>I presume that you answered Glen by referring to the paper by
>Braithwaite. If you also mean the paper by Stuart Nevins, I confess that
>I have never read it (but would like to). If his argument is the same as
>yours--that understanding the formation of ancient fossil reefs by
>rigidly forcing them into the modern organic reef concept is an example
>of the misapplication or failure of the principle of
>uniformitarianism--then I have to say it would not be convincing.
>Geologists are quite aware that the constituents and construction of
>organic buildups have changed through time, and they don't confuse the
>different depositional models. And for the semantic problem of reef
>terminology--Is the Capitan Limestone a fossil reef?--the simple answer
>is yes and no. The Permian Reef (whose main body is the Capitan
>Limestone) IS a reef if by that term you mean an organic buildup with
>significant topographic relief. It is NOT a reef if by that term you mean
>a framework structure composed of cemented lime boundstone like Cenozoic
>reefs (the Permian Reef actually consists of heavily altered lime
>wackestone, packstone, and grainstone).
I want to clarify something here in what appears to be a discrepancy between
your response and mine. I have read Nevins/Austin's paper on the Capitan.
He is correct that there is not this one huge framework for the thing. But
if you look at the rock forming immediately beneath a coral reef today you
don't have a huge framework left in place. The coral breaks and the debris
falls to the floor of the sea where it becomes cemented. It looks often
like the biohermal buildups of the past.
Where Nevins/Austin goes wrong is that he says that there is no evidence
that the reefs grew in place and were not deposited by Noah's flood. Nevins
wants to show that the fossil record could be dumped into place by showing
that nothing took time to grow big during the middle of the geologic column.
This is the entire thrust of this argument within the young-earth position
to explain away the evidence for long periods of time in the growth of
coral/biohermal beings in the middle of the flood deposits. I think this is
what David would like to do with this also. If one can find framework's in
situ this falsifies Nevins/Austin's claim. There ARE frameworks found in the
fossil record and I will give you some more examples. Robert H. Dott Jr.,
and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 1971 p. 605 fig AII.5 shows a
colonial devonian Hexagonaria coral.(this same picture is found on p 310 of
their 1988 edition) On p. 607 Figure AII.7 shows a framework tabulate coral
colony. (This same picture is found in their 1988 edition on page 343)
Thus while the remains of most modern reefs when limestone is formed is an
amorphous bioherm, there are frameworks preserved. Similarly this occurs in
the past.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm