Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
English to English translations [PRO] Science - Geology / A religious book about the Creation/evolution debate | | English term or phrase: in upper ‘earlier’ strata | Notable examples of ‘living fossils’ in the wild are the Tuatara which are found in Cretaceous and ‘older’ rocks (on the classic geological time scale) but none in ‘recent’ strata higher up the geological column. Yet they are still living today and show no change despite the supposedly 135 million year gap. This is testimony against any evolutionary change. The Coelacanth (mentioned in Appendix C) was supposed to be a transition creature for fish to amphibians since fossils of these creatures are found in what is supposedly very old rock (but not ***in upper ‘earlier’ strata***). Yet the finding of an exact modern counterpart in 1938 is another embarrassing example of a ‘living fossil’. The record in the rocks is not one of transition, but of death and at times, extinction—such as the woolly mammoth and the pterodactyls, for which there are no modern counterparts.
Should they not be older strata if they are up? |
| Ana JuliáKudoZ activityQuestions: 3240 (none open) ( 20 closed without grading) Answers: 1026 Spain
| | Local time: 03:06
|
| | in the upper strata of the very old rocks | Explanation: i.e. the fossils are found in the VERY old/early rock strata but not in the top layers of these - i.e. from a very long time ago but not from a just a long time ago - that's how it seems to me. |
| Selected response from:
 Rachel Fell Local time: 02:06
| Grading comment Thanks 3 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer |
| |
| Discussion entries: 0 |
|---|
Automatic update in 00:
|
29 mins confidence:  peer agreement (net): +2 | |