Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[ChordatesLegacy]

Here’s an excellent site explaining the carboniferous coal formation and how climate controlled the cyclothems seen world wide.

LINK

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

"Mutation is the main source of genetic variability, and for neutral sequence it is the driving force5. The rarity of mutation events, however, generally prohibits analyses of how genetic change from one generation to another contributes to molecular evolution.."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v24/n4/full/ng0400_400.html

The present life process genetic changes are mostly due to mutation. This brings to mind a question. Was mutation also involved, per se, in the former life processes, as the way live evolved, adapted, and changed?? If so, how do we know? If not, then it is merely the way things now come down.
Now if mutating was also in place, but happened hyper fast, pre present state, then, the present rates of mutation are meaningless!
Either way, your point is totally neutered.


As brought out, that is how it now works.

No. There is no indication I have yet seen that mutations, if there were any, in the former state, were less than beneficial, in today's percentage rates.

Well, hyper evolution meant that things almost adapted on the fly. No long ages were needed. How fast it could happen, I don't think we now know. I suspect if a little critter came to a wet and watery area, maybe swampy, that it could adapt in short order, to simply carry on!!! Maybe in days, weeks, or months. Certainly years.
I look at the serpent in Eden, and see that it was changed awfully fast, and evolved negatively, having to crawl on the ground. How long did that take???? I don't think we know. Maybe it took all day? Maybe it took months?? Maybe hours?? But not millions of years.
Therefore, we cannot look to present degraded man, and his present temporary universe laws, and life processes, to see how it used to work.

Not unless, of course, you first prove that all was in the same state back then. That can't be done.

That is nice.

I see you are still making it up as you go along.

 

[Patashu]

"Mutation is the main source of genetic variability, and for neutral sequence it is the driving force5. The rarity of mutation events, however, generally prohibits analyses of how genetic change from one generation to another contributes to molecular evolution.."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v24/n4/full/ng0400_400.html

The present life process genetic changes are mostly due to mutation. This brings to mind a question. Was mutation also involved, per se, in the former life processes, as the way live evolved, adapted, and changed?? If so, how do we know? If not, then it is merely the way things now come down.
Now if mutating was also in place, but happened hyper fast, pre present state, then, the present rates of mutation are meaningless!
Either way, your point is totally neutered.


As brought out, that is how it now works.

No. There is no indication I have yet seen that mutations, if there were any, in the former state, were less than beneficial, in today's percentage rates.

Well, hyper evolution meant that things almost adapted on the fly. No long ages were needed. How fast it could happen, I don't think we now know. I suspect if a little critter came to a wet and watery area, maybe swampy, that it could adapt in short order, to simply carry on!!! Maybe in days, weeks, or months. Certainly years.
I look at the serpent in Eden, and see that it was changed awfully fast, and evolved negatively, having to crawl on the ground. How long did that take???? I don't think we know. Maybe it took all day? Maybe it took months?? Maybe hours?? But not millions of years.
Therefore, we cannot look to present degraded man, and his present temporary universe laws, and life processes, to see how it used to work.

Not unless, of course, you first prove that all was in the same state back then. That can't be done.

That is nice.

Just an FYI, the serpent changing in the garden is not an example of evolution; evolution changes populations, not individuals.

 

[Patashu]

Also, wow. Why don't YOU prove that things were different in the past, dad? Your claim so you back it up.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Also, wow. Why don't YOU prove that things were different in the past, dad? Your claim so you back it up.

Not that I would ever defend Dad, but some things do change through time, including the oxygen content of the atmosphere.

Link


Link to science paper on O2 levels

 

[Vene]

Not that I would ever defend Dad, but some things do change through time, including the oxygen content of the atmosphere.

Link


Link to science paper on O2 levels

Well, sure, but he's claiming that the speed of light changed, the rate of nuclear decay changed, and the DNA was fundamentally different in the past.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, sure, but he's claiming that the speed of light changed, the rate of nuclear decay changed, and the DNA was fundamentally different in the past.

Earlier people have pointed out to Dad how Supernova 1987A would shoot the speed of light change. I forget how he circumvented that. Dad never stops with his reliance on the unknowable past, so there is no evidence that you can provide that Dad will ever accept as subverting his claims.

It frees him from having to support his own claims. But then you will have to support yours or he'll get snarky.

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

 

[Patashu]

Not that I would ever defend Dad, but some things do change through time, including the oxygen content of the atmosphere.

Link


Link to science paper on O2 levels

That's fine. We know the O2 content of the planet can change but what dad is proposing is really out there. Laws of physics suddenly and simultaneously leaping into left field, the very logic of the universe itself changing. No one has ever observed or deduced that a natural law has changed.

 

[dad]

Just an FYI, the serpent changing in the garden is not an example of evolution; evolution changes populations, not individuals.

Darwinism, that is. I see no reason indiviuals were not rapidly evolved as needed, and their offspring became what we might consider another class, or family, species, or whatever.

 

[dad]

Not that I would ever defend Dad, but some things do change through time, including the oxygen content of the atmosphere.






Link


Link to science paper on O2 levels

Of course there are many things even science know has changed. Like the atmosphere, the continents being together, the size and variety of creatures, etc.
Then there are events like meteor bombardments, and magnetic reversals, etc which they try to fit into their models.
There are gaping holes in the conclusions of many of these things. For example, most, repeat most of this very universe we are in is unknown stuff, they claim. Then we can look at the theories that try to explain the moon, like the impact theory, or ones that try to explain how water got to earth enough for oceans.
"Scientists believe the Earth had two primary sources of water: first, the gases released from volcanoes contained water vapor, which created clouds and eventually rain. Second, small ice comets and frozen asteroids collided with the ancient Earth, providing water for its basins. Approximately 4 billion years ago, Earth’s surface cooled enough for this frozen source of water to exist as a liquid."
http://www.ocean.com/resource.asp?resourceid=1192

It is clear there were many many differences in the past. (Most of them made up!)

 

[dad]

Also, wow. Why don't YOU prove that things were different in the past, dad? Your claim so you back it up.

Because I have the honesty to admit I don't know. So called science has the unmitigated gall to make stuff up.

 

[dad]

Here’s an excellent site explaining the carboniferous coal formation and how climate controlled the cyclothems seen world wide.

LINK

Hey, I looked at your link, it did nothing at all but rattle on telling a tory. What you need is more depth. For example, the proof that there was really an ice sheet at the time.

A few boulders in one deposit, that was offered previously here, really do not do that.

 

[RedAndy]

Because I have the honesty to admit I don't know. So called science has the unmitigated gall to make stuff up.

For someone who doesn't know, you certainly seem keen to postulate vast swathes of drivel that isn't even supported by Scripture, let alone evidence.

 

[dad]

For someone who doesn't know, you certainly seem keen to postulate vast swathes of drivel that isn't even supported by Scripture, let alone evidence.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Anything I adopt fits the evidence, and scripture.

I don't postulate drivel, I hand out tissues to wipe up the drivel that is taught as if it were part of genuine science.

 

[RedAndy]

Anything I adopt fits the evidence, and scripture.

Only with one of these:

 

[dad]

Only with one of these:

I would probably at least want to see the face before I adopt her. Not blind faith in science, that.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Hey, I looked at your link, it did nothing at all but rattle on telling a tory. What you need is more depth. For example, the proof that there was really an ice sheet at the time.

A few boulders in one deposit, that was offered previously here, really do not do that.

You are not interested in evidence, but just in case you are, here are a few links to science papers on the subject.

http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/7/960

http://intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/151

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/279

http://geoweb.tamu.edu/faculty/grossman/Grossman02.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-3SWJNSY-X&_user=144092&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000011978&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=144092&md5=a3ae87ed5a3a20e30d975076e9a05df2


http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/8/1020

http://intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/347

http://www.springerlink.com/content/yqvfykn4w92g682n/

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1997.d01-35.x

 

[dad]

You are not interested in evidence, but just in case you are, here are a few links to science papers on the subject.

http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/7/960

From there..
"Increases in delta 13 C probably reflect global increases in sedimentary organic carbon burial and suggest that pCO 2 declines in the earliest and middle Carboniferous strata. The middle Carboniferous delta 13 C shift of B. Popp, T. Anderson, and P. Sandberg, an approximately 3 per mil increase in European sections, occurs in North America (C2-C3 transition) but is limited to approximately 1.5 per mil. This 1.5 per mil increase was probably caused by increased organic carbon burial, whereas the additional approximately 1.5 per mil shift in European sections likely reflects changes in ocean circulation patterns associated with the closing of the Equatorial seaway."

Now, that is vague. They assign dreamed up reasons to carbon levels. How about they are full of assumptions, and really don't know what they are talking about? Purest fiction.

http://intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/151

From that
" The cause of the late Paleozoic (ca. 355–255 Ma) ice age remains uncertain. A lowering of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels near the beginning of this time period occurred in response to the rise of land plants and likely cooled Earth, but the rapid growth of extensive Gondwanan ice sheets was delayed for tens of millions of years, until the Late Mississippian. The

13C values from a thick succession at Arrow Canyon, Nevada, indicate a divergence between North America and Europe (

2

)"
Like where is there evidence for the claimed ice??? A bunch of yap yap story telling. Why does C13 =ice??
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/279

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/279

" Direct evidence of the late Paleozoic glaciation of Gondwana from glacial deposits suggests that geographically extensive continental glaciation began some time in the Namurian (Late Mississippian). However, the timing and characteristics of the onset of glaciation are poorly understood because of a lack of reliable paleontological control and reworking of initial glacial deposits by subsequent glacial advances."
Say what?? Where IS this direct evidence???? Even pretending they have it, they still say it is poorly understood!!!! That a scream!!! Kids....run for the hills.
http://geoweb.tamu.edu/faculty/grossman/Grossman02.pdf

http://geoweb.tamu.edu/faculty/grossman/Grossman02.pdf

"A total of 134 shells were analyzed from the
Askyn, Sokol, Zilim, and Kamen Perevolochny sections in the Urals. The most important feature of this record is a sharp
increase in d18O and d13C at the Serpukhovian-Bashkirian boundary."

So???? How about explaining why the d180 supposedly meant?? This stuff is tall tales for the gullible.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=144092&md5=a3ae87ed5a3a20e30d975076e9a05df2

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-3SWJNSY-X&_user=144092&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000011978&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=144092&md5=a3ae87ed5a3a20e30d975076e9a05df2

"At least four diamictite-bearing intervals of Early Carboniferous age, containing faceted pebbles, trapezoidal cobbles and boulders up to 1000 m3 in volume, have been recognized and traced for over 200 km along the Tethys Himalayan Zone of South Tibet, from east of Everest to west of Shishapangma. These largely glacio-marine sediments, intercalated within the Rakyang Formation, which overlies lower Tournaisian limestones and underlies lower Bashkirian black shales, were deposited during the Visean to Serpukhovian."


Now, the Himalayas, likely, were pushed up after the flood, maybe at the split. Finding marine residue there is hardly proof of ice.


http://intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/347

http://intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/347

-more carbon level same past state assumptions.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/yqvfykn4w92g682n/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/yqvfykn4w92g682n/

"Application of an ice sheet model developed for the Pleistocene to the extensive Carboniferous glaciation on Gondwana yields an ice sheet which has several features consistent with observations. While complete deglaciation is not achieved without CO2 changes, the Milankovich-induced fluctuations in ice sheet volume are comparable to Pleistocene glacial/ interglacial signals."
Here they admit they simply ran a 'model'. Yet it seems still to only bear passing resemblance to actual observation. Absurd.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1997.d01-35.x

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1997.d01-35.x

"The Late Westphalian to Artinskian glaciomarine deposits of the Karoo and Kalahari basins of southern Africa consist of massive and stratified diamictite, mudrock with ice‐rafted material, sandstone, silty rhythmite, shale and subordinate conglomerate forming a cyclic succession recognizable across both basins."

Now, please show us this HAS to be glacial.

"Diamictites are composed of coarse, poorly sorted, angular to well rounded sedimentary clastic fragments, or other type of fragments (igneous and metamorphic rocks) supported by a typically argillaceous (clay sized) matrix. Diamictites are usually interpreted as having a glacial or ice sheet origin. The deposits are interpreted as originating as either unsorted end moraine glacial till or ice rafted sediments carried into marine environments and deposited by rapidly disintegrating ice sheets. The main characteristics of diamictite is the matrix that supporting the fragment, a phenomenon that only can be deposited by glacial or ice sheet origin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamictite

The flooding watery areas near conduits of the deep, where water came up to water the earth might also produce this. No ice needed. That was easy.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

From there..
"Increases in delta 13 C probably reflect global increases in sedimentary organic carbon burial and suggest that pCO 2 declines in the earliest and middle Carboniferous strata. The middle Carboniferous delta 13 C shift of B. Popp, T. Anderson, and P. Sandberg, an approximately 3 per mil increase in European sections, occurs in North America (C2-C3 transition) but is limited to approximately 1.5 per mil. This 1.5 per mil increase was probably caused by increased organic carbon burial, whereas the additional approximately 1.5 per mil shift in European sections likely reflects changes in ocean circulation patterns associated with the closing of the Equatorial seaway."

Now, that is vague. They assign dreamed up reasons to carbon levels. How about they are full of assumptions, and really don't know what they are talking about? Purest fiction.

From that
" The cause of the late Paleozoic (ca. 355–255 Ma) ice age remains uncertain. A lowering of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels near the beginning of this time period occurred in response to the rise of land plants and likely cooled Earth, but the rapid growth of extensive Gondwanan ice sheets was delayed for tens of millions of years, until the Late Mississippian. The

13C values from a thick succession at Arrow Canyon, Nevada, indicate a divergence between North America and Europe (

2

)"
Like where is there evidence for the claimed ice??? A bunch of yap yap story telling. Why does C13 =ice??


" Direct evidence of the late Paleozoic glaciation of Gondwana from glacial deposits suggests that geographically extensive continental glaciation began some time in the Namurian (Late Mississippian). However, the timing and characteristics of the onset of glaciation are poorly understood because of a lack of reliable paleontological control and reworking of initial glacial deposits by subsequent glacial advances."
Say what?? Where IS this direct evidence???? Even pretending they have it, they still say it is poorly understood!!!! That a scream!!! Kids....run for the hills.
[url="http://geoweb.tamu.edu/faculty/grossman/Grossman02.pdf"]

"A total of 134 shells were analyzed from the
Askyn, Sokol, Zilim, and Kamen Perevolochny sections in the Urals. The most important feature of this record is a sharp
increase in d18O and d13C at the Serpukhovian-Bashkirian boundary."

So???? How about explaining why the d180 supposedly meant?? This stuff is tall tales for the gullible.
[url="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-3SWJNSY-X&_user=144092&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000011978&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=144092&md5=a3ae87ed5a3a20e30d975076e9a05df2"]

"At least four diamictite-bearing intervals of Early Carboniferous age, containing faceted pebbles, trapezoidal cobbles and boulders up to 1000 m3 in volume, have been recognized and traced for over 200 km along the Tethys Himalayan Zone of South Tibet, from east of Everest to west of Shishapangma. These largely glacio-marine sediments, intercalated within the Rakyang Formation, which overlies lower Tournaisian limestones and underlies lower Bashkirian black shales, were deposited during the Visean to Serpukhovian."


Now, the Himalayas, likely, were pushed up after the flood, maybe at the split. Finding marine residue there is hardly proof of ice.


[url="http://intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/347"]

-more carbon level same past state assumptions.

[url="http://www.springerlink.com/content/yqvfykn4w92g682n/"]

"Application of an ice sheet model developed for the Pleistocene to the extensive Carboniferous glaciation on Gondwana yields an ice sheet which has several features consistent with observations. While complete deglaciation is not achieved without CO2 changes, the Milankovich-induced fluctuations in ice sheet volume are comparable to Pleistocene glacial/ interglacial signals."
Here they admit they simply ran a 'model'. Yet it seems still to only bear passing resemblance to actual observation. Absurd.
[url="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1997.d01-35.x"]
"The Late Westphalian to Artinskian glaciomarine deposits of the Karoo and Kalahari basins of southern Africa consist of massive and stratified diamictite, mudrock with ice‐rafted material, sandstone, silty rhythmite, shale and subordinate conglomerate forming a cyclic succession recognizable across both basins."

Now, please show us this HAS to be glacial.

"Diamictites are composed of coarse, poorly sorted, angular to well rounded [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary"]sedimentary clastic fragments, or other type of fragments (igneous and metamorphic rocks) supported by a typically argillaceous (clay sized) matrix. Diamictites are usually interpreted as having a glacial or ice sheet origin. The deposits are interpreted as originating as either unsorted end moraine glacial till or ice rafted sediments carried into marine environments and deposited by rapidly disintegrating ice sheets. The main characteristics of diamictite is the matrix that supporting the fragment, a phenomenon that only can be deposited by glacial or ice sheet origin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamictite

The flooding watery areas near conduits of the deep, where water came up to water the earth might also produce this. No ice needed. That was easy.

How many of these papers did you read, I mean in the time it took you to reply I would have struggled to read one.

Again just hand waving, it does not impress anyone, except perhaps indoctrinated creationists.

Read the papers, not just the Abstracts

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Heres a link to another paper on the Carboniferous ice age, with link.

Quote

The Late Carboniferous Glaciation

After the Silurian flooding event in Arabia and the subsequent deposition of a sequence dominated by fluvial and marine sandstones, the plate was affected by a series of uplift events culminating in the Carboniferous-aged Hercynian event. This resulted in the peneplanation of a large part of the Arabian Plate, combined with the discrete re-activation and inversion of some older structural features. This unconformity surface was then sculpted by a series of glacial valleys and the widespread deposition of glacial sediments in the Late Carboniferous. These are described by Levell et al. (1988) from Oman and Al-Husseini (2004) from Saudi Arabia. The sediments of the glacial Al Khlata Formation in Oman and Unayzah C in Saudi Arabia are characterised by diamictites and interbedded shales and sandstones, representing a series of glacial and peri-glacial environments. In places in central Saudi Arabia, deposition of Carboniferous glacial sediment immediately above the Hercynian unconformity has resulted in the juxtaposition with Silurian shales associated with the deglaciation after the Ordovician glaciation.
Above the glacial sediments there are laterally extensive lacustrine shales that in Oman are termed the Rahab Member. Diamictites are essentially absent from units above these shales, and as such these may represent the deglaciation event. Unlike the base Silurian deglaciation event, the deglaciation in the Late Carboniferous did not result immediately in a marine flood, but instead in a rise in base level, the formation of bodies of standing water, and extensive root-bed horizons. Above the Rahab Member, the fluvial and marine sandstones and siltstones of the Gharif Formation (Oman) and Unayzah A (Saudi Arabia) are deposited.
The glacial and peri-glacial sandstones of the Unayzah and Al Khlata (as well as the post-glacial sands of the Gharif Formation) are proven reservoirs for both oil and gas in Arabia. In Oman this results mainly from charge from Infracambrian source rocks, whereas in Saudi Arabia these are charged almost exclusively from the Silurian source rock. The Rahab shales, representing the end of glaciation, are responsible for seals in many of these reservoirs. Hakami et al. (2005) have presented that there is potential for these lacustrine shales to be source rocks in Saudi Arabia. Oils have been discovered with a waxy lacustrine character, and the de-glaciation lakes are the prime candidates as the source.

Link


Figure 2: Position of glaciated areas through the Palaeozoic. Left: Ashgillian latest Ordovician; Center: Frasnian Late Devonian; Right: Late Carboniferous / Early Permian.