Hydrological Sorting and the Fossil Record

[random_guy]

If there was a Global Flood, we'd expect fossils to be sorted with some sort of rhyme or reason. Since we don't see this, we conclude that there was no Global Flood.

Actually, much of the fossil record is totally consistent with hydrological deposition and sorting.

I would love to see what kind of hydrological sorting that would make shark teeth be found below dinosaur layers, modern grass pollens above dinosaurs, ancient flowering plant pollen below mammals, etc... Once you look at the details, you'll find no hydrological sorting works. Good luck explaining how sloths outswam swimming dinosaurs and flying dactyls. Only way to solve this is to invoke God.

ummm, no. We've talked about this some, I'm sure we'll cover it more in the future.

Well, what better time to cover this issue then now. If all the TEists would help me organize a list of contradictions that the hydrological sorting argument has.

I'll start. We'll never find a chicken fossil mixed in any layers with dinosaur fossils. Surely, out of all the dinosaurs, from the Compsognathus (same size as chicken) to the T-Rex, we'd find a chicken fossil somewhere inbetween since the chicken would range within the densities of those dinosaurs. Similarly, we'll never find human fossils within those ranges, and we'll never find dog fossils in those ranges. This rules out density as a method of Flood sorting.

Now, if we think about swimming ability (quite absurd since the Flood was a global event, and that much energy would make swimming ability not matter), then why do we not find any elephant fossils below the [SIZE=-1]pleisosaur? Surely a swimming dinosaur would be able to outsurvive an elephant. How did the elephant outsurvive the flying reptiles, too, like the Pteranodon?

In fact, looking at the fossil record, there's no way a flood could've sorted it using any naturalistic means since certain pollen fossils only show up in certain layers, the same layers that the plants that release the pollen is found. How is this possible?

If any other TEists could start posting other scenerios with fossil ordering that falsies the Flood, that'd be great.
[/SIZE]

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, there's been some fascinating work showing modern pollen in "precambrian" layers in the grand canyon. It has gone back and forth between researchers, with extra care being taken in the experimentation. It has been replicated by several researchers.

One place to start is examination of how sediments are formed. The basic principle of superposition says that layers above other layers are younger than the layers below. Guy Berthaults experiments have shown that hydrological deposition can (typically?) occur where simultaneous layers are formed at the same time, and the minor age differences are horizontal, not vertical. He has also shown how erosion between layers can be explained by changes in the velocity of the depositing flow, not time and exposure. He has also shown how samples of original sediments can re-form their sampled layers when the samples are crushed and resorted, either hydrologically or in dry form. Here's one reference to his work: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/lamination.asp

 

[Mallon]

My favourite example is the sea turtle, which contradicts every sorting mechanism the late Henry Morris could come up with. As the evolution wiki states:

Sea turtles are oceanic, and preferencially rest on the sea bed, so ecological zonation says they should be at/near the bottom of the geological column; their body shapes are quite streamlined, so hydrodynamic sorting says they should be at/near the bottom; and they are notably slow and clumsy on land, so differential escape says they should be at/near the bottom. In reality, sea turtles are found in the middle to the top of the geological column than to its bottom.

Evolution is the only theory that describes (nay, predicts) the sort of sorting we see in the fossil record.

 

[laptoppop]

Of course the sea turtle poses problems for both models. For evolutionists, they must explain why it appears fully formed out of nothing in the fossil record, and why it supposedly has been unchanged for the last 100 million years.

I will put these on my long list of topics to look at. Specifically, I wonder how many turtle fossils have been found, where they are, etc. The details are crucial. In most (all?) places, the geologic column is "incomplete" -- consisting of a small subset of the overall list of layers.

Of course, the simplistic answer is easy -- sea turtles swim, so they would end up higher in the strata. But I am really trying to avoid simplistic answers.

 

[Mallon]

Of course the sea turtle poses problems for both models. For evolutionists, they must explain why it appears fully formed out of nothing in the fossil record, and why it supposedly has been unchanged for the last 100 million years.

Let's be fair, pop. Sea turtles do not remain "unchanged" in the fossil record. The sea turtles that remain alive today are not the same species we find in the fossil record. They have evolved. In fact, the evolutionary fossil record of turtles is not too bad. What we are, admittedly, unsure of is the origin of turtles. We don't yet have a good understanding of where they came from because the fossil record is incomplete. But to argue that turtles could not have evolved because we have not yet found their precursors is a little naive, if not an argument from ignorance. I predict that increased fossil finds will elucidate the origin of turtles, even in our lifetime.

Of course, the simplistic answer is easy -- sea turtles swim, so they would end up higher in the strata. But I am really trying to avoid simplistic answers.

Mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, claudiosaurs, placodonts, ichthyosaurs, and mesosaurs all swam, too -- yet they are preserved lower than sea turtles in the fossil record. Your admittedly simplistic apologetic is just that -- overly simplistic.

 

[random_guy]

Of course the sea turtle poses problems for both models. For evolutionists, they must explain why it appears fully formed out of nothing in the fossil record, and why it supposedly has been unchanged for the last 100 million years.

I will put these on my long list of topics to look at. Specifically, I wonder how many turtle fossils have been found, where they are, etc. The details are crucial. In most (all?) places, the geologic column is "incomplete" -- consisting of a small subset of the overall list of layers.

Of course, the simplistic answer is easy -- sea turtles swim, so they would end up higher in the strata. But I am really trying to avoid simplistic answers.

Let's keep on topic. If you want to argue about the "ex nhilo" of sea turtles, create another thread. I'd be happy to provide papers and references on where the turtles came from. It's nothing like what you suggested (fully formed in fossil record) since there is evidence and several competing theories of which group lead to the turtles.

Now, back on topic, suppose we picked swimming ability as how the fossils were sorted. So why are dogs able to swim better than turtles since they show up above the earlier turtle fossils? Why are chickens above? All you did was choose one creature, but how do you explain all the evidence?

Again, why is pollen sorted the way it is? Why does pollen only show up in the same layers as plants, and follows the ToE? Shouldn't all the pollen of all plants be in the same layers?

 

[random_guy]

Let's be fair, pop. Sea turtles do not remain "unchanged" in the fossil record. The sea turtles that remain alive today are not the same species we find in the fossil record. They have evolved. In fact, the evolutionary fossil record of turtles is not too bad. What we are, admittedly, unsure of is the origin of turtles. We don't yet have a good understanding of where they came from because the fossil record is incomplete. But to argue that turtles could not have evolved because we have not yet found their precursors is a little naive, if not an argument from ignorance. I predict that increased fossil finds will elucidate the origin of turtles, even in our lifetime.

While off topic, I can never give up a chance to provide scientific evidence refuting a Creationist claim. To support what Mallon says,
here's a link:

http://ww2.coastal.edu/msci302/ST-evol1.pdf

Basically, it's a turtle fossil that pushes back the era of sea turtles to 110 MYA. The fossil has movable fingers and toes, and does not show rigid flippers, as modern sea turtles have. So much for unchanged in the past 100 million years.

 

[laptoppop]

Let's keep on topic. If you want to argue about the "ex nhilo" of sea turtles, create another thread.

You are absolutely right, and I apologize. I have enough topics around here to talk about without adding more!

Now, back on topic, suppose we picked swimming ability as how the fossils were sorted.

I doubt that is the right metric. I've got to do more research, but I would expect it to be a combination of a number of factors, including where they were in the ecosystem to begin with, the shape and density of their bodies, etc. Again, I've got more research to do.

So why are dogs able to swim better than turtles since they show up above the earlier turtle fossils? Why are chickens above? All you did was choose one creature, but how do you explain all the evidence?

Just to be clear - I didn't choose the sea turtle, I was responding.

Again, why is pollen sorted the way it is? Why does pollen only show up in the same layers as plants, and follows the ToE? Shouldn't all the pollen of all plants be in the same layers?

Actually pollen is a poor example for TEs, given the disputed but repeated examples of "modern" pollen found in precambrian shale.

 

[Mallon]

Actually pollen is a poor example for TEs, given the disputed but repeated examples of "modern" pollen found in precambrian shale.

pop, if the debated existence of Precambrian pollen is the best you can do to cast doubt on the evolutionary sequence preserved in the fossil record, then I will quote the words of Chadwick to you (Chadwick being the creationist most studied on the issue):

Unfortunately it is not an easy task to correct a positive report such as Burdick's with negative data. In our hands, application of the cardinal principle of the scientific method — reproducibility — has failed to authenticate his record. Thus the hypothesis that the grains are authentic examples of Precambrian pollen can only be treated with incredulity at present, even among creationists.

 

[laptoppop]

I didn't bring up pollen, I was responding. And, I noted in my response that the findings were disputed. However, I have read a number of the papers back and forth. Special additional investigations were undertaken to answer the initial objections. For my reading, the laboratory and collection techniques used by the teams that found pollen were careful and proper.

Chadwick failed to find pollen, unlike the other teams. The other teams have pointed out that Chadwick used a reduction method that was not needed -- a method which has a strong potential to destroy the very pollen fossils being looked for. Chadwick is the "most studied" on the issue because his results agree with the expected results, not because his techniques were the best.

 

[random_guy]

I didn't bring up pollen, I was responding. And, I noted in my response that the findings were disputed. However, I have read a number of the papers back and forth. Special additional investigations were undertaken to answer the initial objections. For my reading, the laboratory and collection techniques used by the teams that found pollen were careful and proper.

Chadwick failed to find pollen, unlike the other teams. The other teams have pointed out that Chadwick used a reduction method that was not needed -- a method which has a strong potential to destroy the very pollen fossils being looked for. Chadwick is the "most studied" on the issue because his results agree with the expected results, not because his techniques were the best.

If you want to talk about pollen in cambrian fossils, why don't you post a scientific link such as a scientific journal article. If not, then pollen is another example that falsifies any sort of hydrological sorting.

Here's another thought. If we go by viability during a Flood, how do koalas and sloths out survive marine reptiles from the Dinosaur Ages? Staying in trees? Over a raging flood that covers all of the land? Seems like they'd be some of the first to die since they have very little ability to survive outside the tree, especially since koalas can only eat a special kind of tree. Kind of funny how dinosaurs were not able to outlive both this tree and koala, but at the same time, outlive other plants and trees. Just more inconsistencies with hydrological sorting.

I would love to see the massive graph that's formed on how Creationists explain why something died where.

"Now sharks all throughout the layers since they can swim. Other marine reptiles only in this layer since sharks ate them. Dinosaurs (of all sizes) in this layer cause sharks ate them. Koalas above sharks since they can be vicious. Same with kangaroos."

 

[laptoppop]

We went through a whole discussion a while back on this forum about precambrian pollen. Bottom line - lots of disagreement, nobody convinced. For my money, the procedures followed by people who replicated the find were rigorous and thorough and convincing.

 

[Mallon]

We went through a whole discussion a while back on this forum about precambrian pollen. Bottom line - lots of disagreement, nobody convinced. For my money, the procedures followed by people who replicated the find were rigorous and thorough and convincing.

This sounds like an admission, then, that the only evidence brought forth to question the validity of the evolutionary sequence of the fossil record is dubious at best.
So where does that leave us?
It seems that, because Morris' hydrodynamic sorting theories have been laid to rest, the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is the last one standing.

 

[laptoppop]

No, its an admission that sometimes there is no standard of evidence which will convince some people. http://www.rae.org/pollen.html has a ton of links if you want to follow up.

 

[FallingWaters]

Walt Brown has an interesting theory on this topic.
He says: "Liquefaction- associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action-
played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood."

Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils

You can read through his theory by clicking "next page" as you finish each page.

Walt Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
There is a small bio on the home page:
Center for Scientific Creation

 

[Mallon]

Walt Brown has an interesting theory on this topic.
He says: "Liquefaction- associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action-
played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood."...

Walt Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT

Not sure why you highlighted what you did. His PhD clearly has nothing to do with what he's speculating about.
It would be like me saying, "You need a root canal. Trust me, I have a degree in mathematics."

 

[gluadys]

Walt Brown has an interesting theory on this topic.
He says: "Liquefaction- associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action-
played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood."

Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils

You can read through his theory by clicking "next page" as you finish each page.

Walt Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
There is a small bio on the home page:
Center for Scientific Creation

I am familiar with this site. It is very poor as it offers no credible scientific information on the geological record. A mechanical engineer after all is neither a biologist, geologist or paleontologist.

There is a massive amount of drivel on the site, but I will just point to two here.

At one point he refers to this unpublished experiment:

In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird.17 This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with “the evolutionary order,” but, of course, evolution did not cause it. ​

Bolding in original.

Do you see how vague this is? Which amphibian? Which mammal? Which reptile? Which bird? If the mammal was a rabbit would substituting an elephant give the same result? Would an ostrich give the same result as a robin?

Furthermore, this gives no clue as to why different amphibians and different birds, etc. are found in different strata. Why are frogs not found until much higher strata than tetrapods such as Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega? Why are finches not found in the same strata as Archeopteryx?

Such experiments would have to be done many times with many different species with all results consistent with the fossil record before they are of any value.

Second example:

Vegetation lifted by liquefaction into a water lens spread out and formed a buoyant mat pressed up against the lens’ roof. Vegetation mats, composed of thin, flat, relatively impermeable sheets, such as intertwined leaves, ferns, grass, and wood fragments could not push through that roof. These mats also prevented sedimentary grains in the roof from falling to the floor of the lens.
Vegetation mats became today’s coal seams, some of which can be traced over 100,000 square miles.​

Italics in original.

Note the items he lists in the vegetation mats: leaves, ferns, grass and wood fragments. Obviously he is unaware that most coal comes from Carboniferous strata and that of the items in this list, only ferns are found in these strata---no leaves, no grass, no wood fragments.

Along with the ferns there were also mosses, including club mosses as large as modern trees, but these contained no wood. Some other plants such as liverworts and horsetails are also found. But vegetation mats with all of the items he lists did not form the Carboniferous coal seams. Wood, leaves and grass can only be found in strata well above the Carboniferous strata. Brown does not even acknowledge this fact, much less provide an explanation of it.

Brown is typical of creationist promoters who deal with the fossil record in only the most superficial way and cannot deal with the details of faunal succession.

 

[random_guy]

What I find interesting is that every single fossil must be explained by a different way. It's almost as if Creationists need to make up a reason for each fossil because there's no defining character in which the Flood could've sorted everything. Koalas need to somehow be above dinosaurs (all of them) so stick them on floating trees. However, why don't other trees from the dinosaur age float? Well, they were destroyed in the Flood early. Sharks and turtles swim well, but pleiosaurs do not and survive worst than koalas. Etc, etc.

In fact, Creationism has no predictive capabilities when it comes to the Flood and fossils. If we just gave density information, and environment that the animal survives it, Creationism still wouldn't be able to predict where the animal would be found in the fossil layer. They have to rely on what Evolution predicts. Very telling, I think.

 

[FallingWaters]

Not sure why you highlighted what you did. His PhD clearly has nothing to do with what he's speculating about.
It would be like me saying, "You need a root canal. Trust me, I have a degree in mathematics."

Sorry.

I think a thorough understanding of Physics is quite useful in understanding the concepts he describes.

 

[Mallon]

I think a thorough understanding of Physics is quite useful in understanding the concepts he describes.

Some of them, perhaps. But so is an understanding of geology, which Brown clearly does not have.
Mechanical engineers are qualified to design cars, aircraft, bridges, buildings, machinery, etc. They are not qualified to comment on the nature of the geologic record without first having done some serious, intensive research on the matter. Sadly, most creationists are not properly qualified to comment on subject they so thoroughly despise.