>The global flood model requires that the animals in the fossil record to
>have died in the flood. This means that they were inhabitants of the
>pre-flood world. Most global flood advocates believe that the animals in the
>pre-flood world were placed on the ark in order to be saved.
representative animals (2 unclean, 7 clean) of each "kind", whatever that is.
>The global
>flood model would therefore predict that the animals we see today,
>descendants of the ark occupants, should also be found in the fossil record.
Less those species that arose after the flood. I doubt that many
creationist scientists today believe in "the fixity of species" ie. that
God create every species alive today just as it is; no change or splitting
of Biblical kinds.
> However, this is not what we find. We find that very few of the living
>species are represented in the fossil record.
>
>I just completed an analysis of the fossil animals listed in the book Donald
>E. Savage and Donald E. Russell, Mammalian Paleofaunas of the World.
>I combined this with the list of living mammals found at
>
>http://nmnhwww.si.edu/msw/
>
>and a few hundred other fossil species listed in several other books. In
>doing this, we find that there were at least 12455 species of mammals,
>living and dead. There are 4631 living mammalian species, and 7824 extinct
>mammalian species listed in the above books. This means that there are more
>extinct mammalian species than living. But even more interesting is the
>implications of the data to the global flood. Only 267 species of the 4631
>are listed as fossils!
It is good that several other books were consulted because Savage and
Russel's book was never intended or represented as complete. I seriously
doubt that there are only 267 known species of living mammals found as
Pleistocene fossils. In fact, for most of the world, the lists are only
generated at the genus level. For example, see:
Marshall, Larry G., et al. 1984. Mammals and stratigraphy: geochronology of
the continental mammal-bearing Quaternary of South America..
Paleovertebrata, Memoirs Extr. 1984:1-76.
I did my own checking on the percentage of fossil and living Quaternary
mammals, and found that the percentage of known Pleistocene fossils
compared to living species is a direct function of the distance to the
nearest university with a strong paleontology department. I studied the
lists of known Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age(late Pleistocene) fossil
mammals of California arranged by county and published by:
Jefferson, George T. 1991. A catalogue of Late Quaternary vertebrates
from California: part two, mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County, Technical Reports, Number 7, p 1-127.
It was immediately apparent that the farther that a county was from either
the University of California, Berkeley (San Francisco Bay area) or the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, the fewer were the known
fossil localities and the fewer number of known fossil species. Most of
North America is not located near a major university with a strong
paleontology program. There are even fewer places around the world near
paleontology programs.
I next compared the actual fossil species list with the list of living
California mammals at:
http://arnica.csustan.edu/esrpp/calilist.htm
Surprisingly, 57% of living terrestrial mammals are also found as fossils
(80 of 141, living volant and marine mammals excluded as were introduced
species) in the late Pleistocene of California. Even more surprising, of
the large mammals (carnivores, ungulates), 88% (28 of 32) of those living
also had a fossil record. There is clearly a collecting or preservation
bias in favor of large mammal species. If one looks closely at the small
species to see why the number of fossil species seems to be
under-represented, it becomes clear that there are species complexes where
the characters that are used to differentiate the species are not
represented as skeletal characters. For example, there are 13 living
species of chipmunks in California today. Most are differentiated by
slight pelage differences, the skeletal characters being virtually
identical, yet paleontology usually has only skeletal characters to work
with. Therefore, even though only three of the thirteen chipmunk species
are reported in the fossil record, there are a large number only identified
to genus which probably represent these other not-reported species.
>If the global flood view is correct this means that
>there are only 267 survivors from the pre-flood world. It also means that
>these 267 survivors had to give rise to the 4631 species of today's world,
>which are not found in the fossil record. In anyone's book, this data would
>require lots of evolution!
Unless there is something very different about fossil preservation in
California compared to the rest of the world, there should be at least 50%
representation of fossil to living or an order of magnitude difference
between Glenn's report and what is predicted to be known. Therefore,
Glenn's argument is more one of under-study than required evolution since
the Flood.
>
>As one goes back into the past, there are fewer and fewer living species
>found as fossils. The data is as follows:
>
>Recent 4631(including species which went extinct in historical times)
>Pleistocene 256
>Pliocene 69
>Miocene 2
>
>The two living species found in the Miocene are the carnivore Callorhinus
>ursinus and the bat, Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum.
>
>The final implication of the data is that other than these (aggregate 267
>species), ALL species found in the fossil record are different from those
>living today. The number of extinct species found in the various epochs of
>the Tertiary are:
>
>Pleistocene 786
>Pliocene 1119
>Miocene 2988
>Oligocene 1282
>Eocene 1819
>Paleocene 604
>
>The average species is only found in one of these epochs. This implies that
>the fauna almost entirely turns over with the passing of each epoch. This
>is another difficulty for the global flood--explaining why different forms
>are deposited in the various layers, inspite of the fact that most ecozones
>are represented in each epoch.
It is true that the fossil record can be characterized by fossil turnover,
more so the lower one goes down the geological column. To me, this just
means that there were more biomes prior to the Flood than after. It does
not preclude the geological column being produced by the Flood.
Yours in Christ,
Lee A. Spencer, Ph.D.
Vertebrate Paleontologist
Earth History Research Center
Southwestern Adventist University
Keene, TX 76059