Thank you CTD for the link to the abstract on . . . "A Biometrical Study of Micraster coranguinum and M. (Isomicraster) senonensis." It is a careful and detailed morphological study. No doubt the scientists involved would appreciate your refutations of their data based on your careful study of their work, your observation of the actual fossils, and your general scientific expertise.

You appear also to have ignored the paleontologist's analysis of the errors of Williams' information-presentation technique, which includes unsupported assertions, false facts, ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, lack of awareness of recent scientific findings, irrelevant comments, and more. In short, Williams' treatise reads like a typical creationist diatribe. This may be acceptable to you, but it would be impossible to present it as good science.

Quote
99%+ of the fossil evidence is utterly useless for the evolutionist cause. Stasis is everywhere and "transitionals" are absent.

Patently false, as a good read of any scientific website about the fossil record will explain to you. There is also plenty of evidence for transitional forms, including the horse and the whale. If you're going to trot out that old claim of yours that horse evolution was disproved, maybe you will back it up with evidence this time, instead of making yet another empty assertion.

You also bring up some questions about reworked fossils. I explained to you what these are and why they necessarily exist, and I linked you to two sites which discuss them. One even discusses how fossils are dated in relation to where they are found in the fossil record; the earliest fossil found is highly unlikely to be the first of its kind to have evolved; and the most recent fossil of a species found is highly unlikely to be the last of its kind. This also should have been taken into account by Woodmorappe, though it wasn't, and it would also explain some of his "anomalous" dates. I was hoping you would take the time to read the information there.

At any rate, let's have a look at an example of a reworked fossil. Let's say that a trilobite fossil has been found in an upper layer of soil by a casual passer-by. If that passer-by is a creationist (who has any idea of what a trilobite is, what is looks like and whenabouts it is supposed to have lived), they will say, "Look! An anomalous fossil! The fossil record is wrong and evolution is dead!"

Now a scientist would be aware of several factors here. She would be aware, for example, that there are 17,000 known species of trilobites and thousands upon thousands of trilobite fossils, all sorted within the fossil record. A variety of dating methods has also determined that trilobites became extinct 250 million years ago. This knowledge makes it highly questionable that the fossil found by the passer-by was found in situ (a word you don't seem to like for some reason, but which is important nonetheless because fossils not found in their original positions need to be carefully studied in order to avoid erroneous dating). What's more, the fossil appears to show a great deal of weathering, which makes no sense if it had been buried in the soil all that time. All of this evidence points to a fossil which was eroded from its original position in the rock and which re-joined the earth at some recent time. The links I gave illustrate other examples of reowrked fossils. Pollen is a very common one because it is so ubiquitous.

You and SoSick need to realise that while anomalies can be very instructive, they need to be established first as true anomalies. That means they need to be tested for other possibilities that would explain their "anomalousness" before the conclusion is jumped to that they necessarily overturn a major theory. In the case of the trilobite fossil, it's also possible that the scientist would have a look at it and patiently point out that it's not a trilobite at all, but another much more recent marine fossil which looks similar.

Still no answer to my question about why we get human fossils in "top" strata, why dinosaurs are all underneath that, and why trilobites are further down still. No mixing. All over the world, fossils show this sorting. Are you prepared to deal with this?