creationist
304
edits
Pisco formation: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
no edit summary
m (→Interpretation: sp) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The Pisco formation is a fossil site in Peru that contains some 346 well preserved whales and some other fossil animals. It has an area of 1.5-km2 and is 80-m thick. Using [[radiometric dating]] methods, the site gave an age of 10-12 million years old. It mainly consists of a sedimentary rock called diatomite. This site, which was brought to attention | The Pisco formation is a fossil site in Peru that contains some 346 well preserved whales and some other fossil animals. It has an area of 1.5-km2 and is 80-m thick. Using [[radiometric dating]] methods, the site gave an age of 10-12 million years old. It mainly consists of a sedimentary rock called diatomite. This site, which was brought to attention by [[Art Chadwick]], [[Leonard Brand]], [[Raúl Esperante]], and [[Poma]], is one of the world's best examples of a formation being created by Noah's flood. | ||
==Fossil preservation== | ==Fossil preservation== | ||
The preservation of the whale fossils is amazing. Of the hundreds of whale fossils, 145 are complete fossils. There are no signs of what one would expect from sea floor decay(wormholes, barnacle encrustations, and a utter lack of any sign of bioturbation). Brand et al point out that when a marine creature dies, scavengers quickly devour the corpse. Furthermore, the baleen of some whales, a part rarely found, is preserved. As a result, Brand et al claim that this site is clearly an example of rapid burial.[http://origins.swau.edu/who/chadwick/whales.1] | The preservation of the whale fossils is amazing. Of the hundreds of whale fossils, 145 are complete fossils. There are no signs of what one would expect from sea floor decay (wormholes, barnacle encrustations, and a utter lack of any sign of bioturbation). Brand et al point out that when a marine creature dies, scavengers quickly devour the corpse. Furthermore, the baleen of some whales, a part rarely found, is preserved. As a result, Brand et al claim that this site is clearly an example of rapid burial.[http://origins.swau.edu/who/chadwick/whales.1] | ||
{{cquote|Observations of modern whale carcasses on the seafloor indicate that baleen does not remain long within the mouth of a dead whale. This is due to the non-bony nature of baleen and the fact that the plates are not rooted in the upper mandible but just glued to it. Sedimentological and taphonomic features suggest that the exceptional occurrence of the baleen apparatus of these fossil is the result of very rapid burial of the carcasses, which likely occurred after most of the soft tissue decayed but before baleen was removed.}}[http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_112216.htm] | {{cquote|Observations of modern whale carcasses on the seafloor indicate that baleen does not remain long within the mouth of a dead whale. This is due to the non-bony nature of baleen and the fact that the plates are not rooted in the upper mandible but just glued to it. Sedimentological and taphonomic features suggest that the exceptional occurrence of the baleen apparatus of these fossil is the result of very rapid burial of the carcasses, which likely occurred after most of the soft tissue decayed but before baleen was removed.}}[http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_112216.htm] | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
===Interpretation=== | ===Interpretation=== | ||
Since there are signs of sharks eating away at the whale corpse, there is clear evidence that the whale were not merely deposited in preexisting diatomite. The diatomite was formed at the same time whales died. Brand et al conclude, after debunking other interpretations, that the formation is a result of a massive [[diatom]] bloom.There is some evidence of [[volcanism]] and this would supply to essential [[nutrient]] to produce a diatom bloom. This in turn killed the [[whales]] because blooms poison the [[water]]. | |||
Since there are signs of sharks eating away at the whale corpse, there is clear evidence that the whale were not merely deposited in preexisting diatomite. The diatomite was formed at the same time whales died. Brand et al conclude, after debunking other interpretations, that the formation is a result of a massive [[diatom]] bloom. There is some evidence of [[volcanism]] and this would supply to essential [[nutrient]] to produce a diatom bloom. This, in turn, killed the [[whales]] because blooms poison the [[water]]. | |||
===Implications=== | ===Implications=== | ||
The Pisco formation is | |||
The Pisco formation is an amazing site. The rapid burial of the whales and preservation of their baleen depict a story of whales perishing in a diatom bloom in the late flood period. However, there is more to be drawn from the fossil site. <!--Is this paragraph really necessary?--> | |||
==Mixed environment== | ==Mixed environment== | ||
Though the Flood would produce a general pattern in the fossil record ,due to [[fossil sorting]] (e.g. [[hydrological sorting]] and ecological zonation), exceptions are bound to occur. Whales are not the only creatures found at the Pisco formation. The others strangely include a few [[sloths]] and some [[penguins]]. This is a clear example of creatures that live in completely different ecologies being buried at the same site. | Though the Flood would produce a general pattern in the fossil record, due to [[fossil sorting]] (e.g. [[hydrological sorting]] and ecological zonation), exceptions are bound to occur. Whales are not the only creatures found at the Pisco formation. The others strangely include a few [[sloths]] and some [[penguins]]. This is a clear example of creatures that live in completely different ecologies being buried at the same site. | ||
==Chalk "problem"== | ==Chalk "problem"== | ||
