Re: The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- From: "Tracy P. Hamilton" <t_p_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2006 10:35:33 -0700
Seanpit wrote:
Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
Where on Earth is your anoxic lake/ocean notion preserving
fossils to the degree and extent that we see in the fossil record?
Lagoa Vermelha, Brazil
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-3091.2003.00550.x
Come on now. Only microorganisms live in the coastal lagoon of Lagoa
Vermelha, Brazil. I'm talking about fossilized macroorganisms in fine
condition - like fish, other vertebrates, etc.
These are exactly the same conditions under which the fossil fishes of
the Santana formation are preserved in such exquisite detail. The
organic components of the fish are replaced by permineralising bacteria
of the sort which are described here, and can be seen under an SEM.
You need to do a bit more reading about the Santana Formation. The
Santana Formation of Brazil contains fish whose gills and muscles are
so perfectly preserved that geologists believe they were completely
fossilized within five hours of death. The foremost expert on these
Brazilian fossils, Dr David Martill, has called this "the Medusa
effect", after the creature of Greek mythology who could instantly turn
people to stone just by looking at them.
Is this the same expert who mentioned
that the fossils were not rapidly
buried, in Martill, David M. 1990.
Macromolecular resolution of fossilized
muscle tissue from an elopomorph fish.
Nature 346:171-172. ?
"Many models for exceptional
preservation require rapid burial,
anoxicity, or both. There is evidence
of scavenging of many of the
exceptionally preserved Santana specimens
suggesting that anoxic and
rapid burial modes are not applicable here."
Give it up - flood geology does not
make sense, otherwise there would
have to be ONE burial event, and
particle size distributions concordant
with that.
In what comes below, Sean Pitman seems to have lost confidence in his
"foremost expert" in these fossils. Otherwise, he would have cited
peer reviewed papers by this fellow, rather than nonsense meant to make
excuses for literalism.
[snip]
Fish simply do not fossilize in modern "anoxic lakes" like they did in
the past.
Was chemistry or physics different back then?
The idea is rather simple - usually organisms get eaten when they die.
Sometimes they do not for one reason or another. Rapid burial is one
of MANY mechanisms of preservation of form. Inhibition of the "eating"
process by multiple ways is another. Martill proposed high salinity,
citing evaporites in the sediments (hardly consistent with a Flood, either).
Such conditions on such a wide scale are almost certainly related to a
catastrophic event of some kind.
Citation to the peer reviewed literature or geology text, please.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
- References:
- The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- From: Tracy P. Hamilton
- Re: The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- From: Seanpit
- The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- Prev by Date: Re: I'd Kill for a Big Mac
- Next by Date: Re: The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- Next by thread: Re: The Santana Formation - Rapid or Slow Burial?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|