theyeti

I sure do. Creationists have been caught carving fake fossils on a number of occasions. Especially in regards to making "man prints" that run right beside dino prints. Of course they don't fool paleontologists.

theyeti

Oolon Colluphid

I must be getting old, I'm forgetting the obvious (and one of my own favourites)!

Sure Ed, some junk DNA had a purpose in the past. For instance, it has been shown that birds contain the no-longer-used genes for making full-size fibulas and teeth.

By simply inserting a piece of mica between the developing tibia and fibula of a chick embryo, Armand Hampé produced a chicken leg with a complete fibula; this induced the development of separate tarsals too, which normally fuse.



See <a href="http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Hampe_experiment.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Hampe_experiment.htm</a>

By combining the jaw epithelium of chick embryos with the molar mesenchyme of mouse embryos and allowing the tissues to develop, Kollar and Fisher showed that chickens have the genetic information in their genomes to produce teeth:



See <a href="http://www.devbio.com/chap06/link0601.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.devbio.com/chap06/link0601.shtml</a>

So you’re right, Ed. This unused DNA does seem to have had a purpose in the past in another environment. Oddly though, the environment in question was a bird with a full tibia, separate tarsals and teeth. No modern birds have these... but things like Archaeopteryx did, and so did dromeosaurs. Hmmm. Why do you think that is?

Oolon

Ed

Who is Patrick?

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed: How do you know? Actually there are scientists that claim to have found fossil pollen in Cambrian strata. Also an expert on the Grand Canyon has photographed hooflike foot prints in strata that predates any quadrapeds by millions of years. MrD: Any citations or should we just take your word for it on these claims?

A.K. Ghosh and A. Bose, "Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir", Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056-1057. The hooflike prints are mentioned in Edwin D. McKee, "The Supai Group of Grand Canyon", Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982) pp. 93-96, 100.

Quote:

Ed: And even if there are no "out of place" fossils, that is not surprising given that the conditions for fossilization are rare. MrD: So you are admitting that what you just asserted in the previous sentence might not be true? So which is it, they are found, or they are not found? Make up your mind.

Not being a geologist or paleontologist I dont know if the identifications are correct. There is at least a possibility that they could be misidentified.

Quote:

MrD: In reality, fossils are not rare, they are exceedingly common, and the fossil record of some groups is extremely well-known. Fossils of certain organisms or groups of organisms (especially terrestrial) are rare. But things like trilobites, brachiopods, various corals, and crinoid stem segments are extremely common fossils. I know; I used to collect them as a kid. In fact, there's a bin of fossil trilobites in my museum gift shop right now, being sold for just a few dollars each. These things aren't exactly precious gems. There are enormous layers of sedimentary beds made almost entirely of fossilized microorganisms.

That is my point, animals that were more mobile and in areas where the populations were low during the flood there would be few if any fossils. If the flood were responsible for the fossil record. Some christian geologists however think it left little or any evidence behind.

Quote:

Ed:And the numbers of animals that would have reached beyond most of their group would have been small. Also look at the coelacanth, no fossils for 65 million years and yet it was living all that time. If one had been found say 50,000 years old would it have been considered "out of place"? MrD: It's not exactly a secret among paleontologists that the first or last occurrence of an organisms in the fossil record is probably not the same as its true occurrence through time. But a coelacanth in any Precambrian sediments (or any other vertebrate) would be "out of place." An organism can persist past its last occurrence in the fossil record, but it cannot exist before its ancestors.

Nevertheless my example gives a good idea of how rare some fossils can be.

Quote:

Ed: I never said that grass didnt grow in lowland areas in biblical times. But as a general rule that is true depending on the species. Lowlands are generally forest. The chance of finding single fossil grains is astronomical. Freshwater clams living in highland streams is hardly an oddity. The Himalayan Mountains probably rose after the flood however. MrD: Actually, fossil grains are extremely common in the fossil record. This is because (a) flowering plants are the dominant plants on the earth, and are found in virtually every environment where plant life is possible; (b) pollen in general is extremely tough and easily fossilized, and (c) pollen is carried by wind to all corners of the earth--the chance of finding modern sediments withoutpollen grains is astronomical. The neat thing about the pollen grains of flowering plants is that (d) it is unlike that of any other pollen-bearing plant (e.g., pine trees). Tricolpate pollen appears in the fossil record only shortly before the unambiguous occurrence of fossils of flowering plants (there are many plant fossils from that time and shortly before that may or may not be flowering plants or their immediate ancestors)--and once it appears, it is ubiquitous.

Maybe at the time of the flood their range was more restricted and they were less common than today.

[b] See above.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Ed

Hello John. I wasnt referring to Burdick's study, see above.


[b] I did not deny that the order is real, just that it could just as easily fit ecotonal zonations buried by the flood rather than some evolutionary sequence. But this is only if the fossil record is the result of the flood, some christian geologists think the flood left little or no evidence.

Oolon Colluphid

You know, I could have sworn I was trying to converse with Ed here... I was obviously mistaken.

Still, there's all those posts of mine aimed at him as evidence that I was doing so...

Oh of course, silly me, evidence is the one thing creationists can't handle....

Oolon

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

lpetrich

A comment which makes me wonder whether Ed knows what a trilobite is, because trilobites have a feature that could enable them to escape the fate of crinoids and corals. I'll leave Ed to find out what that feature is; let's see how smart he is.

The ecological-zonation hypothesis fails miserably, because organisms with similar tastes in habitat are found over big ranges of ages -- organisms that are sometimes very slow or stationary.

Little or no evidence? A very stupid hypothesis, because a worldwide flood would have produced a distinctive layer of mixed-up sediment.

Ed seems like he wants to have it both ways -- to advocate that the sedimentary rocks were produced by Noah's Flood, and then to deny that he had ever claimed that when challenged.

Jack the Bodiless

This is equivalent to saying that if two identical twins are sprayed with machinegun fire, the bullets will hit in identical locations.

Coragyps

Re ecological zonation:

Cycads and cypress trees both like swamps, nicht wahr? But cycads are found below cypresses in the geologic column, no es verdad? We know cypresses have knees, but I don't think they have been shown to have feet. They can't run away from a flood any better than a cycad.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>

MrDarwin

Ed, do you know the difference between spores and pollen? Even the most primitive non-flowering plants (e.g., mosses) produce spores. Heck, even fungi produce spores. And do you have any idea what a tracheid is? Did you know that tracheids are characteristic of all vascular plants (i.e., including ferns and gymnosperms), not just flowering plants? So the article you cite neither supports your own position nor counters mine.

MrDarwin

On the contrary, the fossil record demonstrates that flowering plants were as widespread and common in the past as they are today. Flowering plants are not only the dominant land plants today, they have been the dominant land plants in the fossil record since soon after their appearance in the Cretaceous.

Moreover, flowering plants, especially grains, provide the primary food sources of human cultures, and archeological evidence shows this has been the case throughout human history (and prehistory).