Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 2/21/03 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

Posted on 02/28/2003 8:46:57 PM PST by CalConservative

Chinese Fossil Bed Astounds Paleontologists   02/21/2003
The Feb. 20 issue of Nature has a review article on the rich and well-preserved Cretaceous fossils in Liaoning province, China, dubbed the Jehol Biota.  The beds of volcanic tuff were so ideal for fossil preservation, they contain soft tissue impressions of feathers, fur, and stomach contents.  An abundance of dinosaurs, birds, mammals, fish, insects, amphibians, conifers and flowering plants are well represented, sometimes with 3D impressions and some with hundreds of specimens of certain species in one spot.  Famous dinosaurs found in the area include tyrannosaurids, titanosaurian sauropods, velociraptors, ankylosaurs and ceratopians.  Also found are pterodactyls, pterosaurs, and “the most significant discoveries are undoubtedly the non-avian coelurosaurian theropods, the diverse avifauna and a variety of mammals, all of which have impacted on wide-ranging evolutionary debates.”
    From this region have come the recent claims of feathered dinosaurs and early birds, possible ancestors of flowering plants and early representatives of placental mammals.  The authors Zhou, Barrett and Hilton describe dinosaur and bird specimens “which provide additional, indisputable support for the dinosaurian ancestry of birds, and much new evidence on the evolution of feathers and flight.”  They conclude, “The spectacular fossils of the Jehol Group have already provided many important insights into the evolution of birds, angiosperms and mammals.  Nevertheless, the rate of fossil discovery presently outstrips the rate of description, and detailed monographic treatments of all species from the biota are needed if the full potential of these deposits is to be realized.  The Jehol Biota currently represents our best chance of viewing the composition and dynamics of an intact Early Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystem: continuing study of the fauna, flora, taphonomy and palaeoenvironment is likely to yield exciting new results for years to come.”

China has become one of the world’s hottest fossil collecting spots.  These fossils surely deserve careful examination and study.  The article here, however, is so impregnated with evolutionary assumptions that trying to get at the actual raw data without the assumptions is like trying to unsalt an egg.  The authors are totally convinced that the data support evolution, but some interesting aspects come to light when you read closely (emphasis added in quotes): Clearly these beds are exciting and amazing, and much work remains to be done.  But so far, does a clear picture of evolution emerge?  The evidence indicates rapid burial by catastrophic events covering vast regions, burying hundreds specimens of a single species in one locale.  There is abrupt appearance of diverse plants and animals.  The dating is contentious.  Even with the cases they make for evolution, they need to make it happen fast, and fail to explain how or why a dinosaur would develop advanced flying technology.  The context of the fossils is unclear.  If true birds are found below the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs,’ for instance, they cannot use the latter as precursors of the former.  From this article, it is also not clear if anyone can distinguish which fossils are genuine; it could be that some of the alleged transitional forms are fakes or composites.  It’s always wise to wait for the rest of the story, as we saw with the “Archaeoraptor debacle.”  A reader writes, “ What would these folks do if they saw a flying squirrel, flying fish, or flying snake?  I’ve seen all of those, but I haven’t seen any of them grow feathers, or change into birds.  They are kind of like the ‘jumping dinosaurs’.  Why aren’t they evolving?”
    The Nature authors are like evolutionary salt shakers, flavoring the data to their taste in every paragraph.  Yet the sample problems we have listed above cast doubt on their story and allow for different interpretations of the same evidence.  A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China.  Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors.  Even though conditions for the preservation of ancestral forms, whether soft-bodied or microscopic, are ideal (even sponge embryos are found in similar strata), the precursors are nowhere to be found.  Paleontologist J. Y. Chen said in the film Icons of Evolution, “Darwinism is maybe only telling part of the story for evolution.  Darwin’s tree is a reverse cone shape.  Very unexpectedly, our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the Cambrian.  The base is wide and gradually narrows.  This is almost turned a different way.”  His colleague Zhou Qui Gin, a senior research fellow at the site, says (translated), “I do not believe that animals developed gradually from the bottom up.  I think the animals suddenly appeared.  Among the Chengyiang animals we have found 136 different kinds of animals.  And they represent diversity in the level of phyla and classes.  So they sudden appearance makes them very special.”
    If all the animal and plant types appeared abruptly at the Cambrian, then evolution is debunked right there.  Zhou, Barrett and Hilton cannot therefore make a case for Darwinism in the Cretaceous.  Perhaps with different glasses on, paleontologists will find the same ‘reverse cone’ in the Jehol strata.  Earlier epochs were much richer in species diversity.  By comparison, our world is impoverished.  This is devolution, not evolution.  Consider this in a creation context; if the antediluvian world were much richer in species than the present, and were buried in catastrophes, would we not expect to find apparent transitional forms?  I.e., some extinct species might be force-fitted by today’s evolutionists into the gaps, even when the original creatures had no phylogenetic relationship.  The observed species are the tips of branches; the tree is only inferred.  It follows that the more tips you have, the more trees you can draw.  We expect the Jehol specimens, when sifted of fakes and correlated, will preserve the world-wide ‘reverse cone’ picture, and confirm the general pattern that gave rise to the punctuated equilibria model: abrupt appearance of animals and plants, stasis, and extinction.
    The spectacularly preserved fossils in the Jehol Biota need to be interpreted in their own context, without evolutionary presuppositions adding a preferred seasoning.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; crevolist; evolution; fossils
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
I think it would be great to put together a field trip to China to tour a lot of these fossil sites. Anyone game to look at the possibility?
1 posted on 02/28/2003 8:46:57 PM PST by CalConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scripter; gore3000; nmh; Heartlander; Alamo-Girl; Dataman; f.Christian
**Chinese Fossils Ping**
2 posted on 02/28/2003 8:48:46 PM PST by CalConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Sadly, Chinese dissidents will become the fossilized remains for future study.
3 posted on 02/28/2003 8:57:29 PM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Thanks for the heads up!
4 posted on 02/28/2003 9:00:06 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: CalConservative
dino feathers placemarker.
6 posted on 02/28/2003 9:08:07 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
In other words, they've found evidence of a massive catastrophe, want to say it's volcanic but can't presume to explain the basalts and silting with a far away volcanic blast, and another set of theories has run aground on evidence that mucks up their postulations causing them to run about formulating new baseless theories to fill in where the old unproven theories used to be. The house of cards shifts and wiggles while they prop it up again and people are supposed to have confidence in these people who keep blabbing on about an ever changing pack of unproven theories. It's no wonder people want intelligent design, creationism and other alternatives taught. No confidence in paid hacks that couldn't identify a road if they were driving on it..
7 posted on 02/28/2003 9:19:56 PM PST by Havoc (Excersize your iq muscles, read Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
“The fossil-bearing tuffs at this locality lack obvious bedding planes, suggesting that this deposit resulted from a single, catastrophic mass mortality event.”

In addition, from their map, the catastrophe apparently occurred over a vast area. The Yixiang and Jiufotang formations cover half of China, southern Japan, all of Korea, and most of Mongolia.

What a remarkable opportunity to see a snapshot of life as it existed at one short period of time over 100 mya.

The size of the formation is quite large for an single explosive volcanic event there should be evidence in other parts of the world of such an event.

8 posted on 02/28/2003 9:21:51 PM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
they also found the evolutionary link between primates and humans but they don't publicize it because it might upset some with religeous mythology that refutes that possibility
9 posted on 02/28/2003 9:24:01 PM PST by ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
No. It's obvious. All those animals were killed in Noah's flood. Yeah. That's it, that's the ticket.

Any other good ghost stories?
10 posted on 02/28/2003 9:34:54 PM PST by The Shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
"The size of the formation is quite large for an single explosive volcanic event there should be evidence in other parts of the world of such an event."

Pompeii comes to mind.

11 posted on 02/28/2003 9:36:04 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
I hope you are kidding. Hard to tell on this forum sometimes. If they had any hard proof of link between primates and humans it would be broadcast all over the place
despite those who hold to creation myths.
12 posted on 02/28/2003 9:53:27 PM PST by bethelgrad (for God and country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Shootist
Didn't bring it up. They said it was a huge catastrophe - the very thing they bat at and dismiss out of hand as quackery at the drop of a hat. At the same time they start hypothesizing in midsentence that which will be halucinagenic theoretical fact by tomorrow till they screw up and find something else that screws that one up and have to make up something else the day after tomorrow. So, I guess in their search for theoretical truth they've resorted to quackery and you attack the person that points it out because you have no real response to the facts. Well, gee, who'da thunk it.
</p>
13 posted on 02/28/2003 10:01:08 PM PST by Havoc (Excersize your iq muscles, read Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
It's no wonder people want intelligent design, creationism and other alternatives taught.

The nature of inquiry is based on realizing that it is a work in progress, else it is no inquiry but a given.  The amazing thing to me is what mindless, superstitious, hallucinatory 'givens' these same people are willing to accept  so they won't have to think anymore.
14 posted on 02/28/2003 10:05:08 PM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam
Pompeii comes to mind.

Half the size of Asia? -- Yellowstone x 5 comes to my mind.

15 posted on 02/28/2003 10:46:36 PM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
I have worked in tuff deposits before, in the area around Bishop, Mono Lake, and Mammoth, CA. The problem with tuffs is that a "single event" in the geologic record might actually have happened over several months or even years. Take the case of a hypothetical ash vent in the Long Valley Caldera (Mammoth area). It might blow ash for a long time, with the deposited ash not showing much of any "bedding," grading, or flow lamination.

These types of deposits are best dated by the material immediately above and below the deposit in question - so you get a range.

16 posted on 02/28/2003 11:20:33 PM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
Take the case of a hypothetical ash vent in the Long Valley Caldera (Mammoth area).

The Bishop Tuff and around Mono Lake is less than 50 miles from the Long Valley Caldera so that smaller ash vents could have contributed to the deposits over time ie Inyo and Mono Craters. It would take a pretty large blast to expel tuff thousands of miles and those don't happen too often from one caldera.

I would be interested in knowing if and where they have found any welding in these deposits (Asia).

I have been going to the area around Crowley Lake, Mammoth Lakes and Bishop for over 45 years. I am not a Geologist but even as a kid I wondered why the area around Crowley Lake and the Owens River Gorge looked so weird.

17 posted on 03/01/2003 12:08:04 AM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
REVERSE CONE: Earlier epochs were much richer in species diversity. By comparison, our world is impoverished. This is devolution, not evolution.

Yes, we should be seeing species coming into existence by some unbalanced ratio of 4:1 or 10:1 or 100:1. Instead we are hearing that species are dying out at that rate.

If we can document species dying out at 100:1, where is the documented 1 coming into existence?

18 posted on 03/01/2003 7:06:08 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
What a remarkable opportunity to see a snapshot of life as it existed at one short period of time over 100 mya.

Indeed, a paleo-pompeii...

19 posted on 03/01/2003 7:11:37 AM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
they also found the evolutionary link between primates and humans but they don't publicize it because it might upset some with religeous [sic] mythology that refutes that possibility

Good logic. The evos found their links-- many times:
Nebraska man
Piltdown man
Orce man
Java man
Lucy
Homo habilis
etc. etc. etc.

20 posted on 03/01/2003 7:14:07 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson