Allen Roy wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
> > Don't you think you should if you are going to criticise both
> biostratigraphy
> > and those who use it?
>
> Biostratigraphy is just not all that important to me, compared with
> lithostratigraphy. Because of my position on Asteroid impact catastrophe,
> I can't help but think that whatever ordering that there appears to be is
> mostly apparent and not real. There has been alot of discussion of ID here
> on how one can (or cannot) recognize intelligence. I think the same
> applies to the application of ordering onto the fossil record. I feel that
> the fossils found thus far represent too small of a sample to make claims
> of ordering.
>
Over 200 years of systematic palaeontology at we don't have a large enough
sample to make claims of ordering? The overall pattern has been established for
over 150 years. Every time some identifies ns assemblage of fossils they test
the previously established ordering of fossils. Millions of dollars ride on the
results of biostratigraphy in the petroleum industry. If there was any problem
in the order because it was based on inadequate sampling they would be evident
by now. Certainly the petroleum industry has no vested interest in sustaining
a concept which did not work and every reason to find an alternativfe it it
would both save and make them money.
God Bless
Jonathan