[_ Old Earth _] Reliability of fossil record confirmed

[reznwerks]

New study affirms reliability of fossil record
"The fossil record may not be perfect, but it passed a critical test with flying colors, according to a study by University of Chicago paleontologist Susan M. Kidwell that will be published in the Feb. 11 issue of the journal Science."

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/0 ... lves.shtml

 

[unred typo]

I was so worried. I’ll sleep better now. Errrr…Exactly what did she prove and what did she base her findings on and who believes that it proves anything but those who like the sound of it?
:-?

 

[reznwerks]

theists

I was so worried. I’ll sleep better now. Errrr…Exactly what did she prove and what did she base her findings on and who believes that it proves anything but those who like the sound of it?
:-?

Just like theists scientists need to be reassurred also in what they accept as fact. The difference is that scientists are using hard evidence and theists use their imagination and personal belief.

 

[unred typo]

That’s what I’m asking. What hard evidence is she using to prove what theory and how does that prove anything? Could you translate that into layman’s terms for us? Draw us a picture, please.... :fadein:

 

[reznwerks]

read

That’s what I’m asking. What hard evidence is she using to prove what theory and how does that prove anything? Could you translate that into layman’s terms for us? Draw us a picture, please.... :fadein:

Read the article. If there is something there you don't understand take it to your science class and ask your teacher to explain it.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Read the article. If there is something there you don't understand take it to your science class and ask your teacher to explain it.

I read the article. The fact is that whatever she found in her study doesn’t prove a thing. The fossil record can’t be proven to be complete or representative of the actual population at the time of it’s death, no matter how many studies you do, and I have even less faith in science class teachers. Thankfully I haven’t had to deal with one of them for years. Is that where you go for your answers?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Reznwerks wrote:

Read the article. If there is something there you don't understand take it to your science class and ask your teacher to explain it.

I read the article. The fact is that whatever she found in her study doesn’t prove a thing. The fossil record can’t be proven to be complete or representative of the actual population at the time of it’s death, no matter how many studies you do, and I have even less faith in science class teachers. Thankfully I haven’t had to deal with one of them for years. Is that where you go for your answers?

As a matter of fact, she has in fact demonstrated greater credibility on the part of the fossil record to show a genuine slice of the life from the time when they were made, as the actual durability of the organism in question would not make it more likely to fossilize.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

As a matter of fact, she has in fact demonstrated greater credibility on the part of the fossil record to show a genuine slice of the life from the time when they were made, as the actual durability of the organism in question would not make it more likely to fossilize.

How do you figure that? If there were 20 cockle fossils to every fossilized mussel, that doesn’t mean that there weren’t another 400 cockles that disintegrated before fossilization occurred, and there is no way to prove any such thing. I really don’t care how many of each are represented anyways, but I can see why you would want to believe in such methods. As you say, it adds credibility to your stories and confidence to those who trust in them. It doesn't actually prove a thing.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

As a matter of fact, she has in fact demonstrated greater credibility on the part of the fossil record to show a genuine slice of the life from the time when they were made, as the actual durability of the organism in question would not make it more likely to fossilize.

How do you figure that? If there were 20 cockle fossils to every fossilized mussel, that doesn’t mean that there weren’t another 400 cockles that disintegrated before fossilization occurred, and there is no way to prove any such thing. I really don’t care how many of each are represented anyways, but I can see why you would want to believe in such methods. As you say, it adds credibility to your stories and confidence to those who trust in them. It doesn't actually prove a thing.

It's already highly credible, but this shows that certain structural issues have no affect on fossilization rates. Since the relative fossilization rate of a type of animal can be deduced broadly from its environment, then it can be known roughly how large a species was.
Your example was very very vague, so I'm trying my best to interpret it. What you're saying is that the findings here say that if we find 20 cockle fossils to every mussel, that it doesn't show how many disintegrated.
But this is not correct, it is assumed that many disintegrate and few fossilize, and depending on the region in which fossilization occurs, relative population distributions can be found.
If for instance the mussels lived in a region that gave their shell's a .001% chance of fossilization versus a .020% chance of fossilization for the cockles in question, then this is evidence that the populations were not very much greater or less than one another.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

this shows that certain structural issues have no affect on fossilization rates.

Great. So now you’re absolutely positive that mussels and cockles are fossilized at the same rate. Except if you think about the conditions that buried the creatures in the first place, there could be instances where the water they were flooded by was much more acidic and destroyed most of the cockles before fossilization occurred. If they were both buried by the same flood sediment, and nothing about the water that washed in the sand that buried them was especially corrosive to one kind or another, they might both fossilize together at the same rate. So the water is gone now, and the cockles that were buried together with mussels might have been dissolved or not. Even if we assume that she was right in her assumptions, we can’t assume this is the case with all other species. Mussels and clams don’t get out much. In a flood, they’re sitting ducks who probably don’t even try to escape. Now how does that study include other species? Anything with more than one foot can do some evasion maneuvers. Fossils only tell you which ones were the couch potatoes who couldn’t tread water long enough to avoid being buried by flood mud, unless the mud comes from a volcanic ash that buries everyone that doesn‘t get vaporized by the heat blast. Did you see some of the pictures from Mt. Ste. Helens? Car’s interiors were completely vaporized as well as anything else combustible in the direct path of the heat blast. How will that effect the stats on anything living and dying nearby? What does that do to your relative population distributions? It’s a crap shoot. Survival of the luckiest bones.

Basically, she gave evolutionists some new assumptions to base other assumptions on.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Your example was very very vague, so I'm trying my best to interpret it. What you're saying is that the findings here say that if we find 20 cockle fossils to every mussel, that it doesn't show how many disintegrated.

Sure. I’m having a time trying to figure what you are ‘roughly‘ or ‘broadly’ trying to deduce from her findings. The ‘genuine slice of the life’ is only applicable to underwater, undermud creatures, if even that, and as the article implies, who cares? Is this going to have broad relevance to other fossilized remains and on what grounds?

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

If for instance the mussels lived in a region that gave their shell's a .001% chance of fossilization versus a .020% chance of fossilization for the cockles in question, then this is evidence that the populations were not very much greater or less than one another.

Where do they get the “.001% chance of fossilization rate†and the “.020% chance of fossilization for the cockles� Exactly how is such a precise number determined? How is the region where they lived determined to be the factor? Since this whole study has no practical application, it appears to be used simply to embellish the allusion of scientific wisdom and add to the feeling of superiority that such exclusive “knowledge†must infuse true believers with and allow them to make all conclusive statements such as; "The fossil record may not be perfect, but it passed a critical test with flying colors, according to a study by University of Chicago paleontologist Susan M. Kidwell that will be published in the Feb. 11 issue of the journal Science." Inquiring minds don’t just read the headlines and the articles seldom live up to expectations they inspired. :roll:

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Where do they get the “.001% chance of fossilization rate†and the “.020% chance of fossilization for the cockles� Exactly how is such a precise number determined? How is the region where they lived determined to be the factor?

Have you any idea what an explanitory hypothetical scenario is? I was being abnormally precise in order to show how the idea works, not give an example pulled from science journals.
Numbers like that can be determined by various means, most of them having to do with geological factors which would allow a general(or rough or broad) rate of fossilization to be taken.

The ‘genuine slice of the life’ is only applicable to underwater, undermud creatures, if even that, and as the article implies, who cares? Is this going to have broad relevance to other fossilized remains and on what grounds?

Since most methods of fossilization are through sedimentation and the capturing of organisms through sedimentation then yes, this has relevance.

What does that do to your relative population distributions? It’s a crap shoot. Survival of the luckiest bones.

Mathematically, there are always a few lucky ones. This study implies that shell toughness in one species doesn't affect those numbers compared to another species.
This most certainly has relevance for the rest of paleontology.

 

[unred typo]

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Have you any idea what an explanitory hypothetical scenario is? I was being abnormally precise in order to show how the idea works, not give an example pulled from science journals.
Numbers like that can be determined by various means, most of them having to do with geological factors which would allow a general(or rough or broad) rate of fossilization to be taken.

Yes, I realized that your numbers were bogus for the sake of argument. I’m still asking how one determines what factors were involved that determined such rates of fossilization. Since world wide catastrophic events are extremely rare to say the least, how can anyone figure what forces are involved, and how they effect the geography, including layers containing fossilized remains from previous floodings? Even a small volcano like Mt. Ste. Helens severely changed the local topography to the point that if it occurred a thousand years ago and was immediately buried by a large flood sediment, the eyewitness accounts of the events would have evolved from history to legend, and the excavated site generally could be roughly, broadly and totally misinterpreted by archeologists of today.


SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Since most methods of fossilization are through sedimentation and the capturing of organisms through sedimentation then yes, this has relevance.

Since most deaths occur by other means, this importance placed on mussel and clam populations has relevance in that it gives a distorted view to fossils of land dwelling animals. I find articles of this nature are used to dupe the gullible public who read the headlines and fail to ascertain the actual meaning of the findings. All they know is that the fossil record is confirmed to be accurate, which for the ordinary laymen boils down to ‘evolutionary claims are indisputable.’ And that has relevance to the propagating of a lie


SyntaxVorlon wrote:

Mathematically, there are always a few lucky ones. This study implies that shell toughness in one species doesn't affect those numbers compared to another species.
This most certainly has relevance for the rest of paleontology.

Mathematically, we can get the complete works of Shakespeare typed by gorillas. Statistically, we can deduce election results. Actually, from that bit of information, if it is even true, we might deduce that the survival rates of the remains of drowned animals are not affected by the durability of their shells and possibly their bones, but how the remains are buried and what they are buried with and whether they were buried and when they were buried have a bigger impact on whether they will be fossilized at all. Clams and mussels have a fantastic advantage for getting buried by sediment and becoming fossils, except that doesn’t usually kill them… they live in it and dig their way to the surface. How is it we have so many sea creature fossils and why did they die and live on as fossils without being eaten by the survivors? Those fossil fish and other creatures have been buried suddenly in many cases… sounds catastrophic and wide spread to me. Clams suffocated or buried so deep they couldn’t bear the weight or pressure or dig out. Then there are fossils of fish buried alive while eating other fish. We also have remains of so many inland oceans that no longer exist. Seems to me that there used to be a lot of water that didn‘t just dry up but was drained suddenly during plate shifting events. You interpret this as evidence of millions or billions of years of smaller local disasters. I believe this is evidence of the events alluded to in the Bible and Jasher. We may never agree but it is fun to speculate.