Polystrate Fossils

[RickG]

In any case, I just don't see how could a standing tree be hollowed before burial.

You've never seen a hollowed tree? The tree was probably hollowed years before being buried. Being buried has nothing to do with it being hollowed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If the tree was hollowed first (how common is that?)

You are joking, here, right? I mean, really. You are joking. Please tell me you're joking.

 

[juvenissun]

You are joking, here, right? I mean, really. You are joking. Please tell me you're joking.

OK, we take these two particular cases as a starting point. What should happen next? How could these hollowed tree be filled with sand before it is destroyed? or, fantastically, be buried?

Ha ha, a global flood may just do that.

And, I forgot, how do you hollow the roots?

 

[RickG]

OK, we take these two particular cases as a starting point. What should happen next? How could these hollowed tree be filled with sand before it is destroyed? or, fantastically, be buried?

Ha ha, a global flood may just do that.

If that were the case then there would be a layer of sand world-wide all consistent with the age of the flood and contain fossils of all life forms. That layer does not exist. You are also ignoring the fact that the Joggins formation is of Pennsylvanian age with fossils found only in that era.

And, I forgot, how do you hollow the roots?

The same way the trunk does and that is not by floods.

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, we take these two particular cases as a starting point.

These were just examples to you of naturally occurring "hollow trees". Just to show you that they are real and scientists have found them!

What should happen next? How could these hollowed tree be filled with sand before it is destroyed? or, fantastically, be buried?

If they were in flood plains, as described in the article, and there was an umm..."flood" on the flood plain (ie a flood that wasn't global in extent sent by God to punish the evil people, but rather the more common type of "localized flooding" seen every single day.)

Ha ha, a global flood may just do that.

Ha ha ha. Indeed. Tell me Dr. Juvenissun, what would you, as a geologist, expect to find if there was a global flood?

(HINT: a globally correlatable event, a good analogue might be the Iridium anomaly at the end K-T boundary. Just show us a globally correlatable event within human history showing flooding uniformly across the globe. Easy peasy for a professional geologist).

And, I forgot, how do you hollow the roots?

Clearly only God can do that. Hollow tree roots are the one thing that geologists live in fear of because it shows the huge lie that is all of geology. Satan helped all the geologists but could only do so much to hide the miraculous power of God. Hollow tree roots were the one thing we couldn't hide from the truly insightful scientists such as yourself.

If only you meddling kids had left good enough alone.

 

[juvenissun]

These were just examples to you of naturally occurring "hollow trees". Just to show you that they are real and scientists have found them!



If they were in flood plains, as described in the article, and there was an umm..."flood" on the flood plain (ie a flood that wasn't global in extent sent by God to punish the evil people, but rather the more common type of "localized flooding" seen every single day.)



Ha ha ha. Indeed. Tell me Dr. Juvenissun, what would you, as a geologist, expect to find if there was a global flood?

(HINT: a globally correlatable event, a good analogue might be the Iridium anomaly at the end K-T boundary. Just show us a globally correlatable event within human history showing flooding uniformly across the globe. Easy peasy for a professional geologist).



Clearly only God can do that. Hollow tree roots are the one thing that geologists live in fear of because it shows the huge lie that is all of geology. Satan helped all the geologists but could only do so much to hide the miraculous power of God. Hollow tree roots were the one thing we couldn't hide from the truly insightful scientists such as yourself.

If only you meddling kids had left good enough alone.

Well, I go back and check the article quoted by RickG (Falcon-Lang et al, 2006) one more time (page 567, the facies pPDF > LT) . I will make corrections on my old impression. 1. They did not literally describe the tree was hollowed and sand filled. It is only my impression. Because they did use the word "sand casted". I think it is a very wrong term carelessly used by paleontologist, which will give petrologist a wrong impression on the process. 2. I thought they did not find fossils in the tree material. But it seems that they are not interested in the tree composition at all, but only described fossils found in the strata which contains the tree. Accordingly, I believe the tree material is fossil-less.

These corrections may solve our argument. I do think the tree material is diagenetically concentrated after the burial. As I speculated earlier, most likely, it is cherty and/or carbonate material, and should be replacement in origin.

Hey, Rick, since this is your thread, could you dig out another article which does describe the make up of the fossil tree?

 

[thaumaturgy]

1. They did not literally describe the tree was hollowed and sand filled. It is only my impression. Because they did use the word "sand casted". I think it is a very wrong term carelessly used by paleontologist, which will give petrologist a wrong impression on the process.

Why?

Here's exactly what the article says on Pg 567:

"The LT facies comprises the interior of upright sediment-cast lycopsid trees, which locally contain rich fossil assemblages, and are thus described separately from the enclosing GM facies."

That seems pretty straightforward. I've highlighted the important bits in red. Why is it wrong to characterize the infilling of a hollow body with sediment as a "casting"?

Seems to me like the exact right term in this particular instance.

And this is not particularly clear in describing all instances of upright trees, just those in that particular faces where internal casts are preserved.

Note on page 568 it says:

"Red mudstone and sheet sandstone complexes contain common upright calamiteans, and a few upright, sandstone-cast lycopsids (Sigillaria)"

So that would seem to differentiate cast fossils from other upright trees.

2. I thought they did not find fossils in the tree material. But it seems that they are not interested in the tree composition at all, but only described fossils found in the strata which contains the tree. Accordingly, I believe the tree material is fossil-less.

Huh?

I don't know about you but upon quick scan of the article I saw them discuss ad nauseam Calamites, Stigmaria, Caulopteris, lycopsids like Lepidodendron

The term "Lycopsids" shows up 13 separate times.
Calamites shows up about 15 separate times.

Page 565 lists the plants in the pPDF horizon:

Class Lycopsida​

Bothrodendron punctatum

Cyperites

​

​

​

​

Diaphorodendron ​

Lepidodendron ​

Lepidophloios ​

Lepidostrobus ​

Paralycopodites ​

Sigillaria ​

Stigmaria ficoides ​

Class Sphenopsida​

​

​

​

Annularia ​

Asterophyllites ​

Calamites ​

Eucalamites ​

Palaeostachya ​

Sphenophyllum ​

Class Filicopsida​

​

​

​

Renaultia ​

...
Neuropteris

....
Cordaites principalis

...
Dadoxylon 2 sp. (HS, GM)

These corrections may solve our argument.

What corrections, specifically?

I do think the tree material is diagenetically concentrated after the burial. As I speculated earlier, most likely, it is cherty and/or carbonate material, and should be replacement in origin.​

In the HS faces the authors explicitly state that upright cordaitalean tree trunks are:

"Tree trunks are locally calcite-permineralized, may exhibit Dadoxylon wood, and have complex, shallow root systems (Dawson 1868)." (emphasis added)​

So it sounds like carbonate as opposed to silicious permineralization.​

Hey, Rick, since this is your thread, could you dig out another article which does describe the make up of the fossil tree?​

Why don't you do it?

​

 

[RickG]

Hey, Rick, since this is your thread, could you dig out another article which does describe the make up of the fossil tree?

This one should be interesting. Note on page 684 that there is a short discussion on the Joggins article, where it is specifically stated that that particular study was targeted in looking at the vertebrate fauna contained in the hollow trunks.

http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol 25/Pages 681-708.pdf

There are many interesting and informative articles concerning upright fossils, unfortunately, there are only a limited number to which I can give you direct access without encountering a paywall.

 

[juvenissun]

Why?

Here's exactly what the article says on Pg 567:

"The LT facies comprises the interior of upright sediment-cast lycopsid trees, which locally contain rich fossil assemblages, and are thus described separately from the enclosing GM facies."

That seems pretty straightforward. I've highlighted the important bits in red. Why is it wrong to characterize the infilling of a hollow body with sediment as a "casting"?
...

The meaning of sand casting is pretty straight forward and can be agreed upon.

The problem is that it seems I could not convince you that the sand casting of hollowed tree as a origin of the fossilized standing tree is not a likely natural process.

I am not going to try harder on this.

Basically, I don't think flood and quick sandy deposit are important factor in making the fossilized standing tree. I think the rate of deposition in that environment was normal. So, the origin of the polystrate tree is still a puzzle to me.

 

[juvenissun]

This one should be interesting. Note on page 684 that there is a short discussion on the Joggins article, where it is specifically stated that that particular study was targeted in looking at the vertebrate fauna contained in the hollow trunks.

http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol 25/Pages 681-708.pdf

There are many interesting and informative articles concerning upright fossils, unfortunately, there are only a limited number to which I can give you direct access without encountering a paywall.

Thanks. I think you may simply give the title and the source. I may be able to get a copy of the full text.

Those articles suggested the hollow-tree-sand-filling model was done in early 1970's, when the concept of diagenesis was still in its infancy and they might not know what else to say. I simply found it is funny that the earlier paper you quoted was done in 2006, but by paleontologists who obviously totally ignore this consideration and only focused on fossil identification.

I can accept the hollow trunk filling model if the trunk is only a foot high or so. In that case, the tree texture, internal and external, will be totally destroyed (due to the hollowing and the deterioration of the woody remains later during burial). But to hollow and to fill a trunk which is a few feet high, and still be able to identify the tree species, would be a stretch.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The problem is that it seems I could not convince you that the sand casting of hollowed tree as a origin of the fossilized standing tree is not a likely natural process.

Interesting claim. If it is not a "likely natural process", what else would you suggest? A global flood a la Genesis? So that is more likely?

I am not going to try harder on this.

Were you actually trying before?

 

[thaumaturgy]

TI simply found it is funny that the earlier paper you quoted was done in 2006, but by paleontologists who obviously totally ignore this consideration and only focused on fossil identification.

So you thought an article the title:

The Pennsylvanian tropical biome reconstructed from the Joggins Formation of Nova Scotia, Canada (emphasis added)

was going to focus on something other than the fossil identification????

 

[thaumaturgy]

But to hollow and to fill a trunk which is a few feet high, and still be able to identify the tree species, would be a stretch.

When I read the 2006 article I find this description:

Fossiliferous trees have external ribbing suggestive of Sigillaria
and always contain a basal layer of charred lycopsid periderm
and wood (Dawson 1860; Falcon-Lang 1999).

(Falcon-Lang et al, 2006)

So it seems that there are ways to identify based on the available information.

 

[juvenissun]

When I read the 2006 article I find this description:



So it seems that there are ways to identify based on the available information.

That is exactly what the problem is to me.

If the trunk is filled with sand, then the internal tree structure will be gone. Then, how would the external structure be preserved during burial? If the hollowed trunk were mineralized, then the trunk-filling boundary should be clearly visible.

In the latter article Rick quoted, there are images on the cross section of the tree. I just wonder if similar view is available to the trees in Joppins.

I sometimes wonder about people. They suggested a model on the origin of standing tree without first making this kind of information clear.

 

[RickG]

That is exactly what the problem is to me.

If the trunk is filled with sand, then the internal tree structure will be gone. Then, how would the external structure be preserved during burial? If the hollowed trunk were mineralized, then the trunk-filling boundary should be clearly visible

I think you are confusing the description of solid tree trunks with hollow ones. Please cite the specific page, paragraph and illustration you talking about.

 

[RickG]

In the latter article Rick quoted, there are images on the cross section of the tree. I just wonder if similar view is available to the trees in Joppins.

The first article I referenced was specifically about vertebrate fossils found in hollowed trees. The second article was more about the growth rates of the trees and the climate in which they grew. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

[juvenissun]

The first article I referenced was specifically about vertebrate fossils found in hollowed trees. The second article was more about the growth rates of the trees and the climate in which they grew. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

Sorry, I am tired on this subject.

That is why I haven't got this problem straightened up for decades. I don't have chance to take it as a research project. I am not defending anything here. If you have question, we can certainly talk about it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sorry, I am tired on this subject.

Science is hard.

That is why I haven't got this problem straightened up for decades. I don't have chance to take it as a research project. I am not defending anything here. If you have question, we can certainly talk about it.

That's understandable. If you get easily tired with research it must be hard to straighten anything up.

 

[juvenissun]

Science is hard.



That's understandable. If you get easily tired with research it must be hard to straighten anything up.

Don't get me wrong. I am tired on "this thread", not on this subject.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Don't get me wrong. I am tired on "this thread", not on this subject.

Seems to me you look at the data provided from the various articles, dismiss it out of hand as somehow "mysterious" and then demand more data to solve a 'mystery' that I'm not really sure is even marginally "mysterious".

So it would get tiring for you.

I honestly do not see how any of this is all that mysterious. It seems just from a few paragraphs cited in this discussion thread that it all makes quite a bit of sense actually.

One actually seems to have to go out of their way to turn it into a mystery.

But if it is important to you that it be "mysterious" then I guess no possible amount of data could ever clear the mystery up.

I'm guessing the only rational explanation for the Joggins formation with the upright trees is that a supernatural being who lives outside of space and time decided to punish his creation and send a global flood which left absolutely no evidence that would indicate a GLOBAL flood during early human history, but did leave some upright trees in a small area of Nova Scotia from a time horizon millions and millions and millions of years before humans ever showed up.

It's the only thing that makes sense.

THAT isn't mysterious at all. That's pretty straightforward.