so what are you claiming by saying : "fossils can become displaced in the fossil record. "?
Over millions of years, rocks move.
2 Likes
I’m no geologist, but enjoy geological stuff, and is is fascinating how rock layers can be folded and bent, bringing different ages of rocks together, and even folding younger rock under older. These types of events can be seen and accounted for. It is also common for layers to form, erosion to wear off the top layer then a younger layer formed on top of a much older layer. Again, a skilled geologist can determine when that is the case. Now, if you found a human tooth in a tyrannosaur coprophyte, that would certainly be noteworthy, maybe win you a Nobel prize
1 Like
Christy has explained it perfectly. If you are not aware of these facts then it just shows you need to learn more before having this conversation.
1 Like
so a human fossil in a dino layer cant falsified evolution then. because if we will find such a fossil we can claim that it is the result of such speciel event.
Yes it can, if you can prove the human fossil genuinely antedates the dinosaurs, and was not displaced. Please do some reading on this subject, there’s plenty available freely online.
If you look at this statement closely, you might begin to understand the faulty reasoning. 1. you say that large animals did not develop when dinos were present. But you give no reason for this. What stopped them from developing? And how is this different from “existed, but did not survive?”
2. You state ipso facto that when mammals became top of the food chain, that they developed large strains. But you provide no rationale, no clear reasoning for this. The largest mammals are not top of the food cchain; they are herbivores. Furthermore, this was also true for dinos, that the largest ones were herbivores. I detect some confusion in the generalizations of types with the interactions of specific species. That is why your rationale is unclear.
3. You also seem to be confusing marsupial classification from mammals. Unless I am mistaken, marsupials are mammals also.
4. Your generalization that largee animals would emerge when their small ancestors gain the top predator status… but that is rather backwards. It is difficult for small ancestors to gain top predator status, which they would not gain until they became larger.
5. I am befuzzled by your fuzzy thinking…
Perhaps after writing this, you realized the irony, and the impossibility, but wanted to see if anyone would notice. or would dispute that humans are primates.
However, this is also a blatant example of the rationalizations that attend the mechanizations of the theory of evolution. If fossils are used as evidence for folding of rock, then the rock cannot be used as evidence for the age of the fossil. In other words, there must be another objective criteria that demonstrates or provides evidence for rock folding, which would stand up whether fossils are evident or evaluated or not.
Of course fossils could be displaced and we assume some are. But if the main reason they are considered displaced is not their physical condition, nor the chemical processes in their proximity, but rather their location relative to the theory behind their age, then it is a very tenuous rationale for displacement, and essentially not very scientific.
1 Like
The absence of fossils does not prove the absence of species. We have evidence of this. One of the most clear evidences is the coelacanth fish which had been thought to be extinct, due to lack of more recently dated fossils. Yet, it existed all along, even though it left no fossils. Fossils can prove something existed, but cannot prove something did not exist, as much as you seem to want to misuse science in such a way.
Because the corollary must then also be true, that intermediate species, attempts, and failures must be evident in the fossil record at a percentage of fossils at least ten times as great as terminal or established species, and perhaps at a level at least 100 times as great as they are found today.
If you are right that the YEC model, or all of the present YEC models are wrong, that still does not provide evidence that the OEE model is right. [quote=“gbrooks9, post:102, topic:350”]
we offer a predictive hypothesis that explains/predicts that even HUMANS would not have successfully shared the earth with carnivorous dinosaurs!
[/quote]
I predict that your hypothesis will not stand up to scrutiny. Humans have shared the earth with all kinds of carnivors, usually subjecting them and dominating them in various ways, especially whenever they become too threatening. The earth is a big place, and carnivorous dinosaurs would likely find certain ecological niches in the earth unfriendly, while humans have the uncanny ability to adapt and manipulate their environment to their advantage. A polar bear does not like the tropics, and crocodiles avoid the Hudson Bay, while humans manage to do well in both.
1 Like
I find myself in a similar quandary to dsccccccc, in that I’m ignorant about “displaced fossils”. If entire strata are folded or bent or subducted underneath other layers, wouldn’t all the fossils just move along with the displaced layers they are contained in? If so, I would call that “displaced strata” rather than displaced fossils. I guess I was imagining that displacement meant a fossil is removed from its original layer and somehow injected into another one, but if so … how? Does insutu growth that penetrates deeper layers count?
Apparently this is easily researched, so maybe I need to apologize for starting here. But it would help me look things up if I at least new what mechanisms were associated with the phenomenon.
I honestly don’t understand what you are getting at. Maybe reasoning is the wrong word. I retract it and replace it with “explanation.” It is an explanation because people are trying to explain what did happen not prove conclusively why something that did not happen actually logically should not have happened.
If you reject all the premises that the explanation is based on (That rock strata can be reliably dated and fossils in dated rock strata can be used to form a reliable natural history of the emergence and co-existence of life forms), then the explanation of why large mammals and dinosaurs didn’t co-exist won’t be satisfying.
The “reason for this” is that we have no fossil evidence that large mammals co-existed with dinosaurs. We are trying to explain an actual observable natural history, not justify or rationalize a hypothetical natural history. If you think actual natural history is hypothetical and not actual, that causes communication problems.
This is again a conclusion arrived at by observation of natural history, not by reasoning. It is a description of what happened, not a prescription of how life must progress. I assert that paleontologists can reliably recreate the ecosystems and food chains from specific times in natural history and describe them with a sufficient degree of accuracy. You are free to reject that assertion as invalid, but it isn’t really about reasoning. When palentologists ask “why?” and offer a rationale, they are proposing an explanation that makes sense of actual observations, not a rationale that makes logical sense when applied to hypothetical situations. Often what is intuitively “logical” in a hypothetical sense, didn’t actually happen.
True. I should have made the distinction between placental mammals and marsupial mammals.
This is faulty reasoning and makes no sense. Lets say D can live in environment X and M can also live in environment X. The environment changes to environment Y. M can live in environment Y. You are saying that the fact M can live in Y implies that D could have lived in environment Y and if they died out it was for a different reason than change from X to Y. How in the world does the successful adaptation of mammals to environment Y imply anything about the successful or unsuccessful adaptation of dinosaurs to Y?
But that is indeed the case, so there presumably is a reason. Whether or not we can correctly ascertain it, is beside the point, and so is whether or not the reason seems logically predictable. I’m pretty sure competition and the emergence of dominance of one type of animal over another involves luck and extenuating circumstances, not reason and logic. It is survival of the fittest, not survival of the logically predictable winner.
It does no good to discuuss biology with you. You and I have different reference points, and different presumptions.
So why don’t we just talk about this GLOBAL FLOOD… that happened during RECORDED history!
So… would you say this MASSIVE FLOOD that wiped out millions of lives … happened in the MIDDLE of one of the Egyptian dynasties… with no mention of a flood… or any indication that the pyramids of these Pharaohs were ever FLOODED for a year.
JUST HOW do you explain that? Let’s use one of the usual dates for The Flood: 2348 BC. The method of calculating is pasted at the bottom. What was happening in Egypt in 2348 BCE?
There seems to be general consensus that during this global flood, Pharaoh Unas was alive … AND he survived the FLOOD!!!
Unlike Noah, who has left no autographs… we have ENGRAVINGS from this Egyptian who survived the FLOOD!!!
“The primary contemporaneous sources attesting to Unas’ activities are the many reliefs from his pyramid complex. Excluding these, surprisingly few documents dating to Unas’ reign have survived to this day, considering the 30-year length that later records give for his reign. Excavations at Abusir, the royal necropolis of the Fifth Dynasty, have produced only four dated inscriptions safely attributable to Unas. They explicitly mention his third, fourth, sixth and eighth years on the throne.[23] Unas also left a rock inscription on the island of Elephantine, next to the First Cataract of the Nile in Nubia.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Let’s compare that to the known Pharaohs of Egypt for that time period:
5th Dynasty
Userkaf 2465-2458 (or 2498-2491) Pyramid in Saqqara.
Sahure 2458-2446 (or 2490-2477) Pyramid at Abusir
Neferirkare Kakai 2477-2467 (or 2477-2467) Son of Sahure
Shepseskare Ini 2426-2419 (or 2468, only a few months)
Neferefre 2419-2416 (or before Shepseskare)
Niuserre Izi 2453-2422 (or Nyuserre Ini 2445-2422) Brother to Neferefre
Menkauhor 2422-2414 (or Menkauhor Kaiu 2422-2414) Last Pharaoh to build a sun temple.
Djedkare Izezi 2388-2376 (or Djedkare Isesi 2414-2375)
Unas 2375-2345 (or 2375-2345) Pyramid of Unas inscribed with earliest example of Pyramid texts.
6th Dynasty
Teti 2345-2333 (or 2345-2333)
Pepy I (Meryre) 2332-2283 (or Meryre Pepi I, 2332-2283)
Merenre Nemtyemzaf 2283-2278 (or Merenre Nemtyemsaf I, 2283-2278)
Pepy II (Neferkare) 2278-2184 (or Neferkare or Neferkare Pepi II, 2278-2184)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Table 1: Dates of biblical events from Creation - THE FLOOD circa 2348 BCE
Event/Person Passage Total Time from Creation (years)
God created everything. Genesis 1–2 0
Adam became the father of Seth at 130. Genesis 5:3 0 + 130 = 130
Seth became the father of Enosh at 105. Genesis 5:6 130 + 105 = 235
Enosh became the father of Kenan at 90. Genesis 5:9 235 + 90 = 325
Cainan became the father of Mahalalel at 70. Genesis 5:12 325 + 70 = 395
Mahalalel became the father of Jared at 65. Genesis 5:15 395 + 65 = 460
Jared became the father of Enoch at 162. Genesis 5:18 460 + 162 = 622
Enoch became the father of Methuselah at 65. Genesis 5:21 622 + 65 = 687
Methuselah became the father of Lamech at 187. Genesis 5:25 687 + 187 = 874
Lamech became the father of Noah at 182. Genesis 5:28 874 + 182 = 1056
The Flood started when Noah was 600. Genesis 7:6 1056 + 600 = 1656
As you can see from Table 1, the year in which the Flood came was 1656 AM1 (Anno Mundi – “year of the world”). From the rest of the Old Testament and other well-documented historical events we understand that creation, as calculated by Ussher, was about 4004 BC. So with a little more math we can calculate the second date.
Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359
Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.
Footnotes
Since the Bible does not provide the number of months in the age of each patriarch listed from Adam to Noah, then we could add about five more years to this number. For example, Adam may have been 130 years and 10 months old when Seth was born, and Seth may have been 105 years and four months. On average, there would likely be an additional six months for each generation. The same would be true for the genealogy in Genesis 10.
We need to subtract one year from this calculation since there was not a “year zero.” The calendar we use jumps from 1 BC to AD 1.
No. The fact that humans are primates is the entire point. Humans are very late primates. If we find humans before the emergence of primates (that is, before the earliest primates), we need to rethink evolution.
Fossils are not used as the evidence for the folding of rock.
No. The main reason is the physical evidence for displacement. Please read up on this topic.
1 Like
I know what you are trying to do. I am saying your explanation is not an explanation; it is a rationalization. And it is a rationalization that is not justified, based on the evidence of what we actually see in nature, and in the fossil record.
Their presence is the observation; the “top of the food chain” is the rationalization. I am saying that top of the food chain has nothing to do with it. [quote=“Christy, post:135, topic:350”]
How in the world does the successful adaptation of mammals to environment Y imply anything about the successful or unsuccessful adaptation of dinosaurs to Y?
[/quote]
An assumption is made about climate, that it is so unique. However, there is a huge variety of climates on earth, and in fact we presume that there has always been a huge variety of climates on earth, although the size and extent of these climate zones has varied. Interesting how many dinosaurs fossils we find in the northern hemisphere… think Alberta, China, Russia, and even farther north. So imagine a climate change that kills them all; it would be useful to ask the question why they did not then move south, or why they survived nowhere on earth in any potential climate. Yet mammals did survive. Such a climate event would have had to been spectacular, not a slow and gradual event. And it would have killed and extinguished some species dramatically and quickly, leaving no time for adaptation of any kind, and possibly no time for even travelling to more sunny climes. [quote=“Christy, post:135, topic:350”]
It is survival of the fittest, not survival of the logically predictable
[/quote]
In order to call something more fit, it is necessary to use logical arguments. Otherwise it would be as reasonable to say that survival is random, or that the less fit survive better.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. getting testy… are we. [quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:137, topic:350”]
The main reason is the physical evidence for displacement.
[/quote]
Yes, I am aware of how fossils could accidently have fallen into the wrong (older) sediment layers, etc. My statement was an ìf-then statement. The example I gave clearly indicated that the earlier peer-review date was not discovered to be wrong, until the footprint fossils were found in the wrong layer. Only then was new material radio-dated, and instead of using the lava or igneous rock for dating, volcanic tuff was used, giving an entirely different date, conveniently within the desired range for the footprints of the bird. The footprints were considered in the wrong layer; footprints cannot be displaced by their nature; so the layer must have been dated wrong; and then they agreed that the new radio-date was good, while the old one (peer reviewed) was bad. Yet, lava rock ought to be more reliably dated than tuff, due to the processes going on during their deposition.
The physical evidence is often disputable for displacement, and the deciding factor for accepting the physical evidence will often be whether the fossil lines up with the story.
Yes, John, that is exactly what is proposed in the asteroid impact model, which is what almost all paleontologists accept as causing the massive extinction at the K-Pg boundary.
There is some doubt expressed regarding the sudden extinction event and some scientists are mulling on an outlook that reduces the importance of an asteroid event followed by quick climate changes. I have even seen respectable scientists discuss other events (from memory, more flowering plants that gave rise to more insects that current species were susceptible to diseases they carried - I have added this for fun:relaxed:)
So much speculation and yet such insistence that it is proven (TEs and atheists) or disproven (YECs etc).
It is the nature of academia to doubt and question and nitpick. How else will people publish? I don’t believe there are any claims that haven’t been contested by someone. But we should be able to talk about some things in broad terms without fifteen caveats. An accepted model is the accepted model until it is replaced or revised.
2 Likes
I think your comment is somewhat harsh - academics publish for many reasons, the major one is the advancement of knowledge and our understanding. I suggest you may conflate current views/popular publicised outlooks, with fully accepted scientific theories.
Models are based on some theoretical foundation, with all but evolution, based on first principles and/or mathematically developed formulations. We have examples of current theories that have some utility, and are considered as ‘the best we can do’, but this is a far cry from accepted fully developed theories. These utility based outlooks often go through many phases of utility, criticism, skepticism, and this remains the case until, as you say, it is replaced - but not by a better version, but instead a revolutionary new theory. This aspect of neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology is often misunderstood.
HA! I’m studying for comprehensive exams right now. 
This noble advancement of knowledge and understanding is not lining up with my experience. It seems in linguistics, people publish mostly to multiply terms and propose new formal notation systems that don’t really catch on.