Re: Out of order fossils

Kevin O'Brien (Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:25:07 -0700

>
>Kevin's answer to my question [Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:07:48 -0700]:
>
>>>What would "out of order" fossils mean?
>>>
>>How about a pod of dolphin skeletons in unfaulted, unaltered, uniform
>>Devonian deposits? How about a modern human skeleton found inside the rib
>>cage of a Tyrannosaurus rex?
>>
>I wouldn't expect to find those!
>

Of course not. That's because dolphins hadn't evolved by the time of the
Devonian; modern humans had not evolved by the time of the Cretacious. But
if dolphins lived with Dinichthys and man with Tyrannosauroids -- as your
flood model implies -- then you should expect to find these anomalies.

>
>The fossil record shows order.
>

And it is this very order, that is so contradictory to what you should
expect from a raging global flood, which tells us that no global flood
occurred.

>
>But I did read about finds of centepedes, arachnids, and insect remains
>preserved in exquisite detail in Devonian rock form upstate New York,
>"similar to modern forms" (Science News 123:356-357, June 4, 1983) -- have
>these been found to be contamination?
>

I don't know that they are contamination, but how is finding modern
arthropod species in Devonian strata more orderly than finding dolphins in
the same strata?

In any event the key words are "similar to modern forms"; similar does not
mean identical. This indicates that the fossils were NOT of modern species
as you otherwise imply. Instead it indicates that the basic centepede,
arachnid and insect body plans have been around for a long, long time, and
are so successful that they can fit very nearly any habitat with only a
minimum of adaptational change. Since one would expect similar habitats in
the Devonian as there are today, it should not be surprising to find similar
forms in certain long-lived body plans, but they are clearly different
enough to count as different species.

Kevin L. O'Brien