Re: Jumbled Fossils - Quick Question

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:057bbc59-ac8b-4f68-a367-4f6b027e401e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Jim Willemin wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1a7c277a-b154-4a75-
8cfc-79aca4e9fc9d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Apr 14, 3:16�pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
VoiceOfReason <papa_...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:b5e7521c-43ad-4fac-
977a-2873ab98f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Hey all,

I'm in a discussion on a message board, and need to know if
there are known examples of fossils from different eras mixed
together in the same sediment?

I assume (perhaps erroneously?) that it's possible that a
mountain, hillside, whatever, with different layers might erode
such that fossils from different areas *could* then intermix and
form a newer sediment with a mixture of fossils.

Are such cases known to exist? �How do we (or geologists) deal
with that situation?

Thanks in advance


<snip long-winded atheist-Darwinist rant>


I think enough /probably/ has been said about why this is careful
open- minded interpretation of evidence, rather than choosing the
answer that suits the theory that you prefer - that reworked
(recycled) fossils can be distinguished objectively from those in
the "correct" context.

Thank you, Robert. I wasn't as clear on that as I should have been.
Reworking leaves scars - objectively identifiable damage - that is
not present in undisturbed fossils. Any interpretation of an
anachronistic assemblage must explain all the observations - and I
know of no examples of any anachronistic assemblages that do not show
clear signs of reworking.

If you'll tolerate my being even pickier, I suggest we should be clear
on what the phrase "an anachronistic assemblage" of fossil material
means. Apparently not a technical term(?), you could have in mind
(but perhaps not) fossils, in a common context, of species presumed,
upon evidence, to be not contemporary. Or otherwise, fossils of
species positively / strongly believed to be not contemporary, but
found together. Or specifically, a set of fossils which, /after/
having found them together, you do not believe "belong" together.

My quibble particularly with excluding the first, more loosely defined
interpretaion of "anachronistic assemblage", is that thereby you would
exclude and disclaim past or future surprises in palaeontology; a
fossil in unxpected company. And I'm told that surprises have
happened after all - surprises to some people, anyway; a relic found
that destroys someone's pet theory, at least. And if there aren't
ever such surprises, then where's the fun in it?


Right again, Robert - I apologize for the sloppy thinking and wording.
I should say that I'm not a paleontologist, nor really up on the
literature, so there are a lot of things I don't know about the actual
state of knowledge in the field. I guess what I mean is that when one
is compelled to think 'Hmm... that's funny - that fossil shouldn't be
here - it's too old or too young, based on other fossils around or on
known age of the deposit' the most common next thought is 'Oh - it
shows signs of reworking' or 'Oh - there is an irregular unconformity
here - there is the erosion surface, and here is where younger material
has filled a void'. By no means do I wish to imply that one never has
occasion to think 'This is odd - the matrix is undisturbed, no
reworking, no mixing - this bears further investigation.'

It's what I get for pontificating before my second cup of coffee, and
not being habitually precise in thought and expression. Again, my
apologies to you and the group for speaking without full knowledge and
without adequate precision. (Not that I won't jump in without looking
again in the future, of course... ) Now if you'll excuse me, I need to
get my second cup of coffee this morning.. :)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cellulosic Ethanol
    ... Robert wrote: ... > Just do the sums and see how much area you need. ... > There is no way to replace fossils. ... Best, Dan. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Cellulosic Ethanol
    ... Robert wrote: ... > Just do the sums and see how much area you need. ... > There is no way to replace fossils. ... Best, Dan. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Cellulosic Ethanol
    ... >Robert wrote: ... >> Just do the sums and see how much area you need. ... >> There is no way to replace fossils. ... >Best, Dan. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Cellulosic Ethanol
    ... >Robert wrote: ... >> Just do the sums and see how much area you need. ... >> There is no way to replace fossils. ... >Best, Dan. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Sudden life appearance
    ... frequently produces surprises, all the fossils that we have ever found ... are entirely consistent with the view we have built up over centuries ...
    (talk.origins)