Because down below you will say that only the back foot prints were found on
some of the tracks. I was anticipating that response.
> Don't you think that the marine iguanas of Galapagos might walk
>around on the bottom? Brand's data shows that amphibians (which is what the
>tracks in the Coconino were before McKee decided the deposit was desert
>dunes, at which time the trackways were all mysteriously changed to
>reptilian) spend up to 75% of their underwater time walking around on the
>bottom.
>
Art, there is a disconnect here that I don't understand. The marine iguanas
of the Galapagos live on a tranquil tropical island and venture into the
water for food. According to those who hold to a global flood, the coconino
was a deposit which occurred in the middle of a raging, turbulent global
flood, in which all airbreathing life save those on the ark was
extinquished. 5000 feet or so of sedimentary rock had already been deposited
prior to the depositoin of the Coconino. These lizards, spiders, scorpions
etc. had no tropical island to which they could flee during this time period
if it was all deposited during the flood. As you know, there are no islands
against which the Coconino and other sediments thin.
Could the Coconino lizards have walked under water? Maybe, but they had
already had 6 months or so of swimming in the global flood. Where did these
lizards rest? Where did they eat during that previous six months?
You are interpreting the tracks as if the lizards were in an environment
like the Galapagos today, yet explaining the sediment as being deposited
during a global flood which is decidely NOT like the Galapagos today.
Secondly, there are sedimentological features which show that the Coconino
was not under water. There are raindrop impressions on the laminae.
"Primary sedimentary structures in the Coconino Sandstone
include small- to large-scale (up to 66-feet[20-m] thick} planar
tabular and planar wedge cross stratification, ripple marks and
raindrop impressions."~Larry T. Middleton, David K. Elliott, and
Michael Morales, "Coconino Sandstone," in S. S. Buess and M.
Morales, Grand Canyon Geology, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990), p.193
I would also point out that wind ripples are another clue to the desert
environment.
"The abundance of wind-ripple deposits in the Coconino
casts serious doubt on Brand's hypothesis."~David B. Loope,
"Eolian origin of Upper Paleozoic Sandstones, Southeastern
Utah,", Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54:2, June, 1984,
p.575.
and
"For the most part, the wind ripples
in the Coconino Sandstone moved transversely across the lee side
of the dunes. The cross-dip path of migration is caused by
secondary air currents that parallel the strike of the lee side
of simple and complex dunes (or draas). The low height-to
wavelength ratio of the wind ripples as measured in plan view
exposures of many foresets is consistent with those recorded from
modern coastal and inland dunes."~Larry T. Middleton, David K.
Elliott, and Michael Morales, "Coconino Sandstone," in S. S.
Buess and M. Morales, Grand Canyon Geology, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990), p.195.
>
>>For those who might not know, Brand has suggested that the tracks in the
>>Coconino were produced by animals which were partially floating with only
>>their back legs on the surface. (Even if that were true, the flood waters
>>Brand wants couldn't be any deeper than the length of the animal) Brand
>>cited tracks which changed direction suddenly and which had feet pointing
>>uphill but the animal moved perpendicular to the direction the feet pointed.
>> Brand suggested that this was due to a current carrying the animal along
>>while his back feet kept hitting the ground. There are many problems with
>this.
>
>No, actually, there are no problems with this unless you want to believe
>that the tracks were made subareially (which some people seem not to want
>to give up
>The vast majority of trrackways are pes and manus. An occasional trackway
>would represent only pes or only manus, but this could only be possible
>when the animal was completely submerged in water, since the animal cannot
>contact the foreset surface of a dune with only one set of prints
>subaerially, or while floating unless the water impinged on the foreset
>surface, and if this had been the case, there would have been no dune to
>record the tracks!
>
>
>>1. there are scorpion and spider tracks. Since these are shorter than the
>>lizards, it is unexplained how the arthropod tracks were laid down.
>> 1 a. Scorpions leave a different track depending on the temperature. At
>>high temperature they use fewer feet to touch the ground. We find high
>>temperature scorpion tracks.
>
>Well, "scorpion tracks" is an interpretation made on the basis that the
>dunes were believed to be subaerial. You cannot then use this
>interpretation to conclude that the dunes were subaerial! The tracks
>certainly are consistent with a wide variety of arthropods, most of which
>were marine in the Permian. The same people conveniently omit reference to
>the frequent occurrence of worm burrows.
But air-breathing scorpions have been known from Silurian rocks, so saying
that most arthropods were marine doesn't really address the issue that
terrestrial scorpions were on earth for at least 150 million years ago.
>
>>2. animals have been observed today walking across the dunes with feet
>>pointing uphill but moving perpendicular to that, Lockley and Hunt state,
>>
>> "Trackways found in fossil sand dune deposits have generated
>>much interest over the years. One of the most common
>>observations is that the tracks often have bulges or sand
>>crescents on one side, thereby proving that they were made [p.
>>42]on inclined surfaces. Typically these sand crescents--also
>>sometimes referred to as impact rims--are situated behind the
>>rear or 'heel' of footprints, showing that the animals were
>>progressing upslope. It seems that this type of upslope trackway
>>is the most common and usually the best preserved. Even so,
>>trackways that indicate downslope progression are also known, as
>>are a number that show sideways or oblique movment across dune
>>faces. These sideways or transverse trackways are especially
>>interesting because the tracks often point upslope while the
>>trackway crosses the slop horizontally or obliquely. There is,
>>however a modern analog. We have observed fresh trackways of
>>lizards with tail drag marks, that run transversely across dune
>>faces, leaving individual tracks that point uphill." Lockley and Hunt,
>>Dinosaur Tracks, (New York:Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 41-42
>
>Lockley and Hunt are fighting an uphill battle to hold on to cherished
>beliefs. You should not do the same. They go to ludicrous contortions
>trying to explain trackways where the animal is being dragged sideways
>across a foreset slope, where animals are recorded by only pes tracks,
>where trackways suddenly appear or disappear in the center of a slab, where
>trackways headed up a slab suddenly veer off at an angle, then recover, all
>the time with claws headed directly uphill. Only subaqueous conditions
>could allow all of these observations.
I have always admired those contortionists one sees at the circus. :-)
However, tracks that disappear can be explained by lack of preservation of
the fossil tracks. Apatosaurs sometimes only show front tracks, they were
not walking on their front legs, their back legs didn't carry the weight of
the forelegs. There are lots of reasons that only front or back might be
preserved. And the fact that we see lizards today with feet pointing uphill
yet moving transversely.
There are several observations I don't think Brand's hypothesis fits.
Spiders and scorpion tracks (especially the tracks consistent with high
temperatures), wind ripples, and rain-drop impressions. How do you get rain
drop impressions underwater?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm