Evidently these two did not live near each other. And if they had, we
would expect that they would have competed, and we know which one we would
predict as the winner. Geographic distribution is more important than body
size, floatation, etc. for fossil distribution. I should have noted that
above.
Same thing with
>regard to Ankylosauroids and Stegosauroids.
Yes, same thing.
Why are the Ceratopsians spread
>across 50 million years instead of all being found in the same-age
>sediments? Same thing with the Hardosaurs.
Same thing, with the floatational considerations.
Why is the Andrewsarchus not
>found with bear fossils, or Arsinoitherium with rhinoceros fossils, or
>Phorusrhacos with ostrich fossils?
>
Good question. Where were the Tertiary forms when the Mesozoic ones were
being fossilized? The standard evolutionist answer: They hadn't evolved
yet. The standard creationist answer: Well, uh, they were in the
highlands somewhere... (or in icebergs, or all in the ark, or....) The
truth -- ah, I look forward to knowing the truth on this! -- may be
somewhere between these extremes.
The Tertiary forms did expand after the Mesozoic forms went extinct (or
most of them -- many Mesozoic plant genera/subfamilies, and a few animals,
are extant, tho given different names). The Neogene (Upper Tertiary)
really does look to me like postflood speciation, (fossilized during
volcanic events, quakes, floods, etc continuing for a time after the
flood).
>It won't work; too many modern and extinct animals are close enough in size
>and body design to have been deposited together according tour model, yet
>are actually found to be quite far apart.
Yes, floatation is only one aspect of taphonomic dispersal. I shouldn't
have presented it without noting other factors as well. Just like
hydrodynamic sorting, alone it can't explain everything, or any other
factor taken by itself.
We don't have all the answers at all. Thank you for pointing out obvious
errors.
Karen