The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Edestus jaw

Posted 7 April 2014 by Matt Young

Photograph by Daniel Phelps. Photography contest, Honorable Mention.
Edestus jaw -- Upper Carboniferous, Henderson County, Kentucky. Found in an underground coal mine earlier this year. On display at the Kentucky Geological Survey.

17 Comments

eric · 7 April 2014

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the coal mine...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 7 April 2014

Probably one of those vegetarian sharks that existed before the Fall, eating trees and ferns.

Glen Davidson

Just Bob · 7 April 2014

How long until someone sees this post and gleefully informs us that it is evidence of rapid burial by a recent global Flood? Of course NOT finding such things would ALSO be evidence of a recent global Flood.

(I won't mention any names, but his initials are Robert Byers.)

david.starling.macmillan · 7 April 2014

A Masked Panda said: Probably one of those vegetarian sharks that existed before the Fall, eating trees and ferns. Glen Davidson
Can't you see how well-designed those teeth are to saw through plant material? I used a saw once, so I'm an expert on this.
Just Bob said: How long until someone sees this post and gleefully informs us that it is evidence of rapid burial by a recent global Flood? Of course NOT finding such things would ALSO be evidence of a recent global Flood. (I won't mention any names, but his initials are Robert Byers.)
As we all know, coal is evidence of a worldwide flood. There were some researchers once somewhere who created something like coal in a lab, so we know it's possible to create coal quickly. And having coal all over the world can only be explained by a worldwide flood. How else would a shark have managed to get mixed up in the plant matter necessary to create coal if it wasn't for a global flood?

Just Bob · 7 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: How else would a shark have managed to get mixed up in the plant matter necessary to create coal if it wasn't for a global flood?
Well, bull sharks have been caught as far inland as St. Louis, MO, and Manaus in Brazil. I wonder if there's any reason to think that Edestus couldn't likewise make use of freshwater.

david.starling.macmillan · 7 April 2014

Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: How else would a shark have managed to get mixed up in the plant matter necessary to create coal if it wasn't for a global flood?
Well, bull sharks have been caught as far inland as St. Louis, MO, and Manaus in Brazil. I wonder if there's any reason to think that Edestus couldn't likewise make use of freshwater.
Ad Hoc! Special Pleading! Strawman! Any Other Fallacies I Can Think Of That I Heard Some Where!

Just Bob · 7 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said:
Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: How else would a shark have managed to get mixed up in the plant matter necessary to create coal if it wasn't for a global flood?
Well, bull sharks have been caught as far inland as St. Louis, MO, and Manaus in Brazil. I wonder if there's any reason to think that Edestus couldn't likewise make use of freshwater.
Ad Hoc! Special Pleading! Strawman! Any Other Fallacies I Can Think Of That I Heard Some Where!
Hey, there ARE land sharks! They used to put in regular appearances on SNL, and we've been shown that something on TV is REAL PROOF.

icstuff · 8 April 2014

Read the article it was found above the coal seam embedded in shale.

Just Bob · 9 April 2014

For creationists: Where could this have been found that would be evidence AGAINST a global inundation?

icstuff · 10 April 2014

Just Bob said: For creationists: Where could this have been found that would be evidence AGAINST a global inundation?
the creation museum?

icstuff · 10 April 2014

sorry it did not take my sarcasm tags

Kevin B · 10 April 2014

icstuff said: sorry it did not take my sarcasm tags
Sarcasm tags would have been redundant. Which specific Muse does Ken Ham's establishment commemorate - Thalia?

apokryltaros · 12 April 2014

Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: How else would a shark have managed to get mixed up in the plant matter necessary to create coal if it wasn't for a global flood?
Well, bull sharks have been caught as far inland as St. Louis, MO, and Manaus in Brazil. I wonder if there's any reason to think that Edestus couldn't likewise make use of freshwater.
Edestus was strictly marine (and more closely related to the chimaeras than true sharks), though, most of the coal-producing forests of the Carboniferous were coastal or closely intertwined with estuary habitats.

Just Bob · 13 April 2014

IANAS, so just curiosity... How can we tell that Edestus was strictly marine? Would a bull shark fossil show different traits that would indicate that it was primarily marine, but could survive long-term in fresh water?

prongs · 14 April 2014

Just Bob said: IANAS, so just curiosity... How can we tell that Edestus was strictly marine? Would a bull shark fossil show different traits that would indicate that it was primarily marine, but could survive long-term in fresh water?
Just Bob, I would guess that the sediments in which the fossils are found define the environment. The other fossils found with it also help establish whether it was a marine or freshwater species.

Just Bob · 14 April 2014

prongs said:
Just Bob said: IANAS, so just curiosity... How can we tell that Edestus was strictly marine? Would a bull shark fossil show different traits that would indicate that it was primarily marine, but could survive long-term in fresh water?
Just Bob, I would guess that the sediments in which the fossils are found define the environment. The other fossils found with it also help establish whether it was a marine or freshwater species.

apokryltaros said: Edestus was strictly marine...

But my question remains unanswered. Is there something about the fossil itself that makes it "strictly marine"? Bull shark fossils could be forming today. Some could be in marine sediments, but some could easily be in freshwater sediments hundreds of miles from any saltwater. If the fossil-bearing strata is the only determinant of a creature's marine/freshwater status, then how can we be sure that a creature found in marine sediments could not, like my favorite bull shark, live comfortably for years hundreds of miles up a river?

apokryltaros · 4 May 2014

Just Bob said:
prongs said:
Just Bob said: IANAS, so just curiosity... How can we tell that Edestus was strictly marine? Would a bull shark fossil show different traits that would indicate that it was primarily marine, but could survive long-term in fresh water?
Just Bob, I would guess that the sediments in which the fossils are found define the environment. The other fossils found with it also help establish whether it was a marine or freshwater species.

apokryltaros said: Edestus was strictly marine...

But my question remains unanswered. Is there something about the fossil itself that makes it "strictly marine"? Bull shark fossils could be forming today. Some could be in marine sediments, but some could easily be in freshwater sediments hundreds of miles from any saltwater. If the fossil-bearing strata is the only determinant of a creature's marine/freshwater status, then how can we be sure that a creature found in marine sediments could not, like my favorite bull shark, live comfortably for years hundreds of miles up a river?
The chemical makeup of the matrix/rock, as well as specific isotopes found within the fossil, itself, if any original tissue (including bone or its equivalent) remains, are the primary geochemical and biochemical means a fossil being determined as freshwater/marine/terrestrial in origin, in addition to the presence of the tests of marine or freshwater microorganisms (i.e., diatoms, radiolarians, etc), or plants and algae.