Is evolution a fact or theory?

[2tim_215]

All these great animal transitionals supposedly. No humans yet? When you can show me a human transitional that's not a fraud or just some artists conception or prove that one of those hominins found have human dna then you might get my attention. Animals are one thing but humans are what I'm more concerned about. Why have there been so many "fakes" in the past science being so noble and all? Seems that there are quite a few who would go to great lengths to prove something that they want you to believe. How can one be expected to believe everything that they put forth?

 

[The Barbarian]

Two very interesting observations by scientists are:
1. "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans."

Almost as if there was a dramatic change in climate about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

At the time of the Pleistocene, the continents had moved to their current positions. At one point during the Ice Age, sheets of ice covered all of Antarctica, large parts of Europe, North America, and South America, and small areas in Asia. In North America they stretched over Greenland and Canada and parts of the northern United States. The remains of glaciers of the Ice Age can still be seen in parts of the world, including Greenland and Antarctica.


But the glaciers did not just sit there. There was a lot of movement over time, and there were about 20 cycles when the glaciers would advance and retreat as they thawed and refroze. Scientists identified the Pleistocene Epoch’s four key stages, or ages — Gelasian, Calabrian, Ionian and Tarantian.
Pleistocene Epoch: Facts About the Last Ice Age

2. "And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between."...The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.

That's a weird misunderstanding. Darwin wasn't perplexed, he noted all sorts of "in-between" cases, and scientists since have found many more:

The forms which possess in some considerable degree the character of species, but which are go closely similar to other forms, or are so closely linked to them by intermediate gradations, that naturalists do not like to rank them as distinct species, are in several respects the most important for us. We have every reason to believe that many of these doubtful and closely allied forms have permanently retained their characters for a long time; for as long, as far as we know, as have good and true species. Practically, when a naturalist can unite by means of intermediate links any two forms, he treats the one as a variety of the other; ranking the most common, but sometimes the one first described, as the species, and the other as the variety. But cases of great difficulty, which I will not here enumerate, sometimes arise in deciding whether or not to rank one form as a variety of another, even when they are closely connected by intermediate links; nor will the commonly-assumed hybrid nature of the intermediate forms always remove the difficulty. In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species, Chapter II Variation Under Nature

Also striking is how at least some of the people who actually appraise species for a living have made peace with the perpetual tumult over defining just what it is they get up in the morning to study. The ambiguities seemed less jarring to me after a September conversation with the Smithsonian’s Kevin de Queiroz, deep in the maze of doors and corridors behind the scenes at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. As a systematic biologist, he studies the evolutionary histories of reptiles, and designates species, which explains a door we passed marked “Alcohol Room.” Fire regulations require special handling for jars of animal specimens preserved in alcohol. In the cacophony of species concepts, de Queiroz sees some commonality.

Ertter, affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley and the College of Idaho in Caldwell, embraces the ambiguity. “Why do we expect that nature is nice and neat and clean? Because it’s more convenient for us,” she says. “It’s up to us to figure it out, not to demand that it’s one way or another.”

There can be a lot of messiness in picking out the limits of species, but that’s OK with philosopher Matt Haber of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. He organized three conferences this year on the complications of determining what’s a species when fire hoses of genetic information spew signs of unexpected gene mixing and tell different stories depending on the genes tracked.
Defining ‘species’ is a fuzzy art

Ring species and species clines further complicate things. Is a leopard frog in Minnesota a different species than a leopard frog in Louisiana? They can't interbreed, which is the key element in deciding. What do you think?

Makes me wonder what else they got wrong. (Barbarian checks) Um, not a biology website. That's a big hint.

 

[The Barbarian]

Basically, a species is the largest group within which interbreeding produces viable offspring. “Subspecies” is loosely defined and the name should be used with much caution because it requires a lot of familiarity with the particular species, as well as being knowledgeable about the philosophy through which it got its subspecies status. It’s not necessarily an intrinsic concept, in contrast to the definition of a species. In contrast to a subspecies, a “breed” usually refers to a domestic population with little genetic variation.

Even though it’s a vital concept, biologists sometimes argue over the details of both the definition of species and the mechanisms of speciation (the evolutionary mechanism through which new species are created). So, it can be extremely difficult to say when a new subspecies starts to emerge or when a subspecies becomes so distinct that it is a brand new species.
The difference between a species and a subspecies - according to science

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Let me share some more here,

The impact of deep-tier burrow systems in sediment mixing and ecosystem engineering in early Cambrian carbonate settings

Figure 3: Occurrences of <i>Thalassinoides</i> representing multi-layer colonizers from the restricted platform deposits of the Cambrian Epoch 2 Zhushadong Formation in the Guankou section.


Two episodic changes of trace fossils through the Permian-Triassic transition in the Meishan cores, Zhejiang Province

Kurt Wise's argument seems to be based on the idea that animals would not have enough time to create complex subsurface structures that would obstruct subsurface lamination.

But there are countless research documents describing very complex subsurface structures, throughout the entire geologic column.

I feel confident Dr. Wise is aware of any inconsistencies.

Have you read this article on bioturbation experiments by Carl Froede, a creationist/U.S. Government geologist?

Bioturbation experiments - creation.com​

Hypothetically, if there were a chaotic flood going on, that was lifting mountains, literally creating mountains, these animals wouldnt have had more than a few seconds to make anything at all in such a hazardous world. And yet, these complex structures are everywhere.

The flood lasted about a year, and it was not all chaotic. But there is the implication of five major surges over the North American continent which formed Sloss's Megasequences. Froede also co-wrote a paper on megasequences:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_2/j29_2_16-25.pdf​

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

You are continuing to speak about a flood and continuing to quote creationists. But where is the explanation for the complex and in some cases, massive borrows found in the geologic column? @Bible Research Tools

How did animals form those giant tunnels while in the middle of such a chaotic flood? Waters blasting over entire continents, and somehow in the middle of it...a giant sloth or perhaps a giant armadillo is somehow in the middle of it, making a home?

There are over a thousand of these tunnels.

How is it...that in the midst of this crazy event where thousands of feet of sediment is being washed around...somehow animals appear to be...living life, casually. Making nests, making tunnel networks, digging tunnels, laying eggs...

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You can find complex descrution of laminated layers...everywhere. Yes, its true, a milipede isnt going to dig 1000 feet through massive sedimentary structures, nor will it build massive complex underground milipede cities.

But there are still plenty of complex and regular every day subsurface structures, made by biological organisms found throughout every single period of the geologic column.

Then should it not all be completely bioturbated? After all, there was plenty of time, was there not?

You guys believe that this flood happened in...what a single year? Most young earthers propose that thousands of feet of layers were deposited, in a single year.

Actually, less than a year.

How many feet is that per day? At the grand canyon, post proterozoic rock spans some 8000 feet in depth. If the flood occured in 365 days, thats 21 feet of sediment per day that is deposited.

In a flood carrying a thousand, even several thousand feet of sediment-laden flood water, that does not seem too unrealistic. Besides, the evidence of megasequences implies substantial layering occurring at the tail end of each of the five massive surges. And since each is capped by micritic carbonate, that implies there was a period of relative calm between the surges.

Tell me, please tell me, if 21 feet of soil, in a single day, was dropped on an amphibian, how many hours would that amphibian have to make a 5 foot tunnel?

Another straw man? How about a scenario where relatively calm flood waters, between each of the monster surges, rose to the area of the amphibian, and then retreated prior to the next day's tide?

If 21 feet per day, fell upon any small arthropod, in an environment where rocks are being metamorphosed, asteroids are falling, mountains are being pushed up, continents are flying apart...etc.

All at once? LOL!

tell me, how long do you think a group of milipedes or small shellfish have, to make complex subsurface networks?

Laboratory experiments by Froede indicate the time required to bioturbate a sq-meter plot to be as little as 61 minutes.

The answer is none. These animals wouldnt have half of a second in such a wild environment, to be hanging out building tunnels and burrows. And yet, this is what we find, everywhere in the geologic column. And i mean everywhere.

At least one of your links implies otherwise.

"All stratigraphic and taphonomic metrics indicate that, in spite of secular increases in sediment colonization in general—and bioturbation in particular—through the lower Palaeozoic, sediment mixing remained limited. Average mixed layer depths, approximated as 0.2 cm, 1 cm and 1.5 cm for the early–middle Cambrian, Cambro-Ordovician and Ordovician–Silurian, respectively (see Supplementary Information), are far less than those characteristic of modern marine settings. The scale of event bedding throughout the lower Palaeozoic is far below what would survive modern intensities of sediment mixing (global mean mixed layer depth ranges from 5 to 10 cm)... The coupled trace fossil and sedimentary records indicate that even 120 million years after the Precambrian–Cambrian transition, intensities of sediment mixing remained far below modern levels." [Tarhan et al, "Protracted development of bioturbation through the early Palaeozoic Era." Nature Geoscience, 2015, p.867] ​

Again, should it not all be completely bioturbated under the uniformitarian model, or at least be consistent with modern levels?

I am more than curious how you are going to handle the fossil record.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Hold on, let me throw in one more thing. Dinosaur nests in the mesozoic. Or amphibian nests in the devonian or reptile nests in the carboniferous.

There are nests and structures, including nests that have eggs in them, throughout the geologic column as well.

What dinosaur is hanging out building a nest and laying eggs, while 21 feet of sediment per day is building up over their head?

Why do you insist on phrasing everything in the form of a straw man? Who said 21 feet of sediment per day is building up over their heads, except for you? Could it not have been zero sediment for a period of time, and then 200 ft of sediment in a matter of hours?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Young earthers say, oh well, i guess the dinosaur nest was buried during the flood.

Well hold on, the nest isnt in hadean rock, its in mesozoic rock, right in the middle of the column. So if the mesozoic pre dated the flood, then all the prior periods, cambrian, devonian, ordovicial, silurian, carboniferous, permian and alll those subsets, and even other mesozoic periods, alllll pre dated the flood.

Another straw man. Sigh . . .

Which doesnt make any sense because that would mean that only about 1/3 of the ground canyon was actually formed by the flood.

And another straw man . . .

Other say, well maybe the nest was picked up and washed there. Eggs included.

How....dumb, yes dumb, could these ideas be?

They could be based on uniformitarianism. It doesn't get any dumber than that.

And actually, it would be greater than 21 feet of deposition per day, as rock is highly compacted. It would probably be a much larger number than 21 feet per day. Perhaps 50 feet or more.

Since you began with a straw man, may as well finish with one.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Ok last post for a bit.

Sedimentological analysis and reservoir characterization of a multi-darcy, billion barrel oil field – The Upper Jurassic shallow marine sandstones of the Johan Sverdrup field, North Sea, Norway - ScienceDirect

You can just google, bioturbation and just any period. Bioturbation silurian or permian or jurassic etc.

And you can find, bioturbation of really just about any common formation that contains life. And, if you read through it, you can find discussion of obstructed lamination via bioturbation.

Really, you just cant ask for much more. You have subsurface structures, both simple and complex. You have high amounts of bioturbation and obstruction of subsurface lamination. Its very common.

No millipede is going to build a 1000 foot deep city.

Will I find those layers completely bioturbated, as one would expect under slow, long-term sedimentation? If not, why not?

If life truly lived, peacefully for millions of years, this is precisely what we would find. We would find burrows, burrow networks, tunnels, nests, nests with eggs etc. alllll throughout the column. And we do.

How did the eggs become fossilized?

If 20-30 or greater feet of sediment were falling on a daily basis, we would not expect to find any bioturbation, as the pressure and heat and acidity and chaotic nature of the flood, would annihilate anything and everything, perhaps in seconds.

You cant argue that the flood has the power to lift mountains and to push continents apart, but then say...well the flood wasnt that bad, these small lobster like decapods and salamander like amphibians had perhaps weeks or even months to build their underground structures.

Back to the old straw man.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Two episodic changes of trace fossils through the Permian-Triassic transition in the Meishan cores, Zhejiang Province

Look at this abstract.

Episode I occurred in Beds 25–27b when the ecologically complicate forms such as Chondrites, Skolithos, Rhizocorallium, and Thalassinoides disappeared hereafter, the bioturbation index reduced from 1–5 to 1–3, and the disturbed depth declined from 5–66 to 2–5 cm. Episode II took place at the base of Bed 33 with the disappearance of Palaeophycus and Planolites, and subsequent absence of trace fossils and bioturbation till the middle-upper part of Bed 41 when the disturbed structures reoccurred, but they are only tiny Planolites and the bioturbation index was never higher than 3 and the disturbed depth less than 4 mm. Episode I shows an intense change, corresponding to the main stage of the end-Permian mass extinction, whereas Episode II is relatively weak, corresponding to the epilogue of the mass extinction of trace makers in the Early Triassic.

Do you have a point?

The impact of deep-tier burrow systems in sediment mixing and ecosystem engineering in early Cambrian carbonate settings
This is research. This is prediction, it is observation, it is...justification. This is good stuff. Check it out.

"Our analysis suggests that sediment mixing in early Cambrian proximal shallow-marine carbonate settings may have been more intense than previously assumed." [Zhang et al, "The Impact of deep-tier burrow systems in sediment mixing and ecosystem engineering in early Cambrian carbonate settings." Nature, 2017, p.6] ​

That doesn't promote a lot of confidence, does it? But to be fair, one might expect bioturbation, and even erosion to occur in the sequence carbonate caps between flood surges and subsequent layering. But if uniformitarianism is true, why is the entire layer not heavily bioturbated?

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Why do you insist on phrasing everything in the form of a straw man? Who said 21 feet of sediment per day is building up over their heads, except for you? Could it not have been zero sediment for a period of time, and then 200 ft of sediment in a matter of hours?

About 6000 feet of sediment in the Grand Canyon, down to the level creationists think is "pre-flood."

since this exists all over the Earth, except where there are Cambrian rock at the surface, from where did all this sediment come?

Like the water, it seems some magic source was needed. For water, the usual explanation is the floodgates in the solid overhead firmament opened. How does 99+% of the Earth get covered to a mile or more of sediment? It had to come from somewhere.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The extent of bioturbation ranges from inches to several feet in many many cases.

"All stratigraphic and taphonomic metrics indicate that, in spite of secular increases in sediment colonization in general—and bioturbation in particular—through the lower Palaeozoic, sediment mixing remained limited. Average mixed layer depths, approximated as 0.2 cm, 1 cm and 1.5 cm for the early–middle Cambrian, Cambro-Ordovician and Ordovician–Silurian, respectively (see Supplementary Information), are far less than those characteristic of modern marine settings. The scale of event bedding throughout the lower Palaeozoic is far below what would survive modern intensities of sediment mixing (global mean mixed layer depth ranges from 5 to 10 cm)... The coupled trace fossil and sedimentary records indicate that even 120 million years after the Precambrian–Cambrian transition, intensities of sediment mixing remained far below modern levels." [Tarhan et al, "Protracted development of bioturbation through the early Palaeozoic Era."

And regarding this above...

Do you understand what it is saying? It says until the silurian. It doesnt say throughout the entire geologic column. Do you know where the silurian superpositionally resides? 430 million years ago.

I think so. The Silurian layers were deposited during the Tippecanoe megasequence, which was the same year that the Cambrian and most other layers were deposited.

You must have some selective reading going on.

We present ichnological, stratigraphic and taphonomic data from a range of lower Phanerozoic siliciclastic successions spanning four palaeocontinents. The protracted development of the sediment mixed layer is also consistent with sulphur data and global sulphur model simulations. The slow increase in the intensity of bioturbation in the sediment record suggests that evolutionary advances in sediment colonization outpaced advances in sediment mixing. We conclude that ecosystem restructuring caused by the onset of significant infaunal mobile deposit feeding (‘bulldozing’) occurred well after both the Cambrian Explosion and the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event.

"the intensity of bioturbation in the sediment record suggests that evolutionary advances in sediment colonization outpaced advances in sediment mixing"​

That is convenient.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

creation.com is not a paper, its a creationist religious website.

Nature, National Geographic -- all evolutionism websites are religious websites. What's your point?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This isnt even a real argument here. You have the guy who says bioturbation is almost non existant or perhaps ends prematurely.

So you dispute his claim that most of the flood layers are laminated?

For the record, Dr. Wise considers a layer to be bioturbated if it is completely mixed, or "homogenized", in a manner of speaking.

But then you have complex subsurface bioturbation, including complex networks of tunneling found throughout the fossil record.

Again, he doesn't deny there are fossilized burrowers. To the contrary, he claims there are lots of them.

But yet the sediment is still laminated. How can that be, unless the burrowers did not have enough time to mix the sediment prior to being deeply buried and fossilized?

The best someone could say, as per the research above, is that less complex bioturbation occurred in pre silurian times (430-550 mya). Which is actually, evidence supporting evolution, as per the paper. The paper above is not referring to the rest of the 430-0 mya geologic record, which is still a vast majority.

No. The best one can say is, there were plenty of burrowers, but not enough time for them to eliminate the lamination before they were deeply buried by the next flood deposition and subsequently fossilized.

For the record, the earth is less than 7500 years old.

Dan

 

[dcalling]

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
The article already addressed your first concern, "But the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asteroid strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth"
The climate change 100ky ago is not as truely a bottom neck as you wanted, as all the evidences suggested.

And, as much as you want to say there are enough in-between species, there are not. All fossils jump, and you can't fill them, no matter how much you want to stretch it.

Two very interesting observations by scientists are:
1. "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans."
2. "And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between."

Almost as if there was a dramatic change in climate about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

At the time of the Pleistocene, the continents had moved to their current positions. At one point during the Ice Age, sheets of ice covered all of Antarctica, large parts of Europe, North America, and South America, and small areas in Asia. In North America they stretched over Greenland and Canada and parts of the northern United States. The remains of glaciers of the Ice Age can still be seen in parts of the world, including Greenland and Antarctica.


But the glaciers did not just sit there. There was a lot of movement over time, and there were about 20 cycles when the glaciers would advance and retreat as they thawed and refroze. Scientists identified the Pleistocene Epoch’s four key stages, or ages — Gelasian, Calabrian, Ionian and Tarantian.
Pleistocene Epoch: Facts About the Last Ice Age



That's a weird misunderstanding. Darwin wasn't perplexed, he noted all sorts of "in-between" cases, and scientists since have found many more:

The forms which possess in some considerable degree the character of species, but which are go closely similar to other forms, or are so closely linked to them by intermediate gradations, that naturalists do not like to rank them as distinct species, are in several respects the most important for us. We have every reason to believe that many of these doubtful and closely allied forms have permanently retained their characters for a long time; for as long, as far as we know, as have good and true species. Practically, when a naturalist can unite by means of intermediate links any two forms, he treats the one as a variety of the other; ranking the most common, but sometimes the one first described, as the species, and the other as the variety. But cases of great difficulty, which I will not here enumerate, sometimes arise in deciding whether or not to rank one form as a variety of another, even when they are closely connected by intermediate links; nor will the commonly-assumed hybrid nature of the intermediate forms always remove the difficulty. In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species, Chapter II Variation Under Nature

Also striking is how at least some of the people who actually appraise species for a living have made peace with the perpetual tumult over defining just what it is they get up in the morning to study. The ambiguities seemed less jarring to me after a September conversation with the Smithsonian’s Kevin de Queiroz, deep in the maze of doors and corridors behind the scenes at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. As a systematic biologist, he studies the evolutionary histories of reptiles, and designates species, which explains a door we passed marked “Alcohol Room.” Fire regulations require special handling for jars of animal specimens preserved in alcohol. In the cacophony of species concepts, de Queiroz sees some commonality.

Ertter, affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley and the College of Idaho in Caldwell, embraces the ambiguity. “Why do we expect that nature is nice and neat and clean? Because it’s more convenient for us,” she says. “It’s up to us to figure it out, not to demand that it’s one way or another.”

There can be a lot of messiness in picking out the limits of species, but that’s OK with philosopher Matt Haber of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. He organized three conferences this year on the complications of determining what’s a species when fire hoses of genetic information spew signs of unexpected gene mixing and tell different stories depending on the genes tracked.
Defining ‘species’ is a fuzzy art

Ring species and species clines further complicate things. Is a leopard frog in Minnesota a different species than a leopard frog in Louisiana? They can't interbreed, which is the key element in deciding. What do you think?

Makes me wonder what else they got wrong. (Barbarian checks) Um, not a biology website. That's a big hint.

 

[Job 33:6]

So I go ahead and take information straight from Kurt wise, all of a sudden it somehow becomes a strawman.

Would anyone like to explain Kurt wises explanation to me then? I'd love to hear others explain what he meant when he said a giant wave created Mesozoic mega sequences.

 

[Job 33:6]

So you dispute his claim that most of the flood layers are laminated?

For the record, Dr. Wise considers a layer to be bioturbated if it is completely mixed, or "homogenized", in a manner of speaking.



Again, he doesn't deny there are fossilized burrowers. To the contrary, he claims there are lots of them.

But yet the sediment is still laminated. How can that be, unless the burrowers did not have enough time to mix the sediment prior to being deeply buried and fossilized?



No. The best one can say is, there were plenty of burrowers, but not enough time for them to eliminate the lamination before they were deeply buried by the next flood deposition and subsequently fossilized.

For the record, the earth is less than 7500 years old.

Dan

Ok, well you clearly can't respond adequately if you think...for example, that those decapods burrows, or the pliocene burrows, have not obstructed subsurface lamination.

These burrows among others sourced, have obstructed subsurface lamination. You seem to be in denial of this for some reason.

 

[Job 33:6]

About 6000 feet of sediment in the Grand Canyon, down to the level creationists think is "pre-flood."

since this exists all over the Earth, except where there are Cambrian rock at the surface, from where did all this sediment come?

Like the water, it seems some magic source was needed. For water, the usual explanation is the floodgates in the solid overhead firmament opened. How does 99+% of the Earth get covered to a mile or more of sediment? It had to come from somewhere.

And in reality, it's more than 6000 feet. Because what we have is 6000-8000 feet of rock. And the rock is compacted, at times super dense, compressed rock. Loose sediments would have had to have risen much higher prior to compaction.

And now we have Kurt wise suggesting the entire Mesozoic was laid down by a single wave.

Imagine, thousands of feet of sediment displaced simultaneously. Yet somehow...some way, we have simple things like nests with eggs and foottracks, right in the middle of it. Did the brontosaurus put on it's scuba gear before being washed across North America?

 

[Job 33:6]

Then should it not all be completely bioturbated? After all, there was plenty of time, was there not?

In a flood carrying a thousand, even several thousand feet of sediment-laden flood water, that does not seem too unrealistic. Besides, the evidence of megasequences implies substantial layering occurring at the tail end of each of the five massive surges.




Dan

and this is irrelevant, because 99% of fossils exist within these megasequences, not on top of them or below them.

So...do tell me...how is it that...life as making nests, walking around, mating, breeding, laying eggs...somehow right in the middle of the deposition of this megasequence?

Unless Kurt Wise is wrong of course about the mesozoic being laid down in a single massive wave over north amerca. That would be the simple conclusion.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Thalassinoides mazes occur in lower Cambrian nearshore carbonate sediments, leading to intense disruption of the primary fabric. "

"The top of the channel and crevasse-splay sandstone represents colonization surfaces that allow direct measurements of maximum burrowing depth. Taenidium barretti extends up to 2.2 m into the crevasse sand sheets. Depth and intensity of bioturbation of the main-channel and crevasse sands seem to be a function of time between depositional events. Main-channel and crevasse sandstones underlying thick packages of bioturbated overbank mudstones are intensely bioturbated, recording prolonged periods of low-energy sediment fallout between crevassing events. Conversely, the lowest degree of bioturbation is found in amalgamated channel sandstone units underlying thin intervals of overbank mudstones, reflecting high-frequency depositional episodes.
Deep and intense bioturbation in... (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ence_from_Miocene_fluvial_deposits_of_Bolivia [accessed Jun 12 2018]."
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ence_from_Miocene_fluvial_deposits_of_Bolivia

"Episode I occurred in Beds 25–27b when the ecologically complicate forms such as Chondrites, Skolithos, Rhizocorallium, and Thalassinoides disappeared hereafter, the bioturbation index reduced from 1–5 to 1–3, and the disturbed depth declined from 5–66 to 2–5 cm. "

"Sand without primary sedimentary structures due to pervasive bioturbation."

" Commonly the primary sedimentary structures are completely destroyed by bioturbation."

" The sandstones may locally display wave ripple lamination and apparently bio-lamination, but commonly the primary stratification is destroyed by very intense bioturbation. "

"(A) Bioturbation in sandstone with glauconite-rich, finer-grained Ophiomorpha or Palaeophycus burrow linings; well 16/3–6. (B) Coarse grained sandstone with intense bioturbation (Palaeophycus?) forming a mottled appearance due to finer-grained, stained linings of the roofs of burrows. The bioturbated sandstone is gradational downwards to structureless sandstone; well 16/2-7A (C) Large bifurcating burrow filled with gravel and lined with darker coloured finer grained sand (Thalassinoides or Ophiomorpha). Notice that the background sand matrix is composed of bioturbated coarse grained sand with darker medium grained sand burrow linings (?Palaeophycus); well 16/2-13A. (D) Bioturbated sand with granule infill of boxwork Thalassinoidesor Ophiomorpha burrows; well 16/2–8."

"(B) Very fine to fine grained sandstone bed, showing parallel lamination passing up to intense bioturbation. Notice large burrow filled with coarse sand from a bed above; well 16/2–15. (C) Totally bioturbated fine grained sandstone bed with Macaronichus (?); well 16/2-14T2."

" Fining-upward heterolith with numerous belemnites. The heterolith is intensely bioturbated, destroying the original layering; well 16/2–16. (D) Transition from facies 8 through facies 9 and to facies 10. Notice numerous belemnites in heterolithic and apparently bioturbated facies "

"In the Johan Sverdrup area the shoreface deposits seem to fall into two associations – upper shoreface with abundant stratification, and lower shoreface with virtually no stratification due to bioturbation. "

"[4] The organisms responsible for bioturbation on the shallower flanks of Santa Barbara Basin (500– 550 m) have been well studied. They include tubificid oligochaetes, tubicolous ampeliscid amphipods, dorvilleid polychaetes and the bivalve Lucinoma aequizonata [Levin et al., 2001, 2002; Cary et al., 1989; L.A. Levin, unpublished data]. In general, bioturbation results from foraging activities of deposit feeding animals, although other activities such as tube building also affect sediment structure."

The bottom left image is displaying several feet in which lamination has been obstructed by burrowing.

"
Wave-dominated environment sandstones were
previously interpreted as shoreface sands, which were
extensively bioturbated, associated with beach, offshore
transition and shelf deposits in wave-dominated
environment sandstones accumulated on the marine
coastal quite far from the deltaic river mouth."

Depositional Environment of... (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...baRlnIUydRZHtbxWvMYO69prCpIPcz09nkJI9lppK02aQ [accessed Jun 12 2018]