Re: Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

The paleoenvironment at Trachilos is well understand. It was a lagoon beach bar, and not subaqueous when the prints were made. As I recall they were dated by forams above and below the tracks stratigraphically.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:08 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

Trachilos sediments have been dated by marine foramenifera, therefore they could not have been marine sediments.

 

Just meaningless noise now from the stalker.

From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:46 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 02:09 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

'mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology...'

I'm not sure that is strictly true, and I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Your footprint examples are in river sediments and wind-blown sediments, not marine sediments. 

Mammal footprints typically occur with desiccation mudcracks and raindrop marks, and none of these can occur in marine sediments like those at Trachilos, which have been dated by marine foraminifera and nannoplankton. If the marine water is so shallow that a mammal can walk in it, the sediments are typically disturbed by tides, waves, and bioturbation. The flat and smooth Trachilos sediments were probably deposited below wave base, and were later disturbed by dewatering.

Paleoanthropologists typically make claims that are beyond belief, and no one (except maybe creationists) complains. It is like in religion, where respected leaders tell their followers to accept belief in miracles, and those who don't believe are either too polite or too intimidated to challenge those claims. 

--
AquaticApe.net

 

Join AAT@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.