Why no old tar pits?

During a 'discussion' with Cal I used the Rancho La Brea as an example of high quality fossil preservation. That got me to thinking, Why has no one ever found such a deposit from a really long time ago with a similiar quality and quantity of fossils? Is Rancho La Brea really that rare or what?

Ken Shaw

There's the Buckhorn Asphalt in southeastern Oklahoma, middle Pennsylvanian in age, which is kind of weird

In 'geologic' time, the LaBrea tarpits are not all that old. Similar geologic features of older time would be: 1.not exposed for animals to fall into. 2. if animals fell into, then are not covered to great depths by surface deposits. 3. if exposed to surface, then the whole deposit has long disappeared through erosion.

The current harvest of fossils from the LaBRea tarpits reflect 'a bunch of lucky variables' coming together at the same time. Similar tar pits are rare. Northern Alberta has a vast area of tar-like deposits of an older age. Unfortunatey these tar deposits are mined by the largest machine shovels on earth ...hardly the tools of a careful paleo worker with chisel and hammer.

I just checked on the web it appears Messel is a sedimentary deposit.

Thanks Ken Shaw

Thanks, I had never heard of this deposit before.

Ken Shaw

: begins!

:>Your ignorance is unbearable. You don't even know what Lagerstatten are and :>you think that you tore my arguments apart.

Aw, c'mon

Ah, yet another attempt by Sean Barry at character assassination. So what is new? Scientists do not need to rely on such low ball tactics, but cladists do. Sean Barry is not a cladist, but he has sold his soul to the cladistic regime.

I am sure Sean Barry knows how scientists talk. In fact, he gives a pretty good imitation of that too. He does it so well that I even thought that he was a scientist. Of course he tried to bolster that impression by pointing out that he had coauthored paper(s) in scientific journals. But unfortunately, I am sorry to say that I was wrong. Mr. Barry does not think like a scientist (oops, I should have said 'as a scientist'. After all, publishing papers in scientific journals does not necessarily mean that one is a scientist. For example, and I mean no disrespect to the late Ross Allen, Mr. Allen also coauthored a paper in a respected scientific journal. But one would not mistake Mr. Allen as a scientist, even though Mr. Allen is as knowledgeable about reptiles as anyone can be without any formal academic training. In some ways, because of his considerable first hand experience with reptiles in the wild, Mr. Allen even surpassed many scientists in his knowledge of reptiles. The same can be said of Mr. Barry, who is a field specialist. Mr. Barry is also far more articulate than Mr. Allen, hence my mistaken belief that he is actually a scientist. But unfortunately, unlike scientists, Mr. Barry is not steeped in the fine points of evolutionary biology. That is why he erroneously labeled J.D. Lazell's enlightened writings as 'diatribe.' I think Mr. Barry must have been relying on the reverse of 'omne ignotum pro magnifico,' which means 'if you don't understand it, it must be great.' Mr. Barry probably thinks that 'if you don't understand it, it must be diatribe.'

No, he used it as proof that fossil preservation is better in the younger rocks than in older rocks, in order to lend support to his other alias 'John Brock,' who apparently disappeared because I called his bluff. 'Ken Shaw' is a revisionist historian.

As I said, lagerstatten are rare, but they are not restricted to the late Tertiary, as the ignorant 'Ken Shaw' had mistakenly thought. The Burgess Shale is a Cambrian lagerstatte, and it, as S.J. Gould points out, provides a rare and valuable window into the past, a very short time (geologically speaking) after the Cambrian explosion.

Yes it would be quite weird. Why would asphalt be seeping from rocks at such an early age. Could these be the remains of the Vendian or even Cambrian fauna?

: was a scientist. Of course he tried to bolster that impression by pointing : out that he had coauthored paper(s) in scientific journals. But : unfortunately, I am sorry to say that I was wrong. Mr. Barry does not think : like a scientist (oops, I should have said 'as a scientist'. After all,

etc etc.

Well, 'Cal,' I'll say again that if you were actually familiar with the current literature in herpetological nomenclature, you'd be proclaiming that I'm your hero....

Sean Barry

Sorry, being merely informed is not enough; one must be knowledgeable. Lazell, Pritchard, and many veteran herpetologists who are NOT cladists are far more knowledgeable (and much more honest) than those herpetologists who are either cladists or affiliated/allied with cladists. In fact, virtually none of the most knowledgeable biologists of our time, e.g. Ernst Mayr, S.J. Gould, G.G. Simpson, G. Ledyard Stebbins, is a cladist. None of them supports the typological species concept that is in vogue among cladists and their followers. Lazell, Pritchard and Dowling et al. (none of whom is a cladist) wrote many insightful articles in Herpetol. Review. Those who are incapable of appreciating Lazell's insight but instead labeled his words 'diatribe' because he opposes cladism therefore demonstrate little understanding of evolutionary biology. They therefore have no hope of becoming my 'hero.' Herpetology is after all just a branch of biological science. Knowledgeable herpetologists have to adhere to scientific principles, and be much more widely read than the herpetological literature, although I must admit that it is a rather tedious task in iteself. The Ross Allen analogy is perfect, for Mr. Allen is a reptile man par excellence. He may even be considered an excellent herpetologist, but he is not a well rounded biologist.

In order to process information correctly, one must have a good understanding of evolutionary biology, since it is the unifying principle of biological science. Unprocessed or incorrectly processed information can actually lead one to scientifically untenable conclusions, and I have seen many excellent examples of that in the past. Your claim that snakes evolved from a fossorial, visually challenged ancestor is in fact extremely unlikely based on what is known about evolutionary processes. In fact, one would be surprised how informed many creationists are because they, like you, diligently stay current with the scientific literature. And yet the creationists invariably come to scientifically untenable conclusions because they do not adhere to evolutionary theory or scientific procedures. Creationists are informed but not knowledgeable. Herpetologists who either ignores or are ignorant of evolutionary biology are at best merely informed (just like the creationists) but they are not knowledgeable. Lazell has pointed out that the cladists are leading their followers into a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory; Mayr, Simpson, Gould and I concur. Creationists and merely informed herpetologists who misunderstand evolution can never become my 'hero.'