>>>
>>>Right. And different dinosaurs were deposited in different layers (some
>>>middle Jurassic, others Upper Cretaceous, etc.) because of differences in
>>>their success in evading the waters for a time, different strength and
>>>endurance in swimming ability, different floatational characteristics,
etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Then why are Tyrannosauroids and Allosauroids not deposited together?
>>
"Deposited together" does not mean that an allosauroid and a tyrannosauroid
were buried side-by-side like in a family cemetary plot. It means that they
were buried in sediments that evolutionists would say have the same age.
Because allosauroids and tyrannosauroids are of the same size and have the
same body plan, they should have both shared the same "success in evading
the waters for a time", the same "strength and endurance in swimming
ability", the same "floatational characteristics, etc". As such, they
should have been buried in the same-age sediments, regardless of whether
they lived together or not. The same would be true for the ankylosauroids
and the stegosauroids, the ceratopsians, the hardosaurs, Andrewsarchus and
bears, Arsinoitherium and rhinoceros, and Phorusrhacos and ostriches.
>>
>>Being
>>of similar size and body plan, you would expect that they would have been
>>very similar in all the considerations you name above, yet they are found
in
>>the fossil record as much as 100 million years apart.
>
>Evidently these two did not live near each other.
>
Irrelevant. If they shared the same survival characterists they should have
ended up in same-age sediments, regardless of whether they lived near each
other or not. However, the fossil record demonstrates that in fact both
inhabited the same regions of the world (such as North America), both hunted
in the same environments and both preyed on the same kinds of animals. Had
they been contemporaries they would have both shared the same geographical
distribution.
>
>And if they had, we would expect that they would have competed....
>
Not necessarily. Lions and tigers both share the same range in India, yet
they do not compete. Grizzly and black bears share the same range in the
West (or used to) yet do not compete. Hyenas and lions share the same range
in Africa, but not compete except for occasionally stealing each other's
kills. In point of fact, predators of the same size and strength rarely
compete directly with one another under normal conditions, so there is no
reason to expect that allosauroids and tyrannosauroids would have as well.
>
>...and we know which one we would predict as the winner.
>
Not necessarily. The evidence suggests that allosauroids were group
hunters, whereas the tyrannosauroids were solitary or hunted as pairs of
siblings or mates. They would have sort of been like wolves and grizzly
bears, except for the size differential. A pack of allosauroids could have
easily dispatched a single or pair of tyrannosauroids if they wanted to. I
doubt they would have tried; there would have been no reason for it.
>
>Geographic distribution is more important than body
>size, floatation, etc. for fossil distribution. I should have noted that
above.
>
As I have shown this is irrelevant to whether they should be found in the
same-age sediments.
>
>>Same thing with regard to Ankylosauroids and Stegosauroids.
>
>Yes, same thing.
>
Again, the fossil record shows that they would have shared the same
geographical distribution.
>
>>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.
>
And again, the fossil record indicates that all the different ceratopsians
would have shared the same geographical distribution. And they all would
have shared the same floatational characteristics. Ditto for all the
different hadrosaurs.
>
> 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.
>
Or on floating mats of vegetation. Considering the ad hoc nature of the
creationist answers, the evolutionary answer sounds more plausible,
especially when you realize the the radiometric ages given to the various
sediment layers are fairly accurate.
>
>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).
>
So if Andrewsarchus and bears evolved from the same common ancestor off the
Ark, as did Arsinoitherium and rhinoceroses, and Phorusrhacos and ostriches,
how is that any different from standard evolutionary theory, except for the
time differential? And why did Andrewsarchus, Arsinoitherium and
Phorusrhacos subsequently go extinct when bears, rhinoceroses, and ostriches
did not?
>
>>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.
>
The fatal error to you model is that these animals would have shared all
characteristics that would have sorted them from other drowned animals, so
they should have ended up in the same-age sediments, yet they did not. The
most obvious reason why they did not is because they were not
contemporaries; ie, they lived at very different and sometimes widely spaced
times.
Kevin L. O'Brien