Thread: Beneath the Australian Land Surface I see no evidence of previous life.

The Australian land mass appears barren at the best of times, ( not a lot of actual life moving around ), but beneath the land surface it appears to me anyway that this has always been so. Why would this continent have missed out on Fossils of any note.?. This as a general observation of inland Australia. Mining is big in this country, but never do I read exciting news of fossils being uncovered. The Australian Land Mass must have spent much of its life like Antartica, cold with ice and snow etc. Not an attractive habitate. There's evidence that parts of inland Australia was covered by shallow seas in recent geological times, say, for the purpose of this thread, 20.000/30,000 years ago. For discussion sake. I'm sorry I have not carried out research myself for this thread and I am hoping that more methodical members of Science Forum have a grasp of what might have caused Australia to be defiecent in fossil evidence. Oh, the inland sea bit, one would have thought there would be a stronger chance of discovering sea related fossils where this applied, but alas, this is not the case. westwind.

Missed out on fossils? really? try looking a little harder. Riversleigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Naracoorte Caves National Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Muttaburrasaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Minmi (dinosaur) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ediacara Hills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the Apex Chert in Western Australia with 3.46 Billion fossils, the oldest fossil life yet discovered.

A 10 second search turned up these:

Fossils - Australian Museum

Triple Fossil Find Puts Australia Back On The Dinosaur Map

Australian Dinosaur Story, Australian dinosaur fossil locations

you are not by any chance referring to Maslen's fictitious inland sea, are you ?
it's true that in the early cretaceous an inland sea covered a large part of what is now Central Australia, and it's also true that various inland lakes have expanded and shrunk depending on the amount of rainfall at the time, but i'm not sure whether that's what you have in mind

wow, westwind! Major faux pas, no?

A qucik scan of google scholar on trilobites turns up papers on Early Ordovician trilobites in Central Australia, Upper Cambrian trilobites in western Queensland, Early Cambrian trilobites from South Australia, trilobites from the Middle Ordovician of Tasmania. And those are only from the first few of over 8,000 hits for the search Australia and Trilobites. Change your beast of choice and you get ammonites in the Bajocian in Western Australia, Albian ammonites in the Northern territories. And on it goes. Australia is well endowed with fossils and has been since the Ediacaran fauna first swum, crawled and wriggled in its seas.

Originally Posted by John Galt

since the Ediacaran fauna first swum, crawled and wriggled in its seas.

Good point. Although, I don't think the Ediacara biota did any of those things (waved gently in the current perhaps).

I definitely remember them swimming and some of them would nibble at your toes. There are advantages in being old.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Change your beast of choice ...

but where's your precambrian australian rabbits ?

They ate the baby...oh wait, that wuz dingos...

Not to forget the notable things like "Eric" the opalized pliosaur
Eric_CooberPedy_big.jpg

duplicate post

Dear marnixR. HE HE HE , we didn't have any rabbits before the Poms came. westwind.

Dear MeteorWayne. I know the true story of what happened at Uluru. But I value my time I have left so let the dogs sleep for now. They ( Historians ), suspect the native dingo came in from the North over what would have been then exposed land connections through the Malay archpolo( sic ) probably from India. Fossils in Australia?, I mean now!! The last 200 thousand years. Wheeere are the fossil remains of our reputed giant kangaroos? our giant emus? Tasmanian Devils and Tigers? Giant snakes? There were great Forests on our West Coast, now as dry as the Arizona Badlands, oops, is that right? or the country around the Grand Canyon. Nevada Badlands? What of all the fauna and flora that must have made up that eco-system? adelady help out here please. westwind.

So you think you could man up and admit that your original post in this thread was ignorant, and you had to spout off without doing a minute's worth of research? And you wonder why people have so little respect for you...

Dear MeteorWayne. 13 posts in 24 hours? How do you rate? Welll, respect is fine, but just send the money. Anyway cobber, I expected more diligence and proper evaluationof the thread by the scientific members of the Forum, it's obvious to me that you hardly read it through once, not the action of an Earth Science member of the Forum. Show your annoyance if you will, that is your perogative, and pass knowledgable and researched judgement on other members of the Forum that don't meet your high standards. I f I researched everything that I was interested in, and got the answers, then there would be no need for me to contribute a post to Science Forum, allowing others to contribute that knowledge to the thread they already possess. But I guess one who lies in ambush has already given up of making great and significant threads and charitable posts, treating the Forum as a amusement park. By the way, did you ever hang around pin ball parlours? westwind.

Originally Posted by westwind

Dear MeteorWayne. I know the true story of what happened at Uluru. But I value my time I have left so let the dogs sleep for now. They ( Historians ), suspect the native dingo came in from the North over what would have been then exposed land connections through the Malay archpolo( sic ) probably from India. Fossils in Australia?, I mean now!! The last 200 thousand years. Wheeere are the fossil remains of our reputed giant kangaroos? our giant emus? Tasmanian Devils and Tigers? Giant snakes? There were great Forests on our West Coast, now as dry as the Arizona Badlands, oops, is that right? or the country around the Grand Canyon. Nevada Badlands? What of all the fauna and flora that must have made up that eco-system? adelady help out here please. westwind.

To be honest Im not sure what your reasoning for saying there are no fossils at this point. 200,000 years ago is not now. Are you suggesting that the Pleistocene fauna of Australia is, in its entirety, a hoax? Tasmanian devils at least are still alive and kicking so they arent a hoax.

Originally Posted by westwind

I f I researched everything that I was interested in, and got the answers, then there would be no need for me to contribute a post to Science Forum, allowing others to contribute that knowledge to the thread they already possess.

So why not ask a question such as, "are there fossils in Oz", rather than making a blatantly false assertion?

And why not say "thank you" to the people who answered the implied question rather than attacking them?

Originally Posted by westwind

Dear MeteorWayne. 13 posts in 24 hours? How do you rate? Welll, respect is fine, but just send the money. Anyway cobber, I expected more diligence and proper evaluationof the thread by the scientific members of the Forum, it's obvious to me that you hardly read it through once, not the action of an Earth Science member of the Forum. Show your annoyance if you will, that is your perogative, and pass knowledgable and researched judgement on other members of the Forum that don't meet your high standards. I f I researched everything that I was interested in, and got the answers, then there would be no need for me to contribute a post to Science Forum, allowing others to contribute that knowledge to the thread they already possess. But I guess one who lies in ambush has already given up of making great and significant threads and charitable posts, treating the Forum as a amusement park. By the way, did you ever hang around pin ball parlours? westwind.

Listen friend, I read almost every post here in fora that interest me. You have no idea of how much research I constantly do. So for you to suggest I hardly read it through once is a joke. Reading your posts, I have to question whether you even read your own through once yourself. Let's recall how you started this topic off:

" February 20th, 2012, 08:39 PM The Australian land mass appears barren at the best of times, ( not a lot of actual life moving around ), but beneath the land surface it appears to me anyway that this has always been so. Why would this continent have missed out on Fossils of any note.?. This as a general observation of inland Australia. Mining is big in this country, but never do I read exciting news of fossils being uncovered"

Is that a contribution? No, it's blatent lack of interest (or enough to spend 5 minutes researching the topic) in the subject you raised.

I only ambush lack of effort, or deliberate attempts to ignore and obfuscate science. It's what I do.

No I don't hang out in pin ball parlors, because I spend my whole day researching various scientific topics, contributing time and effort to my local astronomy club, preparing astronomy classes for adults and children, doing the odd interview on radio about astronomy, and generally trying to contribute to science.

Though I was an addict of the Centipede and Asteroid games back when I had free cash, and too much time on my hands...maybe when I was about as old as you appear to be.

Wayne

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

So you think you could man up and admit that your original post in this thread was ignorant, and you had to spout off without doing a minute's worth of research? And you wonder why people have so little respect for you...

After reading many of your posts you come across as an extremely rude person. I do suspect that you would not be so foolish, to be so rude to people, outside the confines of cyber space.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

So you think you could man up and admit that your original post in this thread was ignorant, and you had to spout off without doing a minute's worth of research? And you wonder why people have so little respect for you...

After reading many of your posts you come across as an extremely rude person. I do suspect that you would not be so foolish, to be so rude to people, outside the confines of cyber space.

That is an interesting point Dave, that set in motion this train of thoughts.

1. Yes, Meteor Wayne can be somewhat rude and impatient with certain posters who are either ignorant or lazy or consistently wrong.

2. Outside of cyber space Meteor Wayne would probably not be as rude.

3. Outside of cyberspace, however, one suspects his targets would be just as ignorant, lazy or consistently wrong.


Do you think he should reward ignorance, sloth and wrong-headeness with courtesy?

Impatience with woolly thinking and lazy ignorance I can understand fully. And I get MW's frustration. I think though that Westwind is of advanced age, possibly the most on the forum (if I may Westwind?). He constantly talks about his time being short for instance. While 20 seconds of Googling is hardly a chore, I think he may be looking for company and casual conversation on this forum, as if we were sitting around the coffee table, so jumping up and Googling for something as it were, might not be at the front of his mind.

Westwind: What do you mean by your time being short? Just that you're an old man, or something more? If I may.

When MW first came onto this forum he/she was very knowledgeable and polite. MW is still very knowledgeable but has adopted " I do not suffer fools gladly persona " That is my impression anyway.

I do not suffer fools gladly persona

Very easy to adopt this attitude after being faced with unending mounds of horse manure every day. The number of nuts out there is depressing at best.

It may be an easy attitude to adopt but it is not compulsory. Unless MW gets back to me I will say no more.

I recall from one of Westwinds other posts that he/She is in their early 70's (or right on 70?).

I don't think being old - I'm well into my 60s - is any excuse for being lazy or casual in ones approach. I would forgive it in the young (<20), but only for a time.

Opps. I meant Mainland Australia as against Tasmanian Australia. ( Hope no one in Tasmania is a member of Science Forum. ) Make MeteorWayne's upset look like fairy floss ). westwind.

Dear KALSTER. Guess I owe you an explanation. I do not mind so much being ticked off by MeteorWayne or anyone else on Science Forum. That's OK. Yes, I'm 78, and male. Not cremation material as yet, so no compassion on that score. Lazy, yes. As against that I have written to lengthy Fiction /fact novels, not submitted for publication ( re-writes and drafts one two three are not my cup of tea, I make no apologies for this) and several short stories which I and some, some, of my friends find amusing. I stop and smell the roses. I read poetry, have recited in Public. I write Poetry. Science Forum is a little more than a platform for learned educated members to strut their stuff. Observers would soon tire of this. So a little ratbaggery dosent go astray, and some cut and thrust creates interest and possibly pulls in a few more members to add their knowledge to the pool. Consider Science Forum to be a celluar structure with a DNA strand., or helix, than lazy people like me would maybe aquate with being like an ear lobe, not essential, but keeps things looking good. westwind.

My research this PM. has raised a question in my mind concerning evolution. I googled up "" fossils opals australian rocks shells palaeontology cretaceous, lightening ridge. "" There I learnt that quote "" some opalised Lungfish fossils, 110 million years old, are of the same species still swimming in the rivers of southern Queensland. ( Australia ). This raised the question. As Homo Sapiens, can we expect to be still roaming the Planet Earth in our present biological composition in 110 million years time? I f it's good for one specie, why not us? So no evolutionary changes or adaptations required to ensure the survival of the lungfish, my guess because the eco-system used by the lungfish did not change radically over the110 million years. Some specie need to adapt to survive, others do not. Now, the lungfish specimin was fossilised becoming opal, OK, how long I wonder was it around in that form stretching back further into time from 110 million years ago? Could someone attempt an answer, at least to the last Question. Don't say research it youself, I'll become paranoid if you do. westwind.

Originally Posted by westwind

..." some opalised Lungfish fossils, 110 million years old, are of the same species still swimming in the rivers of southern Queensland. ( Australia ) ...

somehow i doubt this - they're even different genera : the cretaceous one is Ceratodus, the recent one Neoceratodus

I agree with marnixR What site were you looking at which suggested they were the same species?

This sounds similar to the oft repeated claim that the brachiopod Lingula has survived unchanged since the Cambrian. This is true in as much as it lives in much the same environment, is still a brachipod and has grossly equivalent structure. However it is not the same species and though we cannot sample that Cambrian DNA we can safely bet the two genomes would contain marked differences. It is still a remarkable continuity, just one that has been dressed up and over stated for layperson consumption.