By request: "Mother Lode" of Fossils Discovered in Canada

[Michie]

@Estrid

The article is from 2014 but it was requested I post it in an area where non-believers can comment as well.
**************************************
The well-preserved nature of the fossils gives scientist a snapshot of life more than 500 million years ago

A treasure trove of fossils chiseled out of a canyon in Canada's Kootenay National Park rivals the famous Burgess Shale, the best record of early life on Earth, scientists say.

"Once we started to break fresh rock, we realized we had discovered something incredibly special," said Robert Gaines, a geologist at Pomona College in Pomona, Calif., and co-author of a new study announcing the find. "It was an extraordinary moment."

The Burgess Shale refers to both a fossil find and a 505-million-year-old rock formation made of mud and clay. The renowned Burgess Shale fossil quarry, a UNESCO World Heritage site located in Yoho National Park, is in a glacier-carved cliff in the Canadian Rockies. The fossils were discovered in 1909. Since then, several other fossil sites have been found in the Burgess Shale, but none as rich as the original.

The fossils are extraordinary because they preserve soft parts of ancient animals in exceptional detail; these soft parts are less likely to be imprinted in stone than harder parts, like bones. More than 200 animal species have been identified at the 1909 fossil site, providing a rare window into the Cambrian explosion, the time when complex body forms first appeared in Earth's fossil record starting about 542 million years ago.

"Nowhere do we have a better view of exactly what the Cambrian looked like and its relationship to the environment than in the Burgess Shale," Gaines told Live Science's Our Amazing Planet.

The new site is also in the Burgess Shale formation, and seems to rival the 1909 original in fossil diversity and preservation, researchers report today (Feb. 11) in the journal Nature Communications. In just two weeks, the research team collected more than 3,000 fossils representing 55 species. Fifteen of these species are new to science. [Gallery: Amazing Cambrian Fossils from Canada's Marble Canyon]

"The rate at which we are finding animals — many of which are new — is astonishing, and there is a high possibility that we'll eventually find more species here than at the original Yoho National Park site, and potentially more than from anywhere else in the world," said Jean-Bernard Caron, lead study author and an invertebrate paleontologist at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.

Better than Burgess


Continued below.

"Mother Lode" of Fossils Discovered in Canada

The well-preserved nature of the fossils gives scientist a snapshot of life more than 500 million years ago

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Page Poet]

The dating of the fossils is doubtful and recurringly inaccurate.

 

[Astrid]

The dating of the fossils is doubtful and recurringly inaccurate.

Oh? What's your data and explanation?

 

[Page Poet]

Oh? What's your data and explanation?

A natural event occurred whereby water was quickly drained away and the area that the water had been in was rapidly covered with earth. That is the only logical explanation knowing how the physics of this world works. We know animals get eaten by other animals and the remains of the deceased are strewn. If thousands of fossils are found intact in an area then those bodies must have been rapidly covered like what happened in Pompei. As for the timeline, we know this world can change very rapidly in a very short time: look at Salt Lake, Utah. Knowing this, and how much the planet keeps changing, it is mathematically impossible for something to be near the surface for a million years let alone hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Astrid]

Uh

A natural event occurred whereby water was quickly drained away and the area that the water had been in was rapidly covered with earth. That is the only logical explanation knowing how the physics of this world works. We know animals get eaten by other animals and the remains of the deceased are strewn. If thousands of fossils are found intact in an area then those bodies must have been rapidly covered like what happened in Pompei. As for the timeline, we know this world can change very rapidly in a very short time: look at Salt Lake, Utah. Knowing this, and how much the planet keeps changing, it is mathematically impossible for something to be near the surface for a million years let alone hundreds of millions of years.

I hope for a good faith conversation,
so please let me know if you find my
style objectionable?

To avoid multiplying topics I will just
look at the first two sentences.

Is the "Drain and quick cover" your opinion,
or data, taken from research papers .

I have a good background in geology and fossils so
I need little of basics explained.

You might like to read this.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

Note that " dry season" isn't ne essarily about drying
out, but water level dropping to where the water becomes
warm and anoxic, killing the fish, but not exposing them
to the open air.

Green river is a cool place. I've been there.

 

[Page Poet]

Uh

I hope for a good faith conversation,
so please let me know if you find my
style objectionable?

To avoid multiplying topics I will just
look at the first two sentences.

Is the "Drain and quick cover" your opinion,
or data, taken from research papers .

I have a good background in geology and fossils so
I need little of basics explained.

You might like to read this.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

Note that " dry season" isn't ne essarily about drying
out, but water level dropping to where the water becomes
warm and anoxic, killing the fish, but not exposing them
to the open air.

Green river is a cool place. I've been there.

I'm not certain what your point(s) are? Why are you writing in what is presented as stanzas?

 

[Astrid]

I'm not certain what your point(s) are? Why are you writing in what is presented as stanzas?

Stanzas? Im using cell phone.

You made statements about how the fossil formation
came about. You offered no data or reference, just
your opinion.
Can you do better than that?

I provided a link to a similar formation.

It shows the conditions you describe aren't needed.

Nothing I said is hard to understand.

Did you at least glance at the wiki article?

 

[Page Poet]

Stanzas? Im using cell phone.

You made statements about how the fossil formation
came about. You offered no data or reference, just
your opinion.
Can you do better than that?

I provided a link to a similar formation.

It shows the conditions you describe aren't needed.

Nothing I said is hard to understand.

Did you at least glance at the wiki article?

Your writings look like stanzas.

If you want to present yourself as a scholar, you ought to know that citing a source without explaining the source is poor scholarly work.

I made statements about how the likelihood of the fossils came about based on empirical evidence and common knowledge of how the physics of this world works. When discussing the past, unless we were witnesses, which we were not, everything is conjecture; all we can suggest is what is probable based on what we observe today.

Wiki is known for being operated by misinformants and deceivers and the presentment of conjecture as though it were fact: for example, it is written in the article that some area's geography was built after " mountain building and the uplifting of the Rocky Mountains...". No one knows exactly how the Rocky Mountains came to be. It is amusing and entertaining to read some author present their suggestion of the how the Rocky Mountains came to be as fact. The Wiki article does not explain the physical past; the Wiki article presents some theory of how a region formed in the past. It is common knowledge that the past is buried in physical layers. No one knows precisely why and how those layers came to be.

I wrote about how fossils are preserved. The article cannot refute and assert how fossils are preserved so perfectly.

 

[Astrid]

Your writings look like stanzas.

If you want to present yourself as a scholar, you ought to know that citing a source without explaining the source is poor scholarly work.

I made statements about how the likelihood of the fossils came about based on empirical evidence and common knowledge of how the physics of this world works. When discussing the past, unless we were witnesses, which we were not, everything is conjecture; all we can suggest is what is probable based on what we observe today.

Wiki is known for being operated by misinformants and deceivers and the presentment of conjecture as though it were fact: for example, it is written in the article that some area's geography was built after " mountain building and the uplifting of the Rocky Mountains...". No one knows exactly how the Rocky Mountains came to be. It is amusing and entertaining to read some author present their suggestion of the how the Rocky Mountains came to be as fact. The Wiki article does not explain the physical past; the Wiki article presents some theory of how a region formed in the past. It is common knowledge that the past is buried in physical layers. No one knows precisely why and how those layers came to be.

I wrote about how fossils are preserved. The article cannot refute and assert how fossils are preserved so perfectly.

Never mind. You've no intention to be respectful
or talk sensibly.

 

[Page Poet]

Never mind. You've no intention to be respectful
or talk sensibly.

I didn't "talk" a word. I wrote. Logic and facts seem disrespectful?
If you present science as a topic, we have to be precise.

 

[oikonomia]

It is hard for me to believe that anything 500 million years old could still be soft and squishy.

 

[Astrid]

It is hard for me to believe that anything 500 million years old could still be soft and squishy.

What soft squishy things are you speaking of?

Is it the reference to "soft parts" being preserved?

 

[oikonomia]

What soft squishy things are you speaking of?

Is it the reference to "soft parts" being preserved?

Yes. I have seen a number of documentaries about soft tissue in fossils of dinosaur bones.
Prevailing theory is that these are creatures of some 65 millions years ago.

It is difficult for me to believe anything THAT old of a living organism could include
soft, flexible tissue remaining. One million years of such preservation is hard to imagine.
Let alone 65 MILLION years - let alone 500 MILLION years.

My gut feeling is that the darn thing must not have died THAT long ago.
And for what its worth, I am more an OEC type than YEC.

 

[Astrid]

Yes. I have seen a number of documentaries about soft tissue in fossils of dinosaur bones.
Prevailing theory is that these are creatures of some 65 millions years ago.

It is difficult for me to believe anything THAT old of a living organism could include
soft, flexible tissue remaining. One million years of such preservation is hard to imagine.
Let alone 65 MILLION years - let alone 500 MILLION years.

My gut feeling is that the darn thing must not have died THAT long ago.
And for what its worth, I am more an OEC type than YEC.

There is no "soft tissue" in the fossils described in
the article in the op. So I thought perhaps you
we're referring to that.

The dating technique that went into such as the
age of dinosaurs is extensive and would need
somethong remarkable to disprove.


Take for example varves and corals with daily
growth rings that show the number of days in a year.

The known rate at which earth's rotation slows
gives hours in a day / days in a year for x years in the past.

Showing that all the physics and math is false
would be quite a trick!

Similarly with all other dating methods.

As for the " soft tissue" in dinosaur bones-


Of course it raises questions.

among those might well be:

what is the actual nature of this tissue?
What reasonable explanation is there for it?

You could toss in " is my gut feeling a good substitute for careful investigating?"


To me personally, whether the earth is old or
young is a matter of profound significance,
philosophically, scientifically and for some, I'd
think , also spiritually.

Does it not seem so to you?

 

[RileyG]

Fascinating!

 

[oikonomia]

As for the " soft tissue" in dinosaur bones-


Of course it raises questions.

among those might well be:

what is the actual nature of this tissue?
What reasonable explanation is there for it?

You could toss in " is my gut feeling a good substitute for careful investigating?"

Sure, intuitive feel is tentative.
And does your investigation furnishes a reasonable explanation?

 

[Astrid]

Sure, intuitive feel is tentative.
And does your investigation furnishes a reasonable

Yes, I'd say so.

I'm still curious why it's not important to
you if the earth is a few thousand, or a
few billion years old

 

[oikonomia]

Yes, I'd say so.

I'm still curious why it's not important to
you if the earth is a few thousand, or a
few billion years old

I didn't say this was not important.

I think what is most important about the history of the universe
is that the Christian understand the pre-adamic rebellion of Satan.

I think it is important to the nature of God's eternal purpose
to know that man was created with the divine purpose to replace the position and supercede the
position of this very ancient rebel.

I also think this adversary knows that better than most of us.
And he desperately does not want the church to realize this.

As for what scientists assure us of - this is changeable and variable with passing years.
Old theories are replaced. New understandings age and become revized.

I hold most scientific explanations with an attitude "Let's see what they say in another few years."
Ie. "What we thought previously now has to be revized based on new research."

 

[Astrid]

I didn't say this was not important.

I think what is most important about the history of the universe
is that the Christian understand the pre-adamic rebellion of Satan.

I think it is important to the nature of God's eternal purpose
to know that man was created with the divine purpose to replace the position and supercede the
position of this very ancient rebel.

I also think this adversary knows that better than most of us.
And he desperately does not want the church to realize this.

As for what scientists assure us of - this is changeable and variable with passing years.
Old theories are replaced. New understandings age and become revized.

I hold most scientific explanations with an attitude "Let's see what they say in another few years."
Ie. "What we thought previously now has to be revized based on new research."

When was the last time any theory was
tossed out?

As for adding to knowledge, what's wrong with that?

But suit yourself, I don't think we've a discussion of
science in our future here.

 

[oikonomia]

When was the last time any theory was
tossed out?

Have you noticed some revisions of the Big Bang Theory since Hubble has been operating?

As for adding to knowledge, what's wrong with that?

You're reactionary. I didn't say revision was wrong necessarily.
My point is was scientific opinion is a shifting and movng target.

But suit yourself, I don't think we've a discussion of
science in our future here.

Science and our future?
How to use AI to more and more simulate human productivity of every imaginable kind.
How to make a better weapon probably most of our funds will go to.
How to militarize outer space faster than our enemies.
How to simulate better sexual indulgence - robotically for $$$$
How to make brain and computer enteraction for $$$$
How to conduct instantaneous total surveillance on the populace.
Looking desperately for evidence that evolution kicked off somewhere else also in the universe.
How to spread misinformation and information around the world more effectively.
Medical improvements is certainly the purview of many able innovators.

Mostly though, I think advanced countries will sink their resources and mind power into
how to make a better weapon to defeat the other country.