Trying to get a straight answer out of Sean Pitman....
richardal...@googlemail.com
(http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilrecord.html)
"Many layers also have only a limited number of preserved creatures -
far too limited an array to support a viable ecosystem. For example,
the fossils of some layers consist primarily of large meat eating
dinosaurs. Yet, there simply aren't near the number of preserved
creatures that could serve as prey for these very large carnivores.
What on Earth did they live on for millions of years? How did they
get preserved in abundance in certain layers while other creatures did
not?"
After an exchange of posts (see the thread entitled "Sean and predator
traps") in which Sean repeatedly tried to change the subject to the
lack of plant fossils in the Morrison Formation (which I have
addressed in another thread entitled "Morrison Formation and plant
fossils. More from the PPU....", and to which Sean has not responded)
I have the following from Sean:
"The term "some layers" is in reference to the geologic column as a
whole. The Morrison Formation does indeed make up "some layers"
within the geologic column. I also specifically refered to the
Morrison Formation in this section so there should have been no doubt
that this formation includes the "layers" I was talking about.
In any case, I've modified this section to make it even more clear
that I am indeed talking the Morrison Formation as a whole as are the
references cited in this passage."
My question to Sean:
So you are you trying to say:
1) that the *whole* of the Morrison Formation contains an over-
abundance of carnivores
2) there are horizons in the Morrison Formation with a large lateral
extent which contain an over-abundance of carnivores?
or
3) that some localities within the Morrison Formation contain an over-
abundance of carnivores?
I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by the passage on your site.
I have no interest in misrepresenting your case.
And please note that this has *nothing* to do with the lack of plant
fossils in the Morrison Formation, which I have addressed elsewhere,
RF
Homer Sapiens
Since when is there an expectation that fossilization would capture a
perfect picture of ecosystem components. There are many factors that
would enhance the preservation of some ecosystem inhabitants while
other factors may prove to be an impediment to fossilization. Its
lucky that there are as many fossils as there are of any variety. What
is the point that Sean is trying to make?
richardal...@googlemail.com
As far as I can understand, he seems to be arguing that if there is
any phenomenon in any branch of any science remotely related to any
aspect of palaeontology, evolutionary biology or geology for which he
does not know of an explanation, we have to reject the whole of
palaeontology, evolutionary biology and geology in favour of his
"sophisticated" flood model. The fact that there is no evidence
whatsoever to support any aspect of his "theory", and that his
knowledge of palaeontology, evolutionary biology and geology is very
limited is irrelevant as far as he is concerned.
RF
_Arthur
Foliage, wood and bones fossilize the exact same way, by the exact
same process, yes?
richardal...@googlemail.com
Not always. Fossilisation can depend on a number of factors, and
preservation can be variable. For example, belemnites are usually
preserved as guards, and the phragmacones lost. However, there are
some sites where only phragmacones are preserved and the guards lost.
It depends on the chemistry of the sediments in which they are
preserved.
As for wood and bone, they are frequently preserved together. However,
a major difference between wood and bone is that wood floats in water,
whereas bone doesn't. Wood tends to be carried further.
In the case of the Morrison Formation, the reason why there is not
much wood is that there wasn't ,much wood around. It was an
environment rather like the modern Serengeti Plains, with sparse and
scrubby woodland, and with rivers meandering across a broad flood
plain.
RF
_Arthur
And, of course, bone and vegetal matter decompose at the same rate,
say, lying on the soil.
Cj
> And, of course, bone and vegetal matter decompose at the same rate,
> say, lying on the soil.
>
Do you have a point?
Cj
_Arthur
> "_Arthur" <Arth...@sympatico.ca> wrote
Just that it is perfectly normal to find a trove of fossil bones
without fossilized vegetable mattter nearby, as it is possible that in
some sites the long bones be "oriented" due to some effect of water or
soil, and in others no such orientation is to be found. These are
extremely poor arguments for a global flood, but Sean Pitman is not
picky, and he stands foursquare behind even bad arguments he cannot
support with evidence or even argumentation.
Cj
news:2c02924f-7cc4-42e6...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Thanks... clearly SP has no arguments for a global flood.
chris thompson
> "_Arthur" <Arth...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
Anyone who argues that a flood can order *anything* in a particular
fashion is (a)someone who has never seen the aftermath of a flood, or
(b)a liar, or (c)insane. Note that these categories are not mutually
exclusive.
Chris