Proposal
Biostratigraphy is a methodology for determining relative timing of sedimentary deposits based on their fossil content. It foundationally assumes faunal succession—that fossil ordering arises because different organisms lived exclusively in different eras of history. Accordingly, first appearances and extinctions would be globally unique single moments in time. The highly dynamic Genesis Flood violates this assumption with all fossilized forms existing simultaneously at the beginning of the Flood and burial potentially occurring at any time dependent on specific process. To date, no one has simulated the fossil record under conditions expected during the Flood to test the effectiveness of biostratigraphic methods on the Flood-deposited fossil record when the fundamental assumptions have been transgressed. Can this lead to distorted interpretations of relative timing in some cases? Differences in character between Flood and post-Flood fossil assemblages could be used as a criterion for identifying the Flood terminal boundary (Whitmore and Garner, 2008). In this study, I simulate fossil records with different ordering style (true order, process order, successive inundation, endemism, and random), degree of ordering, and per-column fossil density. I then statistically compare the resulting timescales generated by automated graph-based biostratigraphic analyses. An additional set of experiments was run which compared the compatibility of geographically restricted biostratigraphic analyses with ones produced with full global knowledge. This simulates the historical development of the geologic column framework in Europe being later applied to new discoveries across the globe. The results of the simulations show that biostratigraphy consistently recovers the correct ordering of the fossil record when one exists. However, the method will also reliably produce a self-consistent global ordering even in cases where one does not exist, leading to timing distortions between distant columns. Higher precision in the interpreted biostratigraphic timescale increases time distortions. This timing distortion comes from having only a small number of index assemblage permutations preserved in direct relationship with each other in particular locations—an extremely stringent notion of the “completeness” of the fossil record. When such combinatorial completeness is low, as it is in the real fossil record, then global consistency of observed fossil “aboveness” cannot distinguish between a highly ordered and unordered fossil record. The experiments also show that fossil range extensions are positively correlated with timing distortions, as they represent inconsistencies between the interpreted biostratigraphic timescale and the actual fossil record. In the experiments testing the expansion of an initial framework to the global set of observations, the majority of simulations show complete consistency between restricted framework and global framework for all styles and degrees of ordering. The random and process order cases had significant minorities of simulations result in inconsistencies between frameworks, which could be manifest in reality as region-specific index taxa or initial index taxa becoming superseded. Zeller (1964) showed that both correlations of sections and interpretation of cyclicity could be made for sequences that had been generated from completely random data. Far from suggesting that these interpretations were always spurious, he provided a warning of applying interpretive methods in situations where they are inapplicable. He exhorted his readers to distinguish random events versus the necessary consequences of events, which are non-random, as a guide to careful interpretation of correlations. Similarly, biostratigraphy should be reliable when core methodological assumptions are met, but can yield false correlations otherwise. I consider several possible independent lines of evidence for relative timing that could validate the conditions necessary for successful biostratigraphic interpretations including radiometric methods, global isochronous events (e.g. impacts, megasequence boundaries), distant fossil-strata correspondences, and stratomorphic series. Currently, these independent chronometers can support coarse ordering consistent with the various creationist proposals for generation of fossil ordering during the Flood, but cannot distinguish between them. Further research in these areas may be able to test for more fine-grained precision in fossil ordering. REFERENCES Whitmore, J.H., and P.A. Garner. 2008. Using suites of criteria to recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood strata in the rock record with application to Wyoming (USA). In A.A. Snelling (editor), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 425–448. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship; Dallas, Texas: Institute for Creation Research. Zeller, E.J. 1964. Cycles and psychology. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 169:631–636.
Keywords
biostratigraphy, faunal succession, correlation, graph theory, completeness
Submission Type
Oral Presentation
Copyright
© 2025 Nathan W. Mogk. All rights reserved.
Included in
Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics Commons, Paleontology Commons, Statistical Models Commons, Stratigraphy Commons
Does Biostratigraphy Work without Faunal Succession?
Biostratigraphy is a methodology for determining relative timing of sedimentary deposits based on their fossil content. It foundationally assumes faunal succession—that fossil ordering arises because different organisms lived exclusively in different eras of history. Accordingly, first appearances and extinctions would be globally unique single moments in time. The highly dynamic Genesis Flood violates this assumption with all fossilized forms existing simultaneously at the beginning of the Flood and burial potentially occurring at any time dependent on specific process. To date, no one has simulated the fossil record under conditions expected during the Flood to test the effectiveness of biostratigraphic methods on the Flood-deposited fossil record when the fundamental assumptions have been transgressed. Can this lead to distorted interpretations of relative timing in some cases? Differences in character between Flood and post-Flood fossil assemblages could be used as a criterion for identifying the Flood terminal boundary (Whitmore and Garner, 2008). In this study, I simulate fossil records with different ordering style (true order, process order, successive inundation, endemism, and random), degree of ordering, and per-column fossil density. I then statistically compare the resulting timescales generated by automated graph-based biostratigraphic analyses. An additional set of experiments was run which compared the compatibility of geographically restricted biostratigraphic analyses with ones produced with full global knowledge. This simulates the historical development of the geologic column framework in Europe being later applied to new discoveries across the globe. The results of the simulations show that biostratigraphy consistently recovers the correct ordering of the fossil record when one exists. However, the method will also reliably produce a self-consistent global ordering even in cases where one does not exist, leading to timing distortions between distant columns. Higher precision in the interpreted biostratigraphic timescale increases time distortions. This timing distortion comes from having only a small number of index assemblage permutations preserved in direct relationship with each other in particular locations—an extremely stringent notion of the “completeness” of the fossil record. When such combinatorial completeness is low, as it is in the real fossil record, then global consistency of observed fossil “aboveness” cannot distinguish between a highly ordered and unordered fossil record. The experiments also show that fossil range extensions are positively correlated with timing distortions, as they represent inconsistencies between the interpreted biostratigraphic timescale and the actual fossil record. In the experiments testing the expansion of an initial framework to the global set of observations, the majority of simulations show complete consistency between restricted framework and global framework for all styles and degrees of ordering. The random and process order cases had significant minorities of simulations result in inconsistencies between frameworks, which could be manifest in reality as region-specific index taxa or initial index taxa becoming superseded. Zeller (1964) showed that both correlations of sections and interpretation of cyclicity could be made for sequences that had been generated from completely random data. Far from suggesting that these interpretations were always spurious, he provided a warning of applying interpretive methods in situations where they are inapplicable. He exhorted his readers to distinguish random events versus the necessary consequences of events, which are non-random, as a guide to careful interpretation of correlations. Similarly, biostratigraphy should be reliable when core methodological assumptions are met, but can yield false correlations otherwise. I consider several possible independent lines of evidence for relative timing that could validate the conditions necessary for successful biostratigraphic interpretations including radiometric methods, global isochronous events (e.g. impacts, megasequence boundaries), distant fossil-strata correspondences, and stratomorphic series. Currently, these independent chronometers can support coarse ordering consistent with the various creationist proposals for generation of fossil ordering during the Flood, but cannot distinguish between them. Further research in these areas may be able to test for more fine-grained precision in fossil ordering. REFERENCES Whitmore, J.H., and P.A. Garner. 2008. Using suites of criteria to recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood strata in the rock record with application to Wyoming (USA). In A.A. Snelling (editor), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 425–448. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship; Dallas, Texas: Institute for Creation Research. Zeller, E.J. 1964. Cycles and psychology. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 169:631–636.