Re: Panderichthyids and trans...

Kevin Wirth (kevin.wirth@accessone.com)
Mon, 26 Jun 95 22:06:18 PDT

Andrew wrote:

> Polystrate fossils are a *blatent* straw man. They are a problem
>only if it is assumed that every centimetre of every type of sedimentary
>deposit is formed at exactly the same rate. Guess what? Geologists
>*know* this to be wrong in many environments. Burial of upright trees
>(for example) in a matter of days, weeks or months, or even years, can be
>observed in modern environments (trees remain upright after death much
>longer than most people would expect). It happens on river floodplains
>all the time. Even creationist geologists from the 19th century
>recognized the environments and processes that account for the
>preservation of upright trees. "Polystrate fossils" have not been an
>"anomaly" to "fit to the theory" for more than 100 years. They receive
>limited attention in the current geological literature because the
>"problem" was solved long ago -- they simply are not a big deal.
>
> The only "anomaly" is why anyone thinks they are a problem. The
>presentation of "polystrate fossils" as an "anomaly" says more about the
>confusion of some workers about the geological evidence and their
>willingness to misrepresent (I *hope* unknowingly) the interpretations of
>conventional scientists. If they do not know the real explanations
>conventional geologists offer for these structures, then they did not look
>very hard. I have a reference from 1868 (William Dawson) that explains
>the process quite lucidly, and in a way that would not differ
>significantly from a "modern" explanation. I can send you a quote of his
>explanation if you like.
>
>|I have not been able to explain how most fossils appear to be usually
>|"sorted" in a specific sequence. However, the fact that out-of-sequence
>|fossils do exist gives me pause. So long as that is the case, I find
>|that there is room for doubt and reconsideration.
>
> "Out-of-sequence" fossils are expected. If you are viewing
>fossils on an outcrop in a modern river, you are seeing why -- fossils can
>be eroded out of bedrock and redeposited in younger sediments (reworking).
>If you see a deep bedrock crevasse or cave that trees and other "young"
>debris has fallen into, you might think the younger fossils actually
>occurred in the old bedrock if you did not recognize the crevasse
>(caving). All these "out-of-sequence" fossil occurrences have
>explanations. More importantly, they are not just "excuses", there is
>independent evidence for their presence, and a particular process leaves
>unique evidence (e.g., reworking is often observed above erosion surfaces
>(unconformities) in association with pebbles from the underlying strata,
>the fossils are often abraded and/or filled with sediment completely
>different from the surrounding sediments). Processes like these are
>*expected* to occur. You have no cause to question these occurrences.
>They are recognized and interpreted on the basis of independent geological
>evidence that has nothing to do with evolution.

It's obvious that fossils get eroded and often get redeposited. All of what
you say with respect to eroded fossils is relevant. But what of
*articulated* fossils found out of sequence? Do you know of any?

>|And, secondly, despite the manner in which the fossils are sorted in the
>|rocks, the fact remains that the VAST majority of them remain discrete
>|species with no transitional intermediates to link them in an
>|evolutionary progression. So, before we get all caught up with how they
>|are positioned in the rocks, we have a bigger problem to solve, and that
>|is, why don't we see the ancestoral intermediates locked up in there with
>|'em?
>
> We often do. Glenn just presented _Acanthostega_, for example.

Sigh. (my turn)

I refer to my comments made just prior to this post to Glenn Morton
addressing the problem of data and linking it with imagination. There is no
data which can compellingly establish evolutionary transitions. What we
have are morphologically similar critters which we PRESUME to call
transitional. We can't (legitimately) say that because critter A and
critter B existed, therefore, they are or indicate transitions. We really
don't know that they *evolved* according to your explanation. You cannot
get around the fact that transitionals require imagination to explain how
the changes *might have* taken place.

Kevin

Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE