson/rsch/gcags95.htm
> In marine environments, it is true that shells are not
> continuously exposed at the surface. Rather as they "wash
> around", they are periodically buried and unburied by
> storms and the daily shifting of sand along the beach and
> within the nearshore environment. The more time a shell
> spends buried in the sand and the more solidly built a
> shell is the more likely it will survive long enough to
> be eventually buried and preserved as a fossil.
There you go… A shell must be buried and protected from the
environment in order to be fossilized hundreds of years later. A
shell cannot be directly exposed to weathering forces for very long
without being rapidly destroyed. No one would argue this point.
Obviously if a shell is protected, it may be protected for a very long
time without having to be fossilized. Fossilization is not the only
way of preserving materials. In fact, some dinosaur bones have been
preserved over the course of many "millions of years" without being
fossilized. Fossilization then, is not a requirement for
preservation. But, avoidance of weathering forces certainly is.
< Snip >
> >In any case, we are not talking shells here, but fish
> >that are preserved intact, often with delicate soft
> >tissue impressions also preserved in fine detail.
> -
> However, intact fossil fish are a very rare, very small
> percentage of all the fossils to be found. Shells,
> including the tests of foraminifer and other
> microfossils, and isolated bones likely comprise, I
> would guess, about 99.999+ percent of the fossils to be
> found. Complete and intact fossils of fish and other
> vertebrates are an insignificant percentage all fossils
> that can be found in the geologic column.
Living fish and other vertebrates also form a relatively small
proportion of all living things. I would guess that they are vastly
outnumbered by foraminifers and the like. So, it is only to be
expected that fossil fish form the minority of the total fossil mass
in the fossil record.
> The fossil fish
> with soft delicate tissue preserved are likely only a
> minority of all of fossil fish with intact skeletons that
> are found. Although showy, eye-catching, and, thus, easy
> to hype, intact fossil fish are completely
> unrepresentative and atypical of fossils that are
> normally found in sedimentary rocks.
The fact that tens of thousands of square miles of well preserved
fossil fish showing evidence of rapid burial is quite interesting
though. The preservation of delicate fish skeletons intact or not,
also speaks in favor of fairly rapid burial. During a watery
catastrophe, local or not, one might expect massive fish kills. Some
might be rapidly buried, while others may "boat and float" so to
speak. Fish often float when then die. They might then be buried by
secondary waves of flooding or by sinking after a while as you
suggest. However, once they sink, they still must be buried fairly
rapidly as well as deeply to be preserved. Slow settling, as you
suggest for the burial of some shells in certain locations (via
bioactivity/disturbances) doesn't seem adequate to explain fish burial
since the bioactivity would consume and mix up the fish with other
sediments before it could be identifiably preserved.
> To some extent the focus that Young Earth creationists
> have on the exceptional intact fossil fish skeleton and
> soft bodied fossils is in part a debating technique.
> First, these fossils, unlike the average shell and
> disarticulated bone, are for more showy and eye-catching.
> They attract the attention of the general public to whom
> they are trying convert to their point of view. Also, if
> Young Earth creationists can also make the general public
> falsely believe that soft-bodied fossils and articulated
> fish and other vertebrate fossil are far more common and
> abundant than they really are, they make the occurrence
> of these fossils a matter far more mysterious than
> it really is. Thus, it is important to emphasis that
> intact fossil fish are in fact quite rare in respect to
> the disarticulated bones of fish and articulated
> skeletons are grossly atypical in terms of the state in
> which fossils are normally preserved.
If finely preserved fossil fish were the only evidence for the
relatively rapid formation of the geologic column, then you might have
a point. The fact of the matter is, that for many layers within the
geologic column, the fossils show generalized evidence of rapid
burial. You point out certain fairly rare or unusual processes that
might preserve the remains of creatures over long periods of time or
how slow burial and fossilization may occur. However, it seems to me
that the evidence for rapid burial and fossilization is the general
rule and not the exception… even when it comes to disarticulated
bones. Even these must generally be buried fairly rapidly in order
for preservation to occur. You yourself have admitted as much in
certain of your above comments.
> From just the very small percentages of intact fossil
> fish found relative to disarticulated fish bones and
> all other poorly preserved fossils, it is quite obvious
> that the conditions under which intact fossil fish are
> created are overall rare. In addition, the processes,
> which create fossil fish are very limited in the area
> over which they operate. This is not the signature of
> a global catastrophe, but rather an limited area, e.g.
> a very large or lagoon, and time during which the
> conditions are just right for the fossilization of fish,
Even during massive flooding events, the conditions under which intact
fossil fish would be formed might also be relatively rare. The fact
that there exist quite a number of places where huge masses of
well-preserved fish can be found, it quite interesting. Sometimes
these fish are very tightly packed together. For example, the Karroo
(Karoo) Formation in Africa contains hundreds of millions and possibly
billions of fish as well as other vertebrate fossils covering an area
of some 200,000 square miles. Other formations are also quite massive
and contain fish and other fossils in such concentrations that only
huge flooding events could have formed them. If not a global
catastrophe, then the flooding event that did create certain of these
gigantic formations had to involve a significant portion of the globe.
A truly global catastrophe would be probably be rather complex. As
it increased in size, it would cover limited portions of the globe at
any one time. Tidal actions would rapidly remove water from
previously covered areas, and then bring them back again repeatedly.
In my opinion, such an event cannot be ruled out as an explanation for
such massive and concentrated burial grounds.
Then, there are certain layers in the geologic column that are truly
global, such as the KT- boundary. "The actual K/T boundary layer lies
between the cretaceous and tertiary sediments in the sedimentary rock
deposits. According to Alan R. Hildebrand (1992), the layer is similar
all around the world and has an inner structure of two layers. The
upper layer is known as the "Fireball layer" and is in average 3mm
thick. Its thickness is the same around the globe, and thus it must
have been dispersed quite quickly (within 2-3 months). It represents
1500 cubic kilometres of debris deposited globally. The lower layer,
named the "Ejecta layer", averages about 2cm in thickness. The layers
are mostly made of clay, with some soot in the upper parts." Many
propose that a giant meteor impact was responsible for the KT-event.
The energy released by a meteor of approximately 10km in diameter,
would be devastating. Evidence of such an impact (The Chicxulub
Crater) can be found in near Mexico's Yucatan peninsula. "The models
made of Chicxulub suggest that the energy released was something like
10^25 joules in one minute. The immediate effect would be the
vaporization, melting and ejection of the original meteorite, millions
of liters of water and about 200 cubic km of Earth's crust. There
would be an immense heat and pressure wave, and giant tidal waves
would rush from the impact site… causing the floods seen in the bottom
part of the K/T sediments. As the rocks of the area of impact had high
amounts of sulphides, their vaporization would release a lot of
sulphur into the atmosphere, and along with the oxidized atmospheric
nitrogen it would cause major acid rains, changing the pH of the
surface waters. This kind of chemical reactions have been found in the
K/T boundary layer… The vaporized rock material and dust-sized grains
of the ejecta would stay up in the atmosphere for periods up to 2-3
months causing darkness and cooling of the weather… And, finally, the
impact would have released something like 10^15-10^17kg of CO2 into
the atmosphere, causing major greenhouse effects. The upper limit of
this carbon dioxide would have been about 50 times as much as found
today in the atmosphere, and would have warmed the atmosphere by 15deg
C… The effects of the impact would have been great, and indeed most of
the organisms living at that time would have been affected. Only the
ones most capable of adapting would have survived."
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~jkorteni/space/boundary/
The KT-event is not the only such massive event commonly associated
with massive floods, extinction, and drastic ecological changes
worldwide. Throughout the geologic column evidence of sudden,
widespread and sometimes global events are recognized. Other features
of the geologic column, such as the general flatness of these
sedimentary layers and the smooth contact zones between the layers
might possibly suggest that these events may have been part of an
larger event or collection of a series of closely spaced events.
> >This level of detail requires very rapid burial.
> >Only in of the fossilization of soft parts is
> >immediate burial required.
> -
> When soft tissue is fossilized, rapid fossilization and
> eventual burial are general requirements. However, as
> noted above, a global catastrophe is not required for
> either rapid or eventual burial to take place.
As noted above, if the event were a local event, it was a massive
local event covering hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions
of square miles. We are not talking some little spring shower here.
> Even when
> rapid burial occurs, it can be caused by any number of
> non-catastrophic processes, such as a volcanic eruption,
> landslide, undersea slump, single turbidity current,
> river flood, diurnal tidal currents, hurricane, typhoon,
> and so forth.
So, hurricanes, typhoons, volcanic eruptions, large floods etc. are
defined as non-catastrophic events?!
> Only someone completely uninformed about
> these and similar geologic processes would argue that
> only a catastrophic event, e.g. a mythical and
> imaginary Noachian Flood to explain the rapid burial of
> fossils.
Again, you seem to have a different definition of catastrophe than I
do… If hurricanes, typhoons, volcanoes etc… aren't catastrophes, then
I don't know what a catastrophe is.
> Glen Morton discusses "Non-Catastrophic and Modern
> Fossilization" at:
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>
> In a brief review published research on how fossils are
> made, Glenn documents numerous papers, which document
> modern examples that refute Mr. Pitman's claim that a
> world-wide catastrophe of any sort is needed for the
> preservation of soft-bodied fossils.
Look, you are shooting yourself in the foot here. You already
admitted that the preservation of soft-bodied fossils generally
requires rapid burial/fossilization… sometimes on the order of one to
three hours (as in the Santana formation where electron microscopic
evaluation has show that the lamellae of the gills are uncollapsed and
that the individual cells of the lamellae were still turgid when
fossilization began). So, it seems to me that you are not arguing so
much against rapid/catastrophic burial as you are against the idea of
a global flooding event. You don't care if the flooding event was
rapid, as long as it was local. Well, that's fine. But, even from
this perspective, there were quite a few very large and very rapid
flooding events preserved in the geologic column/fossil record.
> >At least at this level, but also at the level of
> >intact skeletons.
> -
> Rapid burial helps, but is not always absolutely needed
> for the preservation of intact fossil fish skeletons.
> Briggs et al. (1993) noted that the decay rate can be
> inhibited by both temperature and salinity and the
> process of fossilization may continue for weeks. Rapid
> burial is a great asset in terms of preservation, but
> fossilization can begin even before the fossil fish is
> buried. In cases where either a fossils falls into
> toxic anoxic or highly saline bottom waters that
> preclude scavenging.
"Rapid burial helps, but is not always absolutely needed…" Now that is
reaching for straws if I ever saw it. For someone to admit that rapid
burial/fossilization is generally needed to preserve intact fish
fossils and then turn around and say that rapid burial is not always
needed, seems a bit desperate. The evidence of the fossil fish beds
that do preserve such intact skeletons and soft tissues speaks in
favor of a very rapid burial and fossilization process. Also, anoxic
conditions do not preclude the process of decay. Modern environments
that have low oxygen levels show rapid destruction of soft tissues by
anaerobic bacteria. An intact fish simple cannot hang-out very long
even in "highly saline bottom waters" or "anoxic" sediments without
being destroyed by bacteria, protozoans, and certain other scavengers
that are adapted to such extreme environments.
> Again, a person needs to remember that the preservation
> of intact skeletons, whether they be fossil fish or any
> other vertebrates are quite rare events. The vast
> majority of vertebrate fossils are not intact skeletons.
> The vast majority, which lie in the 99.999+ range of
> vertebrate fossil, are disarticulated fossils. Many of
> these scattered bones, commonly show the effects of
> weathering and having been gnawed on, which clearly
> demonstrate that many fossils were not rapidly buried.
> In fact the effects of weathering and animals on the
> bones show that they lay exposed for an extended period
> of time and were **not** the remains of animals killed
> and rapidly buried by a global catastrophe. Of course,
> Young earth creationists don't want to talk about these
> fossils. Rather, they want to focus largely on the more
> showy and attention getting intact fossils that are quite
> unrepresentative of the typical fossil a person normally
> finds in the field.
Certain shells or larger skeletal fossils do show such evidence of
exposure after death. The extent to which this exposure occurred was
most likely limited to a very short span of time. The evidence of
"gnawing" or boring of certain fossils can be accomplished quite
rapidly indeed. In fact, if left exposed for too long before burial,
such processes would quickly destroy the entire fossil. This evidence
speaks against your statement that bones and shells can lie exposed
for years without being destroyed. Really, I do not see how such
evidence of "gnawing" poses any significant problem for the idea of
rapid burial after some brief interval of exposure.
< snip >
> >>This all has been documented by direct field
> >>observation and other studies. Contrary to what Mr.
> >>Pitman incorrectly claims, the hard part of animals
> >>can persist for a significant period of time before
> >>being finally buried.
> >
> >Generally not. Even "hard parts" weather fairly
> >rapidly in open environments.
> -
> Contrary to what Mr. Pitman claims, bones does not always
> weather rapidly in "open environments". If a person reads
> through the published, a person finds that the rate at
> which a fossil bone weathers all depends the location of
> the bone in questions. On acidic soils and where there is
> wide variation in temperature and moisture, the rates of
> bone weathering can be quite rapid as Mr. Pitman states.
> In other environments and on calcareous soils, bones can
> last 8 to 15 years, which by my standard is not "fairly
> rapidly" as documented by Behrensmeyer (1991). The is a
> relatively long period of time during which at least a
> few of these bones can be either buried by trampling,
> wash into a nearby stream, or buried by river flood and
> preserved and fossilized.
Again, what environment are we talking about here when we are
discussing fish fossils? The hard parts of fish fossils (ie: the
bones) simply cannot withstand long periods of exposure.
> >Intact skeletons are especially prone to disarticulation.
> -
> This is true. However, this is why the vast majority of
> vertebrate fossils found are disarticulated. Conventional
> geologists and paleontologists would agree on this point.
So would YECs. However, the many massive fossil beds that do show
articulated fossils, speak in favor of rapid/catastrophic
burial/fossilization. Also bivalves that are buried with their valves
tightly closed, such as are found in many locations like the Santana
Formation, are evidence of rapid burial (bivalves relax and open when
they die). Also, along with the fish in the Santana Formation,
pterosaurs fossils (large flying reptiles) are also found, uncrushed
and well preserved and occasionally articulated. There is one case
that even preserved part of a wing membrane. Now, how did flying
pterosaurs get so well preserved with all the well-preserved fish?
How did they fall out of the air and then get buried rapidly enough in
the water to be so well preserved?
Can you give a reference for the rates at which boring takes place?
You say that the boring seen in certain fossilized shells would take
weeks to achieve. Can you give a reference for this statement? Also,
some boring organisms may maintain their activity after burial for
some extended periods of time before their own death.
> Mr. Pitman's comments about encrusting and boring "even
> before the death of shelled creatures." fails miserably
> as an explanation. The types of borings and encrustation
> that are seen on many fossils are simply not the type
> which are formed during the life of an animal. They are
> the type which form after it dies. Some examples, are the
> encrusting fossils found on the articulated skeleton of a
> Basilosaurus found at Montgomery Landing in Louisiana
> (Lancaster 1986) and the encrusted ammonites found in
> Jurassic black shale deposits, known both as the
> "Posidonienschiefer" and "Posidonia Shale" which occur
> in southwestern Germany. Within marl beds, that lie
> between beds of black shale, fossils of ammonites lying
> on their site are abundant. These ammonites are always
> encrusted and bored on the side facing upward indicating
> that the encrustation and boring occurred after the
> ammonite had died and its shell had settled flat on the
> bottom of the sea floor. Such ammonites must have lay
> on the bottom for months while other animals grew on it
> and bored into it shell. The encrusting fossils show
> that only after a period of many months or even years
> was the ammonite finally buried (Kaufman 1981,
> Wild 1990).
How do you know that this degree of encrustation takes months or even
years? What experimental evidence has been done to demonstrate the
validity of this statement? Also, it seems as if there is good
evidence for encrustation and/or bioerosion occurring on *both* sides
of fossilized ammonites, and not just the upper surface as you
suggest. "Encrustation and/or bioerosion have been observed on both
sides of several ammonites sampled from Lower-Middle Toarcian Rosso
Ammonitico of the Umbria-Marche Apennines (Central Italy). The
majority of these features are due to the activity of polychaete
worms: the encrusting s.s. is due to serpulids, whilst bioerosion s.
s. is similar to Maeandropolydora decipiens Voigt, and a third
category of polychaetes has produced bioerosion-encrustation
structures." Usually, the presence of boring and/or encrustation on
the lower side of these ammonite molds is interpreted as
"reelaboration" or the "re-exhumation" of the ammonites. However,
there is evidence that re-exhumation of these ammonites is "not
necessary to permit the boring action." In other words, boring can
occur after burial.
http://www.gp.terra.unimi.it/rivista/106N3.html
> In the "Posidonienschiefer" and "Posidonia Shale",
> Kaufman (1981) and Wild (1990) observed direct evidence
> of "bacterial decay and scavenging" of ichthyosaur
> fossils also indicating long period during which the
> upper surface of their carcasses were exposed before
> being buried. The evidence of decay in many ichthyosaur
> skeletons, although still articulated, and the
> scavenging indicate that these sediments did not
> accumulate at a catastrophically rapid rate as claimed
> by Young Earth creationists. They also indicate that these
> and better preserved intact ichthyosaur skeletons are
> not indicative of rapid burial associated with
> catastrophic event.
Actually, most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such
as those found clustered together at places like the
Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada. These same ichthyosaurs that
show evidence of rapid burial are buried with certain other
ichthyosaurs that show some evidence of rather brief exposure and/or
scavenging. Isn't it strange that creatures showing evidence of some
exposure are buried closely with others that show evidence of very
rapid burial? According to scientists studying these fossils, "It is
not yet certain how these large creatures died and were buried
together in such a small area." Also, at least in the Nevada
location, "the skeletons are generally oriented along a north-south
axis, suggesting that currents or tides played some part in deciding
their final resting place." Other evidences of rapid ichthyosaur
burial include some specimens that were suddenly buried in the middle
of giving birth! Yes, a number of these partial birth fossils have
been found in Germany showing baby ichthyosaurs frozen half way out of
their mother's birth canals (I fail to see how you choking argument
(below) will help you out here ; ). Consider also the large size of
adult ichthyosaurs. In order to preserve such large specimens, in
such well-preserved condition, rapid burial is required. These are
all indications of some sort of sudden event that resulted in the
relatively simultaneous deaths of many ichthyosaurs as well as their
relatively rapid burial. In any case, some prolonged exposure of such
large creatures as ichthyosaurs is only to be expected, but the fact
that their fossil remains were preserved in an articulated fashion,
often with evidence of soft tissue detail, speaks in favor of a fairly
rapid burial process with little chance for significant decay and/or
scavenging. Many creatures may die at the same time and then be
buried at slightly different times by repeated waves of sediment
deposition.
Another very startling finding that demonstrates the
sudden/catastrophic burial of very large creatures is a finding in
1971 of a perfectly articulated Protoceratops and a Velciraptor frozen
in a life and death struggle with each other. Obviously these two
creatures were buried suddenly by a huge catastrophe of magnificent
proportions. The dinosaurs didn't even have time to fall over.
Also, fairly recent discoveries of fossil whales (Miocene/Pleocene) in
western Peru are quite interesting. Leonard Brand, Ph.D. comments, "In
our survey of the area, we found the fossil remains of more than 100
whales in an area of less than two square kilometers… What was even
more exciting was the well-preserved nature of the fossil remains."
Brand explains why these fossilized whales are so interesting.
"Typically, when a whale dies at sea, the carcass falls to the bottom
and becomes the source of a rich ecosystem. Many species of sea life
benefit from the decaying remains at each stage of the process.
"Within four to six months, the whale carcass has been mostly stripped
down to the bones," explains Dr. Brand. "At that point, other species
of organisms burrow both into the bones and the surrounding sediment."
Within a year or two, the whale bones show much evidence of these
burrowing animals." How did the whales in western Peru meet their end?
"These whales were incredibly well-preserved," Brand observes,
"suggesting that they were covered quickly." Brand found that the
whale remains were blanketed by a thick layer of diatomite (silica
remains of diatoms). These tiny creatures, known collectively as
plankton together with dinoflagellates, are part of the food source
for whales. In modern times, diatomite normally accumulates on the sea
bottom at a rate of a few centimeters per thousand years. "We also
found beautifully preserved baleen," he adds. Baleen refers to the
filtering teeth-like structures in the whale's mouth. "Whales feed by
gulping in water and forcing it out through the baleen, trapping the
tiny plankton." Baleen is actually more akin to the human fingernail
or toenail in its structure. "The well-preserved baleen supports the
theory of a quick burial to an even greater extent," he concludes. But
why did the whales die in the first place? "There is more and more
evidence that red tides--blooms of diatoms and
dinoflagellates--produce toxins which can kill large animals and
fish," he says.
Such levels of detail as seen in certain ichthyosaur, whale, dinosaur
and other fossilized remains of large creatures, seems to require some
sort of rapid burial event.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dinosaurs/sci_focus/production3.shtml
http://faculty.uca.edu/~benw/biol4402/lecture11/sld026.htm
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/ichthyosaur.html
http://www.dino-nakasato.org/en/special97/Fight-e.html
http://www.llu.edu/news/scope/sum00/fossils.htm
I'm not saying that the majority of fossils are preserved in any sort
of "pristine" condition. Certainly such fossils are a strong
minority, but by no means rare. Literally millions upon millions of
well preserved fish fossils, shells, and the like can be found in
certain locations involving thousands of square miles (ie: Santana
Formation etc.) These speak of a very widespread catastrophic/sudden
event. Such an event or series of events might also preserve many
other fossils in a less than pristine condition in other locations.
> For any collection of pristine shells, there are bed
> upon bed of fossil hash in the geologic record. For each
> intact skeleton of a fish or any other vertebrate, there
> are millions of isolated bones and bone fragment. The
> reality of the fossil record is that "fossilized shells
> preserved in "pristine condition" are only a very small
> percentage of the fossils found in geologic record. The
> the vast majority of fossils consists either of fossil /
> shell hash or isolated, often broken, pieces of bone.
Only to be expected as the result of large, violent, complex
catastrophic events acting over an extended course of time, but
certainly not involving separation times running in the millions of
years. Consider again that many of these layers are layered where
their contact zones with layers above and layers below are as crisp
and sharply demarcated as the edge of a knife blade. If formed over
the course of millions of years, how do such layers stack up as flat
as pancakes or sheets of glass, without significant evidence of
general weathering being preserved, or of bioturbidation destroying
such crisp contact zones? One of your favorite authors, Glenn Morton,
has not explained this phenomenon although he gives volumes of
descriptions of isolated evidences of erosion that he says must have
taken place over long periods of time. I disagree, but even if these
isolated cases did require long periods of time to form, this evidence
does not explain the lack of general erosion between such flat and
smooth layers as exist generally in the geologic column.
> If "pristine fossils" were as common as Mr. Pitman
> believes them to be, the law of supply and demand being
> what it is, a person wouldn't find these fossils selling
> for tens of dollars to thousands of dollars on Ebay. The
> inexpensive fossils are typically either rather beat up,
> poorly preserved, or fragments. For example, if there are
> "billions and billions" of well-preserved fossil fish in
> Old Red Sandstone, as claimed by Mr. Pitman, they should
> be easy enough to find where they should sell for only a
> few pennies each. Instead, prices for common fish fossils
> from the Old Red Sandstone range from 40.00 to 70.00
> dollars a fish to 125.00 to over a 1,000 dollars a fish
> for the larger and less common varieties. There is no
> cartel like DeBeers or OPEC controlling the price of
> fossil fish from the Old Red Sandstone.
Just because "billions" of well-preserved fish and other fossils might
be present in vast formations such as the Old Red Sandstone, does not
mean that they are easily obtained. The Old Red Sandstone system is
quite large indeed, covering significant portions of many widely
separated countries such as England, Russia, and North America. In
some areas is it as thick as 10,000 feet. Several of the layers in
this formation are "crowded" with fossilized fish remains… often very
well preserved. There are many other formations throughout the world
that have millions if not billions of well preserved fish fossils.
Granted, relative to the total number of other types of fossils, such
well preserved fish fossils are rare, but certainly not uncommon…
especially in certain huge areas where they are found especially well
preserved and concentrated in mass burial.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/vestiges/chapter05.html
Sean Pitman M.D.
Ok, let's go there. Other fossils besides fish also show significant
evidence of sudden or rapid burial. Fossilization in general does
require rapid or "catastrophic" burial. Bones, even large bones from
bison and the like, do not generally survive very long if exposed… as
you pointed out. They might survive longer than smaller bones, but
not very long at all really, especially in an articulated condition.
Also, bones of comparable size to bison bones, such as bones of
certain large dinosaurs found in the fossil record, commonly show
evidence of a rapid and often widespread watery burial.
For example, consider the Morrison Formation (Late Jurassic) in the
western United States. This formation has an average thickness of 100m
(300 ft) and extends over 1,000,000 square km (400,000 square mi),
being found from Canada to Texas, the Dakotas to Idaho and Arizona to
Oklahoma. It is known as one of the world's richest sources of
dinosaur fossils, but also contains fossil fish, frogs, salamanders,
lizards, crocodiles, pterosaurs, dinosaur eggs, and shrew- to ratsized
mammals. The dinosaur bones occur in the middle green siltstone beds
and in the lower sandstones of the Morrison Formation, often in
graveyards composed of densely packed bones. It is commonly said that
this vast formation was created by sediments carried by streams and
rivers from some ancient highlands into swampy lowland environments.
But how did gentle streams and small intermittent floods pack together
so many dinosaur fossils as well as a wide variety of other fossils,
without preserving very many plant fossils as well? It seems like the
Morrison Formation is, "practically barren of plant fossils throughout
most of its sequence." And yet, some of the preserved remains are from
very large plant eating dinosaurs. For example, the dinosaur
Apatosaurus is thought to have consumed about 3 or 4 tons of
vegetation on a daily basis. The relative lack of preserved
vegetation makes one wonder how such massive beasts survived in this
environment. Also, fossils within this region show general current
orientation. It seems like such massive and concentrated burial
grounds as are found in the Morrison Formation that show current
orientation with little or no surrounding vegetation are best
explained by a very large and rapid burial/catastrophic flooding
event. We simply do not see evidence for such large-scale
fossilization by any comparable process occurring today.
http://town.morrison.co.us/geology/morrform.html
http://www.grisda.org/
> >Fish simply do not lay on the surface of the ocean floor
> >very long and remain intact if they are not buried
> >quickly.
> -
> Since fossil fish beds are more common associated with
> lake deposits, not oceans, I will discuss lakes, not
> oceans or seas. However, there are fossil fish-bearing
> deposits associated with seas and oceans such as Miocene
> diatomites in California, Pennsylvanian shales in the
> Mid-west United States, and Jurassic shales in Germany.
>
> I would be interested to know how Mr. Pitman knows that
> fish simply do lay on the bottom of either a lake, ocean,
> or lagoon after they die. Has he personally studied
> enough anoxic and highly saline bottoms of stratified
> lakes to make this generalization? Or has he mastered
> the paranormal technique of remote viewing, where he can
> sit in his armchair and search lake bottom after lake
> bottom for dead fish? :-) :-) :-) [ For the record, I
> believe that the technique of remote viewing is New Age
> hogwash.]
You know, I could ask the same question of you. How many anoxic lake
bottoms have you seen with fish just laying out there in the open
without rapid decay? Have you personally studied such lake
environments? How common are such environments anyway? I'd be
interested to know how you assume that fish do lie on lake bottoms
without significant decay while they wait to be buried? Do you
realize that many bacteria, protozoans, and other scavengers still
function in anoxic or virtually anoxic conditions? Also, how many
such anoxic lakes are there that cover hundreds of thousands of square
miles?
> In case of anoxic and highly saline lake bottoms, the
> bottom of a stratified lake or lagoon can be devoid of
> life, while the upper water layers of them can have fish
> happily swimming in it. In such case, the bottom of the
> lake or lagoon will be too toxic for any sort of life to
> exist. If bottom scavengers are absent from the bottom of
> a lake or lagoon because it is devoid of oxygen or too
> saline for them, then dead fish can lie on the bottom of
> the lake or lagoon. Even off of the coast of Louisiana,
> a large anoxic dead zone appears, in which the bottom is
> annually devoid of all life.
I am having a very difficult time imagining how too many lakes could
exist in real life where fish swim around happily above the lake
bottom while down below them the conditions are so salty or so anoxic
that ALL life ceases to exist. Bacteria and protozoans, as well as
other scavengers, live in many amazing places. I am not so sure that
very many places on earth (at least watery places) can be so sterile
as you are indicating here. In any case, how do you know that this
"dead zone" has dead fish lying on the bottom for long periods of
time? Has this been documented or have you personally seen such
well-preserved fish lying on the ocean bottom off the coast of
Louisiana? Or, are you using your New Age powers of remote viewing
again?
> Finally, Mr. Pitman seems completely unaware of the fact
> that many lakes lack a well defined bottom on which dead
> fossil would lie, as on a dinner plate, for scavengers to
> dine on. In many lakes, the half meter to couple of meters
> consists of a semifluid muck. This muck is sediment that
> has settled out of the water column and has just started
> to dewater and consolidated into relatively firm sediment.
> It is incapable of supporting even the weight of dead
> fish. In such cases, the fish "buries" itself as the
> weight of a dead fish cause it sink into the lake bottom
> a fraction of to many centimeters as a person would sink
> if he or she walked onto quicksand. In such cases, "rapid
> burial" of the fish results only the weight of the dead
> fish without the assistance of any type of catastrophe.
You don't seem to realize that scavengers and bacteria are not stopped
by lake-bottom ooze. If you bury a fish, even a good sized fish of
say 20lbs, in such ooze and come back for it a couple weeks, it simply
will not be there. Try it sometime and see… a sort of experiment. I
have personally lived in such swampy places as Mississippi, Alabama,
and Louisiana and know of these lakes and lagoons that you speak of.
They simply do not preserve fish or anything else that dies in them
for long periods of time, even if they are buried by lake-bottom ooze.
This ooze supports an amazing array of life forms and scavengers.
Nothing dead survives intact here for any significant length of time…
and certainly such areas are not conducive to fossilization. Again,
fish fossilization generally requires rapid/catastrophic burial under
fairly thick sedimentary deposits. Anything organic that is buried
close to the lake bottom surface will be quickly destroyed. There may
be occasional exceptions to this, but generally speaking, even you
have admitted that fairly rapid burial is generally needed for the
formation of most fossils.
> >The fossil record shows clear evidence of catastrophic
> >burial on a huge scale. Catastrophic burial and
> >fossilization is the rule and not the exception in the
> >fossil record.
> -
> Young Earth creationists keep repeating this over and
> over again as their central dogma and mantra. However,
> as Glen Morton comments on in his web site on "Non-
> Catastrophic and Modern Fossilization" at:
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm ,
> the fossil bones , fossil fish, fossil leaves, fossil
> shells, which Mr. Pitman and other Young Earth
> creationists use as their evidence for catastrophe are
> easily explained by non-catastrophic processes that can
> either be observed happening today or replicated in the
> laboratory. The fact of the matter fossilization is
> still happening with every flood, with every sandstorm,
> and in the bottom of many lakes and oceans.
Again, how does any of this counter my statement that that fossil
record "shows clear evidence of catastrophic burial on a huge scale"?
Of course, your understanding of the word "catastrophe" is rather
unique. For you, it seems as though hurricanes, volcanic eruptions,
flash floods, and the like are not catastrophes as long as they are
limited to something less than global involvement. For me, I would
suggest that the rapid death and burial of millions of life forms over
thousands of square miles, might just qualify as a catastrophic event.
Your suggestion that fossilization occurs today via floods,
sandstorms and certain focal lake and oceanic environments, does not
change the fact that the fossil record shows clear evidence of rapid
burial and fossilization on a grand scale that is simply not observed
in modern times.
> >Mass graveyards with bones piled thickly together are
> -
> Just as I thought. Although Mr. Pitman was "only" talking
> about fossil fish, he starts talking about bone beds, like
> those found at the Lubbock Lake Site above. I guess my
> previous discussion about how fossil graveyards can be
> found forming in the Southern High Plains of Texas as
> a result of non-catastrophic processes is not as
> "off-topic" as Mr. Pitman claimed it to be. :-) :-) :-)
Fish can also be buried in concentrated masses. The remains of
dinosaurs and other land animals are not the only ones that have been
concentrated in this way. But in any case, you were the one who first
started talking about fossils in general, so why not… let's do that.
> Previous arguments by Mr. Pitman has previously that the
> articulated skeletons of fossil vertebrates can only be
> preserved by rapid burial and, thus, a diagnostic sign of
> the catastrophic origin of bone beds are easily refuted.
I never said that this was the only way that fossil vertebrates can be
preserved. What I said was that this was the primary way in which
they have evidently been preserved in the fossil record. Even you
agree that rapid burial is generally necessarily for fossilization to
occur. If rapid burial were not generally necessarily, then
fossilization would be a far more common occurrence than it is. Also,
the evidence for sudden or catastrophic burial is found in more than
just the fact that fossils have been fossilized. Your favorite
reference, Glenn Morton, uses, as an example of slow fossilization,
the fossilized fish remains in the Santana Formation of Brazil. The
problem here is that many mainstream geologists and paleontologists
disagree with Glenn here stating that the evidence is in favor of the
rapid burial and fossilization of the fish in the Santana Formation.
Glenn mentions a few tests and experiments were the process of
fossilization has been extended for some period of time, but these
experiments and observations, although interesting, do not negate the
fact that the fossil record shows clear evidence of rapid burial on
almost unimaginably massive scales. These "events" are not isolated
ones either, but occur throughout the geologic column and often
involve massive portions of the surface of the earth.
The key phrase here is "at such sites." I have no problem with bison
preservation over thousands of years at such sites as the
Olsen-Chubbuck Site. It is obvious what happened at such places.
Large bones such as these might be able to withstand exposure to the
elements for a relatively longer course of time. However, fairly
rapid burial is still necessarily for preservation. However, where in
the fossil record to you see land dwelling dinosaurs preserved in
"mass burial" by such a process as preserved these bison? Certainly
comparably large dinosaur remains are preserved in such mass burials,
but by what process? Were they preserved by the relatively slow
accumulation of windblown sand and dust? Or, is there evidence to
suggest that they were both killed and rapidly buried by water born
sediments following some sudden "catastrophic" flooding event?
Generally speaking, such mass fossil graveyards show clear evidence of
a relatively sudden death and burial (see above for reference of
dinosaurs killed and buried while still in moral combat).
> Furthermore, with such bone beds it is repeatedly
> demonstrated that the preservation of bone and
> articulated skeletons, can repeatedly be the result of
> non-catastrophic processes, e.g. slopewash, overland,
> flow, overbank flooding, and blowing sand.
Do over these "non-catastrophic processes" have the ability to
concentrate articulated skeletons in one location? I ask because,
although it is obvious how the bison skeletons were concentrated at
these bison kill sites, the mechanism of fossil concentration (in
graveyards that contain tens or hundreds or even thousands of
articulated skeletons, as well as fossil fragments showing evidence of
fracture and violent transport), usually involves some sort of watery
deposition. The 190 to 200 skeletons found at the Olsen-Chubbuck Site
are nothing compared to the watery deaths and rapid burials of
millions and even billions of creatures over thousands and even
millions of square kilometers.
< Snip… more bison examples >
No one is arguing this point either. Clearly the vast majority of the
fossils in the geologic column (absolute numbers and volume) are
composed of small fragments or "hash" as you call them. This does not
explain the exquisite preservation of literally millions if not
billions of well-preserved fossils that occur over vast areas. How
were these fossils that were well preserved, preserved so well?
Fossil hash can also be explained by large watery catastrophes
grinding up the remains of creatures over a fairly rapid course of
time. The existence of a large volume of hash is not the problem.
The problem is the existence of extensive numbers of well-preserved
and even articulated fossils over vast expanses that show many
evidences of rapid burial.
Consider, for example, the Lance Formation (late Cretaceous period) in
eastern Wyoming. Within this formation are extensive outcrops that
contains some 2,000-2,500 vertical feet of fluvial mudstone and
sandstone. The Lance Formation outcrops up to 20 miles wide along the
eastern and western sides of the Powder River Basin. "These deposits
are rich with vertebrate fossils, including many dinosaur fossils.
Remains include isolated and worn bones and teeth, skeletal
associations, and bonebeds. Although articulated skeletons are
uncommon, their preservation is excellent… The presence of a distinct,
preferred orientation of bones in the fossil bed would be suggestive
of the involvement of fluvial processes in the burial of the bones.
Upon initial review, it appears that there was indeed a high velocity
current that deposited these bones quite rapidly… It can be concluded,
based on the data and figures in this paper along with earlier studies
on the Lance formation, that a high velocity current ran in a
northeasterly direction and deposited these bones catastrophically, or
in a single occurrence." Now that is no spring downpour. For such a
massive deposit to be buried "catastrophically, or in a single
occurrence", would take some huge flood indeed.
http://origins.swau.edu/projects/proposals/fossil/currents/
http://origins.swau.edu/projects/proposals/fossil/currents/figure1.html
> >The same is true for plants. Fossilized trees also
> >generally show evidence of watery transport and
> >rapid burial.
> I have to wonder if Mr. Pitnman and other Young Earth
> creationists look hard and objectively at what is
> happening in the world around them? If Mr. Pitman would
> watch any river or major stream during a flood, he would
> find large volumes of wood, leaves, and other woody
> debris being carried down them. A very small percentage,
> but still substantial volume, of this material is
> eventually buried in floodbasins (e.g. Atchafalaya Basin),
> deltas, and floodplains of these rivers. The buried plant
> material that is buried non-catastrophically in these
> areas can be readily seen in cores taken for the building
> of bridges, dikes, and other structures across them.
>
> An example of plant material buried and preserved by
> non-catastrophically processes in a modern lake was
> described by Glen Morton in the thread "Re:
> fossilization" posted to the ASA Evolution mailing list
> on January 26, 1998 at:
>
> http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199801/0176.html
< Snip, an almost endless list of special circumstances where leaves
or trees or wood was preserved in water >
Again, no one is arguing that in certain circumstances leaves, trees,
and wood can be preserved for extended periods of time in water before
burial. But how does all this counter my statement that fossilized
trees and plants generally show evidence of watery transport and
burial? Are you trying to say that generally speaking fossilized
plants and trees do not show evidence of watery transport and rapid
burial? Your (and Glenn Morton's) suggestion that fossil leaves can
be preserved at the bottoms of lakes without the need for rapid burial
is interesting, but is it representative of the leaf layers generally
found in the geologic column?
Consider the fossilized leaves and other forms of vegetation preserved
at sites such as the Castle Rock Fossil Rainforest. A rainforest of
today has a forest floor that is covered with a thick layer of leaves,
branches and seeds. Every day more leaves and plant material falls on
the forest floor, covering up the previous material. Most of this
plant matter decomposes, and is reabsorbed by the growing trees etc.
Of course, the most decomposed material will be the material on the
bottom. Every now and then, under certain circumstances, like
occasional heavy rains and flooding events, water moves large
quantities of sand and mud around the rainforest. If such flooding
events never occurred, it is unlikely that fossil leaves would be
preserved from a rainforest environment.
With this in mind, what possible sources of mud deposits might have
contributed to the fossil preservation of rain forest sites such as
Castle Rock Fossil Rainforest? It seems as though there are at least
four possibilities: Rivers, Lakes, Mudslides, and floods. At Castle
Rock, well-defined leaf layers can be found with alternating layers of
mudstone. The mudstone layers found between the leaf layers contain
few fossil leaves. The occasional leaves found in the mud layers are
usually in the non-horizontal position. Several leaves have been found
completely folded over at the primary vein resulting in a
well-preserved leaf on both sides, with layers of mudstone in between.
The mudstone layers are nearly pure sediments of mud and sand, with
occasional small tunnels in a vertical position.
So, how did the leaf layers form? Did they fall into a lake as you
might suggest? Were they covered by silt and mud accumulating at the
bottom of the lake? This is unlikely for several reasons. If these
leaves were falling into a lake over time, the result would be that
the leaves would be somewhat evenly dispersed in the mud layers.
Leaves and sediment would be mixed and we would find fossil leaves
throughout. However, the distinct layers of leaf mat and nearly
fossil-free mudstone indicate that that the Castle Rock leaves were
not preserved in the bottom of a lake. The mud appears to have been
deposited in relatively quick events. And, leaves at the bottom of a
lake would generally all have the same horizontal orientation, or be
folded over with little or no mud in between the folds. The
occasional leaves found in the mudstone layers are at angles other
than the horizontal leaf mat layers. They are three-dimensional in
that they are wavy and when they are found folded over, they have
sedimentary deposition in between each half of the leaf.
So, what about a mudslide? The Castle Rock rainforest is located near
the uplifted Rocky Mountains. Could it be that a mudslide from the
surrounding hills and mountains provided the preserving mud. This is
also unlikely. A mudslide typically contains a wide range of
sediments from fine silts and sands to pebbles and larger rocks. We
don't find this in our layers of mudstone. Also, a mudslide is a
violent event that would have ground up our leaves so as not to be
unrecognizable. The leaves in our mat and the mudstone layers are
very well preserved. And, a mudslide event would produce an uneven
horizontal leaf mat layer. Also, areas of the leaf mat would be
depressed by the weight and force of the mudslide.
So, what about a flooding event? This appears to be the most probable
answer. During a flood, rapid repetitive deposits of sediment can be
laid down in the involved area. Also, in the Castle Rock formation,
the flood scenario is additionally supported by the fact that the
seeds that are found in the layers do not show signs of development.
In a few isolated cases, a seed may be found to show some branching
out in horizontal direction, but generally, the seeds are intact,
showing no signs of sprouting. What does this mean? It's likely that
the flooding events that generated the mudstone layers occurred in
rapid succession. There was time for many leaves to fall to the
forest floor, but there is no evidence that the seeds ever had a
chance to grow.
http://www.paleocurrents.com/castle_rock/docs/making_of_fossil_rainforest.html
So you see, there are other ways to tell if fossilized leaves and
other forms of vegetation were preserved as a result of a
rapid/catastrophic-flooding event or through some other mechanism.
Generally speaking, it seems as though the evidence for rapid burial
via some sort of flooding event is fairly strong.
< Snip >
> Modern equivalents of these and other coal measure
> polystrate fossils have been found in borrow pits, dug
> canals, and other excavations in the Atchafayala Basin,
> marshes that border Lake Pontchartrain and Maurepas,
> parts of the Mississippi Delta, and the modern floodplain
> of the Mississippi River. Studies are in progress on
> these recent, buried polystrate forests. It would be
> absolutely absurd and laughable for Mr. Pitman to argue
> that these buried polystrate fossil forests were created
> by catastrophic processes.
The thing about polystrate forests is not so much that they are
polystrate, but that the layers were not formed over eons of time.
Also, certain "stacked forests", such as the one at Specimen Creek in
Yellowstone National Park, are not so clearly explained as the growth
of new forests upon previous forests, but seems rather to be the
result of rapid fluvial transport and layering. There are many
reasons for why I disbelieve the standard "stacked forest"
explanation. I describe these reasons in more detail at the
following link if you are interested…
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/The%20Fossil%20Record.html
Several summarized points are listed below for those who are
interested:
The organic levels from which the petrified trees arise usually have a
high volcanic ash content. Where did the ash come from? Spark source
mass spectrometry analysis of trace elements in the bands of ash
revealed pulses of ash from four source areas for the Specimen Creek
Petrified Forest. The four trace-element profiles interfinger in an
irregular manner up the sequence of 65 organic levels of Specimen
Creek Petrified Forest. If these 65 ash layers (organic levels) were
laid down over a long time span, the ash that was laid down thousands
of years later near the end of the series of ash eruptions would have
changed sufficiently to produce a new and different trace element
profile. This has not been the case. Quick burial of the whole
sequence seems to be required.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/24002.htm
Growing trees have extensive root systems, usually 20–30% of the total
dry mass of the tree. But the Yellowstone petrified trees have their
large roots generally broken off close to the base of the trunk,
leaving relatively small ‘root balls' instead of intact root systems
at the base of trees that were supposedly buried, "In the position of
growth."
A forest buried in place would be expected to have many petrified
branches and much petrified bark. But the Yellowstone petrified tree
trunks, mostly 3–4 metres (10–12 feet) tall, have very little bark and
very few branches. Something has stripped most of the bark and broken
off most limbs, leaving only knots in the trunks.
Some of the trees extend into the forest layer above. But if the next
layer had to wait many years for the covering ash layer to weather
into soil (so the ‘next' forest could grow), the exposed tree top
might be expected to show some evidence of significant decayed. This
evidence of decay is lacking.
When trees fall in forests, especially with a flat floor, they have an
equal chance of lying in any direction. But in the petrified forests,
the prostrate (lying down) trees tend to align in the same direction.
Also, even the upright trunks are turned so that they are generally
aligned with each other. This is consistent with a common force acting
on all so that all are oriented in the same direction.
Growing forests have definite soil and humus layers, with lots of
rootlets as well as a thriving animal population. However, the
petrified forests lack all these.
Studies of the Yellowstone plants, including pollen analysis, show
that there are many more plant species than would be expected in a
forest. And often the pollen doesn't match the nearby trees. However,
this would be explainable if the trees had been uprooted and
transported from several places.
In a real forest, plant debris forms an organic layer on the forest
floor. The deeper the material, the older it is, so the more time it
has had to decay. But the petrified forests lack this pattern of
greater decay with depth. There are also, on occasion, finely
preserved leaves — since leaves do not retain their shape for very
long after they fall off the tree, these leaves were probably buried
very quickly.
Volcanic minerals such as feldspars weather relatively quickly into
clay when exposed to water and air. But the petrified forest layers
lack such layers of clay. This suggests that none of the layers were
exposed to weathering forces for very long.
The patterns of particle sizes in rock layers often indicate how they
formed. Consider a bag of mixed nuts — often they will be randomly
mixed. Or, if they are shaken, the large brazil nuts end up on top as
the smaller nuts fall down through the gaps. But many rock layers
which have been laid under water show patterns different to these. The
large grains have sunk to the bottom, and been covered by smaller
grains — a pattern called graded bedding. Also, if the water is moving
horizontally, alternating layers of coarse and fine grains form. The
Yellowstone forests are associated with rocks which contain these
laminations, consistent with being formed under water. Some beds of
coarse material have tongues of ash penetrating them. Also, such flat
beds would seem to require a lot of water so the material can flow
over such large distances. Some volcanic rocks in New Zealand that are
generally accepted to have been deposited under water look very
similar to the Yellowstone rocks.
Dr. Michael Arct analysed cross-sections of 14 trees in different
levels spanning seven metres (23 feet). He found that they all shared
the same distinctive signature, and that four of them had died only
seven, four, three and two years before the other ten. These ten had
apparently perished together, and the evidence was consistent with
them all having been uprooted and transported by successive mud flows.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4109.asp
> >>>From my understanding, practically all fossils of fish
> >>>show evidence of catastrophic burial... en masse. In
> >>>other words, the fish were alive and well when they were
> >>>suddenly buried alive.
> -
> That fossil fish frequently show evidence of having
> partially decomposed and more than a few show some sign
> of disarticulation of their skeleton, it is quite clear
> that the fish were dead and rotting when they were
> buried. Classic examples of decomposition and partially
> disarticulation of fossil fish are found in the
> Achanarras fish bed of the Old Red Sandstone as
> illustrated by Figures 15, 18, and 12b of Trewin (1986).
> In addition, Trewin (1986) noted that even the well-
> preserved fossil fish from the Achanarras fish bed,
> e.g. Figure 12a, show a concave-upward spinal curvature
> indicative of rigor mortis and bloating from
> decomposition. Such fossils show that these fossil fish
> certainly weren't alive when they were buried.
Certainly no one would expect that a catastrophic flooding event would
bury all or even most fish instantly. Many or even most would survive
for a while before death. After death they would bloat, float, and
then sink and be buried by subsequence sedimentation events in a
fairly rapid, not necessarily instant, manner.
> Reference Cited
>
> Trewin, N. H. (1986) Palaeoecology and sedimentology of
> the Achanarras fish bed of the Middle Old Red Sandstone,
> Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
> vol. 77, pp. 21-46.
> -
> >> If Mr. Pitman would research the fossilization of
> >>fish, he would find the statement "practically all
> >>fossils of fish show evidence of catastrophic burial" to
> >>be a rather gross exaggeration of what the facts show.
> >>For example, the research by Maisey (1991) of the
> >>origins of the Santana fossil fish clearly demonstrates
> >>the lack of catastrophe in their formation.
Actually, the origins of the Santana fossil fish clearly demonstrate a
large, widespread, sudden/catastrophic event that both killed and
rapidly fossilized these fish in their pristine condition. You are
very much mistaken in this case.
> >>Rather, they
> >>represent fish that died and sank to the bottom of a
> >>large anoxic lake over a period of thousands of years.
Not so, the evidence is that many of the fish in the Santana formation
were fossilized within a matter of hours after their collective death.
> >>The decay of the fish on the bottom precipitated
> >>carbonate minerals that preserved them as fossils.
> >
> >In modern times, how often do you see this picture
> >proposed by Maisey happening?
> -
> Because geologists and paleontologists don't have
> x-ray vision which can allow them see beneath lakes,
> this is a difficult process to "see" happening.
Exactly…
> The
> murky and low visibility of many lake bottoms make
> them very difficult to examine what is happening
> even though a person could use either scuba gear or
> remote controlled vehicles to inspect the bottom.
> I don't know of anyone, either Young Earth creationist
> nor conventional paleontologist, who has actually tried
> to inspect the bottom of a number of lakes to try and
> find fish fossilizing at the bottom of lake. At this
> point, observations and data needed to answer this
> question, as far as I have found, have not been
> collected. As a result, neither I nor Mr. Pitman can
> answer this question.
And yet, you and Maisey propose such theories as this based on… what
again? When lakes are dried or emptied because of drought or reasons,
the lake bottoms can be examined fairly easily. Have any such modern
lakes so examined turned up fossilized fish? What about when lake
bottoms are dug up for any number of reasons, such as construction?
Do the sediments that are removed in this process show any evidence of
fossilized fish?
> It would be very difficult, even if a person did
> visually inspect the bottom of several lakes to actually
> find fish in the process of being fossilized. As I have
> previously noted, many lakes lack a well defined bottom
> on which dead fossil would lie and a person could be
> easily located. In many lakes, the half meter to couple
> of meters of sediments underlying the bottom consists
> of a semifluid to fluid muck. This muck is sediment that
> has settled out of the water column and has just started
> to dewater and consolidate into relatively firm sediment
> capable of supporting the weight even of dead fish. In
> such cases, the fish "buries" itself as the weight of
> fish will cause it sink and simply "disappear" into
> the lake bottom. Thus, it is extremely difficult for
> study, even find such fish, on the lake bottom. This
> is a major reason people have not tried to do such
> research.
Hmmmmmmm…. Sounds like a tough problem doesn't it? But, such lakes as
this, with muddy/mucky bottoms, are drained all the time. Any fossil
fish found by digging around in such lakebeds?
> >Fish simply do not fossilize in modern "anoxic lakes"
> >like they did in the past.
> -
> From what I have seen published in the scientific
> literature, the data and observations need to make
> this conclusion have not been collected.
So then why do you make such conclusions and present such theories as
if they were pretty much solid fact?
> As a result,
> Mr. Pitman has neither the data nor the observations
> to support the claim that "Fish simply do not fossilize
> in modern "anoxic lakes" like they did in the past."
I make this statement because I have not found evidence to support
this claim of yours. You have no evidence for this claim, and yet you
present it as the gospel truth.
> This is nothing more than his highly fallible personal
> opinion, which lacks any hard data to support it.
The same can be said for your fallible personal opinion in this case.
You also lack hard data to support your position here. All fish that
died would go right to the bottom without decay and be fossilized.
That would result in a BUNCH of fossil fish in short order. One would
think that such an abundance of modern fossilization would have been
discovered and documented before now.
> However, using the published literature, a person can
> test whether the formation of well-preserved fish fossils
> is restricted to strata that Young Earth creationists
> regard as having formed during their postulated Noachian
> Flood. Although there is incredibly wide range of
> disagreement of where the boundary between "Flood" and
> "post-Flood" deposits belong among Young Earth
> creationists, the vast majority of Young Earth
> creationists agree with Oard (1990a, 1990b) that the
> sediments which conventional geologists as belonging to
> the Pleistocene Period were deposited during an Ice Age
> that came immediately after the global catastrophic
> flood, which Pitman argues was when all of the fossil
> fish beds were deposited.
Actually, I never said any such thing. I don't care when fish fossils
were deposited. My argument is that whenever or wherever they are
deposited, they generally show signs of being killed by some
catastrophic event followed by a relatively rapid burial. If there
are fish being fossilized today, which must be happening on occasion
somewhere, then they too are probably being fossilized, generally, via
similar mechanisms.
>If Mr. Pitman is correct about
> the statement fossilization of fish being catastrophe
> dependent, then a person should not be able to find any
> examples of fossil fish in the "Post-flood" deposits,
Come again? How is this? Certainly catastrophes, to include local
floods, don't end just because a particularly big catastrophe ended.
Catastrophic burials are still occurring today. You mention many of
these yourself. The point is that rapid death and burial is generally
needed for fossilization to occur, whether it was a million years ago,
or today.
< Snip extensive list of fossilized fish occurring in "Post-flood"
deposits >
> >> In case of the fossil fish found in the Old Red
> >>Sandstone of Scotland, studies by Trewin and Davidson
> >>(1995) demonstrated that these fossils are not the
> >>result of some mythical catastrophe. Instead, the fish
> >>died when the lake they lived in dried up and as the
> >>fish decayed in muddy bottom of the lake, carbonate
> >>mineral precipitated around them and preserved them
> >>as fossils.
> >
> >Old Red Sandstone in England has billions upon billions
> >of fish, spread over 10,000 square miles, with as many
> >as a thousand fish fossils in one square yard.
> -
> First, Mr. Pitman presents a fictional statistic in his
> defense. The claim of there being "billions upon billions
> of fish" in the Old Red Sandstone sound like a somewhat
> twisted parody of Carl Sagan and his "Cosmos" television
> series. A few Young Earth creationist publications have
> written about "billions of billions" of fish fossils
> having been found in the Old Red Sandstone. However,
> they, e.g. the Evolution Cruncher", don't provide any
> citation as to who calculated this figure and how it
> was calculated.
The estimate can be reasonably obtained from the fact that the Old Red
Sandstone formation is huge, ranging, as previously stated, over many
countries to include England, Russia, and North America with
thicknesses of over 10,000 feet in places (The 10,000 square miles
figure is limited to England). Considering the overall vastness of
the Old Red Sandstone formation, when scientists describe several of
the strata in this formation as be "crowded" or "swarming" with the
remains of fish, one starts to think that billions of remains is not
so far fetched. Other massive formations, such as the Karoo formation
in South Africa (covering ~200,000 square miles with thickness of
4-5,000 feet), have also been estimated to contain millions if not
billions of fossil fish as well as other fossilized remains. Really,
I don't think these are outlandish numbers, do you? Some have
estimated as high as 800 billion fossils, but this is most likely far
too high and based on some very generous averages, despite the fact
that the Karoo formation is one of the richest in the world. But,
perhaps a more reasonable estimate would still be in the high millions
or maybe even a few billion? What would you estimate?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/vestiges/chapter05.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tjv14n2_karoonon.pdf
> Apparently, the reader is left to accept
> as a matter of faith that either Mr. Pitman or the author
> either counted all of these billions and billions of fish
> or somehow found a way to accurately estimate the number
> of fossil fish in Old Red Sandstone.
>
> The area over which the fossils have been found, 10,000
> square miles, is entirely consistent with deposition of
> the flagstones, which contain the intact fossil fish,
> within prehistoric lakes. There are several modern lakes
> and inland seas that are and exceed this size. This area
> is only a fraction of the size of the five largest lakes
> now known to exist. These five lakes are:
>
> 1. Caspian Sea (Asia-Europe) - 143,244 square miles
>
> 2. Superior (North America) - 31,700 square miles
>
> 3. Victoria (Africa) - 26,828 square miles
>
> 4. Aralb (Asia) - 24,904 square miles
>
> 5. Huron (North America) - 23,010 square miles
Of course, it seems like the 10,000 square miles figure is only the
portion of the Old Red Sandstone Formation that is found in England.
The formation is in fact much larger than 10,000 square miles. Also,
the Karoo formation is also quite large, covering some 200,000 square
miles. The Shinarump conglomerate in the southwestern United States,
(usually less than 100 ft thick), covers almost 100,000 square miles,
and the Morrison formation extends for well over 400,000 square miles
from Kansas to Utah and from Canada to New Mexico. In any case, if
some of these large seas and lakes that you mention were to experience
massive fish death and fossilization along with other types of
creatures, to include land animals… via some rather sudden
sedimentation event, wouldn't that classify as a catastrophe?
http://town.morrison.co.us/geology/morrform.html
http://www.grisda.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tjv14n2_karoonon.pdf
> These figures are from "What Are The Five Largest Lakes
> In The World?" at:
>
> http://mbgnet.mobot.org/fresh/lakes/largest.htm
>
> In addition, Lake Michigan has a surface area of 22,400
> square miles, Aral Sea has a surface area of 26,166
> square miles, Great Bear Lake (Canada) has a surface area
> of 12,800 square miles, and Great Slave Lake (Canada) has
> an area of 11,172 square miles. This data is from:
>
> http://www.schoolofflyfishing.com/resources/worldslakes.htm
>
> The area covered by the fossil-bearing flagstones in the
> Old Red Sandstone is comparable to the extent to many
> modern lakes. As a result, a mythical global catastrophe
> is not needed to explain the area covered by fossil-
> bearing flagstones within the "Old Red Sandstone".
Some sort of catastrophic event does have to explain not only the
massive Old Red Sandstone formation, but many other huge formations
that were formed during a similar time period as well….
> As far as the there being "as many as a thousand fish
> fossils in one square yard" to be found in the flagstone
> beds found in the Old Red Sandstone, I have yet to find
> the primary source for this figure. The creationist
> articles, which use this figure, fail to provide either
> a primary source or information about who calculated
> this figure.
>
> However, I emailed a couple of fossil collectors /
> advocational paleontologists in the United Kingdom.
> They consider this figure to be almost unbelievably high
> for the Old Red Sandstone and at best an estimate of the
> maximum density of fossil fish for a very small area of
> a few meters extent.
Yes… this sound reasonable. My statement was that, "as many as a
thousand fish fossils in one square yard" could be found. This is to
say that this is an estimate of "maximum concentration", but by no
means an estimate of an average concentration. Certainly the average
may be more on the order of a less than 10 per square yard, of a given
bedding plain, as your friends suggest.
> In their opinion, a person is lucky
> to find 5 to 15 intact fossil fish per square yard along
> a single bedding plane within the Old Red Sandstone. I
> will attempt to find some values for the density of intact
> fish fossils within the Old Red Sandstone flagstones from
> the published literature. (Unfortunately, I can't provide
> the names of the fossil hunters because they depend on a
> very ardent Young Earth creationist land owner for access
> to some very nice fossil beds.)
Well then… their identity must be protected… in all seriousness! ; )
It is unfortunate that certain members of both groups (evolution vs.
design/creation etc.) take such a strong and personal stance in this
debate so as to come to the place where they deliberately limit access
to information from those in opposing camps. If I owned such a fossil
site, I would welcome all comers, evolutionists or not. This debate
really has little to do with morality, so why get so hot and bothered
over it if someone disagrees?
> >Trewin and Davidson also note a high level of soft part
> >preservation to include markings of internal organs as
> >well as eyes. I fail to see how this level of
> >preservation is possible without very rapid burial.
> -
> The phrase "high level of soft part preservation" grossly
> distorts and misrepresents the degree of preservation of
> the fossil fishes that Davidson and Trewin (1999) and
> Trewin and Davidson (1999) found at Tynet Burn and Gamrie
> in northeast Scotland. The fossil fish, which had some
> evidence of eyes and internal organs, were limited only to
> "a number of rare specimens of acanthodians from both
> sites". The very few fossil fish exhibiting faint
> indications of internal organs are a distinct minority
> of the 208 fossil fish collected by Trewin and Davidson
> (1999) and 547 museum specimens of fossil fishes from
> Tynet Burn that they studied.
Again, the point is that a high level of soft part preservation was
present generally, with some specimens even having evidence of eye and
internal organ preservation. The range of preservation may be wide
with relatively few specimens having the highest level of
preservation, but in general, the preservation of soft parts was
pretty good.
>In addition, concerning the
> preservation of fossil fish from Tynet Burn, Trewin and
> Davidson (1999), stated:
>
> "Fish remains from Tynet Burn show a range from full
> articulation of carcasses with preservation of delicate
> fin webs, through complete disarticulation into
> isolated scales and bones (Fig. 10)."
>
> In addition, most of the nodule beds, lying below the
> nodule bed excavated and studied by Trewin and Davidson
> (1999) at Tynet Burn, contain only an abundance of
> completely disarticulated fish scales and bones from
> which less than a half dozen complete fish have been
> collected over the last hundred years. It is inaccurate
> and highly misleading to describe a few fossil fish
> having indistinct remnants of internal organs, when
> hundreds of other fossil fishes lacking any indication
> of such soft parts and abundant completely disarticulated
> remains of many, possibly thousands of more fish, from
> adjacent beds, as being indicative of an exceptional and
> high level of soft part preservation within these strata
> overall.
I disagree. The fact that Trewin and Davidson noted a high level of
soft part preservation does not rule-out the potential for lesser
levels of preservation in the same formation. Even if a numerical
minority, the fact remains that Trewin and Davidson did note a high
level of soft part preservation in many of the fossils that they
collected. Nowhere did I say that they found the highest level of
preservation in all or even most of the fish fossils that they found
and collected.
> The "high level of preservation" of the eyes and internal
> organs is also overemphasized. The fossil eyes are
> dark 'spots' in the heads of acanthodians that are found
> only at the Gamrie locality. The fossil eyes were not
> found at Tynet Burns. These eyes are nothing more than
> circular dark stains that would be unrecognizable as
> eyes, except for their shape and location. The fossil
> internal organs also consist of indistinct "dark traces',
> lacking internal structure, that were recognized as
> internal organs largely because they occur within the
> fossil fish's body cavity at locations analogous with the
> sites of internal organs in modern fishes (Davidson and
> Trewin 1999). This rather crude level of the preservation
> of internal structures as structureless smudges can be
> explained by known and observed non-catastrophic
> processes of fossilization like those discussed by
> Briggs et al. (1997).
No one is arguing that organ or eye detail can be discerned in these
fossils. Never-the-less, the fact that these organs left smudges at
all is something quite interesting. It shows that these organs were
still intact when fossilization occurred. Eyes especially degrade
rapidly if burial is not rapid. Again, such a level of preservation is
* generally * dependent upon rapid/catastrophic death and burial.
> In other fossil fish beds in Old Red Sandstone, e.g.
> Trewin (1986), none of the thousands of fossil fishes
> that have been excavated and studied exhibited no
> preservation of soft parts. As previously discussed,
> many of these fossil fish show clear evidence of rigor
> mortis and decomposition before burial. Extremely rare
> soft parts preserved as structureless smudges hardly
> qualifies as "high level of preservation" relative the
> innumerable disarticulated fossil fishes, the numerous
> partially disarticulated fossil fishes, and intact
> fossil fish showing evidence of decomposition found in
> the Old Red Sandstone.
Actually, any soft part preservation is quite a high level of
preservation. The smudges of internal organs is simply an added bonus
if present.
> References cited:
>
> Briggs, D. E. G., P. R. Wilby, B. P. Perez-Moreno, J. L.
> Sanz, and M. Fregenal-Martinez (1997) The mineralization
> of dinosaur soft-tissue in the Early Cretaceous of
> Las Hoyas, Spain. Journal of the Geological Society,
> London vol. 154, pp. 587-588.
>
> Davidson, R. G. and N. H. Trewin (1999) Unusual soft
> tissue preservation in Middle Devonian fish-bearing
> nodule beds. Palaeontological Association 43nd Annual
> Meeting, University of Manchester 19-22 December 1999,
> Manchester, United Kingdom.
>
> Trewin, N. H. (1986) Palaeoecology and sedimentology of
> the Achanarras fish bed of the Middle Old Red Sandstone,
> Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
> vol. 77, pp. 21-46.
>
> Trewin, N. H. and R. G. Davidson (1999) Lake level
> changes, sedimentation and faunas in a Middle Devonian
> basin-margin fish bed. Journal of the Geological Society
> of London. vol. 156, part 3, pp. 535-548.
>
> Some on-line information about these fossil beds is
> available in "Historical Articles" at:
>
> http://www.caithness.org/history/articles/orcadianmiddleoldredsandstone.htm
>
> ....scientifically bankrupt mumble jumble about carbonate
> precipitation and so forth deleted...
Hmmmmm…. Mumble jumble eh? The mechanism of carbonate precipitation
that I previously suggested is not out of the question. It is
observed today in fact.
> >>Having sailed and fished the bays, bayous, and rivers
> >>of Louisiana, I can personally vouch that natural fish
> >>kills involving entire shoals of fish are quite common
> >>in nature. In them, the fish die in a state of agony
> >>without the need of a catastrophe. This observation is
> >>documented in numerous published papers. As Weigelt
> >> 1989, page 163) observes:
> -
> >No one is questioning this fact. I have personally
> >observed massive fish kills myself. The question
> >here though is if these massive fish kills result
> >in massive fossilization beds as we see in the fossil
> >record.
> -
> Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that it is
> entirely possible that fossil fish can be preserved
> under non-catastrophic conditions as discussed in
> detail by:
But have these massive fish kills ever been observed in real life to
result in fossil beds without some sort of rapid/catastrophic
sedimentation event? No. Therefore, your hypothesis remains
interesting, maybe plausible in certain theoretical circumstances, but
untested in the real world.
> Martill, D. M. (1993) Soupy Substrates: A Medium
> for the Exceptional Preservation of Ichthyosaurs
> of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Jurassic) of Germany.
> Kaupeia. vol. 2, pp. 77-97.
>
> Wilby, P. R., D. E. G. Briggs, P. Bernier, and C
> Gallard (1996) Role of Microbial Mats in the
> Fossilization of Soft Tissues. Geology. vol. 24,
> no. 9, pp. 787-790.
>
> Glen Morton also briefly discusses such experiments at:
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
> -
> >As far as I can tell the answer is no.
> -
> Again, how does Mr. Pitman know that the answer is "no"?
Such an observation has never been documented despite plenty of
opportunity to test such a hypothesis in real life. Massive fish
kills occur all the time in lakes, ponds, and bays. It shouldn't be
too hard to make a few drill holes down into the bottoms of these
bodies of water and see if the sediment does or does not contain
fossilized or preserved fish remains. It also seems very unlikely to
me that such sterile environments, as you suggest, actually exist in
real life to any significant degree.
> >Why? because the fish in these massive fish kills
> >rapidly decompose before they have a chance to be
> >buried.
> -
> Fish kills do ***not*** have to be rapidly buried to be
> preserved. If the fish sinks to the bottom of a lake or
> lagoon that is too anoxic and saline for predators and
> scavengers to exist, they will not be eaten. On the
> bottom, fossilization can occur as a direct result
> of this rapid decomposition. Experimental studies have
> demonstrated that dead animals can fossilized over a
> matter of weeks.
If this is so common and easily done, then why is it not so easy to
find evidence of such fossilization in modern bodies of water? You
have fairly shallow waters around where you live over in Louisiana,
why don't you go out to these anoxic lakes that you talk about so much
and sink a shaft down in the middle of one of them and see what comes
up?
> >In order to preserve the fine detail that we see in the
> >fossil fish kills of the past, rapid burial is required.
> -
> As a I have stated before, it is documented in the
> scientific literature by many published peer-reviewed
> scientific papers that some stratified lakes and lagoons
> have either highly anoxic or saline bottom waters that
> are toxic to scavengers and predators. in these lakes,
> fish do not have to be rapidly buried for them to be
> fossilized, eventually buried and preserved.
I simply find this too hard to believe. Life forms are very adaptable
to extreme environments, especially when food is involved. Again,
where is the evidence from real life experiments with real anoxic
lakes? It simply is not out there now is it? I find that rather
strange for many reasons that I have already detailed above.
>Also, when
> burial occurs, Mr. Pitman falsely presumes that the
> burial, whether it be rapid or otherwise, that it is
> always associated with catastrophic events, e.g. global
> floods
Again, I never said the word "always." I said that generally speaking
such fossilization usually requires a rapid burial event, usually
caused by some sort of catastrophic event. Local or widespread… it
really doesn't matter as far as the effect on the particular area that
is being affected.
< Snip repetitive statement >
> >>"Reports of enormous fish kills are plentiful: Almost
> >>every ten years, a red mite appears in Walvis Bay,
> >>South Africa and causes a fish kill of such magnitude
> >> that the water is said to be completely covered with
> >>dead fish.
> >
> >Again, were these fish kills fossilized?
> -
> Given that nobody, whom I can find, has examined the
> bottom of Walvis Bay for subfossil fish, that is an
> impossible question for either Mr. Pitman or me to
> answer.
Then how can you make such statements that assume that these enormous
fish kills easily result in fossilization of many fish?
> >I think not.
> -
> Mr. Pitman has no data, evidence, or observations to
> support this opinion.
Actually, I think that I do (refer to above). Also, where is your
observational evidence? Just laboratory experiments? Where is it
happening in real life? Not observed? Hmmmmm… problem.
> As far as I can find, neither Mr.
> Pitman nor anybody else has gone out into Walvis Bay and
> either cored or dug up the bottom of it looking for
> subfossil fish. As a result, Mr. Pitman has no way of
> knowing whether or not that some of the fish from these
> fish kills have or have not been preserved and are in the
> process of being fossilized. Lacking such information,
> a person would have to have the psychic ability of remote
> viewing in order to know whether or not any of these fish
> have been preserved and fossilized.
Not so. Testing this hypothesis should be relatively simple. Yet, it
has not been done. Funny that such validation in this modern day and
age is still lacking.
> >Not only do you have to present how massive quantities
> >of fish can all die together, but also how they can all
> >be fossilized in relatively good condition... by slow
> >burial. This has not been observed.
> -
> Mr. Pitman is wrong again about this process not having
> been observed. Experimental studies, e.g. Briggs and Kear
> (1993), Briggs et al. (1993), Hof and Briggs (1997) and
> others have replicated the conditions that can be found
> in numerous stratified water bodies. They clearly
> demonstrated **how** fish and soft-bodied animals can be
> fossilized, as they slowly decay, before being buried.
> If Mr. Pitman needs to take the time to visit a college
> library, search bibliographic databases, and read the
> published papers that describe and document the results
> of such experiments. In them, he would find that the
> question about "how they can all be fossilized in
> relatively good condition" has been answered by numerous
> scientific experiments.
All the time put into these controlled laboratory experiments, when it
would be a relatively simple process to go out to some lake and make a
core drilling. Not done. Also, you yourself admit that in general
rapid burial is required. We are not talking isolated events here,
but many huge fossilization events that cover hundreds of thousands of
square miles.
> References Cited:
>
> Briggs D. E. G. and A, J, Kear (1993) Fossilization of
> Soft Tissue in the Laboratory. Science 259: 1439-1442
>
> Briggs, D. E. G. A. J. Kear, D. M. Martill, and P. R.
> Wilby (1993) Phosphatization of soft-tissue in
> Experiments and Fossils," Journal of the Geological
> Society, London. vol. 150, pp. 1035-1038.
>
> Hoff, C. H. J., and D. E. G. Briggs (1997) Decay and
> mineralization of Mantis Shrimps (Stomatopa: Crustacea) -
> a key to their fossil record. Palios. vol. 12, no. 5.
> pp. 420-438.
> -
> >This sort of fossilization simply requires a rapid
> >burial event.
> -
> Again, there are numerous published papers that present
> experimental studies that refute Mr. Pitman's mistaken
> notion that "This sort of fossilization simply requires
> a rapid burial event". The papers include:
Isolated special-case events when you yourself admit that in general,
rapid burial is required. Again, we are talking the usual here, not
the exception… as you yourself admit that in general, rapid burial is
needed.
> Briggs D. E. G. and A, J, Kear (1993) Fossilization of
> Soft Tissue in the Laboratory. Science 259: 1439-1442
>
> Briggs, D. E. G. A. J. Kear, D. M. Martill, and P. R.
> Wilby (1993) Phosphatization of soft-tissue in
> Experiments and Fossils," Journal of the Geological
> Society, London. vol. 150, pp. 1035-1038.
>
> Hoff, C. H. J., and D. E. G. Briggs (1997) Dacey and
> mineralization of Mantis Shrimps (Stomatopa: Crustacea)
> - a key to their fossil record. Palios. vol. 12, no. 5.
> pp. 420-438.
>
> Martill, D. M. (1993) Soupy Substrates: A Medium
> for the Exceptional Preservation of Ichthyosaurs
> of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Jurassic) of Germany.
> Kaupeia. vol. 2, pp. 77-97.
>
> Wilby, P. R., D. E. G. Briggs, P. Bernier, and C
> Gallard (1996) Role of Microbial Mats in the
> Fossilization of Soft Tissues. Geology. vol. 24,
> no. 9, pp. 787-790.
>
> Glen Morton also briefly discusses such experiments at:
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
The microbial mat hypothesis is certainly interesting. I will have to
look into it further. For now though, it seems as though conditions
for this method of fossilization to work must be very specific and
limited in their natural occurrence. Glenn Morton tries to apply this
hypothesis to explain the fine detail of preservation in such
formation as the Santana Formation. However, many other disagree with
Glenn's proposal that such fossils were or could have been formed over
an extended period of time. Most agree that the fish in the Santana
Formation show evidence of both rapid burial as well as fossilization.
< snip repetitive statements >
> >>>There are even some fossils of fish in the middle of
> >>>eating other fish.
> >>There two problems here. First, these fossils are
> >>very extremely rare. So rare, that they are only
> >>indicative of very rare events.
> >
> >Just imagine how many fish are eating other fish at any
> >one moment in time. A relatively small percentage...
> >right?
> -
> Yes, it is very common for fish to be eating each other.
But as far as a percentage of all fish at a given time and place,
relatively few are eating one another … right?
> Also, it is not uncommon for a fish to choke on another
> fish and die.
Excuse me? On what is this statement based? Have there been any fish
choking studies that you are aware of? Have you ever seen such a
fish-choking event? Has anyone that you know ever seen a fish choke
to death on another fish? Where do you get this idea that fish
choking on another fish is "not uncommon"?
> However, now all of these fish get
> fossilized. Rarity is not in the fishing eating and some
> stupid fish choking, but in the fish becoming fossilized.
That is just one more rare event to add to the rare fish-choking
event… making the combination of such rare events, exceedingly rare.
> >Considering this, the fact that we have fossils of
> >this event frozen in time is pretty amazing indeed.
> >We would expect a relatively few examples given a
> >catastrophic scenario.
> -
> The fish is only frozen in time in the sense that once
> it got a fish stuck in its throat and choked to death,
> the fish swallowed remained stuck in its throat.
> If the bottom conditions, where the dead fishes sunk to the
> were not favorable for the fossilization, they were not
> preserved. If the waters bottom of the lake, lagoon, or
> sea had were anoxic and very highly saline or the bottom
> consisted of soupy sediments, there was some chance
> that they would have been fossilized. Whether these fish
> were fossilized or not had nothing to do with
> catastrophes. Rather, it is all a matter of the specific
> environmental conditions at the bottom of the lake,
> ocean, or lagoon in which they died.
The thing is, I find it hard to believe that some of the pictures that
I have seen of this are the result of the bigger fish choking to death
on the smaller fish in their mouths. Some of these fossils show a
fish that is very much larger than the fish sticking partway out of
its mouth. How does such a big fish choke on such a comparably small
fish? You will no doubt find an example of a fish with a relatively
large fish in its mouth and say that it "choked". However, there are
other examples where this choking explanation is even more far-fetched
than it already is. Besides, these same fish show other evidences of
rapid burial (See Above).
> >>>Finally, these fossils only demonstrate how some Young
> >>>Earth creationists are incapable of recognizing a fish
> >>>that choked on trying to eat a fish far larger than it
> >>>could swallow.
> -
> >Really? The fish choked to death?
> -
> Unlike God, fish are not infallible. They do makes
> mistakes and they can make misjudgments. Why do get the
> feeling that Mr. Pitman is arguing that like God, fish
> are infallible and incapable of making mistakes? :-) :-)
But have YOU ever personally seen, or seen a documented case of a fish
choking on another fish? We all know that fish are fallible, but how
*often* are they fallible in picking a meal that they would choke and
die on? This rare event, and it must be quite rare indeed, is only
compounded by the odds of preserving such a rare event by another rare
event, such as fossilization. When the two fish die, they would most
likely float for a while, and then sink… hopefully into a place
without scavenger potential. Now, how rare is that? Strange, isn't
it then, that we have not one, but a number of these fish-eating-fish
fossils… several with excellent soft tissue preservation.
> Could Mr. Pitman being advocating a new theological
> doctrine, the principle of Pisces Infallibility ?? :-) :-)
Whatever… You're the one making the outlandish proposals that "fish
choking" is a common occurrence. It seems as though you are simply
trying to cover up the outlandish nature of your theory with some weak
attempt at sarcastic humor.
> >Then both of the fishes drifted down to the bottom
> >of the lake and were perfectly preserved somehow
> >without any significant evidence of decay or predation?
> -
> As I have previously explained, if the dead fish live in
> a stratified lake or lagoon, they can quickly fall down
> into bottom waters that are too toxic or saline for any
> type of scavengers can live. Once on the bottom, the dead
> fish can decompose unmolested. The decomposition will
> start the fossilization process. In time, the typical
> sedimentation that occurs in lakes will bury it and
> preserve the dead fish as fossils. If the bottom of the
> lake, lagoon, or sea was soupy, both fishes would have
> sank and disappeared into the bottom as would someone
> stepping into quicksand.
See above…
> >Come on now.
> >How often do you see fish choking on other fish today?
> >Have you ever seen a fish choking on another fish that
> >it is trying to eat?
> -
> Yes, Mr. Pitman is advocating Pisces Infallibility. He is
> claiming that fish, like God, are infallible and are
> incapable of making any mistakes. :-) :-) :-) Wait until
> some neopagans find out that an Evangelical Christian is
> claiming that fish are infallible as God. :-) :-)
Again, typing out this sort of nonsense simply doesn't become you… It
reflects more on you than it does on me. After all, I'm supposed to
be the idiot YEC here…
> Seriously, I talk with marine biologists at the Mineral
> Management Services and they have seen at multiple times
> fish floating on the surface which had died from trying
> to swallow bigger than it can eat and choking on it.
> Whether Mr. Pitman wants to believe it or not, fish are
> fallible and do make fatal mistakes.
So you actually have some eye witness accounts? Impressive. Did
these marine biologists, that you speak of, take the time to document
this occurrence? Whatever kills a fish by getting stuck in its mouth
must stop the flow of water over its gills. I find that such a
problem might be quite rare indeed for a fish. In fact, I have such a
difficult time imagining this that I tend to disbelieve the big fish
story that you are trying to feed me here. Wait… I think… yes… I may
be choking on it! Argfts…
> >But hey, lets just say that it can happen.
> >A fish can have eyes bigger than its mouth.
> -
> Yes, it does happen because fish, contrary to Mr.
> Pitman's doctrine of Pisces Infallibility, fish can and
> do make mistakes.
Prove it then… the fish-choking hypothesis. Let's just see how common
this event really is. Where are your statistics for how often this
fish "fallibility" occurs? How often would you say it occurs for a
given population of fish in a lake the size of say… Lake Michigan?
> >It tries to eat something that is just too big to
> >handle. Its meal gets stuck and its gills get blocked,
> >and so it suffocates to death. However rare this event
> >might be, how rare would it be for these two struggling
> >fish avoid being eaten by some other predator or
> >scavenger before they became buried in the scavenger
> >rich mud at the bottom?
> -
> Again, if the lake, lagoon, or sea is stratified. The
> bottom layer of water can be quite toxic being either
> too anoxic, too saline, or too full of hydrogen sulfide
> for any predators or scavengers to live.
I doubt it. Scavengers are very versatile and adaptable to very
"toxic" environments. Also, many if not most lakes, lagoons, and
shallow seas are "stratified", and yet their "bottoms" are not toxic
enough to prevent relatively rapid decomposition by microorganisms and
other scavengers that are adapted to such environments. Please give
an example of a specific place where fish swim around happily but
where just below them the environment is so toxic as to be sterile. I
doubt that there are very many such places in the entire world.
< snip repetitive statement >
> >>>Also, many of them show statistically significant
> >>>alignment with each other. In other words, they are
> >>>generally found in the same plane of orientation such
> >>> as would be expected from a current deposit.
> -
> In terms of fossil fish, this not always the case.
Again, you have this habit of arguing against something that I did not
say. You build straw men that supposedly represent my argument and
then attack these instead of what I really said. You say that this is
not "always the case", but where in did I saw that it was "always" the
case? I said that many of these fossils show current orientation, but
I never said that all of them or even that most of them do.
> In
> many fossil fish deposits, the distribution of fish is
> completely random indicating that there weren't any
> ***bottom*** currents washing fish back and forth and
> dumping sediments on top of them. Some fossil fish
> deposits show some orientation. However, it would take
> only the weakest of currents to orient dead fish lying
> on the bottom of a lake. Extremely strong currents like
> those associated with Mr. Pitman's catastrophic Noachian
> Flood likely would have so strong that they would have
> immediately shredded decaying fish whose bones would
> have had only decayed muscles holding them together.
> Evan moderate to very strong currents of non-catastrophic
> origin would have shredded decaying fish.
You seem not to understand that some large flooding events can be
quite complex, coming in waves, rising and falling, with intermittent
episodes of calm woven into episodes of rapid change such as currents,
turbiditic flows, rapid sedimentation events, changes in water
chemistry, etc. Also, the surface of floodwaters can be quite violent
while down below, the waters can be relatively calm. Once covered
with sediments, the creature is also protected from the "shredding"
currents. Many or most fossils found in the geologic column did get
shredded with fracturing and grinding of bones and shells into what
you call "hash". The production of such "hash" does not necessarily
require vast periods of time, but may be formed by relatively
rapid/catastrophic processes.
> >>Bottom currents are not unique to catastrophes. There
> >>are currents at the bottom of lakes, streams, and so
> >>forth.
> -
> >Not generally as widespread as we see in the fossil
> >record.
> -
> Here, Mr. Pitman needs to learn more of what he talking
> about. If a person compares modern sediments from both
> terrestrial and underwater environments, a person find
> just as much cross-bedding and orientation of fossils as
> is seen in the rock record. Documentation of this claim
> can be found in any good book on sedimentary structures
> and facies.
How did this terrestrial cross-bedding and fossil orientation occur I
ask you? Generally speaking, currents are usually involved. Also, in
the fossil record, it is generally recognized that the majority of
this fossil orientation is the result of watery current deposition.
> Some "good books" on this subject are:
> Boggs, S. (1995) Principles of Sedimentology and
> Stratigraphy, 2nd Edition: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
> Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 774p
>
> Collinson, J. D., and T. D. Thompson (1989) Sedimentary
> Structures. Chapman and Hall, London.
>
> Pettijohn, F. J., and P. B. Potter (1964) Atlas and
> Glossary of Primary Sedimentary Structures. Springer-
> Verlag, Berlin.
>
> Walker, R. G., and N. P. James (1992) Facies Models:
> Response to Sea Level Change. Geological
> Association of Canada, Ontario, Canada.
< Snip >
> Also, you greatly exaggerate the degree
> that such fossil deposits show orientations. For
> example, the Santana fossil deposits and the Old Red
> Sandstone fossil fish don't show such orientations.
> Many of the Miocene diatomite fossil fish don't show
> such orientation. Basically, the presence of a current
> is **not** evidence of a catastrophe and **not** all
> fossil fish deposits even show the alignment and
> orientation that indicated the presence of a current.
Again, evidence of widespread current is not the only evidence of a
large-scale fluvial catastrophe in a given location. For example,
just because certain fossils fail to show significant orientation,
such as in the Santana Formation does not rule out the fact that a
catastrophic event occurred here. Regardless of their orientation or
lack of orientation, other facts speak clearly in favor of a
catastrophic event that resulted in the massive death and rapid
fossilization of a huge number of fish and other creatures.
> >However, many fossils do show alignment with each
> >other...especially larger fossils, like dinosaurs and
> >trees. However, even smaller fossils such as shells,
> >leaves and fish can and often do show stream
> >orientation. Does this, by itself, mean that
> >they were buried catastrophically? No.
> >
> >The evidence for rapid burial is found in the condition
> >of the specimens themselves. -
> -
> As discussed above, the above statement is totally
> incorrect. The condition of all of the specimens, which
> Mr. Pitman offered as evidence of catastrophic processes
> can all be explained by non-catastrophic processes that
> have either been observed in the field or replicated by
> laboratory experiments representative of known natural
> condition. A very small part of the evidence provided
> by Mr. Pitman appears to be fictional in nature.
A "very small part" indeed…
See above for response to this oft repeated statement.
> >Stream orientation, when present, only helps to show
> >that these animals probably didn't die and sink slowly
> >to the body of some still, anoxic lake bed, to be
> >gradually buried over an extended course of time.
> -
> First, the correct terminology is "current orientation"
> not "stream orientation". Second, any fossil fish that
> actually died in a stream would typically not be
> preserved in a stream as the current would readily shred
> decaying fish carcasses to pieces.
Not if the stream was heavily silted and the creature was quickly
buried by rapid sedimentation… or by some rapid turbiditic flow/flows
as are commonly found throughout the geologic column.
> Finally, the type of
> laminated sediments found associated with fossil fish
> are deposited by neither streams nor the strong and
> churning currents that would characterize any global
> catastrophe.
You assume that you know how a "global catastrophe" must work. I am
not so sure. Some very large modern flooding events have been able to
form laminated sediments quite easily.
> Thus, it doesn't make any sense to interpret
> the orientation of fossil fish found in lake sediments
> to be stream orientation.
Current orientation does not require a massive fluvial event or
events, but it does speak in favor of a less than tranquil burial
event and against some slow, quite, undisturbed, burial at the bottom
of some sterile, non-circulating, anoxic lake bottom. Also, when land
creatures are involved, current orientation can often be used as part
of the evidence pointing toward a watery death and burial.
> It would be possible for a very
> gentle, light, brief currents to orient dead fish on a
> lake bottom. Such currents briefly occur even in the
> most stagnant, as when the waters in the lake overturn
> each year. If persistent currents existed on the bottom
> of a lake, these currents would quickly disarticulate
> the fish as would the currents of Mr. Pitman's global
> catastrophic flood.
No, not if the fish were rapidly buried by sediments. Also, the
"overturn" of lake waters each year is a very slow and prolonged
process. I doubt if this overturn is strong enough to orient anything
in a lake. A lake that has an anoxic bottom really shouldn't have any
current strong enough to orient even a small fish.
> >>Some of the bone beds in the fluvial sediments
> >>underlying Yellowhouse Draw near Lubbock, Texas in
> >>Southern High Plains show the exact same type of
> >>orientation. It would be foolish to argue that because
> >>these bones are oriented, that they were deposited by a
> >>catastrophe. They, like the oriented dinosaur bones and
> >>plants are not oriented because of a catastrophe.
> >>Rather, they just were by the currents of either the
> >>river or flood that moved them around and preserved
> >>them by dumping sediments on them.
You don't like to call small floods catastrophes, but that is beside
the point. The point is that a watery current oriented these fossils.
Such currents could be had in a large as well as a small flooding
event. The wide huge areas over which some of these beds where
formed, indicates a rather large flooding event.
> >Ok, if you don't want to call stream orientation
> >catastrophic, that's fine with me.
> -
> LOL,LOL. If water flowing in a stream or river is regarded
> as "catastrophic", then the term becomes meaningless as by
> that definition wind blowing sand in a sandstorm is just as
> "catastrophic". By your previous definition, a person has to
> ask; "What isn't "catastrophic?". Orientation of wood, of
> leaves, of bones is produced everyday by non-catastrophic
> processes in all sorts of natural environments.
Exactly, by your definition, hurricanes, volcanoes, tidal waves, etc.
would be classed as non-catastrophic events simply because they are
not global events. By your definition, there would be no catastrophe
ever unless the whole world was involved. My point is that the
evidence of the fossil record is generally in favor of a rapid death
and burial process caused by some sort of fluvial event… call it
catastrophic or not… that is beside the point really.
> >But, the fact remains that water currents were involved
> >with many of these fossilized burials... sometimes on a
> >massive scale.
< snip redundant >
> >>What I would like to know is how hydraulic sorting can
> >>distribute intact fossil reefs throughout the entire
> >>geological column.
> -
> >How do you know that they are "intact"?
> -
> It is very easy to tell an intact reef from a pile of
> shells and other fossils. If anyone what to learn what
> the criteria for determining if a reef is intact or not,
> they find it in any combination of the following books.
Evidently, telling an intact reef from a pile of sediment and organic
material is not as easy for some as it is for others, such as
yourself. Various sedimentologists such as Blatt, Middleton and
Murray, have expressed their concerns by saying that, "Closer
inspection of many of these ancient carbonate 'reefs' reveals that
they are composed largely of carbonate mud with the larger skeletal
particles 'floating' within the mud matrix. Conclusive evidence for a
rigid organic framework does not exist in most of the ancient
carbonate mounds. In this sense, they are remarkably different from
modern coral-algal reefs." Others have noted that, "Recently there
has been less of a tendency to call the Paleozoic reefs of the Great
Lakes region reefs in the modern sense. That is, these structures are
less likely to be characterized as wave-resistant, organic-framework
reefs. Currently, there is a trend to identify these reefs as
carbonate mud mounds, implying that binding fossil framework and the
resulting wave-resistance are not characteristic, but that carbonate
mud is the dominant feature."
http://www.grisda.org/origins/22086.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/14084.htm
> Flugel, E. (1982) Microfacies Analysis of Limestones.
> Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
>
> Friedman, G. M.(1969) Depositional Environments in
> Carbonate Rocks. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa,
> Oklahoma.
>
> Laporte, L. F., ed., (1974) Reefs in Time and Space,
> Selected Examples from the Recent and Ancient: SEPM.
> Special Publication no. 18. Society for Sedimentary
> Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
>
> James, N. P. (1983) Chapter 8 - Reef Environment. In
> P. A. Scholle, D. G. Bebout, and C. H. Moore, eds.,
> pp. 346-453, Carbonate Depositional Environments.
> Memoir no. 33, American Association Petroleum Geologists,
> Tulsa, Oklahoma.
>
> Wilson, J. L. (1975) Carbonate Facies in Geologic
> History. Springer-Verlag, New York.
>
> Also, people can read "Fossil Reefs, Flood Geology, and
> Recent Creation" at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/roth.htm
> >>How does hydraulic sorting explain the biostratigraphy
> >>of microfossils?
> >
> >Hydraulic sorting doesn't explain the biostratigraphy
> >of microfossils. There are other ways that sorting can
> >happen you know. The natural habitat itself acts as a
> >sorter.
>
> Given that planktonic foraminifers, coccoliths,
> radiolarians, pterodpods, diatoms, are globally
> distributed and independent of bottom environments with
> the oceans and seas now and in the past, "natural
> habitat" is an intellectually bankrupt way of explaining.
"Bankrupt"? Really? "Foraminifers are abundant today and live in
environments ranging from deep sea trenches to estuaries and even
freshwater lakes. Planktonic and pelagic species live in the water
masses at various depths, while benthic species live near, on or in
the sediment on the sea floor. Some are permanently attached to the
substrate or to the shell of another animal, but most are free living…
Because of the many examples of variation in living and fossil forms,
foraminifers are considered to be extraordinarily plastic. A
foraminifer may contain enough genetic information to express many
different forms, depending on the conditions. Many of the so-called
species in the fossil record were probably not separate biological
species. A species is defined as a potentially interbreeding group.
Fossil species can only be defined based on the characteristics of the
preserved remains… Simple agglutinated forms that now live in
environments ranging from the deep sea to estuaries, are found
fossilized in Early Paleozoic and younger strata. Calcareous benthic
species now predominate both in bathyal environments and in Mesozoic
strata of the past, and presently floating planktonic forms from a
higher ecologic zone are abundant in the higher Cenozoic strata of the
past… In the oceans today, calcareous material is dissolved below the
carbonate compensation depth (CCD) — usually at a depth of about 4000
m, depending on carbon dioxide concentration. Neither benthic nor
planktonic calcareous foraminifers are generally found below that
depth on the abyssal plains or in deep-sea trenches, because their
calcareous shells would be dissolved. Agglutinated forms are dominant.
Agglutinated species are common in the Lower Paleozoic, and the
benthic calcareous foraminifers found generally have thicker walls
than forms higher in the geologic column."
"Detailed study of large sympatric populations and fossil assemblages
of the highly variable species Elphidium excavatum (Terquem) [Benthic
foraminifera] collected from 20 widely spaced locations indicates that
a variety of morphotypes of Elphidium can be linked to one another in
a number of interlocking intergradational series. Ten morphotypes are
recognized and groups as formae (ecophenotypes) of Elphidium excavatum
(Terquem); these morphotypes *were previously considered as 22
independent taxa* by various authors… Although all of these formae
belong to the same species, it is suggested [by the authors] that the
distinction among them should be retained because of their potential
as a valuable interpretive tool in paleo-ecological and
biostratigraphic studies of Holocene and Pleistocene sediments."
Arcellacean morphologic ecophenotypic naming is also interesting.
"Arcellaceans occur abundantly in Holocene lacustrine sediments and
have been successfully used to reconstruct Pleistocene-Holocene
lacustrine paleoenvironments… We have encountered at least twelve
species in our investigations of the Cobalt, Ontario area lakes and
Lake Sentani, Indonesia. Many of these have dramatic morphological
variations, or phenotypic differences (strains). We consider them
ecophenotypes as they change their gross morphology depending upon the
environmental conditions in which they are found… Some researchers
consider each variant a new species ("splitters"), while on the other
extreme there are those who consider all arcellaceans as belonging to
the same species ("lumpers"). We take the moderate approach. If one
species is seen to change with respect to the environment, then it and
all its variants are placed in one species."
It seems that trilobites might also be quite plastic as well. Arne
Nielsen has put together "some of the most thoroughly documented
arguments for depth-related trilobite ecophenotypes ever presented" in
his 1995 published work on trilobite morphology and variation in the
fossil record. (Arne T. Nielsen. 1995. Trilobite systematics,
biostratigraphy, and palaeoecology of the Lower Ordovician Komstad
Limestone and Huk Formations, southern Scandinavia, Fossils and Strata
38. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo-Stockholm-Boston. 374 pp.,
261).
Coral also shows ability for ecophenotypic variation. "Ecophenotypes
are different shapes of the same species caused by different
environmental conditions. There is an obvious zonation of corals based
on depth, plankton availability and wave action."
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15008.htm
http://www.dal.ca/~es/abstract/ab_th_83.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/Paleonet/PalAss/pages/archive/bookreviews30.html
http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/arcellacea/3plates.html
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/biol361/LecOutl-96/out12.html
> Also, natural habitat doesn't why if the Noachian Flood,
> while it eroding, transporting, and redepositing piles of
> sediments didn't simply mix everything together
> regardless.
Massive floods might do a fair amount of mixing of sediment, but in
general sediments that are used are those which come from the given
region or level that is currently involved by the flooding waters.
Because of this, one would not expect that creatures living in higher
ecological levels to be buried in the lower levels. However, it might
be more common for lower level creatures to be found in higher levels
due to mixing and redistribution at later stages of a flooding event.
Also, for many creatures, the action of floods is a natural sorter
based on many other criteria besides natural habitat.
> >Also, the same species can have a different look in
> >different environments. Phenotypic variation does
> >not always depend upon genotypic change, but can often
> >change in tune with changing environmental needs. Such
> >changes that are based in environmental changes are
> >called, "ecophenotypic variations." Microfossils, such
> >as foraminifers, demonstrate a wide variety of
> >ecophenotypes. In fact, many phenotypes that were once
> >thought to represent different species groups are now
> >known to represent difference phenotypic variations
> >within the same species.
> -
> I let three different micropaleotologists, with whom
> I work read the above paragraph. All three of them, each
> with Ph.Ds., were of the opinion that this was some the
> worst scientific gibberish that they ever seen written
> about micropaleontology by anybody, including scientific
> creationists, except possibly for the reports that a
> certain Japanese micropaleontologist published on his
> discovery of Paleozoic human fossils. However, the
> "research" published on the human fossils, called
> "Minman", they judged to be far more entertaining.
Are you telling me that ecophenotypes do not exist in real life? Are
you saying that microcreatures within a given gene pool are limited to
one or two phenotypic forms? Are these microcreatures unable to have
varieties such as are expressed by modern species, like dogs, cattle,
chickens, cats… etc? Are the genes of a given creature unable to
produce various phenotypic changes? Given the abundant evidence of
such potential phenotypic variation, even within microcreatures, I
think that you and your Ph.D. friends are mistaken here.
By the way, in case you couldn't tell, we aren't talking about
"Minimen" here, but about real-life micropaleontology. If this is the
best come-back that you can come up with, you are really reaching…
< Snip – More ridiculous, irrelevant, "minimen" fossil comparisons to
ecophenotypes in the real world >
> >Hydraulic sorting is not needed to explain these
> >phenotypic distributions. Tammy Tosk, also a geologist,
> >disagrees with Glenn Morton's conclusions. She describes
> >how foraminifers can be sorted according to other factors
> >besides hydraulic sorting such as ecologic zonation
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15008.htm
> Interested lurkers should also look into:
>
> 1. Pollen Order Presents Problems for the Flood by Glenn R. Morton
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/pollen.htm
Ah, the pollen-order argument. Yes, pollens are also sorted in the
fossil record. However, to say that this sorting is impossible for a
large complex event or a relatively rapid series of rather complex
catastrophic events to explain, seems to be a bit presumptuous.
Also, as it turns out, different pollens can be water sorted based on
various characteristic differences that exist between different
pollens, such as size, specific gravity, density, chemical composition
(ie: hydrophobic vs. hydrophilic), and "fall velocity" in water. For
example, most deciduous pollen types sink in water in a few minutes
while bisaccate grains (pine pollen) float for much longer times,
sometimes years, before they sink." Pohl (1933) noted that pine
pollen could retain its buoyancy for up to four years…
Hopkins' (1950) results show that there is some differential buoyancy
between Pinus species. The grains that sank are those with smaller
or deformed/broken air sacs. When placed on a water surface in a
large water tank, over which a breeze of 13km/h was blown, conifer
pollen drifts at a rate of 0.16 to 0.32 km/h. When oak pollen
(Quercus palustris) was put through a similar process most of it sank
within the first meter…
Bisccate grains will only sink if the bladders are pierced either by
physical, chemical or microbial processes. They are therefore more
likely to be saturated if they enter turbulent flow, or if they have
been resident in a position (such as the soil surface) where they are
open to microbial attack prior to introduction to the water…
Many pollen grains have mechanisms to prevent desiccation, but cannot
prevent water uptake. Sporomorphs, many of which have no openings in
the exine, have no inlet for water. Some, such as Lycopodium, also
have an oily coat (Balick & Beitel, 1988). Attempts to saturate
Lycopodium in the laboratory have shown that such grains are extremely
resistant to water uptake. Extreme methods have been invoked, such as
placing the sporomorphs in a beaker in a vacuum for up to eight hours
(own method) or boiling in water (Reynolds 1979). This means that
they are likely to remain afloat in the water, in nature, for long
periods of time. This is consistent with results from the Volga River
where Fedorova (1952) found Lycopodium spores over 7000km from their
source…
Several authors have found that water currents can sort sporomorphs.
This was first seen in the field by Muller (1959) who was looking at
the palynomorph distribution in recent sediments in the Orinoco delta
area. He noted that the pollen of Rhizophora, which is relatively
small, was carried further out to sea than larger sporomorphs from
similar source areas.
Cross et al. (1966) also found evidence of sorting in a marine
setting as lighter, more buoyant, grains were carried further toward
the southern end of the Gulf of California… Davis et al. (1971) and
Davis and Brubaker (1973) explained differences in the distributions
of oak (Quercus) and ragweed (Ambrosia) in the sediments of several
small North American lakes as resulting from sorting. The smaller
ragweed grains remain in suspension for longer periods of time,
allowing them to be transported to the littoral areas of the lake by
wind generated currents. Sorting was also used to explain results
presented by Chen (1987) from the sediments of lake Barine in
Queensland, Australia… Larger grains are deposited in the littoral
areas, while smaller grains are carried to the lake center by these
currents.
Clearly sorting of sporomorphs can occur in many depositional
environments. The behavior of sporomorphs as sedimentary particles
is, however, poorly understood… In a more recent study of alluvial
sediments from a canyon stream in the chuska mountains of Arizona,
Fall (1987) tested the assumption that the pollen in the alluvium was
from local vegetation. She found that pollen concentrations in
general were highest in the fine-grained sediments. Non-arboreal
sporomorph types however were found in higher numbers in the sandy
sediments. Similar results have been reported from Glacio-lacustrine
sediments in Alaska (Goodwin, 1988) and braided stream deposits
adjacent to the Caribou River in Yukon (Catto, 1985) or they may be
due to different source areas of tributaries involved. These results
suggest that the deposition of fine-grained sediments, sporomophs in
particular, is related both to the flow conditions of the water and
the bed material over which the water flows.
From the evidence presented here is it suggested that, where water
currents drop below 35cm/sec, sporomorphs may be sorted. This sorting
is primarily due to size, but sporomorph density is also important."
Holmes,P.L. (1994): The sorting of spores and pollen by water:
experimental and field evidence. - In: Traverse,A. [ed.]:
Sedimentation of organic particles, 9-32, 10 figs., 1 tab.; Cambridge:
Univ. Press.
< Snip >
> >>Have Fun
> >>Keith Littleton
> >>New Orleans, LA
> >
> >You too ; )
> >Sean
>
> I had lots of fun. :-) :-)
>
> Yours,
>
> Kieth
Again, thanks for your time and effort in your last response. I'm
sure you will have a lot of "fun" with this post as well. Hope all
other aspects of your life are also as enjoyable, and have a happy
holiday season.
Yours,
Sean
Dave
I would like to nominate Sean Pitman MD's two posts for POTM. Not because I
agree with their content (in fact I have not yet read them in entirety) but
because I believe they represent the best of the other side.
Unfortuntately I think that Mr Pitman has used some tactics that would be
more use in a verbal debate, and failed to address some of the scientific
points. Nevertheless, his argument is well expressed and typical of the
best arguments I've seen against evolution.
BTW what does 'MD' stand for? Is it really the MD degree (doctorate), or
MBBS or something else?
--
Attack is not the best form of defense.
John Harshman
Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
[snip]
I would attempt a reply to Dr. Sean except that, for some reason, he
never replies to me when I do that.
One brief statement: rapid burial and various sorts of small
"catastrophes" are quite common, both in the fossil record and in the
modern world. We're talking about storms, floods, mud flows, slumps,
turbidity flows, and so on. Is there evidence that the bulk of the
fossil/geological record needs to appeal to mechanisms not operating
today? If so, what? (There are occasional needs; nothing like a
Channeled Scablands event has ever been observed in historical times.
But that's a rare exception.)
steven
> BTW what does 'MD' stand for? Is it really the MD degree (doctorate), or
> MBBS or something else?
In the US a medical degree (MD)is a graduate degree, like law (JD) or
a PhD. Just as the original doctorate (the PhD) has doctorate in the
aronym, so does MD and JD. Originally the D was derived from Docere,
the latin for 'teach', thus a PhD was qualified to be a teacher of
philosophy.
In Britain, the PhD is still the supreme graduate degree. In Scotland,
law, medicine and science are all bachelors (MBChB (bachelor of
medicine, bachelor of surgery, some newer universities grant an
MBBS)), LLB (bachelor of legal letters), BSc, BEng etc. In the older
mediaeval universities (St Andrews, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow) the
1st arts degree is actually an MA, with the secondary degree being the
M Litt. Many english students in scotland exploit this difference, and
go back to england with a 'masters' rather than a bachelors degree
(especially in mathematics, which is still taught in the arts faculty
in some universities).
Having said that, no-one in Scotland gets a 'D' in their degree
without at least three- five years hard slog and a major thesis at the
end of the endeavour.
I cannot speak for the english system, as it is very different from
the scottish system, and I have never attended university in england.
I do know that the PhD degree of england and scotland are identical,
being funded in general from a centralised UK source (the Govt via
research councils).
regards
steven pirie-shepherd PhD <--Edinburgh if anyone cares.
Ron Okimoto
> Keith,
>
> Your most recent reply was quite interesting indeed. Again, your
> points have raised a few more questions. You put a lot into this post
> and I respect and appreciate that. In any case, I apologize for not
> getting back with you before now, but I have been pretty busy and
> getting busier. But, the holidays have been good, with lots of
> friends and family around. Hopefully the same was/is true for you and
> others following this thread.
>
> < Snip previous intro >
Snip a lot of well intentioned but ultimately useless verbage
Why do lobefin fish fall just where we expect in the molecular
phylogeny? Why does it look like they have been evolving for hundreds
of millions of years at the molecular level? Why would lobefin fish
be closer to land vertebrates than teleost fish? You are complaining
about nothing. We are lucky to have a living example because we now
can confirm things that we could only speculate about before. You
don't like the DNA evidence but it negates your entire argument.
Morphology is known to be not a good measure of genetic distance.
Human failings and interpretation get in the way. Creationist think
that all ants are a like and are one created kind only because they
don't understand morphology and vast genetic distances between the
different ants. You make the same mistake with fish. To you the
lobefins look similar enough to discount, but that doesn't matter
because we have DNA evidence. We know dogs are nearly genetically
identical and that the morphology is only due to a few new mutations
in the species that humans have selected for because they look
different.
Chimps and humans are more genetically similar than horses and
donkeys. What does that tell you about your morphologic meassure?
Morphology is not a good meassure for how closely related species are
to eachother. Designations are arbitrary human constructs. The
reality is that all these species are related to eachother and we have
a means of figuring out how they are related to eachother. Morphology
is only one meassure and the old school did a pretty good job with the
tools that they had. It is a justification of their methodology on
determination of what characters were important to concentrate on that
the molecular phylogeny matches the classic phylogeny so well. They
didn't just arbitrarily pick characters. And molecular phylogenies
have their own problems like horizontal transfer. We need multiple
means to attack this problem, and you can't deny that they consistenly
give us a useful result. It was hard study and work to determine what
characters would accurately produce a viable base to determine
relationships between taxa. And it works. You can't deny the
evidence no matter how hard you try to obfuscate it.
Since Chimps and humans are so genetically similar what makes them a
separate created kind? Your dog example negates a morphological
argument, so what argument will you replace it with? Why would you
put horses and donkeys in the same kind and not chimps and humans?
How many species were on the Ark? Real scientists don't have to worry
about questions like this, but you do. Creationist have the problem
of only putting up an explanation of the moment. The ramifications of
the explanation make another part of their story impossible, but they
don't care. They only care about fooling themselves and their
ignorant audience. A real viable explanation has to be consistent
with, at least, the important parts of your model. You have to place
your interpretation in with all the other facts of nature. You don't
have to explain everything, because we don't know everything, but you
have to get the big ones or your explanation is pretty useless. You
have to get the genetic diversity that we see in humans from just two
original individuals. You have to get the genetic diversity that we
see in the biosphere from just the animals that were on the Ark.
Solve these little problems and then go and argue about one type of
fish. You will find that you don't have much to argue about. The
arguments that you put up against biological evolution are negligible
compared to what you can't explain in your model. We have an
explanation, we have data that says that we are correct in our
interpretations. What do you have? Think about it for a moment.
What do you really have besides an old book? I happen to think that
that old book is very important, but I know that biologically, it is
irrelevant. In science you go with the data. We don't study some old
book, we study the creation itself. You might want to start looking
at the creation, before you interpret what some book says about it.
One of the weirdest things that we see around here is when a
creationists admits that without the Bible, they would have no problem
agreeing with the evidence for common descent. Where do you fall in
this respect? You know some of the evidence for common descent and
you know that this evidence is much stronger and has a level of
validity that far exceeds anything that you can put up to support your
beliefs, so without the Bible what would you think? If you answer
that question honestly, you know why you have to be so dishonest in
your attacks on biological evolution. It is just this simple, the
evidence tells you that you are wrong, so you have to lie about it.
If the evidence was really in your favor, you wouldn't have to be as
deceptive as you are.
Obfuscation should be beneath you, but it doesn't seem to be that way.
Face the facts, obfucation is all creationism has going for it. This
is sad, so why perpetuate the farce? Why don't you loath dishonesty
of this sort as much as I do?
What were your sources for this information? You keep making the same
mistakes that we consistently see in creationist literature. It could
be a common mind set and self delusion, but it is usually the case of
the ignorant using the foilbles of somebody that may or may not have
known what they were doing.
Ron Okimoto
zoe_althrop
<d.philp.no....@mmb.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I would like to nominate Sean Pitman MD's two posts for POTM. Not because I
>agree with their content (in fact I have not yet read them in entirety) but
>because I believe they represent the best of the other side.
second the nomination.
>Unfortuntately I think that Mr Pitman has used some tactics that would be
>more use in a verbal debate, and failed to address some of the scientific
>points. Nevertheless, his argument is well expressed and typical of the
>best arguments I've seen against evolution.
agree. I considered Dr. Pitman's post to be an EXCELLENT and
informative read, convincing and even entertaining -- i.e., the
fish-choking "studies". Thank you, Doc.
>BTW what does 'MD' stand for?
It stands for Doctor of Medicine.
snip>
----
zoe
Lane Lewis
I'll second the nomination.
I think he was connected to Loma Linda but I can find nothing now.
He should of course have his credentials on his web site.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/index.html
Here's some "science" from one of his WebPages.
I will leave you with one last observation. There is a common saying
among scientist that “finding the head of a dinosaur is like finding a
needle in a haystack.”2 This is to say that the greatest majority of
dinosaur skeletons found have no head attached to their bodies. There
are actually only twelve complete dinosaur skeletons in the entire
world. Many more dinosaur skeletons than this have been found of
course, but they are not complete. Often they are missing their heads.
Why would a dinosaur loose its head if it died a simple death and just
fell over on the ground to be buried? Even scientists admit openly that
it appears like most dinosaurs were washed into their current locations
by heavy currents.2 A head is not as well attached to the rest of the
body as other limbs. A catastrophic flood could be the reason that
there are so many headless dinosaurs around.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/The%20Fossil%20Record.html
Animals could have carried off the heads as well as gravity and even a
river or local flood, but there is no evidence of a major global flood
doing it.
Such is the "science" of S. Pittman M.D.
Lane
Dave
Did you have funny feelings after seconding the nomination? I certainly
did. (Actually you probably thirded it, I think Zoe was second.)
>
> Lane
Dave
I care.
We have the Australian system (!) which includes:
PhD = research degree, 2--5 years. (2 in case of MBBS + PhD)
MD = honourific (I think, I've never met one)
MBBS = medico, but they call themselves 'doctor'
EdD = something bizarre for school teachers
etc..
but I was really asking if "MD" mean Dr Pitman, i.e. Sean Pitman MBBS, or if
it really was an MD and if so, was it research or what?
I couldn't find it on his website (if it was his website).
'Dr' Carl Wieland is MBBS I'm pretty sure, as are many of the AiG 'Doctors'
David Jensen
Dave <d.philp.no....@mmb.usyd.edu.au> wrote in
<aune5p$7k2$3...@news.iucc.ac.il>:
If he's American it is definitely not a research degree. Here, MD is the
first professional degree in medicine, apparently the same as MBBS.
We have EdD's, too. It appears to be a degree for getting better pay
without doing research.
Lane Lewis
> Lane Lewis wrote:
>
snip
I was indecisive for so long that Zoe did indeed beat me to the
punch. His Ideas need exposure so they can be seen for what they are,
but yes you do get this terrible feeling.
Lane
John Wilkins
....
>
> We have the Australian system (!) which includes:
>
> PhD = research degree, 2--5 years. (2 in case of MBBS + PhD)
> MD = honourific (I think, I've never met one)
> MBBS = medico, but they call themselves 'doctor'
Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, like the British system. No
research is involved. It is a 6 year degree. I think of it as equivalent
to a Masters degree in terms of work done, although there is no thesis.
However, to become a registered medico, there is a further three years
of internship, so I don't begrudge them the title "doctor", as once they
complete that and get - if they do - a hospital appointment, they are
entitled to teach new graduates.
However I do like it that I can say to my doctor if he gets uppity that
I have more degrees than he does even *if* he has a specialist
certificate...
> EdD = something bizarre for school teachers
Also DLitt - Doctor of Letters (for second doctorates in Arts), DPhil
(generic second doctorate), DTheol (doctorate in theology), DJuris
(law)...
> etc..
>
> but I was really asking if "MD" mean Dr Pitman, i.e. Sean Pitman MBBS, or if
> it really was an MD and if so, was it research or what?
>
> I couldn't find it on his website (if it was his website).
>
> 'Dr' Carl Wieland is MBBS I'm pretty sure, as are many of the AiG 'Doctors'
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Robin Levett
<megasnippage>
Dr Pitman, the fact that David Pratt twists the evidence and
quote-mines in a different cause than you doesn't make his
conclusions any more authoritative. This is a literature review,
not a primary source, and is apparently biassed in its approach to
fit Pratt's preconceived conclusion derived from his Theosophical
beliefs, just as your own approach is to seek to fit your own
preconceived conclusion derived from your own creationist beliefs;
nowhere is there any indication that Pratt has any more
qualification than you or I to judge the validity of the ideas
refers to.
The shortcomings of this source were pointed out to you when you
first cited it; do you have no response to those comments?
<further megasnippage>
Dave
> Dave <d.philp.no....@mmb.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> ....
>>
>> We have the Australian system (!) which includes:
>>
>> PhD = research degree, 2--5 years. (2 in case of MBBS + PhD)
>> MD = honourific (I think, I've never met one)
>> MBBS = medico, but they call themselves 'doctor'
>
> Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, like the British system. No
> research is involved. It is a 6 year degree. I think of it as equivalent
> to a Masters degree in terms of work done, although there is no thesis.
> However, to become a registered medico, there is a further three years
> of internship, so I don't begrudge them the title "doctor", as once they
> complete that and get - if they do - a hospital appointment, they are
> entitled to teach new graduates.
>
> However I do like it that I can say to my doctor if he gets uppity that
> I have more degrees than he does even *if* he has a specialist
> certificate...
>
>> EdD = something bizarre for school teachers
>
> Also DLitt - Doctor of Letters (for second doctorates in Arts), DPhil
> (generic second doctorate), DTheol (doctorate in theology), DJuris
> (law)...
The interesting one is DSc which is approximately a second doctorate in
science but it's pretty honourific. You get some really swish clothes with
it, much more interesting than the red stripes (which is why I'm doing it).
>> etc..
>>
>> but I was really asking if "MD" mean Dr Pitman, i.e. Sean Pitman MBBS, or
>> if it really was an MD and if so, was it research or what?
>>
>> I couldn't find it on his website (if it was his website).
>>
>> 'Dr' Carl Wieland is MBBS I'm pretty sure, as are many of the AiG
>> 'Doctors'
>
>
--
Attack is not the best form of defense.
Dave
Clarification: I'm impressed by the red stripes too! I'm *not* doing a DSc.
Dave
>> Did you have funny feelings after seconding the nomination? I
> certainly
>> did. (Actually you probably thirded it, I think Zoe was second.)
>>
>
> I was indecisive for so long that Zoe did indeed beat me to the
> punch. His Ideas need exposure so they can be seen for what they are,
> but yes you do get this terrible feeling.
I had this extraordinary number of reasons for and against nominating it.
Angel on one shoulder, devil on the other:
"shouldn't have nominated: it was full of nonsense"
"but the nonsense is important, and was well expressed"
"nonsense is not important and the debate isn't what counts"
"the debate is often what counts and you can't remember a debate from one
side only"
"I'll encourage him, he'll think I liked it"
"unlikely"
"it is pseudoscience and rhetoric, and dangerous"
"that's why it needs to be preserved"
"no, that's why it needs to be discarded"
"but TO is about both 'talk' and 'origins', it's not one-sided"
"there were more deserving posts, he might displace one"
"let the readers judge" and "editor's pick, runner up can help there"
"it's December, there weren't many POTM nominations, he might win!"
"ok if he does, the TO website says it's ok if a non-evolutionist wins"
"it's late in December, Keith Littleton hasn't got time to reply"
"Keith Littleton replied last month"
"people will think I'm pretending to be fair minded"
"unlikely but who cares anyway?"
All in all, I decided that preserving his post was more valuable than not
preserving it. Who knows, in 100 years, people might use the TO website as
a resource to find out about YECism?
Dave
Rodjk
Yes, it is the best the creationist have to offer, though of course it
is misleading, incorrect, outdated and has the appearance of
dishonesty.
Creationist all the way through.
Rodjk #613
steven
> Dave wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> >> Dave <d.philp.no....@mmb.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> ....
> > science but it's pretty honourific. You get some really swish clothes
> > with it, much more interesting than the red stripes (which is why I'm
> > doing it).
At Edinburgh, one can obtain a DSc by dint of having a PhD (from
edinburgh) and at least 7 years of original research in your field.
Essentially it is a degree for people who got a PhD and then used it
professionally. I am thinking of submitting a thesis (which will
consist of my peer-reviewed published research papers bookended by an
intro and discussion)for examination. My aim is to try to get more
letters after my name than in it!!
steven Pirie-Shepherd BSc MSc PhD
Dave
Yes, that sounds a bit like ours. Are the clothes nice though? We don't
usually do masters either, so we *really* have to work for our letters. My
17 YO sister has more letters after her name than I'll probably ever have,
being a muso (AMusA, LMusA). Not fair.
TomS
<13036f84.02123...@posting.google.com>, steven...@yahoo.com
stated..."
I was told by someone that, if one got doctorates in philosophy,
theology and law, in certain European countries, that was an entry
to the nobility. (That means a "real" doctorate in law, not a JD.)
There are a couple of "super-doctorates" that I have heard of.
STM = Sacrae Theologiae Magister; and "Agrege'".
Tom S.
Lane Lewis
snip
I think its good that we actually bend over backwards to show
creationist that were not the monsters that many believe us to be.
Letting them know that were not trying to bury their ideas will bring
about more discussion and hopefully the truth about the differences
between evolution and creation ideas. Dr. Pittman's post is an excellent
example of obfuscation and dodging of the facts, he completely ignores
the mountain's (literally) of evidence and dwells on insignificant
points that have little or nothing to do with his idea of a 6000 year
old earth. That a person with a formal education could behave in this
manner should be brought to light as it's the most damaging form of
argumentation to the creationist idea.
The rest is just a rant on how to get at Dr. Pittman and his websites.
Needs some work yet.
Lane
Here are some points to consider before reading Dr Pittman's Post.
Below I have posted the Geologic Column in North Dakota, it is intact
and contains animals and plant fossils from 500 million + years ago till
the present. What's unique about the geologic column is that its all
sorted in different layers, small and simple plants and animals at the
bottom, all the way to large and complex plants and animals at the top.
That's 15,000' of sorting that just "never" varies. Dr. Pittman is
trying to argue that all this column was deposited in a year long
catastrophe called Noah's flood.
The problem is that a flood cannot sort plants and animals anywhere
near to this perfection its just beyond the laws of known physics.
There's evidence of desserts, forests, and formations in the geologic
column that take thousands of years to develop all neatly sorted, again
it would be beyond the laws of known physics for a flood to do this.
Yet this is exactly what he believes and he offers the evidence of
headless dinosaurs to prove his theory i.e, most dinosaurs fossils are
headless so there must have been a world wide flood catastrophe.
[excerpt from his website]
Why would a dinosaur loose its head if it died a simple death and just
fell over on the ground to be buried? Even scientists admit openly that
it appears like most dinosaurs were washed into their current locations
by heavy currents. A head is not as well attached to the rest of the
body as other limbs. A catastrophic flood could be the reason that
there are so many headless dinosaurs around.
[end]
That has got to be one of the most immature arguments in the history of
science, I believe that Dr. Pittman is trying to fool children with his
lies and must realize he's doing it for even most children have seen the
wires museums use to attach the heads of dinosaurs to keep them from
falling off.
Dr Pittman has some serious explaining to do and a 75 page post arguing
over the coelacanth or the durability of shells is not going to do it.
Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet
T.O. Geologic Column
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Dr. Pittman's Fossil record webpage.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/The Fossil Record.html
Sean Pitman M.D.
> Snip a lot of well intentioned but ultimately useless verbage
>
> Why do lobefin fish fall just where we expect in the molecular
> phylogeny? Why does it look like they have been evolving for hundreds
> of millions of years at the molecular level? Why would lobefin fish
> be closer to land vertebrates than teleost fish? You are complaining
> about nothing. We are lucky to have a living example because we now
> can confirm things that we could only speculate about before. You
> don't like the DNA evidence but it negates your entire argument.
Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much. You should know this
by now. DNA has been the main point of discussion in many of the
threads that I've started. Obviously, if evolution is happening, it
is happening in the DNA. The phenotype or physical creature is
nothing more than a reflection of the information contained in its
DNA. The problem is that many, such as Keith Littleton, place undue
significance on morphologic/phenotypic variations that may not have
anything to do with genotypic (gene pool) evolution. Littleton
claims that such phenotypic variations that are seen in coelacanths
are evidence enough for their placement in different taxonomic groups
when known intraspecies variations are known to be just as great. He
seems not to realize that morphologic classification schemes are quite
subjective.
Molecular/genetic phylogenies also have their problems. Scientists
often read too much into sequences that do not statistically support
their preconceived hypothesis over other possibilities. We went into
this in some detail in the Neandertal mtDNA thread. In this thread,
you initially stated that Neandertals were more closely related to
chimps than humans are; that they, "fall between humans and chimps."
It seems as though you still feel this way despite the fact that the
Neandertal substitution average is "equidistant" from chimps or if
anything, farther away from chimps than modern humans are. Your
statements that such relatively short sequences of DNA can be used to
determine clear evolutionary relationships over vast spans of time
does not seem to be well supported, or at least I do not see the
evidence as you see it. Clearly DNA analysis and substitution
differences can be used quite convincingly to support common ancestry
over relatively short spans of time, but when we are getting into
thousands of generations, the usefulness of such sequence analysis in
short control regions of DNA starts to get rather fuzzy.
To give an example, consider a hypothetical control region of say, 500
nucleotides. It is known that mitochondrial mutation rates are as
high as 1 mutation (in 16,000 base pairs) every 33 generations. That
works out to around 1 x 10 ^ -6 mutations per site per generation.
With this information in mind, how many generations would it take to
make substitution differences in our control region worthless as far
as a tool for determining common decent relationships or orders of
divergence? Consider that 25% of completely random nucleotide
sequences would match each other. Clearly then, a 25% match is
worthless as far as determining genetic relationships. So, how many
generations would it take to achieve this random state in the
comparison of two lineages, starting with a common ancestor? Well,
calculating from the above numbers, a sequence of 500 base pairs would
be mutated once every 1,056 generations. If the generation time was
one day, as is the case with many single celled organisms, this would
give us one mutation every 2.89 years. Since a random state is
equivalent to a 75% change, after 375 mutations, our control region
would be worthless as far as a tool for determining the relationships
of creatures separated from their common ancestor by this amount. How
long would it take our hypothetical creatures to diverge by this
amount? Not very long. First consider that two separate lineages
each undergo random mutational changes. Because of this, achieving a
375 substitution differences would take about half as long as one
might expect. For example, a mutation in each lineage would most
likely occur in different positions in each lineage. This would
create a 2 substitution difference in the time it took for just one
mutation to occur in each lineage. So, in this scenario, it would
take just over 500 years to achieve randomness. If the generation
time were one year, it would take just under 200,000 years. A
generation time of 10 years would take just under 2 million years.
Obviously then, DNA sequence analysis of relatively short portions of
DNA, especially mtDNA control regions with their relatively high
mutation rates, is incapable of providing meaningful results over the
course of hundreds of millions of years, as you and other scientists
suggest. Of course, my thinking may be all wrong here, but I fail to
see how. I am sure though that you and others will make clear the
error of my ways . . .
> Morphology is known to be not a good measure of genetic distance.
> Human failings and interpretation get in the way.
Oh, I couldn't agree more. This is the main point that I'm trying to
get across in my discussion with Keith Littleton. Very different
morphologies can be produced by the same gene pool. Also, very
similar morphologies can be produced by very difference gene pools.
So, morphology alone cannot be used as a foolproof guide to taxonomic
classification.
> Creationist think
> that all ants are a like and are one created kind only because they
> don't understand morphology and vast genetic distances between the
> different ants.
Actually, even if some creationists think like this, I do not.
Clearly, similar morphologies can be separated by vast genetic
distances, as you suggest. I couldn't agree more here. Now, I'm not
saying that all ants, specifically, are or are not descendants of a
common ancestor. I really don't have any basis for such a
determination in this specific case. It all depends upon what you
mean when you say, "vast genetic distances." Many genetic differences
can be numerically large, as far as absolute numbers are concerned,
without being "vast". For example, most mutations are "neutral". A
neutral mutation is informationally simple, or . . . "neutral". No
guidance is needed to pile up neutral differences. It doesn't take
long to get an absolute number of neutral differences, as described
above, because any and every change will do. No specific changes are
required. Thus, a large number of neutral differences might still be
classed as minor differences as far the information contained in a
given genome is concerned. In other words, the information in the
genomes of two individuals might be identical and yet there may be a
relatively large number of neutral genotypic differences between them.
In this way, informationally insignificant "differences" might be
"vast" and yet these mean nothing as for as phenotypic function. Are
there "vast" differences in phenotypic ant function? I don't know,
but that is the real question. Neutral genetic drift is really not an
issue.
> You make the same mistake with fish. To you the
> lobefins look similar enough to discount, but that doesn't matter
> because we have DNA evidence.
You seem not to understand the discussion between Littleton and
myself. Littleton claimed that certain morphologic differences
between various coelacanths (fossil and living) are significant enough
to classify them in different taxonomic groups (species and genera).
My argument is that the degree of morphologic variation seen between
the various types of coelacanths can also be seen between various
members of known species groups living today (such as domestic dogs).
In fact, such morphologic variations can be so dramatic that they have
often been classed as different species or generic groups until later
it was discovered that they were in fact capable of interbreeding and
producing virile offspring. Obviously then, morphologies, although
often helpful in classification schemes, are not completely reliable
as far as genetic relationships. Often taxonomies based on morphology
are not consistent with those based on genetic comparisons. Littleton
puts too much faith in morphologic comparisons, and that is one of the
problems I have with his perspective.
> We know dogs are nearly genetically
> identical and that the morphology is only due to a few new mutations
> in the species that humans have selected for because they look
> different.
Actually, various breeds of domestic dogs are not only similar, they
are part of the same gene pool. The different breeds are, by in
large, no more than different expressions of the same gene pool of
doggy options. Mutations are not needed to produce very dramatic
morphologic variations under selective pressures. Gregor Mendel
demonstrated this ability long ago. Breeding does not generally rely
on the evolution of anything new as far as genetic information,
traits, or alleles are concerned. Breeding creates diversity by
selecting for the expression of different aspects of the same gene
pool and the pre-established phenotypic potential that it contains.
Such changes, although often dramatic, can be obtained rapidly.
Millions of years are not required, because no gene pool evolution
need take place, just selection of pre-established options. You are
mistaken that the breeding of new morphologic doggy variations
generally requires new muations.
> Chimps and humans are more genetically similar than horses and
> donkeys.
It depends upon what you base you judgment of similarity on. Horses
and donkeys can produce viable, albeit sterile, offspring, while
humans and chimps cannot. Humans and chimps are thought by popular
science to have diverged from a common ancestor some 5 to 7 million
years ago, while donkeys and horses are also thought to have diverged
from their common ancestor some 3 to 10 million years ago. The total
number of chromosomes in humans is 23 pairs, in chimps it is 24 pairs,
horses 32 pairs, and donkeys 31 pairs. Each has a one-pair
difference. So, to say, off hand, that the genetics of humans and
chimps are more similar than horses and donkeys, is based on what
again? Certainly I have heard this statement before. It seems like
it was first made before the structure of DNA was even known.
Jonathan Marks, geneticist and anthropologist from Berkeley, gave a
presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Nov. 1999. In this presentation he noted that, "blood
serum reactions standing for genetics" showed that "humans and apes
[are] more similar by that measure than horse and donkey." Others use
short genetic or protein sequence analysis to "prove" this point, such
as cytochrome c sequence analysis. As it turns out, the cytochrome c
sequences of humans and chimps appear to be more similar than
comparisons between donkeys and horses. Of course, cytochrome c
sequence analysis has its own problems, not the least of which is the
problem of functionality. Cytochrome c, being a functional protein,
is not immune from selection pressures. Thus, differences in
sequencing could be influenced by similar or different functional
needs. In any case, I have yet to see this statement of yours, that
humans and chimps are more similar, genetically, than horses and
donkeys, well supported.
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/aaa/marksaaa99.htm
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html
> What does that tell you about your morphologic meassure?
> Morphology is not a good meassure for how closely related species are
> to each other. Designations are arbitrary human constructs.
Unwittingly, you are supporting my position that such designations are
arbitrary human constructs. These constructs may be helpful, but they
do not necessarily say anything about true relationships (as far as
common ancestry is concerned). Over and over again in my reply to
Littleton, I said that taxonomies based on morphology are quite
"subjective" (Maybe not entirely "arbitrary" as you suggest, but
certainly subjective and heavily influenced by personal bias).
> The
> reality is that all these species are related to eachother and we have
> a means of figuring out how they are related to eachother. Morphology
> is only one meassure and the old school did a pretty good job with the
> tools that they had. It is a justification of their methodology on
> determination of what characters were important to concentrate on that
> the molecular phylogeny matches the classic phylogeny so well. They
> didn't just arbitrarily pick characters.
Oh, so now you changed your mind and withdrew your use of the word
"arbitrary" from morphologic classification models? In any case, I
would agree with this statement as well. Generally speaking, I would
say that morphologic taxonomies have served their purpose fairly well.
I would also agree that all of the species are related to each other,
but not necessarily by common descent over other possibilities, such
as common environments, needs, energy sources, building blocks, and
even common design.
> And molecular phylogenies
> have their own problems like horizontal transfer. We need multiple
> means to attack this problem, and you can't deny that they consistenly
> give us a useful result.
It depends upon what you mean by the word "useful." I do agree that
genetic comparisons are useful to a certain point. I even agree that
they often support the theory of common decent, especially within
species groups. However, beyond a certain point, I fail to see the
statistical support of evolutionary trees with short genetic sequence
analysis, as I have previously discussed in the Neandertal thread and
above. Certain trees are no more supported than other potential
trees.
> It was hard study and work to determine what
> characters would accurately produce a viable base to determine
> relationships between taxa. And it works. You can't deny the
> evidence no matter how hard you try to obfuscate it.
You interpret the facts differently than I do on many things. Perhaps
you have a better understanding of the facts than I do and are more
equipped to interpret them. You see, I do not simply deny the
evidence for denial's sake. I simply do not understand the evidence
like you understand it.
> Since Chimps and humans are so genetically similar what makes them a
> separate created kind? Your dog example negates a morphological
> argument, so what argument will you replace it with? Why would you
> put horses and donkeys in the same kind and not chimps and humans?
I am glad that you actually recognize that my "dog example negates a
morphological argument". That was my whole point. Morphologic
comparisons are subjective and prone to error. Genetic comparisons,
although superior in my book, are still fraught with potential
problems, as briefly discussed above. Sequence analysis alone is
interesting, but this does not tell us what the differences really
mean. It only tells us that there are differences. The differences
are more important than the similarities. And yet, not all
differences are created equal. Some differences are neutral while
others are functional. A simple statement that chimps and humans are
98% identical is deceptive in that it says nothing about the type of
differences involved or if such differences are statistically possible
to achieve in the amount of time allotted.
You ask why I would put horses and donkeys in the same "kind" and not
chimps and humans in the same "kind" . . . or gene pool? This is not
an easy question. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence,
at this point, to definitively exclude chimps and humans from the
possibility of common ancestry within an evolutionary time frame. I
just don't think there is enough evidence to support such a theory
either, to a statistical significance, over other possibilities. More
information is needed that details the types of differences that exist
between humans and chimps. Some differences are obvious. For
example, gross chromosomal differences are easily noted. Humans and
chimps differ not only in chromosome number, but also by nine
pericentric chromosomal inversions and one centric fusion. We also
know that both humans and chimps do have unique genetic sequences, but
our knowledge seems rather limited as far as exactly how the many
differences affect the overall phenotypic function of the two species.
You see, I'm not a believer in design theory because of I have a
problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps. This
possibility really doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that
I know of certain phenotypic functions in various creatures that are
separated by neutral gaps in function from any other genetic sequence
that is available to the creature at hand. Such neutral gaps cannot
be crossed except via random drift. This drift cannot be guided by
the forces of natural selection toward any particular function over
any other particular genetic sequence, be it beneficially functional
or not. Such random drift simply takes too long to produce the
various independent functions that I observe in living things. It is
this problem that has convinced me of the truth of design theory, and
of the implausibility of common decent with naturally selected
modifications over time. A selection mechanism that is phenotypically
based cannot direct neutral genotypic changes. This is my problem
with evolution. I don't have a problem with the idea of the common
decent of anything, but I do have a problem with the mechanisms that
have been suggested as a driving force for such changes.
It is very difficult to know exactly where and how to draw genetic
boundaries between various "kinds" or gene pools. I do believe that
such boundaries exist and I see evidence for this hypothesis, but I am
not capable of determining exact boundaries, nor do I think anyone
else is capable at this point in time. There are clues however, as to
which groups might have had an easier time crossing the genetic
distances that exist between them. For one thing, those "kinds" that
can breed and actually produce viable offspring are obviously very
closely related as far as their gene pools are concerned. Horses and
donkeys can interbreed, while humans and chimps cannot. For me, this
seems to indicate a possible common ancestor, at least for horses and
donkeys. In other words, I believe that horses and donkeys share the
same genetic information. All the information appears to be the same,
but the order of information is different.
Looking a bit more into the genetics involved, horses have 32 pairs of
chromosomes while donkeys have only 31 pairs. When a male donkey and
a female horse mate, they produce a mule (a male horse with a female
donkey produces a different creature called a hinny). A mule has
31-paired chromosomes, but has an extra chromosome from its horse
mother that is not paired. Many think that this extra non-paired
chromosome is what makes the mule infertile. The suggested reason for
this is that during meiosis, the extra chromosome wouldn't have a
partner to match up with. When the paired chromosomes are split apart
into separate haploid gametes, the split would be uneven, creating
sterility. However, this is not a satisfactory explanation for
several reasons. The most obvious reason that this hypothesis is not
entirely correct is the fact that other matings of odd paired
chromosomes do give rise to virile offspring. For example, hybrids of
the wild (33 pairs) and the domesticated horse (32 pairs) are fertile,
and yet they have an odd chromosome out, just like mules do. So
clearly, something more than just differences in chromosome number is
contributing to the species-interbreeding barrier. If you think about
it, it is not really all that hard to imagine how an odd chromosome
out would not necessarily result in sterility. During meiosis all the
chromosomes double themselves. During this process, a cell undergoing
gametogenesis in a diploid organism, such as horses and donkeys, will
become tetraploid. At this point genetic recombination occurs between
the four copies of a given chromosome. After this, the four copies
are eventually split apart to occupy four different cells called
gametes. Each gamete, containing only one copy of a given chromosome,
is termed "haploid". If there is an odd chromosome out, it will also
be duplicated during meiosis, but there will only be two identical
copies. These two copies will also be sorted out into gametes, but
since there are only half as many copies as "normal" diploid
chromosomes, only half of the gametes will get the extra chromosome.
That means that 50% of the gametes will be viable, having the complete
set of genetic information needed to code for that particular
creature. So, since hybrid fertility is clearly possible for those
having odd chromosome numbers, why are mules sterile? Horse-donkey
hybrids (mules and hinnys), during testicular meiosis, show a ‘block'
at the primary spermatocyte stage. This is caused by incompatibility
of synaptal pairing between paternal and maternal chromosomes,
resulting in a total arrest of spermatogenesis. But what exactly
causes this block?
In order to understand this problem a bit more, it might be
interesting to look into how interbreeding creatures can have
variations in chromosome numbers and yet have the same information in
those chromosomes. As it turns out, many interbreeding creatures that
have different chromosome numbers have undergone chromosomal
translocations. What happens here is that a piece or "arm" of one
chromosome will become detached from its normal position on one
particular chromosome and reattached to a different chromosome. There
are several different types of translocations and chromosomal fusions.
Sometimes, chromosomes can fuse with each other to form much longer
chromosomes or they can split at the centromere to form two shorter
chromosomes. One such rearrangement is known as Robertsonian
rearrangement and is the result of either the fusion of two
centromeres into one, or the splitting of one centromere into two. A
tandem fusion on the other hand is a fusion of two chromosomes in
which one end of a chromosome fuses with the end or the centromere of
another chromosome. Comparisons between the chromosome banding of the
chromosomes show that the information is still the same, it is just
rearranged. Moreover, the type of rearrangements which occur in
different animals are quite group specific. One type of
rearrangement doesn't necessarily occur in another group. The problem
with this is that during meiosis these portions of translocated
chromosomes must still match up with their normal counterpart on a
different chromosome in order for genetic recombination to proceed
without lethal mistakes. Some translocations, or collections thereof,
make such lineups impossible. Of course, this makes interbreeding
impossible. However, in other cases, these translocated segments are
still able to pair up and cross-over even though there might be more
than two centromeres involved. For example, two chromosomes might
only match up half way while the rest of each of these two
chromosomes, might match a third chromosome (see link below for visual
illustration).
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.r.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.3.gif
This would make it possible for various chromosome numbers to maintain
the same information and still give rise to viable as well as fertile
offspring. And, various interbreeding creatures do in fact maintain a
wide range of possible chromosome numbers in their respective gene
pools. Besides the wild and domestic horse mentioned above, there are
several other fairly well known examples.
Robertsonian Fusion:
Robertsonian fusion changes the chromosome number, but not the arm
number. When chromosomes line up during meiosis one, a metacentric
chromosome lines up with two acrocentric chromosomes. For example, the
house mouse Mus Musculis has 40 chromosomes, and a population of mice
form the Italian Alps was found to have only 22 chromosomes. This
population differs slightly from the normal house mouse in morphology
as well, and is classified as a different species Mus poschiavanus.
Other populations have been discovered with chromosome numbers varying
between 22 and 40. For example, over 40 Robertsonian "races" of Mus
musculus domesticus have been found in Europe and North Africa (Hauffe
HC, Searle JB, Chromosomal heterozygosity and fertility in house mice
(Mus musculus domesticus) from Northern Italy. Department of Zoology,
University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom). The number of
chromosome arms are the same and banding studies reveal the genes to
be homologous. Obviously, in terms of their relationship, these
different species are all one group. Another example is the house
musk shrew which demonstrates Robertsonian polymorphism and lives in
the central region of West Malaysia where chromosome number varies
from 36 to 40 (Young, 1970, 1971, 1974; Sam et al., 1979), and
Southern India and Sri Lanka, where specimen with 2n=30 and 32 have
been detected (Sharma et al. 1969;. Aswathanarayana and Prakash 1976;
Yosida 1982, Ishikawa et al. 1989).
Tandem Fusion:
Tandem fusion changes arm number and chromosome number. Tandem
fusion's have been found in some antelope species where a sex
chromosome fused with an autosome. This is rare, and one can assume
that the organisms probably had a common forerunner. The antelope
displaying this fusion range in size from the eland (the largest of
all the antelopes) to smaller species such as the sitatange and the
bushbuck. However, they all share common features, such as similar
shapes of the horns and stripes on the body which may be prominent as
in the case of the Bongo or less prominent as in the case of the
eland. Species with this type of fusion are: the eland, bongo, lesser
and greater kudu, bushbuck, sitatunge and nilgai (Indian antelope)
where the y-chromosome is fused to an autosome. Tandem fusions are
also found in Malaysian swamp buffalo and Asian river buffalo. Another
very interesting example of this type of fusion is also found in the
Asian deer. In the species Muntiacus muntjac, the females have only 6
chromosomes and the males have 7 chromosomes (this is the smallest
chromosome number in mammals). However, in a different "species" of
the group, Muntiacus reevesi, both the males and the females have 46
chromosomes. Banding studies show, that the same genetic material is
present in both species, the chromosomes in M. muntjac are just fused
together to form very long chromosomes. Once again no new information
is added, it is just reshuffled, thus providing differential
expressions and increased variety.
Pericentric Inversions:
These provide changes in arm number but not chromosome number. The
number of arms depends on the position of the centromere. If it is
located at the end, then there is one arm and if in the middle there
are two arms. The inversion can change acrocentric chromosomes to
metacentric chromosomes. The rodent Neotoma and Peromyscus differ by
this inversion.
Translocation:
Translocations can lead to reduced fertility, or in some cases in
humans Down's syndrome can occur where part of chromosome 21 gets
translocated to another autosome. In some insects and plants that have
meiotic drive, viable offspring can be produced.
Paracentric Inversion:
In this type of inversion the centromere is not included. This
inversion is relatively uncommon, but has been proposed for some bats,
hares and apes.
Drastic Rearrangements:
Under certain circumstances of severe environmental stress, drastic
rearrangements can produce greater varieties which could enhance
survival. These changes can be rapid when new adaptive zones are
entered (canalization model). Such rearrangements have been proposed
for the mole rate Spalax.
A new Robertsonian translocation has been found in cattle. A bull from
Marchigiana breed (central Italy) was found to be a heterozygous
carrier of a centric fusion translocation involving cattle chromosomes
13 and 19 according to RBA-banding and cattle standard nomenclatures.
CBC-banding revealed the dicentric nature of this new translocation,
underlining the recent origin of this fusion. In fact, both the bull's
parents and relatives had normal karyotypes. In vitro fertilization
tests were also performed in the bull carrying the new translocation,
in two bulls with normal karyotypes (control) and in four other bulls
carrying four different translocations (Molteni L, De Giovanni-Macchi
A, Succi G, Cremonesi F, Stacchezzini S, Di Meo GP, Iannuzzi L. A new
centric fusion translocation in cattle: rob (13;19). Hereditas
1998;129(2):177-80 Institute of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of
Agricultural Science, Milan, Italy).
The significance of centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations) in
domestic animals, with special reference to sheep, is reviewed. The
mating is described of a further 856 ewes with either a normal
chromosome number 2n = 54 or carrying one or more of the three
different translocations (centric fusions) t1, t2 and t3 in various
heterozygous and homozygous arrangements. Rams which were used in the
matings were homozygous for one of the translocation chromosomes (2n =
52), double heterozygotes (2n = 52), triple heterozygotes (2n = 51) or
were carriers of 4 translocation chromosomes (2n = 50) and 5
translocation chromosomes (2n = 49). A remarkably even distribution of
segregation products was recorded in the progeny of all combinations
of translocation ewes x translocation rams in those groups in which
sufficient animals were available for statistical analysis.
Forty-eight chromosomally different groups of animals were mated.
Further, the overall fertility of the translocation sheep, measured by
conception rate to first service, lambing percentage and number of
ewes which did not breed a lamb, was not significantly different from
New Zealand national sheep breeding data. In some groups the poorer
reproductive performance could be explained by the age structure of
the flock and inbreeding depression, which probably affected the
performance of some animals. Sheep with progressively decreasing
chromosome numbers, due to centric fusion, 2n = 50, 2n = 49 and 2n =
48, are reported. The 2n = 48 category represents a triple homozygous
ewe and a triple homozygous ram and is the first report of the viable
evolution of such domestic animals. Less than 1% of phenotypically
abnormal lambs were recorded in a total of 1995 progeny born over 10
years. It is now considered that there is little or no evidence to
suggest that centric fusions in a variety of combinations affect the
total productive fitness of domestic sheep. It is suggested that
future research should be more actively directed to understanding
their genetic significance (Bruere AN, Ellis PM., Cytogenetics and
reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions (Robertsonian
translocations). J Reprod Fertil 1979 Nov;57(2):363-75).
A detailed investigation of testicular meiosis in a mule, a hinny and
a Przewalski horse/domestic horse hybrid were made. Abnormalities of
pairing were observed in the mule and hinny in most germ cells at the
pachytene stage of meiotic prophase, and spermatogenesis was almost
totally arrested. A few mature spermatozoa were recovered from the
ejaculate and epididymal flushings of the hinny. The Przewalski
horse/domestic horse hybrid was fertile and showed normal
spermatogenesis. Chromosome banding studies showed a close homology
between the karyotypes of the Prezwalski horse (Equus przewalskii, 2n
= 66) and the domestic horse (E. caballus, 2n = 64), and it is evident
that a single Robertsonian translocation has occurred transforming
four acrocentric chromosomes of E. przewalskii into two metacentric
chromosomes in E. caballus. The investigations showed that a trivalent
is formed at meiosis in the hybrid (2n = 65), segregation from which
gives two classes of genetically balanced spermatozoa. Both of these
are capable of producing normal offspring if they fertilize the eggs
of a domestic mare (Chandley AC, Short RV, Allen WR., Cytogenetic
studies of three equine hybrids. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1975
Oct;(23):356-70).
Also of interest are domestic dogs and wolves of the genus canis.
They have 78 chromosomes while foxes have a varied number from 38-78
chromosomes. The uniformity of chromosome number in canid dogs can be
due to free interbreeding over a wide range, whereas foxes live in
small family groups and smaller territories so that new arrangements
will persist. If the "kind" is penned at the level of the family
Canidae, then the implications in terms of the number of animals
required to produce the present varieties are not as daunting as many
fear. Indeed, numerous chromosome homologies have been identified in
animals today, and prescribed the differences between species can
often be prescribed rearrangements as in the case of kangaroos, where
Robertsonian fusions can account for much of the variation between the
different species. Rearrangements can account for differences in
insectivores, bats, primates, marine mammals, rodents, rabbits and
hares and ungulates. The potential for change certainly exists,
nevertheless, there are certain barriers which cannot be transgressed.
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/postdeluge-p2.html
http://bison.zbs.bialowieza.pl/isacc/suncus/srihtm.htm
So, the potential problems with chromosomal rearrangements are
obvious. There can be multiple translocations involving the same
chromosome as well as chromosomal inversions and a number of other
interesting cuttings and splicings of chromosomes. These can result
in a difficult or even impossible situation where chromosomes in such
involved hybrids simply cannot match up properly during meiosis. This
lack of matching capability results in sterility. So, if a piece of
donkey chromosome is inverted relative to its counterpart in horses,
then gene-by-gene pairing cannot occur without elaborate looping and
twisting. The chance of a successful cell division is low. So, the
mule cannot make egg or sperm cells. When a creature grows, the cells
split by a different process, mitosis. Mitosis doesn't have to match
things up: it only has to make copies. So, inversions and
translocations don't prevent the mule from growing up to be an adult.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/mule.html
> How many species were on the Ark? Real scientists don't have to worry
> about questions like this, but you do. Creationist have the problem
> of only putting up an explanation of the moment. The ramifications of
> the explanation make another part of their story impossible, but they
> don't care. They only care about fooling themselves and their
> ignorant audience. A real viable explanation has to be consistent
> with, at least, the important parts of your model. You have to place
> your interpretation in with all the other facts of nature. You don't
> have to explain everything, because we don't know everything, but you
> have to get the big ones or your explanation is pretty useless. You
> have to get the genetic diversity that we see in humans from just two
> original individuals. You have to get the genetic diversity that we
> see in the biosphere from just the animals that were on the Ark.
> Solve these little problems and then go and argue about one type of
> fish. You will find that you don't have much to argue about. The
> arguments that you put up against biological evolution are negligible
> compared to what you can't explain in your model. We have an
> explanation, we have data that says that we are correct in our
> interpretations. What do you have? Think about it for a moment.
> What do you really have besides an old book? I happen to think that
> that old book is very important, but I know that biologically, it is
> irrelevant. In science you go with the data. We don't study some old
> book, we study the creation itself. You might want to start looking
> at the creation, before you interpret what some book says about it.
Really, I fail to see all the problems that you say exist for design
theory. You want to make this all about the Bible and the proposed
Noachian flood. That is somewhat of a different issue. One doesn't
have to believe in the Bible or its historical validity at all to take
issue with the theory of evolution. You say that there are major
flaws in the design theory model that cannot be or at least have not
been explained to your satisfaction. Aside from the fact that you
have detailed very few of these in any sort of manner, that I have
been able to understand, the evolutionary model has a lot of very
large holes it as well that I have not seen adequately explained . . .
to my satisfaction. Personally, I see good evidence for a worldwide
catastrophe or closely spaces series of catastrophic events . . . many
involving large quantities of water. It seems to me that the Noachian
flood "legends", as detailed in the Bible and elsewhere in many
cultures around the world, might at least be possible. To say that
this event is clearly impossible because of limits to the size of the
proposed ark (that it could not possibly have housed all the species
known to exist today) is not a very good argument as I see it.
Phenotypic changes based on gene pool potential for diversity can
occur rapidly starting with a relatively few "kinds" as detailed
above. Also, not all the groups of creatures living today had to be
on an "ark" to survive . . . insects, plants, and creatures that live
in the water in particular.
> One of the weirdest things that we see around here is when a
> creationists admits that without the Bible, they would have no problem
> agreeing with the evidence for common descent. Where do you fall in
> this respect?
Even without the Bible I would still have a huge problem with the
theory of common descent of ALL living things. On a purely
theoretical basis the theory of common descent is statistically
unsound in my opinion. On an experimental level, it has not been
demonstrated beyond the crossing of gaps in neutral genetic function
that are any wider than one or two point mutations. Neutral gaps that
are wider than this do exist and have been demonstrated. These gaps
speak strongly in favor of design. There simply is no other known
process that explains their existence. For further discussion of this
problem see:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Galactosidase%20Evolution.html
> You know some of the evidence for common descent and
> you know that this evidence is much stronger and has a level of
> validity that far exceeds anything that you can put up to support your
> beliefs, so without the Bible what would you think?
Where do you get off telling me that I know that this evidence you
speak of is strongly in favor of common descent? I believe it is
strongly in favor of design. The Bible is not needed to see this. I
simply cannot understand how someone, such as yourself, cannot, or at
least does not, see the problems with the theory of common descent and
that design is clearly the best explanation for many of the varieties
of living systems that we see all around us. If it were not for your
dedication to and faith in humanism and the doctrine of naturalism,
would you really believe in the theory of common descent of ALL
creatures via random mutation and natural selection? Please, to place
naturalism as an a priori assumption on the scientific method is
ridiculous as well as non-scientific, and yet such an a priori
assumption is often if not universally made . . . but this is no
different from a religious faith. It certainly is not a scientific
position. To assume that design cannot be detected unless we can
identify the designer is also crazy, much less scientific. If SETI
scientists identify a coded message from outer space, how will they
recognize that the code is designed, having never met the alien
designers? Hmmmmm? As you think about this question, consider how
such a message might be transferred by anything significantly
different from the information contained in and transferred by the
coded sequences within strands of DNA.
> If you answer
> that question honestly, you know why you have to be so dishonest in
> your attacks on biological evolution. It is just this simple, the
> evidence tells you that you are wrong, so you have to lie about it.
> If the evidence was really in your favor, you wouldn't have to be as
> deceptive as you are.
Oh, in order to question evolution, one must be a dishonest liar? If
I don't see things like you do, I must be morally corrupt? Is that
it? You sound more and more like a dogmatic, hell-preaching,
religious fundamentalist each time I hear from you. How on earth can
you be so pompous as to judge my motivations in this matter? . . .
calling me a deliberate liar? I do not think that you are being
dishonest in your views, although I think that you are wrong, honestly
wrong. Please, detail from my last post to Keith Littleton exactly
where I was dishonest in my attacks on biological evolution. I truly
think that my questions are honest ones. If something is in fact
misleading, and this is pointed out to me so that I see the error of
my ways, I would gladly recant or clarify any such statement. I do not
wish or need to deceive anyone. What would I gain anyway? I do not
believe this is a moral issue in and of itself, so I do not feel the
need to convince anyone of my own perspective. Believe what you want,
what is that to me? So, where is my motivation for dishonesty here?
> Obfuscation should be beneath you, but it doesn't seem to be that way.
> Face the facts, obfucation is all creationism has going for it. This
> is sad, so why perpetuate the farce? Why don't you loath dishonesty
> of this sort as much as I do?
Again, do you really wish to come across as a pompous ass? It is fine
to disagree with someone and even call them ignorant, slow witted, and
uninformed, but to call them dishonest for doing so, is beneath even
you. You are certainly one of the most crude contributors to this
forum, but really, at least this sort of thing should be beneath you.
However, it seems to be all you really have . . .
> What were your sources for this information?
Did you even read what I wrote? The sources were listed at the end of
each section that I wrote unless I was writing about what I considered
to be general knowledge. Also, all the sources listed are the primary
source that I used to write that particular section. Most of them are
links to online sources so that those following could quickly and
easily check out the information for themselves. Anyone who actually
took the time to read what I wrote would know this. Can you detail
exactly what I said that was not correct? What did I say that you are
so unfamiliar with that you need a source to check it out? . . .
where a source was not already provided?
> You keep making the same
> mistakes that we consistently see in creationist literature. It could
> be a common mind set and self delusion, but it is usually the case of
> the ignorant using the foilbles of somebody that may or may not have
> known what they were doing.
What mistakes, exactly, did I make this time? You and certain others
that contribute to this forum remind me of book editors or English
writing professors. You are so keen to point out technical mistakes
in the casual writings and rough draft presentations of those who
don't agree with you, but when it comes to the actual thoughts and
ideas presented, you have little to say that amounts to much of
anything. Why don't you stop making hot-head comments like some
teenager, and start calmly discussing real ideas without constantly
getting side-tracked by some need to make personal attacks? Really,
if this is your style, have at it . . . but who does it reflect most
poorly on? A crazy YEC like me? Nah . . . everybody already thinks
that I'm crazy. So, personal attacks on a crazy person by someone as
distinguished and intelligent as yourself, only gives credibility to
the crazy person . . . and weakens your own position at the same time.
> Ron Okimoto
Sean
Susan S
<da...@dajensen-family.com>:
Not so! My mother earned an EdD, had to do the usual stuff. Wrote
a thesis, defended it, etc. In fact, she designed a research
study looking at sex role (we would probably call it gender role
now) identification in 3-,4-, and 5-year olds. Got to play with
kids and toys. She is considered to be a Doctor of Psychology.
Susan Silberstein
Assume that anywhere a cat can go, a cat has been.
David Jensen
Susan S <ot...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
<58k71vs6pdi22if82...@4ax.com>:
Good to hear it. I was only familiar with the other kind.
John Harshman
Sean...@juno.com (Sean Pitman M.D.) wrote:
Once again, I respond to Dr. Sean despite the fact that he never, ever
answers me.
> Ron Okimoto,
>
> > Snip a lot of well intentioned but ultimately useless verbage
> >
> > Why do lobefin fish fall just where we expect in the molecular
> > phylogeny? Why does it look like they have been evolving for hundreds
> > of millions of years at the molecular level? Why would lobefin fish
> > be closer to land vertebrates than teleost fish? You are complaining
> > about nothing. We are lucky to have a living example because we now
> > can confirm things that we could only speculate about before. You
> > don't like the DNA evidence but it negates your entire argument.
>
> Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much.
No, you like such crumbs of the DNA evidence as you think you can use to
support your position, and ignore the vast majority of it. This is
dishonest.
[snip]
> Molecular/genetic phylogenies also have their problems. Scientists
> often read too much into sequences that do not statistically support
> their preconceived hypothesis over other possibilities.
Often? Better give more than one paper (Neanderthal DNA) as evidence,
then. I would especially like to consider your contention that human
relationships to other great apes are as yet statistically unsupported.
[more snip]
> Obviously then, DNA sequence analysis of relatively short portions of
> DNA, especially mtDNA control regions with their relatively high
> mutation rates, is incapable of providing meaningful results over the
> course of hundreds of millions of years, as you and other scientists
> suggest. Of course, my thinking may be all wrong here, but I fail to
> see how. I am sure though that you and others will make clear the
> error of my ways . . .
Simple. Your demonstration depends entirely on the relationship between
evolutionary rates and the time of divergence. You chose an example in
which rates and divergence time are both very high. Many other loci have
lower rates, and are thus useful in looking at deeper divergences.
Nobody claims that mt control regions are useful over hundreds of
millions of years; that's a very silly straw man. But there are other
genetic data that can give us valid results over such ancient
divergences. You can't look at a distant galaxy with a microscope, but
neither can you use that fact to invalidate optics as a tool in
astronomy, as long as there are telescopes.
[snip again]
> > Chimps and humans are more genetically similar than horses and
> > donkeys.
>
> It depends upon what you base you judgment of similarity on. Horses
> and donkeys can produce viable, albeit sterile, offspring, while
> humans and chimps cannot.
Not a good measure of genetic similarity, since a single point mutation
could, in theory, account for this difference.
> Humans and chimps are thought by popular
> science to have diverged from a common ancestor some 5 to 7 million
> years ago, while donkeys and horses are also thought to have diverged
> from their common ancestor some 3 to 10 million years ago.
Not a measure of genetic similarity at all.
> The total
> number of chromosomes in humans is 23 pairs, in chimps it is 24 pairs,
> horses 32 pairs, and donkeys 31 pairs. Each has a one-pair
> difference. So, to say, off hand, that the genetics of humans and
> chimps are more similar than horses and donkeys, is based on what
> again?
It's based on the sequences of any genes you would care to look at, I
bet.
> Certainly I have heard this statement before. It seems like
> it was first made before the structure of DNA was even known.
Which doesn't mean it's wrong. (And I doubt your theory. Immunological
comparisons were mostly done starting in the 60's.)
> Jonathan Marks, geneticist and anthropologist from Berkeley, gave a
> presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
> Association, Nov. 1999. In this presentation he noted that, "blood
> serum reactions standing for genetics" showed that "humans and apes
> [are] more similar by that measure than horse and donkey." Others use
> short genetic or protein sequence analysis to "prove" this point, such
> as cytochrome c sequence analysis. As it turns out, the cytochrome c
> sequences of humans and chimps appear to be more similar than
> comparisons between donkeys and horses. Of course, cytochrome c
> sequence analysis has its own problems, not the least of which is the
> problem of functionality. Cytochrome c, being a functional protein,
> is not immune from selection pressures. Thus, differences in
> sequencing could be influenced by similar or different functional
> needs.
Why? In what way does the electron transport chain of a horse differ
from that of a human? Your explanation is far-fetched. You will grasp at
any straw to cast doubt on any genetic comparison, presumably because
the genetic data are so damaging to your theories.
> In any case, I have yet to see this statement of yours, that
> humans and chimps are more similar, genetically, than horses and
> donkeys, well supported.
I think that support from two unlinked loci, and absolutely no
contradictory result, is fairly good. How many loci would you need?
[snip]
> > The
> > reality is that all these species are related to eachother and we have
> > a means of figuring out how they are related to eachother. Morphology
> > is only one meassure and the old school did a pretty good job with the
> > tools that they had. It is a justification of their methodology on
> > determination of what characters were important to concentrate on that
> > the molecular phylogeny matches the classic phylogeny so well. They
> > didn't just arbitrarily pick characters.
>
> Oh, so now you changed your mind and withdrew your use of the word
> "arbitrary" from morphologic classification models? In any case, I
> would agree with this statement as well. Generally speaking, I would
> say that morphologic taxonomies have served their purpose fairly well.
> I would also agree that all of the species are related to each other,
> but not necessarily by common descent over other possibilities, such
> as common environments, needs, energy sources, building blocks, and
> even common design.
You trot out a few buzzwords, but does any of them come close to common
descent as an explanation for the patterns in the data? I say they
don't. If you would care to apply your buzzwords to any specific case,
and show how they explain the data better than common descent, feel free.
As has been observed, you show great skepticism, and demand unreasonable
levels of evidence when it comes to common descent, but amazing
credulity when it comes to any alternative explanations.
> > And molecular phylogenies
> > have their own problems like horizontal transfer. We need multiple
> > means to attack this problem, and you can't deny that they consistenly
> > give us a useful result.
>
> It depends upon what you mean by the word "useful." I do agree that
> genetic comparisons are useful to a certain point. I even agree that
> they often support the theory of common decent, especially within
> species groups. However, beyond a certain point, I fail to see the
> statistical support of evolutionary trees with short genetic sequence
> analysis, as I have previously discussed in the Neandertal thread and
> above. Certain trees are no more supported than other potential
> trees.
Do you have any other example of this than the Neanderthals? How about
going after an example that scientists consider to have strong support,
and showing how it doesn't really, or how your alternative explanations
fit better? Start with the great apes.
> > It was hard study and work to determine what
> > characters would accurately produce a viable base to determine
> > relationships between taxa. And it works. You can't deny the
> > evidence no matter how hard you try to obfuscate it.
>
> You interpret the facts differently than I do on many things. Perhaps
> you have a better understanding of the facts than I do and are more
> equipped to interpret them.
Very likely.
> You see, I do not simply deny the
> evidence for denial's sake. I simply do not understand the evidence
> like you understand it.
Then you would be better advised to discuss that evidence rather than
avoiding it. Come on. Try something other than Neanderthals and see
where it goes.
[snip]
> You ask why I would put horses and donkeys in the same "kind" and not
> chimps and humans in the same "kind" . . . or gene pool? This is not
> an easy question. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence,
> at this point, to definitively exclude chimps and humans from the
> possibility of common ancestry within an evolutionary time frame. I
> just don't think there is enough evidence to support such a theory
> either, to a statistical significance, over other possibilities.
What would be enough? Why isn't what we have already enough? By now we
have dozens (at least) of unlinked loci, all supporting the same set of
relationships, as well as various non-sequence genetic characters, like
pseudogene presence/absence, chromosomal inversions, etc. What
explanation can you suggest for all this other than common descent?
> More
> information is needed that details the types of differences that exist
> between humans and chimps. Some differences are obvious. For
> example, gross chromosomal differences are easily noted. Humans and
> chimps differ not only in chromosome number, but also by nine
> pericentric chromosomal inversions and one centric fusion. We also
> know that both humans and chimps do have unique genetic sequences, but
> our knowledge seems rather limited as far as exactly how the many
> differences affect the overall phenotypic function of the two species.
And why is this particular knowledge necessary? Actually, we know a lot
about many of the sequences. For example, most of the differences are
silent, hence almost certainly neutral. How do your alternative
explanations fit that?
> You see, I'm not a believer in design theory because of I have a
> problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps. This
> possibility really doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that
> I know of certain phenotypic functions in various creatures that are
> separated by neutral gaps in function from any other genetic sequence
> that is available to the creature at hand.
Not that you have ever shown. You have merely assumed that any gap must
be neutral, and have ignored all attempts to question that assumption.
[snip remaining, irrrelevant verbiage]
Ron Okimoto
> Ron Okimoto,
>
> > Snip a lot of well intentioned but ultimately useless verbage
> >
> > Why do lobefin fish fall just where we expect in the molecular
> > phylogeny? Why does it look like they have been evolving for hundreds
> > of millions of years at the molecular level? Why would lobefin fish
> > be closer to land vertebrates than teleost fish? You are complaining
> > about nothing. We are lucky to have a living example because we now
> > can confirm things that we could only speculate about before. You
> > don't like the DNA evidence but it negates your entire argument.
>
> Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much.
I won't waste much time on this post until you demonstrate that you
can understand the DNA evidence that you keep trying to use. You
haven't done that yet, and you keep making the same dumb mistakes.
These mistakes happen to lead you in the direction that you want to
go, so you don't seem to want to correct them.
You should know this
> by now. DNA has been the main point of discussion in many of the
> threads that I've started. Obviously, if evolution is happening, it
> is happening in the DNA. The phenotype or physical creature is
> nothing more than a reflection of the information contained in its
> DNA. The problem is that many, such as Keith Littleton, place undue
> significance on morphologic/phenotypic variations that may not have
> anything to do with genotypic (gene pool) evolution.
Why are you ignoring the DNA evidence that we have for coelacanths?
Why concentrate on morphology, when you know that it can fool you.
What does the DNA of the fish tell you? Look at frogs, frogs have
been evolving for 300 million years, but the different frogs still
look pretty much like frogs. The DNA tells us that some lineages are
very different even if they don't look like it. It seems that you
only like the DNA evidence when it tells you what you want to hear.
If we had a living example of a lobefin fish from another family what
do you think the DNA would tell us? Teleost fish evolved fairly
recently (a couple of hundred million years ago?). All teleost fish
from guppies to marlin are more closely related to eachother than they
are to lobefin fish. Why would lobefin fish be more closely related
to land vertebrates than teleost fish? If we didn't have the living
coelacanth we wouldn't know this fact, we would only be speculating on
the conclusions of the classical taxonomists that claimed that we
evolved from lobefin fish. Coelacanths live in the deep oceans, why
would they be more closely related to land vertebrates than to other
fish?
Snip:
It isn't worth discussing this material until you admit to your
misconceptions. No one uses rapidly evolving D-loop sequences to
determine genetic relationships out past a few million years. It
wouldn't even be a good measure to distinguish the great apes. We use
other more slowly evolving sequences to determine larger genetic
distances. We only use the D-loop because in the case of Neandertals
and humans we are only talking about a few hundred thousand years.
D-loop sequence wouldn't be useful to distinquish a couple of hundred
thousand year difference if it happened 5 million years ago, but it is
OK for events of less than half a million. Molecular evolutionists
are not stupid, you shouldn't measure people by your own failings.
This has all been figured out if you would take the time to stop
looking at creationist clap trap and look at the real science papers.
The fact is that we only use D-loop sequence to differentiate recent
divergence events. It isn't accurate for species that are too
divergent. Cyt c is a fairly highly conserved protein, but it is only
100 amino acids in length. Hemoglobin is less conserved and it is
short too. They may use hemoglobin out to around 300 million years,
but we know that that is stretching things and it is not a good
measure. It is adequate for, say looking into the relationships among
placental mammals that evolved within the last 100 million years, but
it isn't a gene that we would use for greater divergence times. Just
as you have indicated the limiting factor is saturation time. Once a
significant fraction of the sites have been hit multple hits start
messing up your analysis. The guys looking into our relationship with
bacteria are using much more conserved genes. Larger cytochrome genes
and common genes like ATPases. Different genes have different rates
of substitution. Not mutation, but of how rapidly changes in the
genes are fixed in the population. Genes like Histones aren't very
useful phylogenetic genes because we only have one difference between
mammals and plants for some of them. The DNA sequence of the Histone
genes can be very different but this is only due to the degenerate
code. The 2, 4 and 6 codon families means that we can change the DNA
sequence quite a bit without changing the amino acid sequence of the
protein, but these sites have likely be hit multiple times in the
evolution between plants and animals and contain no phylogenetic
information. Again, this has all been worked out, you are complaining
about nothing.
We aren't talking about simple mutation rate, but we are talking about
the rate of substitution. This is the rate at which mutations are
fixed in a population and become diagnostic for that population. An
E. coli bacterium may divide every 30 minutes, but how long would it
take for a mutation that occured in your guts to be distributed
throughout the entire E. coli population of the world?
What really freaks everyone out is the fact that people can even
consider the existence of something like a molecular clock. It seems
to be some type of cosmic accident that the same genes in bacteria
seem to evolve at the same rate as the same genes in higher animals.
We are ignorant of the reason for this. Kimura predicted that neutral
fixation would be associated with mutation rate and would approximate
the rate of mutation, but these things probably haven't been constant
over the billions of years that we are talking about. We also have
the problem that when we look at these deep branch points we are
usually looking at non synonomous changes (changes in amino acid
sequence) that probably do not fit the neutral theory. There are many
exceptions, but things seem to be constant enough or have averaged out
over long periods of time to allow us to get some type of reasonable
guess about divergence times using molecular data.
Ron Okimoto
Rodjk
> Part 2
>
> > >>t this time, enough research has been done by
> > >>geologists and paleontologists where the proposal that
> > >>fossilization is catastrophe dependent can easily be
> > >>demonstrated to be completely refuted.
> > -
> > Glen Morton briefly reviews this research in "Non-
> > Catastrophic and Modern Fossilization" at:
> >
> > http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
> > -
> > >>For example, in case of the preservation of bone,
> > >> catastrophes have nothing to do fossilization.
> > >>Location instead of catastrophe is an important part of
> > >>whether a bone becomes preserved. A person need only
> > >>look at the abundant fossil bones found in the
> > >>Pleistocene to Holocene age fluvial sediments that
> > >>underlie Yellow House Draw and many other stream and
> > >>river valleys in the Southern High Plains of Texas and
> > >>New Mexico (Holiday 1997).
> > >>
> > >>The bones of bison and other animals that fell on the
> > >>uplands of the Southern High Plains between river
> > >>valleys have decayed away. In these uplands, they
> > >>either lay exposed on the surface where weathering and
> > >> scavengers destroyed them.
> > >>
> > >>However, where the bones of these bison and other
> > >>animals died upon the active floodplains of rivers and
> > >>streams, the bones of a number of them were eventually
> > >>buried in the sediments and some of these were indeed
> > >>preserved. No catastrophe was involved. Rather, the day
> > >>to day, year to year accumulation of sediments in lakes,
> > >>in rivers, on floodplains, and as dunes in these river
> > >>valleys buried and preserved these fossils. These
> > >>fossils range in age from bison contemporaneous with
> > >>the colleagues of Buffalo Bill to bison hunted by
> > >>successive generations of Native Americans back to
> > >>Folsum and Clovis cultures and mammoths, horses, and
> > >>megafauna predating the Clovis cultures. These bones
> > >>consists of both natural bone beds and kill sites. In
> > >>the bottoms of Yellowhouse, Blackwater, and other draws
> > >>in the Southern High Plains is an abundance showing
> > >>that that the statement "fossilization is catastrophe
> > >>dependent" is scientifically bankrupt. In these draws,
> > >>fossils have been constantly formed for the past 12,000
> > >>years without any need for imaginary catastrophes. In
> > >>case of Yellowhouse Draw, the occasional deposition of
> > >>fluvial, lacustrine, and wind blown sediments along
> > >>with very calcareous soils is enough for fossils to
> > >>have been created over a long period of time (Holiday
> > >>1997).
> > >
> > >You evidently fail to see the context of my statement
> > >that, "fossilization is catastrophe dependent." The
> > >context was a discussion of intact fish fossils.
> > >
> > When Young Earth creationists, including you, discuss
> > the topic of "fossilization is catastrophe dependent."
> > you don't limit yourself to fish fossils. If you are
> > talking only about fish fossils, you shouldn't use such
> > a broad, all-encompassing statement like "fossilization
> > is catastrophe dependent." Instead, you should indicate
> > that you are specifically discussing fish fossils by
> > making any statement more specific such as saying
> > "fossilization of fish is catastrophe dependent".
>
> Ok, let's go there. Other fossils besides fish also show significant
> evidence of sudden or rapid burial. Fossilization in general does
> require rapid or "catastrophic" burial. Bones, even large bones from
> bison and the like, do not generally survive very long if exposed… as
> you pointed out. They might survive longer than smaller bones, but
> not very long at all really, especially in an articulated condition.
> Also, bones of comparable size to bison bones, such as bones of
> certain large dinosaurs found in the fossil record, commonly show
> evidence of a rapid and often widespread watery burial.
Here is a neat creationist trick that I have not seen addressed.
It is the implication that "rapid or "catastrophic" burial" means "the
Flood".
Sean, you do realise that there have been many, many floods, though no
global floods of the type Genesis talks about. These floods may be the
catastrophic cause of many rapid burials and fossils, but that does
not make the world young, the story of Noah true or the bible
accurate.
Showing that there are many fossils that were buried in floods or by
volcanos does not make the bible true.
Rodjk
Much sniping
> Sean
Sean Pitman M.D.
> >Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much. You should know this
> >by now. DNA has been the main point of discussion in many of the
> >threads that I've started. Obviously, if evolution is happening, it
> >is happening in the DNA. The phenotype or physical creature is
> >nothing more than a reflection of the information contained in its
> >DNA. The problem is that many, such as Keith Littleton, place undue
> >significance on morphologic/phenotypic variations that may not have
> >anything to do with genotypic (gene pool) evolution. Littleton
> >claims that such phenotypic variations that are seen in coelacanths
> >are evidence enough for their placement in different taxonomic groups
> >when known intraspecies variations are known to be just as great. He
> >seems not to realize that morphologic classification schemes are quite
> >subjective.
>
> This is probably due to the fact that people have researched the types of
> changes that Kieth is talking about and know that millions of years usually
> have to pass before we see changes of these extents in the fossil record.
It is assumed that these changes require millions of years... but
based on what evidence? Equally significant phenotypic changes, if
not greater changes, can be demonstrated to occur very rapidly, in
just a few generations. Dog breeding is a clear example of how very
different phenotypes can be produced from the same gene pool in
relatively short order. Millions of years are not needed to produce
really startling morphologic variations with the same gene pool of
options.
> Ignorance of these differences seems to be your problem.
Oh really? Just how am I being ignorant? I understand clearly that
morphologic differences exist in the fossil record between many
different kinds of creatures. I'm just suggesting that millions are
years are not needed to "evolve" many of these differences. You
yourself agree that morphology is limited and interpretations based on
morphology are subject to human bias and error.
> You know that there
> are differences, but you can't give an estimate of how long it takes to change
> the relative position and the size of a given bone in the skull. Well so much
> for morphology. Just answer the question: How long does it take to make the
> changes that you claim to be minor? Oops you will have to look at the fossil
> record and research all the hard won evidence that paleontologists have been
> wrestling with for hundreds of years. Just because you think it is some way
> doesn't mean very much, does it?
Actually, one need not go to the fossil record to find an answer to
this question. The question can be answered by looking at the
variations achieved by modern breeding techniques. Such changes can
be bred for in short order. How? The options for certain dramatic
variations were already contained, pre-formed, in a common gene pool.
> If you want to use the dog example, demonstrate that the skull of the Pug
> compared to a wolf shows similar changes. We aren't just talking about
> squashing in the face we are talking about changing the relative position of
> bones in the skull.
Actually, we are not talking about changing the relative positions of
the bones of the skull. The bones of the different coelacanth skulls
maintain their relative positions and attachments with each other.
Their differences can be explained by changes in their relative sizes
. . . as is also the case as one compares a Pug with a wolf.
> >Molecular/genetic phylogenies also have their problems. Scientists
> >often read too much into sequences that do not statistically support
> >their preconceived hypothesis over other possibilities. We went into
> >this in some detail in the Neandertal mtDNA thread. In this thread,
> >you initially stated that Neandertals were more closely related to
> >chimps than humans are; that they, "fall between humans and chimps."
> >It seems as though you still feel this way despite the fact that the
> >Neandertal substitution average is "equidistant" from chimps or if
> >anything, farther away from chimps than modern humans are.
>
> The reason that I still think this way is because it is a fact. You justdon't
> know the data and you have the same misunderstanding of the data that Denton
> did in his first book that he wrote 20 years ago. Denton has admitted that he
> was wrong in his first book. If you have only read his first book, you might
> want to read his second book to find out where he was wrong. Creationist
> tracts like Pandas and People are based on Denton's misconceptions that he
> acknowledges to be wrong.
Again, you are mistaken. I do "know the data" and I do not have the
"same misunderstanding of the data that Denton did." Denton was in
fact wrong and I detail why I think he was wrong on my website
I have the same understanding of the data concerning Neandertals that
Gutierrez et al. have. They disagree with your understanding of the
data saying that phylogenetic trees that plot out Neandertal, chimp
and modern human evolutionary relationships are not statistically
valid. You might think I'm crazy, but is Gutierrez and his associates
crazy as well? Krings, et al., simply biased their results according
to their preconscieved ideas, just like you seem to be doing.
> "Equidistant" is not a problem. Why do you think that it is.
If two things are equidistant from a third reference point, then one
of the two equidistant objects cannot be "closer" to the reference
point than the other. Why? Because, by definition, they are
"equidistant." I'm obviously crazy here, but if Neandertals and
humans are equidistant from chimps, then it seems logical to me that
the Neandertal mtDNA sequences that were analyzed cannot, "fall
between modern humans and chimps." If they did fall between modern
humans and chimps, then they would not be equidistant from chimps but
would be more similar in their sequencing. But, last time I presented
this question, you said,
"Idiot. This is beneath even you. If the sequences fell where you say,
why would modern humans be 500,000 years distant from the Neandertal
type
common ancestor and 5-8 million from the chimp human ancestor. By
anyones measure this is between modern humans (75,000 to 150,000) and
chimps."
It seems to me that you have several concepts all mixed up here. You
are not being consistent in your logic. If Neandertals and modern
humans shared a common ancestor some 500,000 years ago and we both
shared a common ancestor with chimps some 5-8 million years ago, then
it would be the Neandertal-human common ancestor that would fall
"between" humans and chimps, NOT the Neandertal sequences that we have
now which are "equidistant" with modern humans from chimps (as well as
the proposed human-Neandertal-chimp common ancestor). According to
the evolutionary paradigm, the Neandertal-human common ancestor was
neither Neandertal nor modern human . . . but something else
altogether. So, to say that this ancestor was a "Neandertal type" is
no more valid than saying that he/she was a "modern-human type".
> I keep telling
> you that it is the actual sequence that is important, but you never get it.
Because you can never seem to explain it in a way that I can
understand. You kept trying to tell me how easy it was for various
methods to determine the correct phylogenetic trees based on mtDNA
substitution analysis, until I referred you to a paper by Gutierrez
et. al. who said that the conclusions of Krings et. al., were
statistically inconclusive . . . that other potential trees could not
be ruled out using these various methods of analysis that you have
such great faith in.
> We
> expect the lineages to have evolved about the same rate in two lineages. Just
> think about it for just one minute and you will know that this is true.
Certainly, I would expect this to be generally true, although even
evolutionist suggest that many different creatures have in fact
evolved at very different rates. The coelacanth, for example, is
thought to have undergone a particularly slow rate of evolution. But,
this is not the point. You seem to consistently try and set up straw
men to represent things that I supposedly said. However, I never said
that different lineages would or should mutate or evolve at different
rates.
> We
> expect evolution to occur in both lineages, we don't expect evolution to stop
> in one lineage.
Where, exactly, did I suggest this?
> Observation indicates that on average molecular evolution is
> equal in all lineages. Acknowledge this fact or we do not have to go on.
Acknowledged . . . But where did I ever suggest he opposite?
> If
> you can't understand simple facts of nature you are obviously ill equiped to
> reason about this.
I am having difficulty understanding how your mind works at this
point. Your logic is very difficult for me to follow . . .
> The thing that we look for is the different substitutions between lineages.
> Once two lineages split and go their separate ways they may accumulate just as
> many substitutions and be equidistant from the common ancestor, but these
> subsititutions will likely be different in the two lineages.
Ok . . . now you are starting to make some sense again.
> Any changes that
> accumulate in the lineage before two species split will, of course, be shared
> by the two new species.
Ok . . . good so far.
> In the mitocondrial D-loop region we know that there
> are hotspots of mutation and that several sites have probably been hit more
> than once even in the human lineage, but we try and use as much data as we can
> get our hands on so that these instances will be less of a problem for the
> analysis. Even these hotspots tend to collapse branch lengths and make two
> sequence look more similar than they really are
Yes . . . we still agree here.
> so this doesn't help you
> either.
Ok, now you lost me. How does your above statement disprove anything
that I've said?
> The reasoning goes like this: there was a molecular common ancestral sequence
> and one population split into two (Neandertal and modern human).
Was this ancestral sequence Neandertal or modern human or neither? It
was neither... right? It took time for each lineage to turn into what
we now call "Neandertals" and "modern humans" . . . right? If so,
then we agree so far.
> At first the
> sequences would be pretty much identical depending on the variation in the
> original population.
Ok . . .
> At the point of separation Neandertals and humans would
> essentially both have the same sequence and both be the same distance from the
> common ancestor with chimps.
Yes . . . but let me clarify something here. At this "point of
separation" Neandertals and humans would both have the same sequence
and they would both be the same distance from the common ancestor with
chimps (if there were such a common ancestor). However, chimps would
also have continued to "evolve" . . . right? So, at this point in
time, living chimps would also be just as equidistant from the
Neandertal-human-chimp common ancestor as Neandertals and humans were
. . . right? If so, then we are still in agreement.
> With no or little interbreeding between
> populations the molecular sequence would independently diverge from the
> original.
Yes . . .
> Just as much change would occur in both lineages because both are
> evolving, but the changes will be different in the two lineages.
Most likely . . . but these differences would also build up in the
chimp lineage as well . . . right?
> This is
> exactly what we see in the molecular data for all species.
It is true that there have been some very interesting charts drawn up
comparing various protein and DNA sequences for a large number of
species. An example of one of these charts can be found at:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/cytochrm.htm
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Genetic%20Phylogeny.html
This chart is based on cytochrome c differences in different creatures
. . . tetrahymena, euglena, S. pombe, neurospora, maize, lamprey,
carp, mouse, donkey, horse, chimp, and human. In reviewing this
chart, pay particular attention to the tetrahymena. Tetrahymena are
unicellular ciliated protozoans. Obviously therefore, they would have
evolved before the other creatures on the chart. One might then
expect, as Michael Denton (creationist) once noted, that those
creatures who are progressively more evolved would be progressively
different in their cytochrome c differences as one moves up the chart.
Notice how this is not the case. All of the creatures on this chart
are approximately equidistant from tetrahymena.
Does this finding contradict the predictions of the theory of common
decent? Actually, it does not contradict the theory of common decent.
Michael Denton is mistaken in saying that it does (Yes, I often
disagree with the arguments of creationists . . . some of them are
quite illogical, or at least beyond my understanding). In any case,
according to the theory of common decent, all creatures living today
are equally separated in time from their first common ancestor (ie:
single celled bacteria). Even the bacteria that remain alive today
have sustained mutations over time as they maintained their similar
morphology. Thus, one should expect and not be surprised when there is
equal divergence between "simple" and "complex". It can be thought of
as spokes on a wheel with the central hub being the common ancestor
and the tips of each spoke representing a different creature. The tip
of each spoke is equally distant from the original common ancestor.
It is also approximately equally distant from those groups of
creatures that diverged at around the same time from this common
ancestor.
So obviously then, even if the tip of one of the spokes was a single
celled creature like tetrahymena, this creature would be expected to
be equally distant from a number of creatures on that wheel, to
include other single celled creatures as well as multicelled creatures
like fish, corn, rabbits and humans. Higher organisms, on the other
hand, might be more similar to each other due to a more recent
separation from a common ancestor between them. For example, humans
and chimps are both equally different from bacteria, but when compared
with each other, they are almost identical. Thus, a more recent common
ancestor seems quite logical. Humans and chimps simply share the same
wheel spoke except that this spoke splits at the very tip with humans
and chimps sharing different tips.
So, the data does seem to generally match the theory even if specific
anomalies may be encountered on rare occasions. However, there might
be a few problems with this scenario definitively supporting the
theory of common decent. One problem might arise when one considers
that mutation rates are calculated on a per generation average. The
amount of time is not as important as the number of generations
involved. Consider that the average mutation rate for a given gene
most creatures, is somewhere around 1 x 10-6 mutations per gene per
generation. That means that a given gene will mutate only one time in
one million generations on average. Consider also that single celled
organisms have a much shorter generation time than multicelled
organisms on average. For example, the bacteria E. coli have a
generation time of 20 minutes compared to the generation time of
humans of around 20 years. Also consider that the population of single
celled organisms on earth is a lot higher than the populations of
multicelled organisms. For example, there are almost 6 billion people
living on earth today but more than 100 billion E. coli living inside
just one person's intestines.
Now, cytochrome c phylogenies are generally based on analysis of
certain subunits of cytochrome c which range in number of amino acids
up to a maximum of about 600 or so. This would translate into a
minimum of at least 1,800 nucleotides in DNA coding for this subunit
of cytochrome c protein. Note that in the cytochrome c table (linked
above), tetrahymenas are about 50% different from all other creatures
on the table. It seems then that all the creatures would have
experienced at least a 25% change in their genetic codes from the time
of the original common ancestor. So how many generations would it take
to achieve this 25% difference?
Taking 25% of 1,800 give us 450 mutations. Lets say that the average
mutation rate is one mutation per 1,800 nucleic acids per one million
generations. For a steady state population of just one individual in
each generation it would take about 450 million generations to get a
25% difference from the common ancestor. With a generation time of 20
minutes (ie: E. coli), that works out to be about 342,000 years.
However, with a steady state population of say a trillion trillion
individuals (the total number of bacteria on earth is somewhere around
five million trillion trillion or 5 with 30 zeros following), one
might expect that the number of generations required to get a 25%
difference would be a bit less. So, for bacteria, the 25% difference
from the common ancestor cytochrome c, might have been achieved
relatively rapidly given the evolutionary time frame (a couple hundred
thousand years or so).
The question is then, if bacteria can achieve such relatively rapid
neutral genetic drift, why are they not more wide-ranging in their
cytochrome c sequences? It seems that if these cytochrome c sequence
differences were really neutral differences, that various bacterial
groups, colonies, and species, would cover the entire range of
possible cytochrome c sequences to include that of mammals such as
rabbits and tigers and bears... and humans. Why are they then so
uniformly separated or clustered in such an isolated way from all
other "higher" species? . . . unless the cytochrome sequences are
functionally based and therefore statically different due to the
various needs of creatures that inhabit different environments? For
example, bacteria are thought to share a common ancestor with
creatures as diverse as snails, sponges, and fish dating all the way
back to the Cambrian period some 600 million years ago. All of these
creatures are thought to have been around quite a long time, ever
since the "Cambrian Explosion." In fact, they have all been around
long enough and are diverse enough to exhibit quite a range in
cytochrome c variation. Why then are their cytochrome c sequences so
clustered? Why don't bacteria, snails, fish, and sponges cover the
range of cytochrome c sequence variation if these variation
possibilities are in fact neutral? In other words, why are there not
at least some types of bacteria that share sequence identity with
humans?
I propose that the clustered differences that are seen in genes and
protein sequences such cytochrome c are the result of differences in
actual function that actually benefit the various organisms according
to their individual needs. If the differences were in fact neutral
differences, there would be a vast overlap by now with complete
blurring of species' cytochrome c boundaries; even between species as
obviously different as humans and bacteria. Because of this, sequence
differences may not be so much the result of differences do to random
mutation over time, as they are due to differences in the functional
needs of different creatures. I think that the same can be said of
most if not all phylogenies that are based on genotypic differences
between such creatures.
"Anatomy is not independent of biochemistry. Creatures similar
anatomically are likely to be similar physiologically. Those similar
in physiology are, in general, likely to be similar in biochemistry,
whether they evolved or were designed; An alternate, interventionist
hypothesis is that the cytochrome c molecules in various groups of
organisms are different (and always have been different) for
functional reasons. Not enough mutations have occurred in these
molecules to blur the distinct grouping evident. If we do not base our
conclusions on the a priori assumption of megaevolution, all the data
really tell us is that the organisms fall into nested groups without
any indication of intermediates or overlapping of groups, and without
indicating ancestor/descendant relationships." (Brand, Leonard. 1997.
Faith, Reason, and Earth History. Andrews University Press, Berrien
Springs, MI.)
> You have some weird
> notion that we should only see evolution in one lineage. Admit that you are
> wrong or we may as well not go on with this farce.
Come again? I never said that evolution would or should affect only
one lineage. Therefore, where was I wrong? You're trying to
put words in my mouth that I never said.
> Your whole argument is
> based on false assumptions. We expect lineages to be equidistant from each
> other. Why would you expect them to be the way they are if your model is
> correct?
Your straw man model of my argument is based on false assumptions.
Unfortunately for you however, I never said what you have attributed
to me.
If my model is correct, then I would expect that a common designer
would use similar design codes for similar needs in different created
"kinds." I would also expect that needs would be different to varying
degrees in different environments or body plans, and these different
needs would be coded for accordingly.
> How are you going to keep one lineage from evolving?
Why would I want to?
> Why would you
> think that we expect one lineage to remain stagnant while the other evolves?
Not at all.
> All apes, including humans are about equidistant from an outgroup species like
> a monkey. This is because all ape lineages have been evolving for the same
> length of time since that common ancestor with monkeys.
Ok . . .
> We know their
> phylogenetic relationship, not by gross similarity, but by nested similarity.
Could you explain the difference between "gross" phylogenetic
similarity and "nested" phylogenetic similarity?
> All apes are more similar to eachother then they are to any monkey becaus they
> shared a more recent common ancestor than the ape-monkey common ancestor.
This theory might be supported even with the use of "gross"
similarities and differences. However, there is also a logical
problem with your statement here. The hypothesis that monkeys and
apes share a common ancestor requires similarities to exist between
them and for apes to be more similar to each other than they are to
monkeys and visa versa. However, this does not support the hypothesis
of an ape-monkey common ancestor over another possibility that might
equally explain such similarities and differences, such as common
design. If apes and monkeys were designed as separate "kinds", one
might expect that the similar features and needs shared by the two
kinds might be coded for by similar codes. One might also expect that
the slight differences between the two kinds might require some
differences in the genetic codes. At this point, either theory could
be true. How does one determine which theory is most likely true? It
is basically a problem of detecting deliberate design after the fact.
Is the detection of deliberate design even possible? I think that it
is. How? By looking at the differences and seeing if any
naturalistic process can explain the differences. For many changes, a
purely naturalistic processes can be found that explains them . . .
But, some changes defy any naturalistic explanation. For example, the
crossing of neutral gaps in genetic function is very difficult to
explain via any known naturalistic mechanism.
See: http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Maquiziliducks.html
> Gibbons branched off first and show less nested similarity with the othe apes.
> Orangs branched off next and show more nested similarity than gibbons, but
> less than the gorrila, chimp, human group.
Actually, if the genetic sequence that one is studying is thought to
be selectively "neutral", then all mutations to portion of DNA will be
random. Therefore, if gibbons branched off first from their common
ancestor with apes, both apes and gibbons would have built up equal
numbers of *random* mutations in certain control regions that are
being sequenced and compared. There is no inherent nesting pattern to
random mutations. Of course, gibbons, since they have a more recent
common ancestor, would be "nested" together since they would have
fewer absolute differences between themselves when compared to other
apes. However, this "nesting" is the result of random genetic
changes.
Again, such similarities and differences among such groups can also be
explained via common design. Anything, to include designed things,
can be categorized by "nested" phyogenies. A single author might have
written a number of books. These books would most certainly have a
similar style of construction, but they are still different. Analysis
could categorize these books into phylogenetic-type categories.
Common groups, discussing similar topics, might have more similar
phrasing than books discussing certain other topics. Sequence
analysis would cluster these books together in a "nested" hierarchy.
If the books were to somehow become self-aware, would it be an
automatic default for them to assume that because they fall into
nested hierarchies, that they all evolved from the simplest book? . .
. a children's book perhaps?
> Chimps and humans show the most
> nested similarity because they shared a common ancestor most recently. Allare
> equidistant from the monkey common ancestor, but the sequences tell us the
> story of their evolution.
Perhaps, but not necessarily . . . You must use other evidence
besides a nested progression of similarities and differences to
support your hypothesis.
> Another way to look at this is that lineages are constantly evolving, you have
> some primate population that splits and one becomes apes and the other becomes
> something else. Molecular evolution occurs in the ape lineage for a few
> million years and we have gibbons branch off. A few more millions of years of
> evolution occurs and orangs branch off, a few million more years of evolution
> occurs and gorillas branch off and a smidgen (a smidgen is probably less tha a
> million years) of evolution occurs and chimps branch off, a smidgen mor occurs
> and humans branch off, around 5 million years of evolution occurs and
> neandertals branch off, and we seem to have been separate for a few hundred
> thousand years. All ape lineages keep evolving, but the sequence tells the
> story of their evolution.
That is exactly what it is . . . a "story" of evolution. It is a fine
story. It does give an explanation for the data at hand. However,
does it explain the data better than alternative explanations that
also explain the same data? By sequence analysis alone, one cannot
rule out design theory. The only way to rule out design theory is by
demonstrating that the differences that we see, can be explained by
naturalistic mechanisms. Many of them can be explained, no doubt, but
not the most important ones, such as those that must cross wide
neutral gaps in function without the aid of natural selection.
> So why is being equidistant from a common ancestor a
> problem?
It's not . . . The problem is that this is not the only evidence
needed to adequately support your hypothesis of common origins.
> Denton was wrong, so are you.
Michael Denton was wrong. I agree. He did not understand the
hypothesized process of genetic evolution. However, my argument is
not the same as his argument was. I agree with you on the process
that must be involved if evolution is the true explanation for the
diversity of all living things. I disagree with Denton's argument,
and have never presented his argument either here or on my website.
In fact, on my website I point out exactly where I think Denton was
mistaken in this case. So, for you to compare my proposals with
Denton's is mistaken. Our arguments are nothing alike.
> Denton now considers the molecular evidence to
> demonstrate that common descent is a fact of nature.
Oh really? I didn't know that he had "converted" to evolutionism.
Interesting . . . I will have to check into this.
> Make the data work for
> your model without common descent.
Common design is my model. Lots of living things do show good
evidence for common descent. However, I do not believe that it
explains all the differences that I see between living things. It
does explain a few of them, but by no means all of them, or even most
of them. Common descent is quite limited in its ability to create new
forms and novel functions.
> You are so wrong on this point that once
> you figure out how wrong you are, it should change your mind about common
> descent, but no one is going to hold their breath on that one.
Hmmmm . . . Yeah, it wouldn't be wise to hold your breath at this
point . . . especially given the arguments that you have presented
lately.
> Ron Okimoto
Sean
Ron Okimoto
Sean:
Usually when someone responds to a post they actually say something
about that post. This is just a regurgipost from another thread. You
didn't respond to the points that I made in this post. If you want to
claim that you covered the material (and you did not) you should just
direct people to the tread or post in question. You don't have to
post these monsters over and over.
Ron Okimoto
Robin Levett
> Ron Okimoto,
>
<large snippage of material covered by others>
>To assume that design cannot be detected unless we can
> identify the designer is also crazy, much less scientific. If
SETI
> scientists identify a coded message from outer space, how will
they
> recognize that the code is designed, having never met the alien
> designers? Hmmmmm?
Why is it that both you and Pagano rely so heavily upon this
point, which so wholly misconceives how SETI works.
In order to determine where to look for a message, the researchers
consider where a hypothetical ETI would transmit so as to be
recognised (all following quotes from
http://seti.harvard.edu/grad/dpdf/thesislt.pdf):-
"2.1.3 Beacons or Leakage?
There are two types of signals which could be received by a SETI
system: intentionally transmitted beacons and unintentional
leakage radiation. The design of our system and the search
strategy will depend on which type we are looking for.
A beacon is a signal which has been designed and radiated for the
express purpose of initiating interstellar communication. It is
meant to attract attention and may carry no information other than
its very existence. The signal will be designed to appear
arti cial, to be easy for a search to detect and to be able to
cross the interstellar medium with minimal corruption.
Leakage radiation includes signals that are designed and radiated
for use by the transmitting civilization and are not speci cally
intended to be received by others. Some examples from earth are
television carriers (EIRP 4 ? 10 7 watts) and the Arecibo S-band
radar (EIRP ? 10 13 watts). One advantage of leakage is that the
transmitting civilization need not do anything special for the
receiver to take notice. A major disadvantage, however, is that
leakage from an advanced civilization may be weak, intermittent or
non-existent. Even if a leakage signal were constant and strong,
we might have di culty distinguishing it from natural noise. As a
signal is transmitted more efficiently, redundancy is removed and
it appears increasingly noise-like. It is unlikely that an
advanced civilization would transmit strong signals inefficiently.
For these reasons we have designed our SETI system to receive
beacons. The following sections discuss the design of a beacon and
appropriate search strategies.
2.1.4 The Spectrum of Interest
What region of the spectrum shall we search? An interstellar
beacon would be transmitted at a frequency with little interfering
background noise, where there is little absorption and where a
receiving civilization is likely to look.
...
Cocconi and Morrison [5] did the first study of the best part of
the EM spectrum for interstellar communication. They concluded
that an excellent location is the vicinity of the neutral hydrogen
line at 1420 MHz. The sky is quiet there, absorption
is negligible and the hydrogen line is a \magic" frequency.
Since there is so much spectrum to search, it would be a good idea
for a beacon to transmit at a frequency that can be easily
guessed. Prominent spectral lines are a good choice since they
would be known to both civilizations and a beacon might
be detected serendipitously during a regular astronomical survey.
Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and
surveys of this line are necessary for mapping the structure of
the galaxy, it seems to be a natural place to look.
Other magic frequencies have been suggested: harmonics of the
hydrogen frequency, fundamental constants (? and e) times it,
other spectral lines, etc.
The Water Hole
More generally, we think it is a good idea to search the entire
water hole. This is the 300 MHz piece of spectrum between the
magic frequencies of the neutral hydrogen line and the hydroxyl
lines (1612, 1665, 1667 and 1720 MHz). H and OH make water, the
stuff of life (as we know it) so it is also biologically relevant.
More poetically, in the wild, animals of different species gather
around water holes, so this part of the spectrum might be a good
place for alien civilizations to meet. [38]"
As to how to recognise a message if we receive it:-
"2.1.5 Signal Characteristics and Guesses
Since we have no a priori way of knowing what an extraterrestrial
signal would look like, we have to make educated guesses based on
our knowledge of physics and signal processing. It is reasonable
to assume that the transmitting civilization would design its
signal to be easily received, efficient and as simple as
possible.[5]
...
With an infinite number of possibilities, what type of signal
should we listen for? Something simple with only a small
parameter space to search. Two signal types come readily to mind:
1. Pulses The basis vectors are short pulses with different time
delays. One of the beauties of this is that input signals are
already in the transform domain and so very little computation
needs to be done. On the downside, dispersion smears out radio
frequency pulses making it harder to distinguish them from noise.
There are natural radio sources which emit pulses (pulsars) which
could make distinguishing an artificial pulse source confusing. On
the other hand, a pulsed beacon might be picked up serendipitously
during a pulsar search. Pulse searches at both radio [53, 26] and
optical [49, 28] frequencies have been performed.
2. Sinusoids The basis vectors are sinusoids with different
frequencies and phases. Since a constant phase carries no
information, we can remove it by taking the square magnitude in
the frequency domain. This leaves us with a single,
linear parameter space to search. The natural radio sources with
the narrowest bandwidth are microwave masers (bandwidth ? 10 3
Hz). Since an artificial radio transmitter can easily generate
sinusoids of bandwidth much less than 1 Hz, extreme narrowness in
frequency is an excellent indicator that the signal is
non-natural. [6] The ISM treats narrow sinusoids kindly:
dispersion has negligible effect and scintillation will normally
cause less than 1 Hz of broadening. The large intensity uctuations
caused by scintillation, however, can be a problem.
In addition to their good propagation characteristics, sinusoids
seem to be a natural signal type. They are seen in spectral lines,
orbital motion, pendula and other elementary physics, because they
are solutions to simple second-order, linear differential
equations. Pulses, chirps and pseudo-random spread spectrum are
encountered less frequently in nature."
Footnotes are as follows
"[5] This is the Search for ExtraTerrestrial *Intelligence*.
We're never going to find stupid aliens."
"[6] There is excellent reason to believe that very narrow-band
natural radio sources do not exist. Any such source strong enough
to be received over interstellar distances has to be either very
large, or very hot. If it is large, differential motion within the
source will widen the bandwidth due to the doppler effect. If it
is hot, thermal motion will also cause doppler broadening."
In short, SETI is looking for a signal where we would send it if
we wanted it to be picked up; and the signal it is looking for is
one which we would send if we wanted it to be recognised as a
signal.
The thesis describes the design philosophy of all SETI projects,
so far as I know.
<further snippage>
Ron Okimoto
> "Sean Pitman M.D." <Sean...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:fd67d42a.03010...@posting.google.com...
> In short, SETI is looking for a signal where we would send it if
> we wanted it to be picked up; and the signal it is looking for is
> one which we would send if we wanted it to be recognised as a
> signal.
>
> The thesis describes the design philosophy of all SETI projects,
> so far as I know.
>
> <further snippage>
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Robin Levett
There was a discussion at The Chronicle:colloquy:
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/design/design.htm
The topic of SETI was discussed in relation to ID in some of the
messages. In one message I made the point that if SETI only relied on
the observation of improbable combinations of natural signals it would
be doomed. No one in SETI is claiming that something like three
pulsars in close proximity would be evidence of intelligent signals
just because it was the only known example in the universe. ID is
doomed because that is all they have. We have no evidence for a
"signal" that lifeforms couldn't produce themselves. All the changes
that we see can occur using existing mechanisms that we observe
working in nature today. The flagellum is related to other cell
components. An ATPase is just another ATPase. They look like they
share some common ancestry, and we have a mechanism for changing them.
The ID people do not have a designer, they do not have a mechanism,
so they have no means of telling natural from designer design. They
only have the argument that this could be due to natural causes, but
it isn't likely. If SETI was based on just that, it would be doomed.
Ron Okimoto
Sean Pitman
> > Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much.
>
> I won't waste much time on this post until you demonstrate that you
> can understand the DNA evidence that you keep trying to use. You
> haven't done that yet, and you keep making the same dumb mistakes.
> These mistakes happen to lead you in the direction that you want to
> go, so you don't seem to want to correct them.
Interesting . . . except I honestly don't seem to know what you're
talking about. Your explanations of where I am wrong just haven't
seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I am making the same "dumb"
mistakes because I really am dumb and can't help myself? Given this
possibility, it might take me a longer time to catch on to your
explanations than the average person. However, I can assure you, if I
am mistaken, I am honestly mistaken. I truly believe the ridiculous
stuff that I'm saying.
Oh, any by the way, even if your words might be wasted on me, because
of my feeble mind and slow wit, your work is not just for my benefit,
but for the benefit of others who might be following your threads to
learn from you. In any case, your time is not exactly wasted, even if
I personally don't get what you are trying to say. So, for you to
wait to reveal your brilliance until I can understand it, is not
hurting me as much as it might be hurting others who might benefit
from your thoughts. Please then, don't hold back on my account . . .
> > You should know this
> > by now. DNA has been the main point of discussion in many of the
> > threads that I've started. Obviously, if evolution is happening, it
> > is happening in the DNA. The phenotype or physical creature is
> > nothing more than a reflection of the information contained in its
> > DNA. The problem is that many, such as Keith Littleton, place undue
> > significance on morphologic/phenotypic variations that may not have
> > anything to do with genotypic (gene pool) evolution.
>
> Why are you ignoring the DNA evidence that we have for coelacanths?
I'm not ignoring the DNA evidence at all . . . at least not that I'm
aware of. The discussion with Keith Littleton was not about DNA.
Keith was discussing morphology, not DNA. He was suggesting that the
morphologic differences are all that are needed to classify living
coelacanths in different taxonomic groups than those found in the
fossil record. Even you suggest that morphology is a very subjective
basis for classification, and that was my whole point as well. But,
if you want to get into the DNA evidence for classification, that is
fine with me.
> Why concentrate on morphology, when you know that it can fool you.
Exactly. Why does Keith Littleton concentrate so much on morphology
when it can easily fool him?
> What does the DNA of the fish tell you?
What does it tell you . . . and why?
> Look at frogs, frogs have
> been evolving for 300 million years, but the different frogs still
> look pretty much like frogs. The DNA tells us that some lineages are
> very different even if they don't look like it.
This is the interesting thing about classification schemes that are
based on DNA. Sometimes they follow morphologic classifications
fairly well, and sometimes they are very much different. Also,
sometimes, depending upon what section of DNA is chosen for comparison
studies, one classification scheme will say one thing, and another one
will say something completely different. Phylogenies that are based
on DNA are turning out to be just as confusing as morphologic
classification schemes.
In a review written with fellow British Museum staffers David Williams
and Christopher Humphries, Patterson surveys the congruence, or lack
thereof, between molecular and morphological phylogenies. He and his
co-authors conclude:
"As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end
this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular
phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between
molecules and morphology....Partly because of morphology's long
history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception
rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within
the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases
of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above;
and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a
parsimony analysis is published...structure or resolution tends to
evaporate (p. 180)."
Patterson, Colin, and others. 1993. Congruence Between Molecular and
Morphological Phylogenies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
24:153-188.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/sampler171.htm
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure that Williams, Christopher,
Humphries, and Patterson still believed in DNA phylogenies despite the
fact that they were disappointed with the lack of clarity that it
brought to taxonomic classification models. I just don't have the
same faith that they had/have when it comes to such models.
"A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more
than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the
accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw
confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only
didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they
confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in
hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing . . . Many
evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the
beginnings of life's three kingdoms . . . When full DNA sequences
opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected
that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be
further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for
Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the
comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ
from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well . . . "
Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" Science,
vol. 284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305
http://www.harunyahya.com/mediawatch_99_myth_is_dead_sci34.html
The questions that I would want to ask about frog DNA in particular,
given your suggestion that they have been evolving for 300 million
years and still look a lot alike, is, can these frogs still interbreed
to produce viable hybrids? If so, then the genetic distances that you
think are "vast" may not be as great as you think they are. The
reason for this is that many genetic changes do not involve any change
in function . . . because they are "neutral" changes. We must start
distinguishing between functional change and neutral change.
Phenotypic evolution depends upon functional changes, while neutral
genetic evolution does not. I have no problem with the theory of
neutral evolution. It is an obvious fact of nature. However, neutral
evolution is outside the influence of natural selection. Without
natural selection, neutral evolution is severely limited as far as its
ability to contribute to phenotypic or Darwinian style evolution.
There are certain limited cases where purely random or neutral changes
have appeared to result in beneficial phenotypic functions, such as in
the cases of B.G. Hall's galactosidase evolution experiments and
nylonase enzyme evolution via a single frame-shift mutation in certain
other bacteria. In all of these cases, a single random mutation
produced a beneficial phenotypic function. If it could be
convincingly shown that no neutral gaps wider than one or two point
mutations separate various phenotypic functions from each other, then
I would be convinced that design theory has no rational support.
However, the existence of fairly wide neutral gaps in function do seem
to actually exist, and these pose a real problem for the theory of
common descent via random mutation combined with the selective force
of natural selection.
Why are neutral phenotypic gaps a problem? Because, when genetic
changes do not result in any detectable phenotypic change, natural
selection is powerless to tell the difference between two different
genes if they are phenotypically neutral. Without natural selection
to select between them, further changes to these genes will be based
purely on random chance. And, as B.G. Hall also proved with his
experiments, random chance simply is not powerful enough to evolve
uniquely functional phenotypes if it must cross neutral gaps that are
seemingly small. For example, when Hall deleted the lacZ genes in his
E. coli bacteria, they quickly evolved the ability to hydrolyze
lactose via the evolution of another gene that Hall called "the
evolved beta-galactosidase gene (ebgA)." This gene was completely
different in sequencing than the lacZ gene. And yet, with just one
point mutation, the ebgA gene was able to produce a protein with
comparable beta-galactosidase activity. What Hall did next was very
interesting. He deleted both the lacZ gene as well as the ebgA gene
in his E. coli. These E. coli never did evolve lactase ability via
the use of any other portion of genetic realestate available to them.
Why not? It seems like the lactase enzyme is very advantageous in the
lactose environments that Hall used as selective media, and yet those
E. coli without these two genes never evolved this lactase ability
back again. Hall described these bacteria as having "limited
evolutionary potential".
Now I ask, what is it, exactly, that limited the evolutionary
potential of these bacteria? With an E. coli genome of over 4.5
million base pairs of genetic realestate, is there nothing that is
close enough to evolve the needed lactase activity? I mean, lactase
is a relatively simple enzyme with a relatively simple function. It
works by itself. Multiple enzymes are not required for its function
to proceed. And yet, this lactase function seems complex enough to be
beyond the reach of mutation and natural selection in certain E. coli
colonies. If this is a problem, just think how much of a problem it
would be to evolve a function that required the evolution of not just
one functional enzyme, but multiple functional enzymes all working
together simultaneously.
A single enzyme requires multiple amino acids all working together
simultaneously. There is a point beyond which these amino acids
cannot be lost or changed without a complete loss of enzymatic
function. In this way, even simple enzymes are, as Behe might say,
"irreducibly complex". The thing about simple enzymes is, there is a
good chance that a fair number of other enzymes might be able to
perform the same function. It is kind of the same with a language.
Certain words have the same or similar functions as other words . . .
such as "boat" and "ship". Both of these words have about the same
meaning or function. Thus, if "boat" happened to get delete and the
word "hip" was hanging around, doing some other job, "hip" might
randomly get mutated to "ship" and presto, we have a similar function
back.
The problem is that there are still a limited number of words with a
given function, even if that function is relatively simple, having
many words that carry it. The same is true for even simple enzymes.
The function of a given enzyme might be relatively ease for many
different series of amino acids to code for. However, the total
number of different amino acid sequences that could code for this
function is still limited. If the genetic realestate of a given
organism does not have anything that is within a few point mutations
of one of these many, but limited number of potential sequences, then
it must cross a larger gap of neutral function to get to one of them.
With each neutral step that must be taken along the road toward any of
one of these functions, the average time required increases
exponentially, until billions and even trillions upon trillions of
years pale into insignificance (and this is with a gap of just half a
dozen or so amino acids).
> It seems that you
> only like the DNA evidence when it tells you what you want to hear.
I could say the same thing about you. You only like the DNA evidence
when it tells you what you want to hear. It is called "bias". We are
all burdened with bias. None of us are purely objective in our
thinking. Bias is good to a point. It protects us from being blown
around by every crackpot theory that comes along. However, just
because I am biased in a particular direction, does not mean that you
are not also biased in another direction.
> If we had a living example of a lobefin fish from another family what
> do you think the DNA would tell us? Teleost fish evolved fairly
> recently (a couple of hundred million years ago?). All teleost fish
> from guppies to marlin are more closely related to eachother than they
> are to lobefin fish. Why would lobefin fish be more closely related
> to land vertebrates than teleost fish?
The odds are, regardless of their true origin, that one of them
(lobefin fish vs. teleost fish) would be apparently, "more closely
related to land vertebrates" than the other. If one compares two
books with a third book, the odds are that one of the two books will
be more similar to the third . . . by sequence comparison. However,
is the statistical significance valid? Or, do such similarities, by
themselves, definitely support the theory of common descent over other
possibilities?
> If we didn't have the living
> coelacanth we wouldn't know this fact, we would only be speculating on
> the conclusions of the classical taxonomists that claimed that we
> evolved from lobefin fish. Coelacanths live in the deep oceans, why
> would they be more closely related to land vertebrates than to other
> fish?
Why not? Someone has to be more closely related . . . by sheer random
chance, or similar needs for that particular genetic sequence. Upon
what basis must we assume that similarity is equivalent to common
descent?
> It isn't worth discussing this material until you admit to your
> misconceptions. No one uses rapidly evolving D-loop sequences to
> determine genetic relationships out past a few million years.
A "few million years" might still be a problem for the resolution of
mitochondrial D-loop sequences. Consider that the sequences used (two
of them) where each less than 400 base pairs in length (333bp and
340bp respectively). The mutation rate used by Krings et. al. was
based on the a priori assumption that modern humans split off from
chimps some "4-5 million years" ago. Based on this perhaps plausible,
but indirect assumption, a substitution rate of 0.94 x 10 ^ -7
substitutions per site per year per lineage, was determined. Using
this rate, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) between humans and
Neandertals was calculated to have living about 465,000 years ago.
The MRCA of modern humans was calculated to have lived around 163,000
years ago. And, the MRCA of chimps and bonobos was calculated to have
lived around 2,844,000 years ago.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/10/5581
Well, Krings' figures are all fine and good, except if we happen to
come across a more direct measurement of mtDNA mutation rates.
Consider the following work by Thomas Parsons published in the journal
Nature Genetics:
"The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of
human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a
direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the
human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments
from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages
spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed,
resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr.
This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from
phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply
by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional
factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and
long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also
indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants
between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA
bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications
and studies of human evolution . . . The observed substitution rate
reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from
evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been
derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly
0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding
one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR
hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a
generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations
and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of
the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than
would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical
rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of
the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the
known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA
may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible
to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence
variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500
years."
Parsons, Thomas J. A high observed substitution rate in the human
mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997,
pp. 363-367
So, it seems as though more direct real-time measurements of mtDNA
mutation rates show a 20-fold higher mutation rate than that which was
used by the Krings' study. What does this mean, besides the obvious?
The sequences studied by Krings totaled 673 base pairs in length.
According to the rate determined by Parsons, every single one of these
base pairs would have changed more than twice in one million years and
at least once in 400,000 years. Half of the base pairs would have
mutated at least once in 200,000 years. And yet, humans are separated
by only about 95 or so substitution differences from chimps? What is
wrong with this picture? Each substitution difference (in a sequence
some 673 base pairs in length) takes an average of 600 years to
achieve. Taking into account that each lineage would build up
substitution differences separately, in 600 years, the substitution
difference between two lineages would be around 2. This seems to
indicate that the common ancestor of humans and chimps lived some
30,000 years ago (not 4 to 8 million years ago as you suggest based on
indirect methods). Modern humans, being separated from each other by
an average of only 10 substitutions (according to Krings) appear to
have a common ancestor living some 3,000 years ago. Modern Humans and
Neandertals are separated by an average of only 35 substitutions.
This seems to indicate a common ancestor living only some 10,000 years
ago.
Now, tell me again just how well mtDNA substitution comparisons
support the theory of common descent? If true, the rate suggested by
Parsons, and several others, changes a whole lot of things now doesn't
it?
The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member
of the editorial staff for the journal "Nature", harshly described the
studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences
involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number
of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of
one billion. Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University)
suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have
scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the
origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by
mtDNA. In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original
researchers) acknowledges that the theory of an "African Eve" has been
invalidated.
Gee, Henry , "Statistical Cloud over African Eden," Nature, 355 (13
February 1992): 583.
Barinaga, Marcia , "'African Eve' Backers Beat a Retreat," Science,
255 (7 February 1992): 687.
S. Blair Hedges, Sudhir Kumar, Koichiro Tamura, and Mark Stoneking,
"Human Origins and Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA Sequences," Science
255 (7 February 1992): 737-739.
http://www.abbottloop.org/alconweb/i_c_r/afrieve.htm
> It
> wouldn't even be a good measure to distinguish the great apes. We use
> other more slowly evolving sequences to determine larger genetic
> distances.
I would hope so . . . any good examples of these that really say
anything in the light of the mtDNA fiasco?
> We only use the D-loop because in the case of Neandertals
> and humans we are only talking about a few hundred thousand years.
And D-loop analysis is invalid at even this range.
> D-loop sequence wouldn't be useful to distinquish a couple of hundred
> thousand year difference if it happened 5 million years ago, but it is
> OK for events of less than half a million.
Not really. It might be ok for events a few tens of thousand of years
ago, but certainly not 500,000 years ago. In this amount of time, we
would expect a sequence of 800 base pairs to have been mutated over
800 times. What good would that do you?
> Molecular evolutionists
> are not stupid, you shouldn't measure people by your own failings.
Oh really? Molecular evolutionists may not be stupid, but they are
sure willing to estimate mutation rates that best suit their a priori
conclusions. They also really have problems with those mutation rates
determined by more direct methods when they fly in the face of their
favorite theories.
> This has all been figured out if you would take the time to stop
> looking at creationist clap trap and look at the real science papers.
Oh, I have looked at real science papers. The evidence does not seem
to be as clear-cut as you are trying to make it out to be.
> The fact is that we only use D-loop sequence to differentiate recent
> divergence events.
Not as recent as they need to be evidently.
> It isn't accurate for species that are too
> divergent. Cyt c is a fairly highly conserved protein, but it is only
> 100 amino acids in length. Hemoglobin is less conserved and it is
> short too. They may use hemoglobin out to around 300 million years,
> but we know that that is stretching things and it is not a good
> measure. It is adequate for, say looking into the relationships among
> placental mammals that evolved within the last 100 million years, but
> it isn't a gene that we would use for greater divergence times.
But, the fact of the matter is that cytochrome c sequences are used
all the time in popular literature to support phylogenies spanning
hundreds of millions of years. To use such highly conserved proteins
is problematic for at least two reasons: One reason is that any sort
of mutation rate at all would quickly destroy its usefulness as a
phylogenetic tool. Another reason is that it is "conserved" for a
very important reason. It is functional. It is not like the D-loop
regions that have no known coding function. In other words, it is
subject to selection pressures and maintenance. How can a functional
protein be used as a phylogenetic tool to estimate evolutionary
relationships and divergent times? Such nested differences, which are
observed between different creatures using this protein (and others
like hemoglobin), might be better explained by different needs that
maintain the nested characteristics of such proteins. The nested
differences among functional proteins need not be based upon
evolutionary changes at all, but upon different functional
requirements of the creatures that they are in.
> Just
> as you have indicated the limiting factor is saturation time.
Saturation time is just one limiting factor when we are talking
functional proteins. For a functional protein, other limiting factors
come into play, such as a need for a slightly different protein for
slightly different needs of different creatures. The differences
themselves might be selectively advantageous for a given creature as
compared to another creature where certain protein differences would
also be selectively advantageous. Thus, to say that these differences
are the result of common ancestry is not necessarily true. The fact
is that these differences may have always been there because of a
functional need for the differences.
> Once a
> significant fraction of the sites have been hit multple hits start
> messing up your analysis. The guys looking into our relationship with
> bacteria are using much more conserved genes. Larger cytochrome genes
> and common genes like ATPases. Different genes have different rates
> of substitution.
Considering that bacteria, such as E. coli, have very rapid generation
times as well as fairly high average mutation rates, such "larger"
genes are still worthless as for as determining anything about their
supposed evolutionary history over the course of millions upon
millions of years. Do you know what the average mutation rate is for
an E. coli gene? The E. coli genome consists of a single molecule of
DNA containing around 4,639,221 base pairs. These encode 4,288
proteins and 89 RNAs. An average gene in E. coli will mutate at about
1 x 10 ^ - 6 to 1 x 10 ^ - 7 mutations per generation. "Higher"
eukaryotes have the same rate of spontaneous mutation, so that rates
per sexual generation are about one or two mutations per gamete
(anything higher would approach lethal limits). Some estimates for
mammals are around 2.2 mutations per genome per generation (around 3
billion base pairs). With a gene being mutated every 1 to 10 million
generations in E. coli, one might think this would be a long time.
However, each and every gene in an E. coli lineage will get mutated
once every 40 to 80 years. So, in one million years, each gene will
have suffered at least 10,000 mutations.
So, tell me again at what rate you think bacterial genes mutate so as
to establish any reasonable evolutionary phylogenies based on these
differences?
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/micro/316/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Esch.coli.html
> Not mutation, but of how rapidly changes in the
> genes are fixed in the population. Genes like Histones aren't very
> useful phylogenetic genes because we only have one difference between
> mammals and plants for some of them. The DNA sequence of the Histone
> genes can be very different but this is only due to the degenerate
> code. The 2, 4 and 6 codon families means that we can change the DNA
> sequence quite a bit without changing the amino acid sequence of the
> protein, but these sites have likely be hit multiple times in the
> evolution between plants and animals and contain no phylogenetic
> information. Again, this has all been worked out, you are complaining
> about nothing.
Actually, this fits in well with what I am complaining about. Many
genetic mutations do not necessarily result in amino acid changes
because of the redundancy of the genetic code. Thus, DNA mutations
may happen, but as long as the protein sequences don't change, natural
selection doesn't care because the protein that is produced still
works the same as it always did. Therefore, such mutations are
"neutral". These can add up very quickly, and thus obliterate any
phylogenetic usefulness. This is a problem, as you also pointed out
above.
> We aren't talking about simple mutation rate, but we are talking about
> the rate of substitution. This is the rate at which mutations are
> fixed in a population and become diagnostic for that population. An
> E. coli bacterium may divide every 30 minutes, but how long would it
> take for a mutation that occured in your guts to be distributed
> throughout the entire E. coli population of the world?
I fail to see your point. Every living E. coli bacterium has arisen
from an unbroken chain of bacteria stretching all the way back to the
first ancestor bacterium. Thus, each living E. coli bacterium is
approximately equidistant from that original E. coli bacterium. All
of the lineages that gave rise to each and every one of the living
bacterium in the whole world experienced approximately the same number
of mutational events. Because of this, you cannot compare any single
E. coli sequence with another sequence from some other creature that
is anything more than a few tens of thousands of years separated from
it. Why? Because in that amount of time, each and every gene in that
E. coli bacterium's cell line would have been mutated at a rate high
enough to make phylogenetic comparisons worthless. It doesn't matter
the exact type of mutation involved you see. The absolute number of
mutations is what is important here. Because of this, no particular
mutation or substitution needs to be "fixed" in all the E. coli of the
world in order to destroy the potential usefulness of such sequences
as tools for phylogenetic comparisons.
> What really freaks everyone out is the fact that people can even
> consider the existence of something like a molecular clock.
Actually, it seems as though the molecular clock hypothesis has run
into so many problems lately that many have suggested discarding the
concept of a molecular clock altogether.
> It seems
> to be some type of cosmic accident that the same genes in bacteria
> seem to evolve at the same rate as the same genes in higher animals.
I like to use the word "mutate" instead of the word "evolve". I
realize that according to many definitions the meanings are pretty
much the same, but for me, the word "evolve" should be reserved for
"functional" change or evolution. Many genetic mutations are
"neutral" and do not involve a change or evolution of function.
> We are ignorant of the reason for this. Kimura predicted that neutral
> fixation would be associated with mutation rate and would approximate
> the rate of mutation, but these things probably haven't been constant
> over the billions of years that we are talking about. We also have
> the problem that when we look at these deep branch points we are
> usually looking at non synonomous changes (changes in amino acid
> sequence) that probably do not fit the neutral theory.
Yes. The neutral theory of evolution, as I understand it, only
describes the nature of nonfunctional or "neutral" genetic changes.
These neutral changes are, of course, beyond the guidance/influence of
natural selection. Those changes that are functional, on the other
hand, are very different in that they are influenced by natural
selection. Because of this, they act differently than those neutral
mutations that are not influenced by natural selection. Kimura
himself noted that Darwinian evolution was not explained by his
neutral theory. Darwinian style evolution depends on the evolution of
new and unique functions, not just on neutral genetic drift and
fixation.
> There are many
> exceptions, but things seem to be constant enough or have averaged out
> over long periods of time to allow us to get some type of reasonable
> guess about divergence times using molecular data.
I disagree for the reasons detailed above . . .
_____________
Your second reply
> >Please... how many times has my name been seen in a post title? It
> >is just a way to draw special attention to a particular topic of
> >discussion that you just so happened to bring up. The genetics of
> >horses, donkeys and mules just so happens to be quite interesting.
>
> Do you want to know why people think that you have an honesty problem. It is
> because you have an honesty problem.
Oh, now that's coherent . . .
> Anyone that believes this bull would definitely be a candidate to believe the
> rest of your bull.
This is another winner! Anyone who believes what I say . . . will
believe what I say? Ok, is that not a statement of the obvious?
> You just happened to post just about the same thing in two posts and put one up
> with the title that you chose. Yeah, everyone believes that. What a smuck.
What? I completely lost you on this one. What the heck are you
trying to say? I posted the same thing under a new thread title,
because you didn't seem to like the one with your name in the title.
> >However, if you do not wish your name in titles from now on... that's
> >fine with me. I won't put your name in any more titles. Also, I
> >will repost this reply under a new thread title (Phylogenetics -
> >Where Michael Denton Went Wrong).
>
> You say this and you even have something coherant later in the post that might
> make someone believe it, but then you also write:
>
> "If two things are equidistant from a third reference point, then one
> of the two equidistant objects cannot be "closer" to the reference
> point than the other. Why? Because, by definition, they are
> "equidistant." I'm obviously crazy here, but if Neandertals and
> humans are equidistant from chimps, then it seems logical to me that
> the Neandertal mtDNA sequences that were analyzed cannot, "fall
> between modern humans and chimps." If they did fall between modern
> humans and chimps, then they would not be equidistant from chimps but
> would be more similar in their sequencing. But, last time I presented
> this question, you said,
>
> "Idiot. This is beneath even you. If the sequences fell where you say,
> why would modern humans be 500,000 years distant from the Neandertal type
> common ancestor and 5-8 million from the chimp human ancestor. By anyone's
> measure this is between modern humans (75,000 to 150,000) and chimps."
Again, by this rational, modern humans would also be "between
Neandertals and chimps".
> You are an idiot. This is Denton's equidistant argument. Go back and look at
> it and compare what you are saying here to what you claim to understand later
> in the post. You know exactly why two equidistant sequences can contain
> phylogenetic information, but you choose to ignore it when you want to. How
> can you be this stupid? You understand that all ape lineages including
> Neandertal are equidistant from the some common ancestor like the ape common
> ancestor, and that you can still determine that Neandertals are more closely
> related to modern humans than to chimps, but you chose to use Denton's
> equidistant argument anyways. If you are not an idiot, what are you?
Again . . . you lost me. You apparently don't know what Denton's
equidistant argument really was, why it was wrong, or at least how it
is different from my argument. Denton was confused because he
thought that organisms should be more and more diverged as one moved
up the scale of creature complexity. He initially didn't understand
that bacteria and other "simple" organisms would be expected to
continue to mutate even while maintaining their similar morphologies.
Denton thought that uniform degrees of divergence between simple
organisms such as yeast and silkworms and organisms that were
"obviously" increasing in complexity, such as wheat, lamprey, tuna,
bullfrogs, snapping turtles, penguins, kangaroos, horses, and humans,
would be a problem for the theory of evolution to explain. He was
wrong because of the fact that "simple" organisms would continue to
mutate just as much as the evolving "complex" organisms as they
branched off the evolutionary tree.
You also don't seem to realize your own mistake is saying that
Neandertal sequences, "fall between modern humans and chimps." Given
the evolutionary scenario of common descent of Neandertals, modern
humans, and chimps, yes, one would expect that all of them would be
"equidistant" from an earlier common ancestor. Likewise, the common
ancestor of Neandertals and humans would be located between both
humans and Neandertals, as compared with chimps (who would have split
off earlier). Where it seems to me that your statement is wrong is in
saying that the Neandertal sequences that we now have (thought to be
dating at around 20-50,000 years), "fall between modern humans and
chimps". Clearly, Neandertal sequences do not fall between modern
humans and chimps any more than modern human sequences fall between
Neandertals and chimps since both Neandertals and modern humans are
equidistant from chimps/bonobos in their sequencing.
> If you claim not to understand this, what do you think this means?
See above . . .
You continue by quoting me:
> "Michael Denton is mistaken in saying that it does (Yes, I often
> disagree with the arguments of creationists . . . some of them are
> quite illogical, or at least beyond my understanding). In any case,
> according to the theory of common decent, all creatures living today
> are equally separated in time from their first common ancestor (ie:
> single celled bacteria). Even the bacteria that remain alive today
> have sustained mutations over time as they maintained their similar
> morphology. Thus, one should expect and not be surprised when there is
> equal divergence between "simple" and "complex". It can be thought of
> as spokes on a wheel with the central hub being the common ancestor
> and the tips of each spoke representing a different creature. The tip
> of each spoke is equally distant from the original common ancestor.
> It is also approximately equally distant from those groups of
> creatures that diverged at around the same time from this common
> ancestor."
>
> You continue:
>
> "So obviously then, even if the tip of one of the spokes was a single
> celled creature like tetrahymena, this creature would be expected to
> be equally distant from a number of creatures on that wheel, to
> include other single celled creatures as well as multicelled creatures
> like fish, corn, rabbits and humans. Higher organisms, on the other
> hand, might be more similar to each other due to a more recent
> separation from a common ancestor between them. For example, humans
> and chimps are both equally different from bacteria, but when compared
> with each other, they are almost identical. Thus, a more recent common
> ancestor seems quite logical. Humans and chimps simply share the same
> wheel spoke except that this spoke splits at the very tip with humans
> and chimps sharing different tips"
>
> How can the person that wrote the first statement write about the spokes on a
> wheel and get the idea approximately correct and not know that they are using
> Denton's failed argument about the baloney of the sequences being equidistant?
Because, you obviously are not understanding one or both of our two
very different arguments. My argument is much different than Denton's
argument. Denton was saying that equal divergence among very
different creatures could not be explained by the theory of common
descent. I disagree. I think that if the theory of common descent is
true, that we would expect to see equal degrees or at least equal
rates of divergence between very different creatures . . . just as
the theory of evolution proposes.
Where I think the theory of common descent may run into some problems
is in the statistical significance of these findings. Equal degrees
of divergence and various nested similarities may be the result of
other processes that are not necessarily the result of common descent
with modification. The theory of common descent needs to be able to
rule out, as much as possible, these other possibilities.
You see, the nested DNA patterns that we observe seem to be easily
explained by the theory of common descent. In fact, they are
explained fairly well by this theory. The answer here seems quite
logical. Until . . . until one finds that certain neutral gaps in
genetic function exist that defy any naturalistic explanation. Also,
there is the problem that these patterns may be the result of
differing functional needs, and not so much the result of evolutionary
change over time.
> Think about sharing one wheel of a spoke and still being equidistant from a
> third point at the end of another spoke, but still be able to tell that two
> lineages are more closely related to each other. Replace Human and chimp with
> Human and Neandertal using chimp as the outgroup spoke.
>
> Think about it for just 5 minutes. If sequences can be equidistant and you can
> still tell what lineages are more closely related to eachother we can tell that
> Neandertals fall between modern humans and chimps.
No. It seems to me that you are still mistaken . . . If not in your
thinking, then your wording seems misleading. Consider the following
illustration:
Common Neandertal-Human-Chimp Ancestor
Modern Humans ___ |
\ |
\ |
Common Neandertal-Human Ancestor______________|_____________Chimps
/
/
Neandertals ___ /
Tell me, where exact, in this illustration, do "Neandertals fall
between modern humans and chimps"? The same genetic distances
separate chimps from both modern humans and Neandertals. In fact, if
anything, the average for Neandertals is farther away from chimps than
the human average is. This is what makes Neandertals and modern
humans "equidistant" from chimps. Now, if you are talking about the
common ancestor of humans and Neandertals falling between modern
humans and chimps . . . well, that is pure conjecture because nobody
really knows. For all we know, the common ancestor of modern humans
and Neandertals could have been just as far away from chimps as both
Neandertals and modern humans are. Modern humans and Neandertals
might just represent a spectrum of the same species or "kind" with
their common ancestor being no closer to chimps than either modern
humans or Neandertals are.
> I appologize for the unorthodox quoting, but your post is so long that I can't
> quote it all in a response.
That's fine. Respond to whatever interests you the most.
> You do not understand what you are talking about. You blew off my whole
> explanation and all we get is chatter that is contradictory.
Actually, I responded to your entire first post and part of your
second. Where did I blow off your whole explanation? What exactly
did you write that would clear everything up here? It's fine to
repeat stuff if I didn't happen to catch it the first time you know.
> If you understand the last statements that I quoted (you did write it or did
> you crib it from some other source?) you should be able to understand why we
> can tell that the Neandertal sequence falls between chimps and humans. Let's
> see you explain why you are wrong. If you don't understand why you are wrong,
> I will try and explain it to you one more time if you don't try and bullshit
> me.
Perhaps you had better try one more time because I certainly don't see
how the Neandertal sequences "fall between modern humans and chimps"
as you say they do. They don't. They are equidistant at best with
modern humans from chimps. The Neandertal-human common ancestor MIGHT
have fallen between humans and chimps, but no one can say that for
sure. And, even if the Neandertal-human common ancestor did fall
between modern humans and chimps, that would not help you. You are
saying that Neandertal sequences fall between humans and chimps.
Clearly, the common ancestor with modern humans and Neandertals cannot
be called "Neandertal" any more than he/she can be called "modern
human." Please . . . do clarify yourself again. It seems to me
that you simply have a problem admitting any sort of error, however
small, to a YEC like myself.
Oh, by the way, your idea that humans and chimps are more closely
related than horses and donkeys may have even more problems. "We
[humans] are more unique than previously thought, according to new
comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that
we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest
relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than
95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the
variation between us and chimps. The new value came to light when Roy
Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious
about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally
derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at
Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at
which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how
different they are. But the technique only picks up a particular type
of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever
a single "letter" differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two
species. But there are two other major types of variation that the
previous analyses ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section
of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of
the other. Likewise, "deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing
from one species. Together, they are termed "indels", and Britten
seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two
species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the
internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston,
Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma. When Britten compared five
stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he
found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4
per cent, very close to the expected figure. But he also found that
the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons
revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic
differences. "We're not any more different than we were," says
Britten. "But we see a bit more divergence than before because
insertions and deletions are taken into account. It almost triples the
difference." The result is only based on about one million DNA bases
out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes,
says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says. But the differences were
equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and
gene-rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly
distributed. Britten thinks it will be some time before we know what
it is about our genes that makes us so different from chimps. He
thinks the real secrets could lie in "regulatory" regions of DNA that
control whole networks of genes. "It'll be a while before we
understand them," he says."
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(DOI: 10.1073/pnas.172510699)
<http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833>
To put this into some perspective consider that the human genome
contains far fewer genes than previous estimates indicated. It was
once thought that the human genome, made up of some 3 billion base
pairs, contained around 100,000 genes. We now know that this is not
the case.
"The first analysis of the human genome was published in February,
revealing far fewer genes than expected. Scientists also found that
these genetic instructions were strikingly similar across all ethnic
groups, with every person sharing 99.99% of their genetic code with
all others. The team working at the Sanger Centre near Cambridge, the
main institution with public support, have pointed out in the journal
Nature that all current drugs on the market are based on just 483
biological 奏argets' in the human body and that the research has
hopefully uncovered many more. But the surprise is that this vast
diversity is described by as few as 26,000 genes - far fewer than
previously estimated. They also discovered that we share many genes
with more humble organisms - about half with the fruitfly and the
nematode worm [~75% with nematodes], and about a fifth with yeast.
According to Dr Craig Venter, of Celera Genomics, the other, privately
funded team, only 1.1% of the genome consists of genes - the rest
appears to be mostly repetitive 阻unk' - so the biological differences
that influence everything from our looks to our intellectual ability
boil down to differences between 1,000 and 10,000 genetic letters."
(Telegraph 2001; 12 February)
http://www.ethicsforschools.org/news/genetics.htm
So, yes, our DNA is still quite similar to that of chimps, however, it
might not be as similar as we previously thought. Also, there is good
evidence to think that we have some very important differences, to
include differences in important genes that make us significantly more
dissimilar than horses and donkeys are. Why do I think this?
Because, horses and donkeys can mate and produce viable offspring
while chimps and humans cannot. This means that even though many of
their genes may be found on different areas of different chromosomes,
the genes of horses and donkeys all match up during meiosis while
those of humans and chimps do not. And don't tell me that humans
never have sex with monkeys . . . because it happens all the time, and
yet no hybrids are born. This fact, in itself, is very good evidence
for the greater distance between human-chimp DNA than between
donkey-horse DNA.
In any case, I do thank-you for these last two replies and the time
you obviously put into them. You seem to have mellowed a bit, at
least enough to present some real discussion of the actual topic at
hand . . .
> Ron Okimoto
Sean
Sean Pitman
> Sean:
>
> Usually when someone responds to a post they actually say something
> about that post. This is just a regurgipost from another thread. You
> didn't respond to the points that I made in this post. If you want to
> claim that you covered the material (and you did not) you should just
> direct people to the tread or post in question. You don't have to
> post these monsters over and over.
You're the one who didn't like the title of the other post. Since I
wished to carry on our discussion from that post under a different
title name, I pasted my reply here as well.
Also, I do find it interesting that you can snip huge portions of my
posts, but if I snip something from yours, inevitably, it was your
main point. Please then, list your main point again (in your response
to the reply I just posted today) and I will make sure and respond to
it . . .
Your response to the above post can be found in a post that I just
posted today. I'm sure you will find it as irritating and "monstrous"
as ever.
> Ron Okimoto
Yours,
Sean
Ron Okimoto
> Ron
>
> > Sean:
> >
> > Usually when someone responds to a post they actually say something
> > about that post. This is just a regurgipost from another thread. You
> > didn't respond to the points that I made in this post. If you want to
> > claim that you covered the material (and you did not) you should just
> > direct people to the tread or post in question. You don't have to
> > post these monsters over and over.
>
> You're the one who didn't like the title of the other post. Since I
> wished to carry on our discussion from that post under a different
> title name, I pasted my reply here as well.
Uh, you created a whole new thread with the regurgipost from that
thread. What is your excuse for posting it here (for a third time?)
instead of responding to this post? Your excuses only make you look
silly.
>
> Also, I do find it interesting that you can snip huge portions of my
> posts, but if I snip something from yours, inevitably, it was your
> main point. Please then, list your main point again (in your response
> to the reply I just posted today) and I will make sure and respond to
> it . . .
Nope, it has never been a problem, I just pointed out the fact that
this is just a repeat post and you did not respond to the points that
I made. I snip lots of stuff, but at least I respond to part of your
post. Just give us this estimate, how much of this repeat post is in
response to what I wrote in the post that you were supposed to be
responding too? Less than half? Probably less than 20%. This would
probably be generous because you didn't even try to address the
molecular argument in this post, but I give you credit for generic
molecular arguments. Give us an estimate and the reason why you
didn't clip out all of the junk that didn't apply. I'd like to see
you tell us what points that you thought that you were responding too,
but then we'd probably get some fruitcake explanation of why your
arguments applied to those points.
>
> Your response to the above post can be found in a post that I just
> posted today. I'm sure you will find it as irritating and "monstrous"
> as ever.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Yours,
> Sean
Probably, I haven't seen it yet.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
Sean Pitman wrote:
> Ron Okimoto
>
>
> > > Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much.
> >
> > I won't waste much time on this post until you demonstrate that you
> > can understand the DNA evidence that you keep trying to use. You
> > haven't done that yet, and you keep making the same dumb mistakes.
> > These mistakes happen to lead you in the direction that you want to
> > go, so you don't seem to want to correct them.
>
> Interesting . . . except I honestly don't seem to know what you're
> talking about. Your explanations of where I am wrong just haven't
> seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I am making the same "dumb"
> mistakes because I really am dumb and can't help myself? Given this
> possibility, it might take me a longer time to catch on to your
> explanations than the average person. However, I can assure you, if I
> am mistaken, I am honestly mistaken. I truly believe the ridiculous
> stuff that I'm saying.
Just admit that the Neandertal sequence doesn't fall out in outer space just because
it is equidistant with modern humans from the chimp reference point. Where does the
sequence fall if it does not fall between extant humans and chimps. You could say
that the modern human sequence falls between Neandertals and chimps if you wanted,
but there don't seem to be any extant Neandertals wandering around. After you
acknowledged this fact we can go on to explain nesting to you.
>
>
> Oh, any by the way, even if your words might be wasted on me, because
> of my feeble mind and slow wit, your work is not just for my benefit,
> but for the benefit of others who might be following your threads to
> learn from you. In any case, your time is not exactly wasted, even if
> I personally don't get what you are trying to say. So, for you to
> wait to reveal your brilliance until I can understand it, is not
> hurting me as much as it might be hurting others who might benefit
> from your thoughts. Please then, don't hold back on my account . . .
Just about the only reason there is to respond to you. If no one responded they
might think that you knew what you were talking about.
Snip: classification nonsense.
Look at all your references on incongruent phylogenies. None of them that I know of
are incongruent for taxa that no one worries about. If the morphologist are having
problems in classification and there are several possible trees, the molecular data
will often have the same problems sorting out the mess. There is a very good reason
for this and it is these exceptions that make the rule stronger. When species
diverge in a star pattern over a very brief period of time many millions of years
ago there isn't enough time between branch points for morphological and DNA variants
to be fixed in the populations. So there are few characters that we can use to
determine the phylogenetic relationships. Millions of years erase phylogenetic
information in the DNA because we expect some sites to be hit multiple times. This
coupled with the fact that not much evolution occured between branch points and you
have a real problem.
Name one paper that claims that there is a discepancy with the phylogeny of humans,
apes, monkeys, prosiminans, other placental mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish,
cordates, and invertebrates. You won't be able to find one because there is no
discordant phylogenies for these groupings because they are morphologically distinct
and tens of millions of years of evolution occured between the branch points, so the
molecular data can easily sort them out.
Concentrating on the problem areas, when you know what the problem is and not
explaining the data that says that you are wrong is obfuscation.
> The questions that I would want to ask about frog DNA in particular,
> given your suggestion that they have been evolving for 300 million
> years and still look a lot alike, is, can these frogs still interbreed
> to produce viable hybrids? If so, then the genetic distances that you
> think are "vast" may not be as great as you think they are. The
> reason for this is that many genetic changes do not involve any change
> in function . . . because they are "neutral" changes. We must start
> distinguishing between functional change and neutral change.
> Phenotypic evolution depends upon functional changes, while neutral
> genetic evolution does not. I have no problem with the theory of
> neutral evolution. It is an obvious fact of nature. However, neutral
> evolution is outside the influence of natural selection. Without
> natural selection, neutral evolution is severely limited as far as its
> ability to contribute to phenotypic or Darwinian style evolution.
I don't know about frogs, but birds can cross hybridize much longer than mammals.
We can get chicken-quail hybrids and we may be talking 40 million years of
separation. It may be due to the restrictions in development inside a solid shelled
egg. The programs can't be that different. Mammals on the other hand seem to be
only able to cross hybridize out to a few million years. Changes in development and
the womb environment can probably be more variable and cause problems.
Snip the Hall argument that we have all seen many times.
Why do you think that this means anything in the real world? Bacteria only have
2000 genes and yet, you admit that one gene was found that could mutate redily to
generate Beta gal activity. It is only the artificial system where this gene was
removed that the bacteria could not mutate in one step to get beta gal activity. So
what does this example demonstrate? It only demonstrates that it looks like in one
species having 2 proteins that could mutate into a given activity in one step didn't
happen. The best that you can say is that it looks like you have around 1/2000
chance of having such a gene for some random trait that you might need to mutate to
get that activity. How does this help you? It isn't impossible, so you have to
demonstrate that 1/2000 is not enough for evolution to occur. Can you do this?
Not only that, but evolution doesn't work this way and you know it. Organisms
aren't in a do or die scenario where their progeny have to have some new mutation or
they die. There are literally millions of years to accumulate useful variation in a
species, and you can also inherit useful variation from the parent species. We
share alleles with chimps. As a doctor you may know that chimps and humans share a
few MHC alleles. Humans are thought to have gone through a genetic bottle neck
around a 100,000 years ago, but we still have a lot of genetic variation and we
still share some that both chimps and ourselves probably inherited from their common
ancestor. How do you think that you can stop this process?
The Hall example is artificial and doesn't say much of how organisms actually
evolve. Admit it.
>
>
> > It seems that you
> > only like the DNA evidence when it tells you what you want to hear.
>
> I could say the same thing about you. You only like the DNA evidence
> when it tells you what you want to hear. It is called "bias". We are
> all burdened with bias. None of us are purely objective in our
> thinking. Bias is good to a point. It protects us from being blown
> around by every crackpot theory that comes along. However, just
> because I am biased in a particular direction, does not mean that you
> are not also biased in another direction.
You have a bias that can be demonstrated to lead you in the wrong direction.
>
>
> > If we had a living example of a lobefin fish from another family what
> > do you think the DNA would tell us? Teleost fish evolved fairly
> > recently (a couple of hundred million years ago?). All teleost fish
> > from guppies to marlin are more closely related to eachother than they
> > are to lobefin fish. Why would lobefin fish be more closely related
> > to land vertebrates than teleost fish?
>
> The odds are, regardless of their true origin, that one of them
> (lobefin fish vs. teleost fish) would be apparently, "more closely
> related to land vertebrates" than the other. If one compares two
> books with a third book, the odds are that one of the two books will
> be more similar to the third . . . by sequence comparison. However,
> is the statistical significance valid? Or, do such similarities, by
> themselves, definitely support the theory of common descent over other
> possibilities?
There is not an either or here. Lobefins could have been found to nest within
teleost fish and negate the evolutionary model. You have to explain why they fall
just where they should to validate biological evolution. This happens with taxa
after taxa. Not only that but we can see from the sequence that coelacanth genomes
have been evolving for tens of millions of years since the common ancestor. Why
would lobefins fall where we expect and look like they have been evolving for all
the time that we thought from the fossil evidence?
If all this was just luck why can't they have any random sequence? They are just as
different from teleost fish as we are in their DNA sequence, so why do they have
that sequence instead of the sequence of a squid or a whale? When genetic distances
are that great there is an enormous sequence space to cover. It is highly unlikely
that lobfins would fall just where we expect. I leave it to your creationist
friends to calculate the probability because we don't care about it. We aren't the
ones that depend on it being some other way. Just think about it, since coelacanths
have DNA just as different from teleost fish as we have why should they have the
sequence that they do?
>
>
> > If we didn't have the living
> > coelacanth we wouldn't know this fact, we would only be speculating on
> > the conclusions of the classical taxonomists that claimed that we
> > evolved from lobefin fish. Coelacanths live in the deep oceans, why
> > would they be more closely related to land vertebrates than to other
> > fish?
>
> Why not? Someone has to be more closely related . . . by sheer random
> chance, or similar needs for that particular genetic sequence. Upon
> what basis must we assume that similarity is equivalent to common
> descent?
You explain why not. I'd like to hear it. Why would a fish that is so different in
sequence from other fish have a sequence that makes it look like we shared a common
ancestor if we did not? Not only that, but the relationship was predicted by those
poor morphologists that you discount.
I'll note that there is well known site to site rate variation in D-loop sequences
and that everyone knows that estimates have to be taken with a large grain of salt.
I don't think that anyone would try and claim that they could get a good estimate of
divergence times using the chimp as the outgroup, but it is the only outgroup that
we have. All the others that would have been better like Homo erectus are extinct.
We just live with it, but we don't depend on it.
Snip a bunch of rate nonsense
You consistently mess up mutation with fixation. Species have limited genepools.
We sometimes wish that we could see variations stretching from species to species,
but we don't. The reason is that fixation happens. You clearly do not understand
this. Mutations happen, but they have to be fixed (all individuals in the
population has this variant) before we say that this is human specific. If you were
right we'd expect various humans to have mutations and our similarity would over lap
the variation in chimps. The closer the relationship the more overlap. We do see
this, but in only takes of few hundred thousand years to fix random variants. Our
genomes are distinct from chimps because a lot of mutations got fixed in our
population and the chimp population in the last 5 or so million years. It is the
rate of fixation that we are looking at and not the rate of mutation. I said below
that the neutral theory predicted a relationship between mutation rate and rate of
fixation, but the two are different concepts.
The latest estimates are that around 100 mutations are inherited by everyone from
their parents. There are 6 billion people in the world. That is 600 billion new
mutations just in the extant population, but we don't use that as a measure of how
far we are from chimps.
> > It
> > wouldn't even be a good measure to distinguish the great apes. We use
> > other more slowly evolving sequences to determine larger genetic
> > distances.
>
> I would hope so . . . any good examples of these that really say
> anything in the light of the mtDNA fiasco?
>
> > We only use the D-loop because in the case of Neandertals
> > and humans we are only talking about a few hundred thousand years.
>
> And D-loop analysis is invalid at even this range.
You say so, but you can't demonstrate that this is the case. Invalid to you means
different things. If you had any evidence as good as the D-loop data to support
your model you would be jumping up and down and crowing your head off, but the same
evidence isn't good enough if you don't like the conclusions. What do you have that
is better evidence than this for your model. Let us see one single piece of
evidence that is better than the D-loop evidence. If the D-loop data is so bad what
does that say about the evidence or lack of it that you have?
>
>
> > D-loop sequence wouldn't be useful to distinquish a couple of hundred
> > thousand year difference if it happened 5 million years ago, but it is
> > OK for events of less than half a million.
>
> Not really. It might be ok for events a few tens of thousand of years
> ago, but certainly not 500,000 years ago. In this amount of time, we
> would expect a sequence of 800 base pairs to have been mutated over
> 800 times. What good would that do you?
Only in your dreams, remember the difference between subsitution and mutation.
>
>
> > Molecular evolutionists
> > are not stupid, you shouldn't measure people by your own failings.
>
> Oh really? Molecular evolutionists may not be stupid, but they are
> sure willing to estimate mutation rates that best suit their a priori
> conclusions. They also really have problems with those mutation rates
> determined by more direct methods when they fly in the face of their
> favorite theories.
You are the stupid one if you equate mutation rate with substitution rate.
How long would it take for a mutation in one bacteria in your guts to be fixed in
the entire population of the world? That is the difference between mutation and
substitution. Every base-pair that E. coli is different from another closely
related species like Salmonella requires the replacement of that base-pair in all
individuals of that population. How many E. coli are in the world? I grant that it
would have been easier when all our ancestors lived in Africa, but the same applies
to fruit flys and chimps and of course humans.
>
>
> > This has all been figured out if you would take the time to stop
> > looking at creationist clap trap and look at the real science papers.
>
> Oh, I have looked at real science papers. The evidence does not seem
> to be as clear-cut as you are trying to make it out to be.
That is because you never want to look at the stuff that is clear cut. You are only
interested in the material that you can obfuscate to make it look like you have some
type of argument. I grant you that most of our molecular efforts are involved in
figuring out the tough problems because they are problems, but that doesn't mean
that we haven't demonstrated that the technology and inferences work. They do work,
that is why we concentrate on the tough problems because it is the only means we
have of answering those questions. No one seems to get grant money trying to solve
a phylogenetic problem that isn't a phylogenetic problem. Think about it for just 5
minutes.
>
>
Cyt c is adequate for the easy well known nodes that are well separated by tens of
millions of years of evolution. You don't see people trying to use it to
differentiate the great apes, but is it good for telling the relationship between
yeast, protozoans, cordates, fish, amphibians, and mammals. Demonstrate that it is
not. Why should people stop using it if it works for what they want to do?
>
>
> > Just
> > as you have indicated the limiting factor is saturation time.
>
> Saturation time is just one limiting factor when we are talking
> functional proteins. For a functional protein, other limiting factors
> come into play, such as a need for a slightly different protein for
> slightly different needs of different creatures. The differences
> themselves might be selectively advantageous for a given creature as
> compared to another creature where certain protein differences would
> also be selectively advantageous. Thus, to say that these differences
> are the result of common ancestry is not necessarily true. The fact
> is that these differences may have always been there because of a
> functional need for the differences.
Do a PubMed search for COII (or COXII) and Primates and you should be able to bring
up one of the better studies over a series of papers for the last 6 or so years
demonstrating the type of selection that you are talking about. You see, if the
changes are not random we can tell if we can get enough data to be significant. It
is also an interesting story because it seems that primates got stuck with a sub
optimal COII gene by our tarsier common ancestor. This may have messed up several
of our cytochrome oxidase mitochondrial complexes. Even though this ancestor had a
bum mito it had some advantage and we got monkeys, apes and humans that have been
trying to play catch up and fix the mistake since. Even now we seem to be plagued
by the foul up in our ancestor and our mitochondria seems to be on the brink of
collapse a lot of times. You will find quotes claiming that our mito are a time
bomb. Why did your designer stick us with this timebomb? Why did he give this
timebomb to monkeys and humans and other apes, but not to rats or mice or whales?
>
>
> > Once a
> > significant fraction of the sites have been hit multple hits start
> > messing up your analysis. The guys looking into our relationship with
> > bacteria are using much more conserved genes. Larger cytochrome genes
> > and common genes like ATPases. Different genes have different rates
> > of substitution
> Snip junk where you don't know the difference between fixation and mutation.
> > Not mutation, but of how rapidly changes in the
> > genes are fixed in the population. Genes like Histones aren't very
> > useful phylogenetic genes because we only have one difference between
> > mammals and plants for some of them. The DNA sequence of the Histone
> > genes can be very different but this is only due to the degenerate
> > code. The 2, 4 and 6 codon families means that we can change the DNA
> > sequence quite a bit without changing the amino acid sequence of the
> > protein, but these sites have likely be hit multiple times in the
> > evolution between plants and animals and contain no phylogenetic
> > information. Again, this has all been worked out, you are complaining
> > about nothing.
>
> Actually, this fits in well with what I am complaining about. Many
> genetic mutations do not necessarily result in amino acid changes
> because of the redundancy of the genetic code. Thus, DNA mutations
> may happen, but as long as the protein sequences don't change, natural
> selection doesn't care because the protein that is produced still
> works the same as it always did. Therefore, such mutations are
> "neutral". These can add up very quickly, and thus obliterate any
> phylogenetic usefulness. This is a problem, as you also pointed out
> above.
You missed the point about fixation and mutation. Do you understand the difference,
now?
>
>
> > We aren't talking about simple mutation rate, but we are talking about
> > the rate of substitution. This is the rate at which mutations are
> > fixed in a population and become diagnostic for that population. An
> > E. coli bacterium may divide every 30 minutes, but how long would it
> > take for a mutation that occured in your guts to be distributed
> > throughout the entire E. coli population of the world?
>
> I fail to see your point. Every living E. coli bacterium has arisen
> from an unbroken chain of bacteria stretching all the way back to the
> first ancestor bacterium. Thus, each living E. coli bacterium is
> approximately equidistant from that original E. coli bacterium. All
> of the lineages that gave rise to each and every one of the living
> bacterium in the whole world experienced approximately the same number
> of mutational events. Because of this, you cannot compare any single
> E. coli sequence with another sequence from some other creature that
> is anything more than a few tens of thousands of years separated from
> it. Why? Because in that amount of time, each and every gene in that
> E. coli bacterium's cell line would have been mutated at a rate high
> enough to make phylogenetic comparisons worthless. It doesn't matter
> the exact type of mutation involved you see. The absolute number of
> mutations is what is important here. Because of this, no particular
> mutation or substitution needs to be "fixed" in all the E. coli of the
> world in order to destroy the potential usefulness of such sequences
> as tools for phylogenetic comparisons.
If you thought about it for a little while you might get it. Think about it from
what I have written above. Why are all salmonelle and E. coli different in
sequence? How can we tell them apart if all members of the population are
equidistant from the common ancestor and all have their own mutations? The answer
is that reality isn't like that.
>
>
> > What really freaks everyone out is the fact that people can even
> > consider the existence of something like a molecular clock.
>
> Actually, it seems as though the molecular clock hypothesis has run
> into so many problems lately that many have suggested discarding the
> concept of a molecular clock altogether.
No. It is just one estimate, and isn't as good as a fossil and a good radiometric
date, but it is still useful for relative dating. And the estimates are pretty good
if you get lucky and work with the right taxa. The problem is that we expect
lineages to evolve randomly. This means that some will be faster and some slower,
and we expect some to be much faster and some to be much slower. If you get one of
these in your estimate you are going to be off. It is expected.
>
>
> > It seems
> > to be some type of cosmic accident that the same genes in bacteria
> > seem to evolve at the same rate as the same genes in higher animals.
>
> I like to use the word "mutate" instead of the word "evolve". I
> realize that according to many definitions the meanings are pretty
> much the same, but for me, the word "evolve" should be reserved for
> "functional" change or evolution. Many genetic mutations are
> "neutral" and do not involve a change or evolution of function.
Why. Change is change. The sequence evoles whether the change is neutral on not it
is still different and we can tell it is different. Neutral changes aren't useful
for the deep branches because they change too often and billions of years can wipe
out that information, but selective changes could be held stable for that long. We
have to rely on the selective changes to get the deep branch points. This shouldn't
matter to you because we don't rely on them for what you are interested in.
Divergence times of order that you are worried about (monkeys to man) we have to use
the neutral changes because they are the only ones that are fixed frequently enough
to provide phylogenetic information. You are worried about nothing that matter to
your argument.
>
>
> > We are ignorant of the reason for this. Kimura predicted that neutral
> > fixation would be associated with mutation rate and would approximate
> > the rate of mutation, but these things probably haven't been constant
> > over the billions of years that we are talking about. We also have
> > the problem that when we look at these deep branch points we are
> > usually looking at non synonomous changes (changes in amino acid
> > sequence) that probably do not fit the neutral theory.
>
> Yes. The neutral theory of evolution, as I understand it, only
> describes the nature of nonfunctional or "neutral" genetic changes.
> These neutral changes are, of course, beyond the guidance/influence of
> natural selection. Those changes that are functional, on the other
> hand, are very different in that they are influenced by natural
> selection. Because of this, they act differently than those neutral
> mutations that are not influenced by natural selection. Kimura
> himself noted that Darwinian evolution was not explained by his
> neutral theory. Darwinian style evolution depends on the evolution of
> new and unique functions, not just on neutral genetic drift and
> fixation.
Neutral changes are the only ones that we have to worry about for the Monkey to man
scenario. So what is your beef? We can use psuedo genes or sequence that doesn't
contain even the vestiges of a gene and work out the molecular phylogeny for taxa
that are only 40 million years divergent, so what are you crabing about?
Darwin never said that all evolution had to be selected for. The data that we have
tells us that it is not. It looks like very little variation in the genome conveys
some selective advantage. So what?
>
> > There are many
> > exceptions, but things seem to be constant enough or have averaged out
> > over long periods of time to allow us to get some type of reasonable
> > guess about divergence times using molecular data.
>
> I disagree for the reasons detailed above . . .
What does the data tell you. What do you conclude when the molecular data does
coincide with other dating methods. We expect it to happen, you do not. Why should
we hit any particular date? We haven't dated that many taxa, why should we have any
hits in the few that we have done? We expect to miss alot and it is done mainly as
an approximation. It has been useful for paleontologist to determine what strata
that they should look for certain ancestors in. Humans are the most spectacular
success in this area. People were looking in 20 million year old sediments before
the molecular data started to tell them that the split between apes and humans could
be as little as 4-8 million years ago.
>
>
> _____________
>
> Your second reply
>
> > >Please... how many times has my name been seen in a post title? It
> > >is just a way to draw special attention to a particular topic of
> > >discussion that you just so happened to bring up. The genetics of
> > >horses, donkeys and mules just so happens to be quite interesting.
> >
> > Do you want to know why people think that you have an honesty problem. It is
> > because you have an honesty problem.
>
> Oh, now that's coherent . . .
Only an idiot couldn't figure it out.
>
>
> > Anyone that believes this bull would definitely be a candidate to believe the
> > rest of your bull.
>
> This is another winner! Anyone who believes what I say . . . will
> believe what I say? Ok, is that not a statement of the obvious?
Just keep making a fool of yourself. It remains amusing for a time.
>
>
> > You just happened to post just about the same thing in two posts and put one up
> > with the title that you chose. Yeah, everyone believes that. What a smuck.
>
> What? I completely lost you on this one. What the heck are you
> trying to say? I posted the same thing under a new thread title,
> because you didn't seem to like the one with your name in the title.
Think about it, you don't seem to be very good at reasoning things out. You posted
a third reply after you posted the mule thread. Why do I bother. You are a fool
and you obviously can't tell the truth if your life depended on it. When did you
post the mule post and was it or was it not a regurgipost that you posted in another
thread. This is rediculous. The post times are listed in Google. Check them out.
Maybe you have a split personality and you don't know what you are doing.
>
>
> > >However, if you do not wish your name in titles from now on... that's
> > >fine with me. I won't put your name in any more titles. Also, I
> > >will repost this reply under a new thread title (Phylogenetics -
> > >Where Michael Denton Went Wrong).
> >
> > You say this and you even have something coherant later in the post that might
> > make someone believe it, but then you also write:
> >
> > "If two things are equidistant from a third reference point, then one
> > of the two equidistant objects cannot be "closer" to the reference
> > point than the other. Why? Because, by definition, they are
> > "equidistant." I'm obviously crazy here, but if Neandertals and
> > humans are equidistant from chimps, then it seems logical to me that
> > the Neandertal mtDNA sequences that were analyzed cannot, "fall
> > between modern humans and chimps." If they did fall between modern
> > humans and chimps, then they would not be equidistant from chimps but
> > would be more similar in their sequencing. But, last time I presented
> > this question, you said,
> >
> > "Idiot. This is beneath even you. If the sequences fell where you say,
> > why would modern humans be 500,000 years distant from the Neandertal type
> > common ancestor and 5-8 million from the chimp human ancestor. By anyone's
> > measure this is between modern humans (75,000 to 150,000) and chimps."
>
> Again, by this rational, modern humans would also be "between
> Neandertals and chimps".
So what? Where is the branch node? It doesn't fall in outerspace just because the
two are equidistant. You know it falls closer to chimps than does the current
sequence of modern humans. The Neandertal branch falls between extant modern humans
and chimps. You know this, but you'd rather play games. Just explain what
difference it makes. Your model is still wrong and can't explain the data. Can you
make phylogenetic determinations even though the sequences are equidistant. You do
know what a phylogeny is don't you?
>
>
> > You are an idiot. This is Denton's equidistant argument. Go back and look at
> > it and compare what you are saying here to what you claim to understand later
> > in the post. You know exactly why two equidistant sequences can contain
> > phylogenetic information, but you choose to ignore it when you want to. How
> > can you be this stupid? You understand that all ape lineages including
> > Neandertal are equidistant from the some common ancestor like the ape common
> > ancestor, and that you can still determine that Neandertals are more closely
> > related to modern humans than to chimps, but you chose to use Denton's
> > equidistant argument anyways. If you are not an idiot, what are you?
>
> Again . . . you lost me. You apparently don't know what Denton's
> equidistant argument really was, why it was wrong, or at least how it
> is different from my argument. Denton was confused because he
> thought that organisms should be more and more diverged as one moved
> up the scale of creature complexity. He initially didn't understand
> that bacteria and other "simple" organisms would be expected to
> continue to mutate even while maintaining their similar morphologies.
> Denton thought that uniform degrees of divergence between simple
> organisms such as yeast and silkworms and organisms that were
> "obviously" increasing in complexity, such as wheat, lamprey, tuna,
> bullfrogs, snapping turtles, penguins, kangaroos, horses, and humans,
> would be a problem for the theory of evolution to explain. He was
> wrong because of the fact that "simple" organisms would continue to
> mutate just as much as the evolving "complex" organisms as they
> branched off the evolutionary tree.
You don't know what Denton's argument is because you keep using it. How is it
different for your argument? What is the difference between the chimp and human
branch and the modern human and Neandertal branch? Denton was wrong, you admit
yourself that he was wrong even though chimps and humans sequences are equidistant
from say a monkey common ancestor. So why is the end of the branch different from
the chimp human branch? Why does Denton's argument suddenly apply to the end of the
branch? The end of the branch is relative. In your own example the chimp and human
sequence was the end of the branch (your spoke). Why did Denton's argument fail in
that case? Where was the branch node? Was it closer to monkey or farther away?
>
>
> You also don't seem to realize your own mistake is saying that
> Neandertal sequences, "fall between modern humans and chimps." Given
> the evolutionary scenario of common descent of Neandertals, modern
> humans, and chimps, yes, one would expect that all of them would be
> "equidistant" from an earlier common ancestor. Likewise, the common
> ancestor of Neandertals and humans would be located between both
> humans and Neandertals, as compared with chimps (who would have split
> off earlier). Where it seems to me that your statement is wrong is in
> saying that the Neandertal sequences that we now have (thought to be
> dating at around 20-50,000 years), "fall between modern humans and
> chimps". Clearly, Neandertal sequences do not fall between modern
> humans and chimps any more than modern human sequences fall between
> Neandertals and chimps since both Neandertals and modern humans are
> equidistant from chimps/bonobos in their sequencing.
Where does the sequence fall in the phylogeny? Put it where it belongs and then
describe the position relative to extant modern humans and chimps. It doesn't fall
on another branch it falls on the same spoke as modern humans so is it closer or
farther away from chimps than modern humans. I'll give you a hint it is impossible
for it to fall farther away from chimps than extant modern humans.
>
>
> > If you claim not to understand this, what do you think this means?
>
> See above . . .
I looked, but you are still wrong.
No, if you thought about it for 5 minutes you would know, but you just don't
bother. Draw the phylogeny out and then make the same claim.
>
>
> Where I think the theory of common descent may run into some problems
> is in the statistical significance of these findings. Equal degrees
> of divergence and various nested similarities may be the result of
> other processes that are not necessarily the result of common descent
> with modification. The theory of common descent needs to be able to
> rule out, as much as possible, these other possibilities.
Give us an example using real data.
>
>
> You see, the nested DNA patterns that we observe seem to be easily
> explained by the theory of common descent. In fact, they are
> explained fairly well by this theory. The answer here seems quite
> logical. Until . . . until one finds that certain neutral gaps in
> genetic function exist that defy any naturalistic explanation. Also,
> there is the problem that these patterns may be the result of
> differing functional needs, and not so much the result of evolutionary
> change over time.
You have yet to even put up a neutral gap that would mean anything. You are the one
that has to come up with a way to test if this idea hold water. Why can't you do
it? Use the real data and try and claim functional need. Pseudo genes would be a
good place to start or just any random sequence that doesn't have a gene in it. If
you fund the study and supply the DNA you can pick any piece of the human genome
that you want and we will look for it in humans, chimps, orangs, gibbons and a
monkey and we will see what we find and how your model holds up. You will have to
make predictions on what your model would predict for the results that would be
different from the standard expectations.
Oops, extant modern humans fall at the tip of their branch. where does the
Neandertal branch intersect. Is it closer to chimps than extant modern humans are?
You have just demonstrated that you understand that you can make a phylogeny even
though the two sequences are equidistant. The Neandertal sequences do not fall in
outerspace but fall on the "spoke" that contains modern humans. It would be
impossible for the Neandertals to fall farther away than modern humans since they
occupy the same spoke. And this helps you how? Your model still can't explain it.
At least now you know that we can make branch determinations. Do you want to talk
about what nesting is, now, or are you still confused about branch determination?
This is stupid. Deletions can be single events that delete thousands of
base-pairs. This paper, if you bothered to read it, demonstrates that just a
handful of deletions and insertions, most of the large ones involving transposable
elements are responsible for this additional change. No one measures genetic
distance this way for that reason. It is not an accurate measure of the number of
events that differentiate two genomes. Go to the paper and calculate how many
events they are talking about. The change in number of mutational events isn't
significant.
Read this paper and make the suggested calculations. You have to figure that
Britten had to publish this paper in PNAS too. Why couldn't he get it in Molecular
Evolution? Again no one measures genetic change this way because we know that it
isn't accurate. He gives the data in his paper that would allow you to determine
that it doesn't mean what you think.
Do you think that horses and donkeys have fewer indels? I'd expect even more by how
their chromosomes are so scrambled.
No, you blew it again, why would donkey-horse have fewer indels than chimp-human
since we already know that they are more different in base sequence? If they have
just as many indels than the results stay the same, if they have more as we expect
from the greater divergence in actual base sequence the difference could be even
greater.
How does having fewer genes help you. It only make evolution look more reasonable
we only had to evolve 30,000 genes to make a human. Why would nematodes share 75%
of their genes with humans? Do you think that it is due to similar environment or
lifestyle?
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
Ron Okimoto <roki...@uark.edu> wrote:
Let me just say that this is a poor way to put it, and is more likely to
lead Sean into confusion than out of it. "Between" is a property of
points on a line, not of terminal taxa on a tree. You could say that the
lineage leading to Neandertals joins the tree betwen H. sapiens and the
lineage leading to chimps if you liked. But I think saying that H.
sapiens is the sister group of H. neanderthalensis, relative to Pan, is
better.
He's got a valid point that you don't directly address. So I will.
Random sequences will indeed give you a tree. Fortunately, we do have
various methods for evaluating statistical support for phylogenetic
hypotheses, and they are commonly used to rule out "other possibilities"
as an explanation for the nodes we see on trees. If Sean would care to
discuss the specifics, a good place to start would be the evidence on
primate phylogeny, and particular the place of H. sapiens in the tree. I
would like to see him offer his alternative model to explain those data.
> There is not an either or here. Lobefins could have been found to nest
> within
> teleost fish and negate the evolutionary model. You have to explain why they
> fall
> just where they should to validate biological evolution.
You don't mean that, exactly. You mean to validate the tree we get from
morphological analyses. Finding that coelacanths nest within teleosts
doesn't validate or falsify evolution, it just lends more support to a
particular phylogenetic hypothesis. Dr. Sean: if there is no common
descent, what do you think the probability would be of two independent
sources of data agreeing on the same tree?
> This happens with
> taxa
> after taxa. Not only that but we can see from the sequence that coelacanth
> genomes
> have been evolving for tens of millions of years since the common ancestor.
> Why
> would lobefins fall where we expect and look like they have been evolving for
> all
> the time that we thought from the fossil evidence?
>
> If all this was just luck why can't they have any random sequence?
Well, of course they can't because the gene has to be functional. The
question is why all the sites free to vary can't have any random
sequence, and why the coelacanth doesn't come out as sister group of a
trout, or a lizard, or a lobster, or a juniper. Why not, if they all are
created separately? Do functional similarities in cytochrome c explain
it, and if so, what is the protein doing differently in all these
organisms, and why isn't it doing the same thing in two cold-blooded
fish, rather than in a fish and a mammal?
Given neutral evolution, the mutation rate equals the fixation rate, so
I don't see this as one of his failings.
> > > Molecular evolutionists
> > > are not stupid, you shouldn't measure people by your own failings.
> >
> > Oh really? Molecular evolutionists may not be stupid, but they are
> > sure willing to estimate mutation rates that best suit their a priori
> > conclusions. They also really have problems with those mutation rates
> > determined by more direct methods when they fly in the face of their
> > favorite theories.
>
> You are the stupid one if you equate mutation rate with substitution rate.
But this is a common assumption made by scientists. Depending on what
you mean by "equate". I would however like to see a documented case
where a scientist chooses a mutation rate for the purpose of fitting his
assumptions. That's a nasty accusation that needs to be backed up.
> How long would it take for a mutation in one bacteria in your guts to be
> fixed in
> the entire population of the world? That is the difference between mutation
> and
> substitution. Every base-pair that E. coli is different from another closely
> related species like Salmonella requires the replacement of that base-pair in
> all
> individuals of that population. How many E. coli are in the world? I grant
> that it
> would have been easier when all our ancestors lived in Africa, but the same
> applies
> to fruit flys and chimps and of course humans.
Not so. In neutral evolution, mutation rate equals fixation rate. Your
example ignores the fact that the same mutation can occur multiple times
within a population. The larger the population, the more identical
mutations occur, at a rate that exactly balances the need to become
fixed in more individuals. Don't forget your Kimura.
> > > This has all been figured out if you would take the time to stop
> > > looking at creationist clap trap and look at the real science papers.
> >
> > Oh, I have looked at real science papers. The evidence does not seem
> > to be as clear-cut as you are trying to make it out to be.
>
> That is because you never want to look at the stuff that is clear cut. You
> are only
> interested in the material that you can obfuscate to make it look like you
> have some
> type of argument. I grant you that most of our molecular efforts are
> involved in
> figuring out the tough problems because they are problems, but that doesn't
> mean
> that we haven't demonstrated that the technology and inferences work. They
> do work,
> that is why we concentrate on the tough problems because it is the only means
> we
> have of answering those questions. No one seems to get grant money trying to
> solve
> a phylogenetic problem that isn't a phylogenetic problem. Think about it for
> just 5
> minutes.
Good point. So far Sean's only example is the Neandertal control region
sequences. Let's see him try another one.
How can the nested pattern be explained by function anyway? What does
cyt c do differently in different organisms? Other than a slight need to
adapt to different operating temperatures, I don't see anything. And why
should some fish group with tetrapods, if there's a functional reason
for it? Same for any node. Just saying "function" without giving some
hypothesis to explain the particular pattern observed is vacuous. (And
of course this explanation can't even in principle account for the
nested pattern of silent variations.)
Again, fixation equals mutation if evolution is neutral. Fortunately,
the neutral rate of many types of mutation is low enough that we still
see structure after many millions of years. mt control region is not a
good guide to all sequences everywhere. You have to choose a sequence
that evolves at the right rate for the question you are asking. If you
choose the wrong sequence, the tree you get will generally have poor
statistical support.
Because 1) he overestimates the rate of neutral fixation; 2) different
rates can apply to different types of neutral mutation, e.g. transitions
and transversions; 3) dense sampling of terminal taxa (in this case
individuals) can allow you to reconstruct phylogeny even when pairwise
comparisons are saturated; 4) stabilizing selection on particular sites
can alter over time, making new sites free to vary and rendering others
no longer free, in effect reducing the rate of neutral evolution; 5)
there are many mutations that can have the same selective effect, and
the path of selection is not simple, so even sites under selection can
evolve in phylogenetically informative ways. I'm sure there are others
that I forget to mention.
>
> >
> >
> > > What really freaks everyone out is the fact that people can even
> > > consider the existence of something like a molecular clock.
> >
> > Actually, it seems as though the molecular clock hypothesis has run
> > into so many problems lately that many have suggested discarding the
> > concept of a molecular clock altogether.
>
> No. It is just one estimate, and isn't as good as a fossil and a good
> radiometric
> date, but it is still useful for relative dating. And the estimates are
> pretty good
> if you get lucky and work with the right taxa. The problem is that we expect
> lineages to evolve randomly. This means that some will be faster and some
> slower,
> and we expect some to be much faster and some to be much slower. If you get
> one of
> these in your estimate you are going to be off. It is expected.
There are also factors that change the rate of evolution, making a clock
likely to be local -- local to particular sequences in particular
restricted sets of taxa. The clock may also be overdispersed compared to
a poisson model, for reasons still unclear and probably complex.
I think you (Ron) are at fault here. You are misreading Sean's argument
completely. He's arguing with the meaning of "between". He's right.
Neandertals are not between chimps and modern humans. Your terminology
is, just as I thought, getting in the way of expressing your ideas, and
he's arguing against your terminology, not against your phylogeny.
(Well, not in this paragraph at least.)
No he doesn't. He has given a perfect explanation of Denton's argument
(above). You apparently misunderstand what Denton's argument was. Drop
this line of argument would be my advice.
> How is
> it
> different for your argument? What is the difference between the chimp and
> human
> branch and the modern human and Neandertal branch? Denton was wrong, you
> admit
> yourself that he was wrong even though chimps and humans sequences are
> equidistant
> from say a monkey common ancestor. So why is the end of the branch different
> from
> the chimp human branch? Why does Denton's argument suddenly apply to the end
> of the
> branch? The end of the branch is relative. In your own example the chimp
> and human
> sequence was the end of the branch (your spoke). Why did Denton's argument
> fail in
> that case? Where was the branch node? Was it closer to monkey or farther
> away?
Here's the whole problem. Your terminology conflates "Neandertal" and
"common ancestor of Neandertals and modern humans". It's obscuring your
point completely and allows Sean to argue with you about nothing. Drop
it.
> > You also don't seem to realize your own mistake is saying that
> > Neandertal sequences, "fall between modern humans and chimps." Given
> > the evolutionary scenario of common descent of Neandertals, modern
> > humans, and chimps, yes, one would expect that all of them would be
> > "equidistant" from an earlier common ancestor. Likewise, the common
> > ancestor of Neandertals and humans would be located between both
> > humans and Neandertals, as compared with chimps (who would have split
> > off earlier). Where it seems to me that your statement is wrong is in
> > saying that the Neandertal sequences that we now have (thought to be
> > dating at around 20-50,000 years), "fall between modern humans and
> > chimps". Clearly, Neandertal sequences do not fall between modern
> > humans and chimps any more than modern human sequences fall between
> > Neandertals and chimps since both Neandertals and modern humans are
> > equidistant from chimps/bonobos in their sequencing.
>
> Where does the sequence fall in the phylogeny? Put it where it belongs and
> then
> describe the position relative to extant modern humans and chimps. It
> doesn't fall
> on another branch it falls on the same spoke as modern humans so is it closer
> or
> farther away from chimps than modern humans. I'll give you a hint it is
> impossible
> for it to fall farther away from chimps than extant modern humans.
Sean is just plain right about this. Drop the confusing terminology, cut
your losses, and get back to arguing about something real.
> > > If you claim not to understand this, what do you think this means?
> >
> > See above . . .
>
> I looked, but you are still wrong.
He's still right. Read closely.
I think what he's saying is just equivalent to a molecular clock
hypothesis. He's not demanding a star phylogeny, contrary to what you
seem to think. In fact the second quoted statement specifically refers
to phylogenetic structure, and to genetic distance depending on recency
of common ancestry. You are just plain wrong about what he doesn't
understand here. You are trying to convince him of something he already
agrees with. Stop that and work on his real confusion, i.e. his claim
that common descent is not strongly (and uniquely) supported by the data.
> >
> >
> > Where I think the theory of common descent may run into some problems
> > is in the statistical significance of these findings. Equal degrees
> > of divergence and various nested similarities may be the result of
> > other processes that are not necessarily the result of common descent
> > with modification. The theory of common descent needs to be able to
> > rule out, as much as possible, these other possibilities.
>
> Give us an example using real data.
Yeah. Start with primate phylogeny. What other possibilities need to be
ruled out? Does any of them fit the current data as well as common
descent? Give details.
> > You see, the nested DNA patterns that we observe seem to be easily
> > explained by the theory of common descent. In fact, they are
> > explained fairly well by this theory. The answer here seems quite
> > logical. Until . . . until one finds that certain neutral gaps in
> > genetic function exist that defy any naturalistic explanation. Also,
> > there is the problem that these patterns may be the result of
> > differing functional needs, and not so much the result of evolutionary
> > change over time.
>
> You have yet to even put up a neutral gap that would mean anything. You are
> the one
> that has to come up with a way to test if this idea hold water. Why can't
> you do
> it? Use the real data and try and claim functional need. Pseudo genes would
> be a
> good place to start or just any random sequence that doesn't have a gene in
> it.
No, that's wrong. He's talking about crossing a gap between two
functional sequences (with different functions), so pseudogenes won't
test it. He's making the assumption that this gap must be bridged by
neutral mutations. It's been pointed out several times that this
assumption is unwarranted, but he ignores that. Sean: why is it
impossible that these gaps are crossed by a series of advantageous
mutations?
OK, now here he's making an odd assertion, with nothing to back it up.
(That the common human ancestor could be the same distance from chimps
as are the two human species.) But you don't question that one.
> Oops, extant modern humans fall at the tip of their branch. where does the
> Neandertal branch intersect. Is it closer to chimps than extant modern
> humans are?
> You have just demonstrated that you understand that you can make a phylogeny
> even
> though the two sequences are equidistant.
Precisely. So stop trying to convince him of that.
> The Neandertal sequences do not
> fall in
> outerspace but fall on the "spoke" that contains modern humans. It would be
> impossible for the Neandertals to fall farther away than modern humans since
> they
> occupy the same spoke.
That's silly. Of course they could fall further away, given higher
evolutionary rates on the Neandertal branch, or just ordinary variance
in the number of mutations experienced.
Yeah. Here's a perfect example of Sean picking what he likes and
throwing away what he doesn't like, regardless of how much sense either
makes. Quote mining indeed. I agree that this new measure is a silly way
to measure genetic divergence.
Good point. At least, when you're comparing divergences, use the same
measure for both species pairs.
> > To put this into some perspective consider that the human genome
> > contains far fewer genes than previous estimates indicated. It was
> > once thought that the human genome, made up of some 3 billion base
> > pairs, contained around 100,000 genes. We now know that this is not
> > the case.
> >
> > "The first analysis of the human genome was published in February,
> > revealing far fewer genes than expected. Scientists also found that
> > these genetic instructions were strikingly similar across all ethnic
> > groups, with every person sharing 99.99% of their genetic code with
> > all others. The team working at the Sanger Centre near Cambridge, the
> > main institution with public support, have pointed out in the journal
> > Nature that all current drugs on the market are based on just 483
> > biological OEtargets' in the human body and that the research has
> > hopefully uncovered many more. But the surprise is that this vast
> > diversity is described by as few as 26,000 genes - far fewer than
> > previously estimated. They also discovered that we share many genes
> > with more humble organisms - about half with the fruitfly and the
> > nematode worm [~75% with nematodes], and about a fifth with yeast.
> > According to Dr Craig Venter, of Celera Genomics, the other, privately
> > funded team, only 1.1% of the genome consists of genes - the rest
> > appears to be mostly repetitive OEjunk' - so the biological differences
--
Pokemoto
>From: harshman....@sjm.infi.net
>Date: 1/6/03 6:34 PM Central Standard Time
The post has gotten to big to display on AOL. I would like to make one
comment. I have told him that for neutral mutations the mutation rate is
related to the rate of fixation several times, but if you read his
interpretation he thinks that you can calculate the probability of any
individual accumulating a number of mutations in X number of generations. This
isn't fixation this is just the number of polymorphisms that an individual can
have due to mutations in the lineage that it comes from. This isn't fixation.
If this were true bacteria would be evolving at the phenomenal rate that he
claims, but we don't see it. I know that there are problems with the ribosomal
gene data for phylogenetic purposes, but basically for those genes bacteria
evolve at the same rate as higher eukaryotes. If they were phenomenally faster
just because they can divide every 20 minutes we would have seen a big
difference in the rate estimates.
If he thinks that he has it right he can try and explain why we don't see it in
nature.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
poke...@aol.com (Pokemoto) wrote:
How about this: the sequence is not evolving neutrally. I'm sure there
are neutral sites in there somewhere, and they probably become saturated
very quickly. It's the non-neutral sites that retain what information
there is in the sequence. (Just a guess, since I try to avoid rRNA as
much as possible.)
syvanen
We can make time estimates going back 1.5 to 2 billion years. See
http://www.vme.net/hgt/ paper 8 and references therein.
Mike Syvanen
Pokemoto
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: John Harshman harshman....@sjm.infi.net
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:42:57 +0000 (UTC)
>Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
>Lines: 41
>Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID:
><harshman.diespamdie-...@news.infinet.mindspring.com>
>References:
><harshman.diespamdie-...@news.infinet.mindspring.com>
><20030107002904...@mb-fd.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
>X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1041954177 24837 128.100.83.246 (7 Jan 2003
>15:42:57 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:42:57 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Server-Date: 7 Jan 2003 15:47:15 GMT
>User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)
Doesn't work for the shorter branch lengths. Quite a few bacterial species are
only different by less than 5 substitutions in the rRNA genes. This is far
from saturation of the variable sites. A lot of this variation is likely
sequencing errors too in this old data. They were doing Maxim and Gilbert
sequencing for a lot of the old rRNA data that was used in Wilsons old Clock
paper. You could just about bet that if you found something interesting it was
a sequencing error half the time. It has gotten just as bad today with the
reliance on automated sequencers and more people assembling contigs that don't
know what they are doing.
Ron Okimoto
Pokemoto
>Path:
sfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman)
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
>Organization: http://groups.google.com/
>Lines: 30
>Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID: <80d0c26f.03010...@posting.google.com>
>References: <fd67d42a.0211...@posting.google.com>
><kzGdnTQ0CMx...@ctc.net>
><fd67d42a.02122...@posting.google.com>
><63afe69c.02122...@posting.google.com>
><fd67d42a.03010...@posting.google.com>
><63afe69c.03010...@posting.google.com>
><fd67d42a.03010...@posting.google.com>
><63afe69c.03010...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
>X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1041802143 83819 128.100.83.246 (5 Jan 2003
>21:29:03 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
>
>
>
>Ron
>
>> Sean:
>>
>> Usually when someone responds to a post they actually say something
>> about that post. This is just a regurgipost from another thread. You
>> didn't respond to the points that I made in this post. If you want to
>> claim that you covered the material (and you did not) you should just
>> direct people to the tread or post in question. You don't have to
>> post these monsters over and over.
>
>You're the one who didn't like the title of the other post. Since I
>wished to carry on our discussion from that post under a different
>title name, I pasted my reply here as well.
>
Sean, you changed the thread and that was the third copy of the post same post.
You posted it once in one thread and then you felt you had to post it a second
time with the title that you chose. Give it up. There was really no reason
for doing it. Anyone reading the title knows that.
>Also, I do find it interesting that you can snip huge portions of my
>posts, but if I snip something from yours, inevitably, it was your
>main point. Please then, list your main point again (in your response
>to the reply I just posted today) and I will make sure and respond to
>it . . .
I've replied to this response before. You post very long post, but I, at
least, respond to part of them. What is your excuse for regurgiposting monster
post? If you can't see a difference, just think about if it is worth while
responding to a post full of nonsense, and that has been posted several times
in other threads. Not only that, but we keep seeing the same arguments that
have been refuted in other threads. Most of us don't like to repeat ourselves.
Ron Okimoto
Sean Pitman
Ron Okimoto
> > Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much.
>
> I won't waste much time on this post until you demonstrate that you
> can understand the DNA evidence that you keep trying to use. You
> haven't done that yet, and you keep making the same dumb mistakes.
> These mistakes happen to lead you in the direction that you want to
> go, so you don't seem to want to correct them.
Interesting . . . except I honestly don't seem to know what you're
talking about. Your explanations of where I am wrong just haven't
seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I am making the same "dumb"
mistakes because I really am dumb and can't help myself? Given this
possibility, it might take me a longer time to catch on to your
explanations than the average person. However, I can assure you, if I
am mistaken, I am honestly mistaken. I truly believe the ridiculous
stuff that I'm saying.
Oh, any by the way, even if your words might be wasted on me, because
of my feeble mind and slow wit, your work is not just for my benefit,
but for the benefit of others who might be following your threads to
learn from you. In any case, your time is not exactly wasted, even if
I personally don't get what you are trying to say. So, for you to
wait to reveal your brilliance until I can understand it, is not
hurting me as much as it might be hurting others who might benefit
from your thoughts. Please then, don't hold back on my account . . .
> > You should know this
> > by now. DNA has been the main point of discussion in many of the
> > threads that I've started. Obviously, if evolution is happening, it
> > is happening in the DNA. The phenotype or physical creature is
> > nothing more than a reflection of the information contained in its
> > DNA. The problem is that many, such as Keith Littleton, place undue
> > significance on morphologic/phenotypic variations that may not have
> > anything to do with genotypic (gene pool) evolution.
>
> Why are you ignoring the DNA evidence that we have for coelacanths?
I'm not ignoring the DNA evidence at all . . . at least not that I'm
aware of. The discussion with Keith Littleton was not about DNA.
Keith was discussing morphology, not DNA. He was suggesting that the
morphologic differences are all that are needed to classify living
coelacanths in different taxonomic groups than those found in the
fossil record. Even you suggest that morphology is a very subjective
basis for classification, and that was my whole point as well. But,
if you want to get into the DNA evidence for classification, that is
fine with me.
> Why concentrate on morphology, when you know that it can fool you.
Exactly. Why does Keith Littleton concentrate so much on morphology
when it can easily fool him?
> What does the DNA of the fish tell you?
What does it tell you . . . and why?
> Look at frogs, frogs have
> been evolving for 300 million years, but the different frogs still
> look pretty much like frogs. The DNA tells us that some lineages are
> very different even if they don't look like it.
This is the interesting thing about classification schemes that are
The questions that I would want to ask about frog DNA in particular,
given your suggestion that they have been evolving for 300 million
years and still look a lot alike, is, can these frogs still interbreed
to produce viable hybrids? If so, then the genetic distances that you
think are "vast" may not be as great as you think they are. The
reason for this is that many genetic changes do not involve any change
in function . . . because they are "neutral" changes. We must start
distinguishing between functional change and neutral change.
Phenotypic evolution depends upon functional changes, while neutral
genetic evolution does not. I have no problem with the theory of
neutral evolution. It is an obvious fact of nature. However, neutral
evolution is outside the influence of natural selection. Without
natural selection, neutral evolution is severely limited as far as its
ability to contribute to phenotypic or Darwinian style evolution.
There are certain limited cases where purely random or neutral changes
> It seems that you
> only like the DNA evidence when it tells you what you want to hear.
I could say the same thing about you. You only like the DNA evidence
when it tells you what you want to hear. It is called "bias". We are
all burdened with bias. None of us are purely objective in our
thinking. Bias is good to a point. It protects us from being blown
around by every crackpot theory that comes along. However, just
because I am biased in a particular direction, does not mean that you
are not also biased in another direction.
> If we had a living example of a lobefin fish from another family what
> do you think the DNA would tell us? Teleost fish evolved fairly
> recently (a couple of hundred million years ago?). All teleost fish
> from guppies to marlin are more closely related to eachother than they
> are to lobefin fish. Why would lobefin fish be more closely related
> to land vertebrates than teleost fish?
The odds are, regardless of their true origin, that one of them
(lobefin fish vs. teleost fish) would be apparently, "more closely
related to land vertebrates" than the other. If one compares two
books with a third book, the odds are that one of the two books will
be more similar to the third . . . by sequence comparison. However,
is the statistical significance valid? Or, do such similarities, by
themselves, definitely support the theory of common descent over other
possibilities?
> If we didn't have the living
> coelacanth we wouldn't know this fact, we would only be speculating on
> the conclusions of the classical taxonomists that claimed that we
> evolved from lobefin fish. Coelacanths live in the deep oceans, why
> would they be more closely related to land vertebrates than to other
> fish?
Why not? Someone has to be more closely related . . . by sheer random
chance, or similar needs for that particular genetic sequence. Upon
what basis must we assume that similarity is equivalent to common
descent?
> > Clearly DNA analysis and substitution
> It isn't worth discussing this material until you admit to your
> misconceptions. No one uses rapidly evolving D-loop sequences to
> determine genetic relationships out past a few million years.
A "few million years" might still be a problem for the resolution of
mitochondrial D-loop sequences. Consider that the sequences used (two
of them) where each less than 400 base pairs in length (333bp and
340bp respectively). The mutation rate used by Krings et. al. was
based on the a priori assumption that modern humans split off from
chimps some "4-5 million years" ago. Based on this perhaps plausible,
but indirect assumption, a substitution rate of 0.94 x 10 ^ -7
substitutions per site per year per lineage, was determined. Using
this rate, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) between humans and
Neandertals was calculated to have living about 465,000 years ago.
The MRCA of modern humans was calculated to have lived around 163,000
years ago. And, the MRCA of chimps and bonobos was calculated to have
lived around 2,844,000 years ago.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/10/5581
> It
> wouldn't even be a good measure to distinguish the great apes. We use
> other more slowly evolving sequences to determine larger genetic
> distances.
I would hope so . . . any good examples of these that really say
anything in the light of the mtDNA fiasco?
> We only use the D-loop because in the case of Neandertals
> and humans we are only talking about a few hundred thousand years.
And D-loop analysis is invalid at even this range.
> D-loop sequence wouldn't be useful to distinquish a couple of hundred
> thousand year difference if it happened 5 million years ago, but it is
> OK for events of less than half a million.
Not really. It might be ok for events a few tens of thousand of years
ago, but certainly not 500,000 years ago. In this amount of time, we
would expect a sequence of 800 base pairs to have been mutated over
800 times. What good would that do you?
> Molecular evolutionists
> are not stupid, you shouldn't measure people by your own failings.
Oh really? Molecular evolutionists may not be stupid, but they are
sure willing to estimate mutation rates that best suit their a priori
conclusions. They also really have problems with those mutation rates
determined by more direct methods when they fly in the face of their
favorite theories.
> This has all been figured out if you would take the time to stop
> looking at creationist clap trap and look at the real science papers.
Oh, I have looked at real science papers. The evidence does not seem
to be as clear-cut as you are trying to make it out to be.
> The fact is that we only use D-loop sequence to differentiate recent
> divergence events.
Not as recent as they need to be evidently.
> It isn't accurate for species that are too
> divergent. Cyt c is a fairly highly conserved protein, but it is only
> 100 amino acids in length. Hemoglobin is less conserved and it is
> short too. They may use hemoglobin out to around 300 million years,
> but we know that that is stretching things and it is not a good
> measure. It is adequate for, say looking into the relationships among
> placental mammals that evolved within the last 100 million years, but
> it isn't a gene that we would use for greater divergence times.
But, the fact of the matter is that cytochrome c sequences are used
all the time in popular literature to support phylogenies spanning
hundreds of millions of years. To use such highly conserved proteins
is problematic for at least two reasons: One reason is that any sort
of mutation rate at all would quickly destroy its usefulness as a
phylogenetic tool. Another reason is that it is "conserved" for a
very important reason. It is functional. It is not like the D-loop
regions that have no known coding function. In other words, it is
subject to selection pressures and maintenance. How can a functional
protein be used as a phylogenetic tool to estimate evolutionary
relationships and divergent times? Such nested differences, which are
observed between different creatures using this protein (and others
like hemoglobin), might be better explained by different needs that
maintain the nested characteristics of such proteins. The nested
differences among functional proteins need not be based upon
evolutionary changes at all, but upon different functional
requirements of the creatures that they are in.
> Just
> as you have indicated the limiting factor is saturation time.
Saturation time is just one limiting factor when we are talking
functional proteins. For a functional protein, other limiting factors
come into play, such as a need for a slightly different protein for
slightly different needs of different creatures. The differences
themselves might be selectively advantageous for a given creature as
compared to another creature where certain protein differences would
also be selectively advantageous. Thus, to say that these differences
are the result of common ancestry is not necessarily true. The fact
is that these differences may have always been there because of a
functional need for the differences.
> Once a
> significant fraction of the sites have been hit multple hits start
> messing up your analysis. The guys looking into our relationship with
> bacteria are using much more conserved genes. Larger cytochrome genes
> and common genes like ATPases. Different genes have different rates
> of substitution.
Considering that bacteria, such as E. coli, have very rapid generation
times as well as fairly high average mutation rates, such "larger"
genes are still worthless as for as determining anything about their
supposed evolutionary history over the course of millions upon
millions of years. Do you know what the average mutation rate is for
an E. coli gene? The E. coli genome consists of a single molecule of
DNA containing around 4,639,221 base pairs. These encode 4,288
proteins and 89 RNAs. An average gene in E. coli will mutate at about
1 x 10 ^ - 6 to 1 x 10 ^ - 7 mutations per generation. "Higher"
eukaryotes have the same rate of spontaneous mutation, so that rates
per sexual generation are about one or two mutations per gamete
(anything higher would approach lethal limits). Some estimates for
mammals are around 2.2 mutations per genome per generation (around 3
billion base pairs). With a gene being mutated every 1 to 10 million
generations in E. coli, one might think this would be a long time.
However, each and every gene in an E. coli lineage will get mutated
once every 40 to 80 years. So, in one million years, each gene will
have suffered at least 10,000 mutations.
So, tell me again at what rate you think bacterial genes mutate so as
to establish any reasonable evolutionary phylogenies based on these
differences?
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/micro/316/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Esch.coli.html
> Not mutation, but of how rapidly changes in the
> genes are fixed in the population. Genes like Histones aren't very
> useful phylogenetic genes because we only have one difference between
> mammals and plants for some of them. The DNA sequence of the Histone
> genes can be very different but this is only due to the degenerate
> code. The 2, 4 and 6 codon families means that we can change the DNA
> sequence quite a bit without changing the amino acid sequence of the
> protein, but these sites have likely be hit multiple times in the
> evolution between plants and animals and contain no phylogenetic
> information. Again, this has all been worked out, you are complaining
> about nothing.
Actually, this fits in well with what I am complaining about. Many
genetic mutations do not necessarily result in amino acid changes
because of the redundancy of the genetic code. Thus, DNA mutations
may happen, but as long as the protein sequences don't change, natural
selection doesn't care because the protein that is produced still
works the same as it always did. Therefore, such mutations are
"neutral". These can add up very quickly, and thus obliterate any
phylogenetic usefulness. This is a problem, as you also pointed out
above.
> We aren't talking about simple mutation rate, but we are talking about
> the rate of substitution. This is the rate at which mutations are
> fixed in a population and become diagnostic for that population. An
> E. coli bacterium may divide every 30 minutes, but how long would it
> take for a mutation that occured in your guts to be distributed
> throughout the entire E. coli population of the world?
I fail to see your point. Every living E. coli bacterium has arisen
from an unbroken chain of bacteria stretching all the way back to the
first ancestor bacterium. Thus, each living E. coli bacterium is
approximately equidistant from that original E. coli bacterium. All
of the lineages that gave rise to each and every one of the living
bacterium in the whole world experienced approximately the same number
of mutational events. Because of this, you cannot compare any single
E. coli sequence with another sequence from some other creature that
is anything more than a few tens of thousands of years separated from
it. Why? Because in that amount of time, each and every gene in that
E. coli bacterium's cell line would have been mutated at a rate high
enough to make phylogenetic comparisons worthless. It doesn't matter
the exact type of mutation involved you see. The absolute number of
mutations is what is important here. Because of this, no particular
mutation or substitution needs to be "fixed" in all the E. coli of the
world in order to destroy the potential usefulness of such sequences
as tools for phylogenetic comparisons.
> What really freaks everyone out is the fact that people can even
> consider the existence of something like a molecular clock.
Actually, it seems as though the molecular clock hypothesis has run
into so many problems lately that many have suggested discarding the
concept of a molecular clock altogether.
> It seems
> to be some type of cosmic accident that the same genes in bacteria
> seem to evolve at the same rate as the same genes in higher animals.
I like to use the word "mutate" instead of the word "evolve". I
realize that according to many definitions the meanings are pretty
much the same, but for me, the word "evolve" should be reserved for
"functional" change or evolution. Many genetic mutations are
"neutral" and do not involve a change or evolution of function.
> We are ignorant of the reason for this. Kimura predicted that neutral
> fixation would be associated with mutation rate and would approximate
> the rate of mutation, but these things probably haven't been constant
> over the billions of years that we are talking about. We also have
> the problem that when we look at these deep branch points we are
> usually looking at non synonomous changes (changes in amino acid
> sequence) that probably do not fit the neutral theory.
Yes. The neutral theory of evolution, as I understand it, only
describes the nature of nonfunctional or "neutral" genetic changes.
These neutral changes are, of course, beyond the guidance/influence of
natural selection. Those changes that are functional, on the other
hand, are very different in that they are influenced by natural
selection. Because of this, they act differently than those neutral
mutations that are not influenced by natural selection. Kimura
himself noted that Darwinian evolution was not explained by his
neutral theory. Darwinian style evolution depends on the evolution of
new and unique functions, not just on neutral genetic drift and
fixation.
> There are many
> exceptions, but things seem to be constant enough or have averaged out
> over long periods of time to allow us to get some type of reasonable
> guess about divergence times using molecular data.
I disagree for the reasons detailed above . . .
_____________
Your second reply
> >Please... how many times has my name been seen in a post title? It
> >is just a way to draw special attention to a particular topic of
> >discussion that you just so happened to bring up. The genetics of
> >horses, donkeys and mules just so happens to be quite interesting.
>
> Do you want to know why people think that you have an honesty problem. It is
> because you have an honesty problem.
Oh, now that's coherent . . .
> Anyone that believes this bull would definitely be a candidate to believe the
> rest of your bull.
This is another winner! Anyone who believes what I say . . . will
believe what I say? Ok, is that not a statement of the obvious?
> You just happened to post just about the same thing in two posts and put one up
> with the title that you chose. Yeah, everyone believes that. What a smuck.
What? I completely lost you on this one. What the heck are you
trying to say? I posted the same thing under a new thread title,
because you didn't seem to like the one with your name in the title.
> >However, if you do not wish your name in titles from now on... that's
> >fine with me. I won't put your name in any more titles. Also, I
> >will repost this reply under a new thread title (Phylogenetics -
> >Where Michael Denton Went Wrong).
>
> You say this and you even have something coherant later in the post that might
> make someone believe it, but then you also write:
>
> "If two things are equidistant from a third reference point, then one
> of the two equidistant objects cannot be "closer" to the reference
> point than the other. Why? Because, by definition, they are
> "equidistant." I'm obviously crazy here, but if Neandertals and
> humans are equidistant from chimps, then it seems logical to me that
> the Neandertal mtDNA sequences that were analyzed cannot, "fall
> between modern humans and chimps." If they did fall between modern
> humans and chimps, then they would not be equidistant from chimps but
> would be more similar in their sequencing. But, last time I presented
> this question, you said,
>
> "Idiot. This is beneath even you. If the sequences fell where you say,
> why would modern humans be 500,000 years distant from the Neandertal type
> common ancestor and 5-8 million from the chimp human ancestor. By anyone's
> measure this is between modern humans (75,000 to 150,000) and chimps."
Again, by this rational, modern humans would also be "between
Neandertals and chimps".
> You are an idiot. This is Denton's equidistant argument. Go back and look at
> it and compare what you are saying here to what you claim to understand later
> in the post. You know exactly why two equidistant sequences can contain
> phylogenetic information, but you choose to ignore it when you want to. How
> can you be this stupid? You understand that all ape lineages including
> Neandertal are equidistant from the some common ancestor like the ape common
> ancestor, and that you can still determine that Neandertals are more closely
> related to modern humans than to chimps, but you chose to use Denton's
> equidistant argument anyways. If you are not an idiot, what are you?
Again . . . you lost me. You apparently don't know what Denton's
equidistant argument really was, why it was wrong, or at least how it
is different from my argument. Denton was confused because he
thought that organisms should be more and more diverged as one moved
up the scale of creature complexity. He initially didn't understand
that bacteria and other "simple" organisms would be expected to
continue to mutate even while maintaining their similar morphologies.
Denton thought that uniform degrees of divergence between simple
organisms such as yeast and silkworms and organisms that were
"obviously" increasing in complexity, such as wheat, lamprey, tuna,
bullfrogs, snapping turtles, penguins, kangaroos, horses, and humans,
would be a problem for the theory of evolution to explain. He was
wrong because of the fact that "simple" organisms would continue to
mutate just as much as the evolving "complex" organisms as they
branched off the evolutionary tree.
You also don't seem to realize your own mistake is saying that
Neandertal sequences, "fall between modern humans and chimps." Given
the evolutionary scenario of common descent of Neandertals, modern
humans, and chimps, yes, one would expect that all of them would be
"equidistant" from an earlier common ancestor. Likewise, the common
ancestor of Neandertals and humans would be located between both
humans and Neandertals, as compared with chimps (who would have split
off earlier). Where it seems to me that your statement is wrong is in
saying that the Neandertal sequences that we now have (thought to be
dating at around 20-50,000 years), "fall between modern humans and
chimps". Clearly, Neandertal sequences do not fall between modern
humans and chimps any more than modern human sequences fall between
Neandertals and chimps since both Neandertals and modern humans are
equidistant from chimps/bonobos in their sequencing.
> If you claim not to understand this, what do you think this means?
See above . . .
You continue by quoting me:
Where I think the theory of common descent may run into some problems
is in the statistical significance of these findings. Equal degrees
of divergence and various nested similarities may be the result of
other processes that are not necessarily the result of common descent
with modification. The theory of common descent needs to be able to
rule out, as much as possible, these other possibilities.
You see, the nested DNA patterns that we observe seem to be easily
explained by the theory of common descent. In fact, they are
explained fairly well by this theory. The answer here seems quite
logical. Until . . . until one finds that certain neutral gaps in
genetic function exist that defy any naturalistic explanation. Also,
there is the problem that these patterns may be the result of
differing functional needs, and not so much the result of evolutionary
change over time.
> Think about sharing one wheel of a spoke and still being equidistant from a
> I appologize for the unorthodox quoting, but your post is so long that I can't
> quote it all in a response.
That's fine. Respond to whatever interests you the most.
> You do not understand what you are talking about. You blew off my whole
> explanation and all we get is chatter that is contradictory.
Actually, I responded to your entire first post and part of your
second. Where did I blow off your whole explanation? What exactly
did you write that would clear everything up here? It's fine to
repeat stuff if I didn't happen to catch it the first time you know.
> If you understand the last statements that I quoted (you did write it or did
> you crib it from some other source?) you should be able to understand why we
> can tell that the Neandertal sequence falls between chimps and humans. Let's
> see you explain why you are wrong. If you don't understand why you are wrong,
> I will try and explain it to you one more time if you don't try and bullshit
> me.
Perhaps you had better try one more time because I certainly don't see
how the Neandertal sequences "fall between modern humans and chimps"
as you say they do. They don't. They are equidistant at best with
modern humans from chimps. The Neandertal-human common ancestor MIGHT
have fallen between humans and chimps, but no one can say that for
sure. And, even if the Neandertal-human common ancestor did fall
between modern humans and chimps, that would not help you. You are
saying that Neandertal sequences fall between humans and chimps.
Clearly, the common ancestor with modern humans and Neandertals cannot
be called "Neandertal" any more than he/she can be called "modern
human." Please . . . do clarify yourself again. It seems to me
that you simply have a problem admitting any sort of error, however
small, to a YEC like myself.
Oh, by the way, your idea that humans and chimps are more closely
related than horses and donkeys may have even more problems. "We
[humans] are more unique than previously thought, according to new
comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that
we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest
relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than
95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the
To put this into some perspective consider that the human genome
contains far fewer genes than previous estimates indicated. It was
once thought that the human genome, made up of some 3 billion base
pairs, contained around 100,000 genes. We now know that this is not
the case.
"The first analysis of the human genome was published in February,
revealing far fewer genes than expected. Scientists also found that
these genetic instructions were strikingly similar across all ethnic
groups, with every person sharing 99.99% of their genetic code with
all others. The team working at the Sanger Centre near Cambridge, the
main institution with public support, have pointed out in the journal
Nature that all current drugs on the market are based on just 483
biological ?targets' in the human body and that the research has
hopefully uncovered many more. But the surprise is that this vast
diversity is described by as few as 26,000 genes - far fewer than
previously estimated. They also discovered that we share many genes
with more humble organisms - about half with the fruitfly and the
nematode worm [~75% with nematodes], and about a fifth with yeast.
According to Dr Craig Venter, of Celera Genomics, the other, privately
funded team, only 1.1% of the genome consists of genes - the rest
appears to be mostly repetitive ?junk' - so the biological differences
that influence everything from our looks to our intellectual ability
boil down to differences between 1,000 and 10,000 genetic letters."
(Telegraph 2001; 12 February)
http://www.ethicsforschools.org/news/genetics.htm
So, yes, our DNA is still quite similar to that of chimps, however, it
might not be as similar as we previously thought. Also, there is good
evidence to think that we have some very important differences, to
include differences in important genes that make us significantly more
dissimilar than horses and donkeys are. Why do I think this?
Because, horses and donkeys can mate and produce viable offspring
while chimps and humans cannot. This means that even though many of
their genes may be found on different areas of different chromosomes,
the genes of horses and donkeys all match up during meiosis while
those of humans and chimps do not. And don't tell me that humans
never have sex with monkeys . . . because it happens all the time, and
yet no hybrids are born. This fact, in itself, is very good evidence
for the greater distance between human-chimp DNA than between
donkey-horse DNA.
In any case, I do thank-you for these last two replies and the time
John Harshman
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
[snip regurgipost]
Is Dr. Sean now reduced to repeating previous posts verbatim? Sad.
The last time he posted this, several people replied at length. So far
he hasn't answered any of them. There seems no point for anyone to reply
to this one, at least not with anything more than this.
Ron Okimoto
Didn't I respond to this exact post in detail around 4 days ago?
Remember your sensitivity for people complaining that you post the
same thing too many times. If there is something new in this post you
may just want to snip all the repeat and post just the new material.
Reposting these monster posts is pretty senseless.
Ron Okimoto
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
Déją vu.
I want to address a few of your comments, but will likely split it up
into several smaller posts.
>Ron Okimoto
>
>Ron Okimoto
>
>
>> > Actually, I do like the DNA evidence very much.
>>
>> I won't waste much time on this post until you demonstrate that you
>> can understand the DNA evidence that you keep trying to use. You
>> haven't done that yet, and you keep making the same dumb mistakes.
>> These mistakes happen to lead you in the direction that you want to
>> go, so you don't seem to want to correct them.
>
>Interesting . . . except I honestly don't seem to know what you're
>talking about. Your explanations of where I am wrong just haven't
>seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I am making the same "dumb"
>mistakes because I really am dumb and can't help myself? Given this
>possibility, it might take me a longer time to catch on to your
>explanations than the average person. However, I can assure you, if I
>am mistaken, I am honestly mistaken. I truly believe the ridiculous
>stuff that I'm saying.
>
>Oh, any by the way, even if your words might be wasted on me, because
>of my feeble mind and slow wit, your work is not just for my benefit,
>but for the benefit of others who might be following your threads to
>learn from you. In any case, your time is not exactly wasted, even if
>I personally don't get what you are trying to say. So, for you to
>wait to reveal your brilliance until I can understand it, is not
>hurting me as much as it might be hurting others who might benefit
>from your thoughts. Please then, don't hold back on my account . . .
[MASSIVE SNIP]
Perhaps you don't realize just how complex an issue this is. You seem
to have a very simplistic picture of how DNA works and the ways in which
it is useful in phylogenetic classifications. Granted, DNA is hardly
analogous to a roadmap of evolution, but nobody expects this either.
You seem to think that scientists plug two creatures into some kind of
black box and out comes a cladogram. It's a lot more work than that
and, of course, there is speculation and assumption, but that's all part
of the inductive nature of science. If you think you have a theory that
explains the data better, then you are free to present it, but your
presentations so far amount to strawman attacks or incredulity. You
(and every other creationist to date) have not actually come up with
anything that adds to the knowledge base of science (no explanatory nor
predictive power).
If you think Ron is "hurting others who might benefit" by not engaging
in what amounts to several semesters of graduate-level instruction,
consider that your only supporter in this newsgroup (IFAIA) is Zoe and a
cursory scan of the archives will show that attempting to educate her is
an exercise in futility.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE Dept. of Biological Sciences
who...@siue.edu
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Sean Pitman
> Didn't I respond to this exact post in detail around 4 days ago?
> Remember your sensitivity for people complaining that you post the
> same thing too many times. If there is something new in this post you
> may just want to snip all the repeat and post just the new material.
> Reposting these monster posts is pretty senseless.
Actually Ron, this repost was in direct reply to your previous post
that you were complaining that I never answered (post #44). My post
(#45) was confusing in that it was not a response to your #44 post,
but to a post you made in another thread. In response to this post
you wrote:
"Usually when someone responds to a post they actually say something
about that post. This is just a regurgipost from another thread. You
didn't respond to the points that I made in this post."
I was trying to redirect the conversation from a thread where you
didn't like to title of the post to this one. In any case, the #50
post is in direct response to your #44 post. However, you evidently
didn't see this post because in my post (#47) I said, "Your response
to the above post can be found in a post that I just posted today.
I'm sure you will find it as irritating and "monstrous" as ever. You
responded by saying, "Probably, I haven't seen it yet." I'm not sure
why you never saw it since it posted the same day (Jan 5). So, I
waited over a week to see what you would come back with, but figured
you simply never saw the post since you never came back with any
blustering reply as you usually do. So, to draw your attention to it,
I posted it again.
If you do not wish to "waist your time further" on someone as crazy as
I am, that's fine, but I just thought I'd give you the chance to come
back with something if you felt the need. I thought that perhaps you
might could use a good foil as a springboard for your ideas?
Sean
Ron Okimoto
I'm afraid that you missed the post. Go to this thread in Google and
and look at the bottom. For some reason the post was disconnected
from your post when I used Google to post my response. It is Jan 6.
Harshman responded to it. This shorter link may get you there. If
you tried not to write these long posts with basically nothing in
them, we might not have this problem.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=3E1A10E9...@mail.uark.edu
Ron Okimoto