fossils do not need rapid burial

Glenn Morton (GRMorton@gnn.com)
Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:50:08

I forgot to send the following concerning how long fish can stay on the bottom
of a lake without being decomposed. Stephen Jones earlier today made the
typical argument that was started, as near as I can tell, by Whitcomb and
Morris. They write:

Miller observes:

'The Green River formation is a fresh-water lake deposit
composed largely of evenly stratified soft shales as much as 2000
feet thick. Many fossil, including fishes, insect, and plants
occur in it.'

How does one explain, for example, a dead fish lying on the bed
of a lake for about two hundred years while the slowly
accumulating sediments gradually cover it and then fossilize it?
Where does this happen in modern lakes?"~John C. Whitcomb and
Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1961), p. 427

To which I would respond examples of long term preservation of fish on lake
bottoms has been documented.

"Smith, G.R. and Elder (1985) have shown that the
undisturbed fossil fish of the Clarkia Basin in Idaho were not
buried for at least several months after death. Other instances
of this phenomenon can be observed in both the fossil record and
recent lake bottoms. For example, skeletons resting uncovered at
several meters depth and less than 15o C on the bottom of Lake
Michigan have been observed to remain intact for several weeks
though the flesh became partially decayed."~R.L. Elder and G.R.
Smith, "Fish Taphonomy and Environmental Inference in
Paleolimnology", Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology
62(1988), p. 577-592, p. 583

Note that the conditions in Lake Michigan are not hyper saline as the Green
River probably was.

glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm