a correlation between phylogenies and the fossil record may only be telling us about the ordering of fossils rather than anything evolutionary. Second, the clade ranking process is itself artificial, since the point at which two taxa share a common ancestor may not be the point at which those taxa began to exist as recognizably distinct species. Third, except for species with an abundant fossil record, the first appearance date on which these ranks are based can only be coarsely related to the actual first appearances of those species, especially for species known from only one occurrence. This is even more important if the fossil record represents hundreds of millions of years and only very sparsely samples the species alive during that interval. Still, the high level of correlation seen here is quite impressive, perhaps even too impressive. Future work should focus on the effects of stochastically sampling a very sparse fossil record and alternative methods of evaluating morphological similarity. We also document here a notable difference in correlations based on the stratigraphic range of the taxa involved, that may shed light on the nature of the Flood, the pre-Flood world, and post-Flood recovery. We noted that correlations in the Mesozoic were greater than correlations in the Cenozoic and the Paleozoic. With our simulations that control for taxon sample size, we see that this difference is not merely a difference of taxon sampling. It could be a difference in redundancy, if, as we noted above, the sampling of dinosaur phylogenies in particular indicates a highly redundant dataset. Interestingly, both Wills (2007) and O’Connor et al. (2011) made similar observations. Although they used different methods and datasets for calculating congruence, both found a convex pattern in their results, with congruence peaking in the Mesozoic and deteriorating to the present. Both attribute this pattern, at least in part, to the changes in proportions of higher taxa through time. If these differences do reflect real differences in correlation between taxon and stratigraphic order, then Flood models ought to grapple with these differences. For example, any Flood model that does not include the Paleozoic or even part of the Paleozoic in the Flood sediments must account for the ordering of fossils in the Paleozoic. Alternatively, Flood models that recognize most of the Phanerozoic as Flood deposits should account for the change in correlation seen as Flood deposition moves from Paleozoic to Mesozoic to Cenozoic. In particular, what could cause a sharp spike in correlation at the mid-Flood (Mesozoic)? Finally, Flood models that place the Flood/ post-Flood boundary at the base of the Cenozoic ought to address the increasing correlation seen from Paleozoic to Mesozoic (early to late Flood) and why the post-Flood (Cenozoic) is roughly as correlated as the earliest Flood sediments (Paleozoic). Regardless of the Flood model, answering any of these questions must engage at least two different issues: the nature of the pre-Flood world and the mechanism of the Flood. Since patterns in the Flood record are not evolutionary, they arise instead from the geography of the world at the start of the Flood and the way the creatures were deposited in sediments during the Flood. At its most general, the issue of geography addresses where creatures lived, and in our modern world, we see that this question relates to both continental/regional differences as well as elevational differences. More specifically, Flood deposition might have been influenced by factors such as how far inland species lived, which coast the coastal species lived on, or mountainous barriers to the Flood waters that would either be eroded in the Flood or serve as accumulation points. Historically, perceptions of the mechanism of the Flood have varied widely. Early modern scholars imagined a very simple Flood in which heavy rain inundated the entire land (e.g. Burnet 1684; Woodward 1695), while more recent models have invoked more advanced ideas such as a vapor canopy (Dillow 1981) or catastrophic plate tectonics (Austin et al. 1994). Each of these models would deposit corpses in different ways, involving many complex factors such as the energy levels of the Flood waters, how the Flood waters interacted with the geography of the pre-Flood world, and whether the Flood began in the oceans or on the land. Our work here represents just the beginning of what we hope will become a new era of examining in much greater detail the order of the fossil record. Our future work will examine our dataset in more detail to alleviate redundancy, seek and assess alternative metrics for ranking taxa and assessing agreement with the fossil record, and develop more sophisticated models of evolution and the Flood to help us understand the patterns we actually observe. We also want to extend the dataset to include more invertebrates and even microfossils, such as diatoms or foraminifera. We look forward to exciting new discoveries as we continue to work with these data. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Jamie Summerville (Bryan College) for statistical advice and assistance. This work was made possible by a grant from the Genesis Fund and by donations to Biblical Creation Trust and Core Academy of Science. REFERENCES Austin, S.A., J.R. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K.P. Wise. 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global flood model of earth history. In R.E. Walsh (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, pp. 609–621. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. Benton, M.J. 2001. Finding the tree of life: matching phylogenetic trees to the fossil record through the 20th century. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:2123–2130. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1769. Benton, M.J., and R. Hitchin. 1997. Congruence between phylogenetic and stratigraphic data on the history of life. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 264:885–890. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0123. Benton, M.J., and G.W. Storrs. 1994. Testing the quality of the fossil record: paleontological knowledge is improving. Geology 22:111–114. DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(1994)022<0111:TTQOTF>2.3.CO;2. Burnet, T. 1684. The Theory of the Earth: Containing an Account of the Original of the Earth, and of all the General Changes Which it Hath Already Undergone, or is to Undergo, till the Consummation of all Things. London: R. Norton. Coyne, J.A. 2009. Why Evolution is True. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cuffey, R.J. 1984. Paleontologic evidence and organic evolution. In A. Montagu (editor), Science and Creationism, pp. 255–281. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dillow, J.C. 1981. The Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Bible Institute. Gahn, F. J., and T.W. Kammer. 2002. The cladid crinoid Barycrinus from MCGUIRE et al. Testing the order of the fossil record 2023 ICC 485
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=