The fossil record explained

[Job 33:6]

Yeah Geologically the bottom section is older, but I'm talking about the fossils in each layer which get dated to the layer and seen as beginning to exist in that layer. So if the land animals that later walked onto that plot of land existed even when the land was under water they will only show up in the geologically later section of land giving the impression of speciation even know they existed since the first section. (Just not in this piece of land) How do we know we're not just dealing with the fact that land animals and plants aren't going to be in a place that's underwater to lay down fossils.

Speciation is defined, morphologically, not really temporally or by what strata the fossil is found in. We consider the upper layer fossils a new species because they morphologically are different.

Identifying speciation in fossils is a lot more complicated than identifying species in the modern world though. Some fossils such as anomalocaris was originally identified as 3-4 independent species of jellyfish and shrimp, before we realized they were all small parts of a single animal. And sometimes people cant tell the difference between juvenile fossils and adults. Some baby fossils have large heads, like people. But in other cases, its not as clear. So sometimes there are controversies over what is a new species versus what is the same species represented by 2 different age groups, thus is the case with ah...what is it...triceratops and torosaurus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalocaris
Anomalocaris has been misidentified several times, in part due to its makeup of a mixture of mineralized and unmineralized body parts; the mouth and feeding appendage was considerably harder and more easily fossilizedthan the delicate body.[9] Its name originates from a description of a detached 'arm', described by Joseph Frederick Whiteaves in 1892 as a separate crustacean-like creature due to its resemblance to the tail of a lobster or shrimp.[9] The first fossilized anomalocaridid mouth was discovered by Charles Doolittle Walcott, who mistook it for a jellyfish and placed it in the genus Peytoia. Walcott also discovered a second feeding appendage, but failed to realize the similarities to Whiteaves' discovery and instead identified it as feeding appendage or tail of the extinct Sidneyia.[9] The body was discovered separately and classified as a sponge in the genus Laggania; a mouth was found with the body, but was interpreted by its discoverer Simon Conway Morris as an unrelated Peytoia that had through happenstance settled and been preserved with Laggania. Later, while clearing what he thought was an unrelated specimen, Harry B. Whittington removed a layer of covering stone to discover the unequivocally connected arm thought to be a shrimp tail and mouth thought to be a jellyfish.[9][2] Whittington linked the two species, but it took several more years for researchers to realize that the continuously juxtaposed Peytoia, Laggania and feeding appendage actually represented a single, enormous creature.[9] Because Peytoia was named first, it became the correct name for the entire animal. The original feeding arm, however, came from a larger species distinct from Peytoia and "Laggania", which retains the name Anomalocaris.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torosaurus

Recently the validity of Torosaurus has been disputed.[5] A 2010 study of fossil bone histology combined with an investigation of frill shape concluded that Torosaurus probably represented the mature form of Triceratops, with the bones of typical Triceratops specimens still immature and showing signs of a first development of distinct Torosaurus frill holes. During maturation, the skull frill would have been greatly lengthened and holes would have appeared in it.[6][7][8] In 2011, 2012 and 2013 however, studies of external features of known specimens have claimed that morphological differences between the two genera preclude their synonymy. The main problems are a lack of good transitional forms, the apparent existence of authentic Torosaurus subadults, different skull proportions independent of maturation and the assertion that hole formation at an adult stage is not part of a normal ceratopsian maturation sequence.[4][9][10]




But dont be fooled by young earthers. The fossil record strongly supports the theory of evolution. But of course nothing in science is perfect, its always an ongoing practice of research and discovery

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Say you have a plot of land. Land animals and plants are living there and after having lived their lives they die. Some of them die on the right spot where conditions for fossilization is ideal. So fossils of land animals and plants start to accumulate on these sites

Except science has already shown fossilization only occurs after rapid burial so as to prevent rapid decay. So we find right off the bat a false scenario......

https://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html

the conditions where fossilization is ideal occurs through rapid burial in sediments. You know, floods.......

After a while this whole formation subsides due to geological processes. Sea water starts to pour in. Evidently this is mostly a very slow process. We have many areas in the world that are currently slowly subsiding. For instance, Netherlands, where I live, is slowly subsiding - it's measurable and about some 20 cm per century. Also sea levels may rise due to climate change - but also at slow rate.

And entire mountain ranges which were once ocean floor.....

In other words, as we observe a layer with only land animals and plants fossils, this plot of land once was terrestrial. But the layer with marine fossils sitting on top testifies the very same area became a sea floor later.

So the sea gradually pouring apparently didn't wash away the terrestrial fossils sitting in up to tens of meters of sediments.

Again we find observations do not match your scenaripo.

http://prehistoricflorida.org/131-2/

"the remains of ancient land and sea animals are often mixed together, making it difficult to be sure where animals lived and at what time."

Of course they blame it on the sea reworking the sediments, but naturally failing to weather the fossils

In your scenario the terrestral fossils, once washed away by the sea water, will end up somewhere on the sea floor, getting mixed up with the marine fossils. But we simply don't observe such mix up.

but you were just shown we do. And again, your scenario of them dying then magically fossilizing without first decaying without rapid burial has already been shown to be false. Not a single scientists believes fossilization occurs without immediate and rapid burial in sediments......

Your scenario also doesn't work when the opposite happens: when former sea beds elevate and become terrestrial again. But we do not only observe many instances where terrestrial layers are alternated by marine one but also the other way round. And when a sea dries up and becomes land area again, there is no known mechanism that would cause the land animals and plants to "move out".

Or, put in othe rwords, fossils, once buried, do not move out or in. they sit in often hard and solid rock formations.

Hmm, and yet they are using the excuse that the rock sedimentary layers were reworked to explain exactly what you say didn't happen. I am glad to see you reject their silly excuse.

"Since the sea rose and receded from Florida many times and sediments were reworked each time, the remains of ancient land and sea animals are often mixed together, making it difficult to be sure where animals lived and at what time. Typically, however, the oldest land animals are found in higher elevations in the northern third of the state and along the central ridge, but the creatures of Florida’s last two million years – the Pleistocene animals – are found throughout Florida’s strata."

They are found mixed together all over, you just don't generally hear about it because it tends to weaken the theory of immense time instead of one large catastrophe..... something they prefer not to mention.....

If you are going to challenge flood theory, and all of science which insists animals were buried in sediments rapidly in order to fossilize... please at least understand the theory first..

 

[Sanoy]

Speciation is defined, morphologically, not really temporally or by what strata the fossil is found in. We consider the upper layer fossils a new species because they morphologically are different.

Identifying speciation in fossils is a lot more complicated than identifying species in the modern world though. Some fossils such as anomalocaris was originally identified as 3-4 independent species of jellyfish and shrimp, before we realized they were all small parts of a single animal. And sometimes people cant tell the difference between juvenile fossils and adults. Some baby fossils have large heads, like people. But in other cases, its not as clear. So sometimes there are controversies over what is a new species versus what is the same species represented by 2 different age groups, thus is the case with ah...what is it...triceratops and torosaurus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalocaris
Anomalocaris has been misidentified several times, in part due to its makeup of a mixture of mineralized and unmineralized body parts; the mouth and feeding appendage was considerably harder and more easily fossilizedthan the delicate body.[9] Its name originates from a description of a detached 'arm', described by Joseph Frederick Whiteaves in 1892 as a separate crustacean-like creature due to its resemblance to the tail of a lobster or shrimp.[9] The first fossilized anomalocaridid mouth was discovered by Charles Doolittle Walcott, who mistook it for a jellyfish and placed it in the genus Peytoia. Walcott also discovered a second feeding appendage, but failed to realize the similarities to Whiteaves' discovery and instead identified it as feeding appendage or tail of the extinct Sidneyia.[9] The body was discovered separately and classified as a sponge in the genus Laggania; a mouth was found with the body, but was interpreted by its discoverer Simon Conway Morris as an unrelated Peytoia that had through happenstance settled and been preserved with Laggania. Later, while clearing what he thought was an unrelated specimen, Harry B. Whittington removed a layer of covering stone to discover the unequivocally connected arm thought to be a shrimp tail and mouth thought to be a jellyfish.[9][2] Whittington linked the two species, but it took several more years for researchers to realize that the continuously juxtaposed Peytoia, Laggania and feeding appendage actually represented a single, enormous creature.[9] Because Peytoia was named first, it became the correct name for the entire animal. The original feeding arm, however, came from a larger species distinct from Peytoia and "Laggania", which retains the name Anomalocaris.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torosaurus

Recently the validity of Torosaurus has been disputed.[5] A 2010 study of fossil bone histology combined with an investigation of frill shape concluded that Torosaurus probably represented the mature form of Triceratops, with the bones of typical Triceratops specimens still immature and showing signs of a first development of distinct Torosaurus frill holes. During maturation, the skull frill would have been greatly lengthened and holes would have appeared in it.[6][7][8] In 2011, 2012 and 2013 however, studies of external features of known specimens have claimed that morphological differences between the two genera preclude their synonymy. The main problems are a lack of good transitional forms, the apparent existence of authentic Torosaurus subadults, different skull proportions independent of maturation and the assertion that hole formation at an adult stage is not part of a normal ceratopsian maturation sequence.[4][9][10]




But dont be fooled by young earthers. The fossil record strongly supports the theory of evolution. But of course nothing in science is perfect, its always an ongoing practice of research and discovery

Thank you! I was thinking about PMing you with that question.

 

[juvenissun]

I think Juv is intimating that if a geographical area changes from forest to sea, for example, the fauna that lives there must evolve accordingly and we should see “transitional” fossils of rapidly evolving species at the boundaries of the strata.

You are thinking toward a right direction, even the "analysis" is crude and inaccurate. I am sorry that I can not correct you in details because it would involve a few-hour long lecture on sedimentology.

 

[juvenissun]

It's still a obfuscating red herring and irrelevant because my OP and starting posts are about the fossils that are there for everyone to observe in different layers and how they unambiguously depict a change in biodiversity. And a change in biodiversity is another word for evolution.

Whether we find transitional fossils at stratigraphical boundaries does not change a bit about different geological formations depicting changes in biodiversity. Neither does it change anything else about the observations I presented in my OP and 2 starting posts.

All you said is

Fossil a is found in Formation A;
Fossil b is found in Formation B.

No one voiced anything against that observation.
But, no one sees any question about it either.

What is your point?

 

[juvenissun]

OK. Forget it. I know how much you know now.
Disappointed.

If you do a similar of above in your profession, you are stealing a property of intelligence. Hope you are not used to do that.

 

[pitabread]

They are found mixed together all over, you just don't generally hear about it because it tends to weaken the theory of immense time instead of one large catastrophe..... something they prefer not to mention.....

The reason the "one large catastrophe" (aka Noah's Flood) doesn't get mentioned is because it blatantly contradicts almost ever branch of the natural sciences. The most egregious being basic physics, since the energy release in such an event would have vaporized the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason the "one large catastrophe" (aka Noah's Flood) doesn't get mentioned is because it blatantly contradicts almost ever branch of the natural sciences. The most egregious being basic physics, since the energy release in such an event would have vaporized the Earth's atmosphere.

The Flood was a project of God's.

 

[pitabread]

The Flood was a project of God's.

Doesn't change the fact the energy release would have vaporized the atmosphere. The Ark must have been a space ship.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't change the fact the energy release would have vaporized the atmosphere. The Ark must have been a space ship.

Was Nebuchadnezzar's furnace a space ship as well?

Daniel 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

How about the burning bush?

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Was it a shuttle craft?

 

[pitabread]

How about the burning bush?

Hallucinogenics. LSD? Mushrooms? Lots of ways to create a vision...

 

[Turkana]

By the way, freethinker, does it bother you that we can freethink as well?

Or do we have to toe the line with your fossil record?

Irrelevant tattle. This is the challenge:

1. we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise they would not sit there.
2. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
3. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

ANY other subject will be dismissed without ANY ADO./

 

[Turkana]

Yes, serious.

I'm sure I effectively answered [at least some of] your chatty-cathy OP with what should be an understandable analogy.

But instead of getting an, "Oh, I see where you're coming from," my explanation -- (as if you even understood it) -- gets added to your list of unacceptable explanations.

You think I joined here yesterday, chief?

I'm familiar with many of you guys' tactics; and I can sum it up well in one line:

"It's not what we say that bothers you guys, it's what we are."

Irrelevant tattle.

HERE is your challenge:

1. we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise they would not sit there.
2. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
3. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

ANY other subject will be dismissed without ANY ADO.

 

[Turkana]

Excellent!

Because the one I posted was a Black Bear skull.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/6d/f3/0d6df3560e2f6d66ce1c228763f04cc2.jpg

Aren't Black Bears and dogs different "kinds" in your errant belief system? You couldn't even tell because you don't know what you're talking about. I so hope you came up with that image you added to your post by googling the image I posted. It would just further solidify the point that you don't know what you're talking about because even google can't tell the difference between the 2. Why do you think that is? Evolution explains it perfectly. They are closely related species with a lot of the same features and we have transitional fossils between them right where they should be in the fossil and geological record. Unsurprisingly there are no dinosaur bones found with them and humans don't show up until about 30 million years later when we can see more distinct bear and wolf species diverging.

Priceless. Run along, now.

Jolly good move!

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the challenge:

Funny.

I don't see a challenge in there anywhere.

And I have more challenge threads than you have posts.

 

[Aman777]

I'm sure you need to believe that. I suppose that's easier than taking responsibility for the way you witness for your own faith.

Then please tell us WHY you cannot explain the recently discovered scientific facts which AGREE in every way with what ancient men, who lived thousands of years BEFORE Science, told us in Genesis One and got them correct. You cannot since ancient men did NOT Author Genesis. I predict you will hide again before you answer.

 

[pitabread]

Then please tell us WHY you cannot explain the recently discovered scientific facts which AGREE in every way with what ancient men, who lived thousands of years BEFORE Science, told us in Genesis One and got them correct. You cannot since ancient men did NOT Author Genesis. I predict you will hide again before you answer.

I've answered you in the past on this where I pointed it's simply your flimsy post-hoc interpretation of the text to force-fit it with modern science. Nothing miraculous at all about it.

Especially since you ignore all the stuff that doesn't agree with modern science and appear to have written a sci-fi fan fiction in the process. Something I don't think any other creationists agree with.

 

[Aman777]

Yes, serious.

I'm sure I effectively answered [at least some of] your chatty-cathy OP with what should be an understandable analogy.

But instead of getting an, "Oh, I see where you're coming from," my explanation -- (as if you even understood it) -- gets added to your list of unacceptable explanations.

You think I joined here yesterday, chief?

I'm familiar with many of you guys' tactics; and I can sum it up well in one line:

"It's not what we say that bothers you guys, it's what we are."

Looks like the new poster hasn't learned how to communicate effectively and his scientific "buddies" have ignored him. Reminds me of Trump trying to run the country. It's Amateur Hour, all over again.

 

[Aman777]

I've answered you in the past on this where I pointed it's simply your flimsy post-hoc interpretation of the text to force-fit it with modern science.

I could list the recently discovered scientific facts in Genesis but you wouldn't read them. Even if someone were raised from the dead, you wouldn't believe. Would you?

 

[pitabread]

I could list the recently discovered scientific facts in Genesis but you wouldn't read them.

You're right, because I've already argued with you about this and it's just a waste of time. You can believe whatever you want to believe, even if nobody else on the planet appears to believe it.

I do think you should work with a writer to turn your stories into a published work. You have a knack for wild imaginative fiction.

Even if someone were raised from the dead, you wouldn't believe. Would you?

If we're talking about a story written in a book about someone rising from the dead thousands of years ago, no. No I would not.

There are lots of mythological stories in human history and I treat them as such.