[GourmetDan]

"Consider that a fossil must be robust to be reworked. For example a clam shell, or even a leg bone or other large sturdy bone from a mammal or a reptile, might easily get reworked. But not a leaf. A leaf, even if fossilized, simply wouldn't survive long enough on a depositional surface to get reworked. Nor would small, delicate bones like those of most fishes. Nor would a complete and articulated skeleton. Dozens and dozens of bones don't erode out of one sediment and then get consolidated into another just happening to all end up back together and falling into the correct arrangement."

Woodmorappe is criticized for pointing out just the type of small, delicate, out-of-order fossils that you say can't be reworked.

They must really be out-of-order then, huh?

[Stultis]

Woodmorappe is criticized for pointing out just the type of small, delicate, out-of-order fossils that you say can't be reworked.

No he isn't. Most of his examples are pollen, spores and such. Small, maybe, but not delicate, and ubiquitous as heck. VERY easily reworked (or contaminating sediments they weren't ever actually part of).

Of course the obvious thing about such ubiquitous fossils as pollen is that the anomalous findings should be REPEATABLE in a given formation. But of course they aren't.

[Stultis]

[Oops. Didn't close a font tag.]

Woodmorappe is criticized for pointing out just the type of small, delicate, out-of-order fossils that you say can't be reworked.

No he isn't. Most of his examples are pollen, spores and such. Small, maybe, but not delicate, and ubiquitous as heck. VERY easily reworked (or contaminating sediments they weren't ever actually part of).

Of course the obvious thing about such ubiquitous fossils as pollen is that the anomalous findings should be REPEATABLE in a given formation. But of course they aren't.