Posted on 12/03/2013 5:56:35 AM PST by fishtank
Pollen Fossils Warp Evolutionary Time
by Brian Thomas, M.S., & Tim Clarey, Ph.D. *
Another support beam has fallen from evolution’s explanatory framework as European scientists now report the discovery of flowering plant fossils in Middle-Triassic rocks—conventionally assumed to be around 240 million years old. According to secular age assignments, flowering plants were not supposed to have evolved until 100 million years later!1 These fossils force a shift in the ever-changing story of plant evolution.
Most paleontologists believe flowering plants, or angiosperms, did not “evolve” until the Early Cretaceous system—supposedly 135 million years ago. They often refer to the Cretaceous as a time of transition.2 Charles Darwin referenced the sudden appearance of fully-formed flowering plant parts in the fossil record as an “abominable mystery” in a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1879, and these new blooming fossils only intensify the puzzle.
Newly Described Fossil Pollen
The fossil pollen grains in question, recovered by Peter Hochuli and Susanne Feist-Burkhardt from cores in northern Switzerland, have caught the evolutionary world off-guard. The researchers wrote, “In this paper we focus on fossil evidence, presenting the so far oldest angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic (ca. 243Ma [million years]), a record that predates the generally accepted first occurrence of angiosperm pollen by more than 100Ma.”1
Their accompanying color photographs show pollen-grain features diagnostic of flowering plants, clearly not gymnosperms like palms or cycads. “The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen,” according to their report.3
And instead of the few primitive-looking pollens that evolutionary scientists were expecting to find in lower rock layers, the researchers discovered pollens of different but already well-developed types. The study authors wrote of the “sudden appearance” of angiosperm fossils “on most continents as well as the rapid radiation of numerous clades [which] implies a considerable diversification within approximately 3.5 Ma or else it represents a wave of immigration from other areas.”1 In other words, they had difficulty explaining how such a wide variety of flowering plants suddenly occur in this Triassic layer.
They encountered another challenge in trying to decipher why, after this sudden burst of supposed evolutionary creativity, angiosperms avoided fossilization for 100 million years. The study authors wrote, “If we accepted the monosulcate [single-groove angiosperm] pollen from the Middle and Late Triassic as evidence for a pre-Cretaceous origin of crown group [ancestral] angiosperms the lack of fossil records throughout the Jurassic would remain difficult to explain.”1
Reasoning in a Circle?
To account for this difficulty, the authors invoked speculative “stem relatives,” writing that “considering the hundred million year gap in the record as well as morphological differences to the earliest Cretaceous we suggest that these pollen grains most likely represent stem relatives of the angiosperms.”1
Why call these fossils “stem relatives of the angiosperms” instead of simply “angiosperms”? In the scientists’ words, it’s because of an assumed 100-million-year gap of angiosperm absence, not because of any direct scientific observation.
Here’s the problem: It’s one thing to assert that these fossils represent evolutionary ancestors of modern plants because they are supposedly millions of years older than the accepted age. But it’s entirely circular to then assert that the angiosperm fossils must have formed millions of years before the accepted age simply because evolution requires that plants evolved over long ages.
More Story-Changing Finds
This isn’t the first fossil evidence for pre-Cretaceous-system angiosperms. Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt mentioned several reports of angiosperm-like pollens from both Triassic and Jurassic system rocks going back to the 1960s. Unfortunately, most of these finds either “received mixed attention” or were “simply ignored” by most evolutionists, probably because pre-Cretaceous angiosperms disrupt well-established evolutionary theories.1
For example, Robert Bakker devoted an entire chapter in his book The Dinosaur Heresies to “When Dinosaurs Invented Flowers.” Bakker explained, “When plant-eating dinosaurs evolved more effective teeth or fermenting chambers, the plant species had to adjust to the new weaponry or die,” as if merely the presence of a challenge produces its own solution within plants and animals.4 Bakker continued in confident narrative, “As more and more new kinds of Cretaceous beaked dinosaurs entered the system, more and more angiosperm families evolved.”5
But now that angiosperms have been identified in Triassic layers, at least one chapter in Bakker’s book needs substantial editing.
Moreover, previous finds have knocked even more support beams from rickety evolutionary stories about plant origins. In 2005, lead author Vandana Prasad reported that grass-signature fossils were discovered in dinosaur dung from India.6 In 2011, Prasad’s team also documented microscopic rice-related fossils in other sauropod fossils.7 Grasses, including rice, are classified as angiosperms since they produce flowers, albeit small ones. Evolutionary pictures of dinosaurs never depicted them with grass in their mouths, but now they certainly should.
A Better Explanation
The discovery of angiosperms in rock layers below those containing most dinosaurs and the discovery of grass fossils among sauropod (long-neck) dinosaurs confirm two biblical details about behemoth, the dinosaur from the book of Job that “sways his tail like a cedar.”8 The text describes its diet, saying, “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.”9 Prior to the discovery of grass particles in fossil dinosaur dung from India, the evolutionary picture had no place for dinosaurs eating grass, but it was recorded in Scripture all the while!
Job also affirms that God made behemoth “along with you,” meaning during the creation week when God made angiosperms, dinosaurs, and man.8 So seeing flowering plant fossils mingled with creation-week animal fossils is no surprise to Bible believers.
The Bible’s record of all the major phases of world history shows no trace of a Triassic time but offers a better explanation for these pollen fossils. First, without using circular reasoning or speculation, eyewitnesses wrote the events recorded in Scripture, indicating that there is error in assuming long ages of plant evolution.10
Second, Scripture reports the instant creation of each plant kind. This exactly fits these pollen fossils’ sudden appearance. Third, it describes in detail a worldwide flood capable of preserving life’s traces in fossil forms. In that context, distinct flora and fauna fossils do not represent separate times divided by some 100-million-year gap but distinct ecosystems buried by massive surges of sediment-laden Flood waters.11
Finally, the Bible’s timeline shows a creation that is thousands, not billions, of years old, erasing any need to explain why pollen grains buried deep in fossil layers look so similar to that of living herbs and flowers.
References
Hochuli, P. A. and S. Feist-Burkhardt. 2013. Angiosperm-like pollen and Afropollis from the Middle Triassic (Anisian) of the Germanic Basin (Northern Switzerland). Frontiers in Plant Science. 4 (344): 1-14.
Lucas, S. G. 2007. Dinosaurs: The Textbook, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. The team compared gymnosperm pollen grains found at the same site to show “a distinct contrast to the exine structure of the columellate, angiosperm-like grains” (reference 1).
Bakker, R. T. 1986. The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: William Morrow and Co., 184. Ibid, 197.
Prasad, V. et al. 2005. Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of Grasses and Grazers. Science. 310 (5751): 1177-1180.
Prasad, V. et al. 2011. Late Cretaceous origin of the rice tribe provides evidence for early diversification in Poaceae. Nature Communications. 2 (9): 480.
Thomas, B. 2013. Dinosaurs and the Bible. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research. Job 40:15. 2 Peter 1:16.
See Parker, G. 2006. Creation: Facts of Life. Green River, AR: Master Books.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer and Dr. Clarey is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Various Authors. 2013. Pollen Fossils Warp Evolutionary Time. Acts & Facts. 42 (12).
That "hydrologic sorting" is magical stuff.
Has the ICR found Noah's Ark yet?
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed- bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation:plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning –the third day.
Good find. Thanks!
And all got buried that same day?
Why doesn't the Bible mention that all dinosaurs laid eggs, or that some were small, or that some were carnivores, or that some had feathers? Why doesn't the Bible mention something as important as the genome of all living things?
That sounds like a better argument for a common ancestor.
Because God wants you to have FAITH.
Pollen and spores on the Shroud of Turin testify to it’s authenticity.
Why is that important? The primary purpose of the bible is not biology. It’s bringing Man closer to God.
I agree with that. I also believe that God wants us to discover the way his creation works using our ever increasing power of observation through technology and persistence.
So why are these people trying to stand in the way by using the Bible as a science book?
Because they make a very comfortable living at it.
Exactly. So why is the ICR trying to use the Bible as a science book?
I just finished watching a youtube video produced by Ray Comfort called “Evolution vs. God” where he attempts to demonstrate the undermining of the truth of God’s Word in our culture presented by the teaching of Evolution. There is a lot that can be said about the points raised in this video. But after I got done watching it, I had something of an epiphany – and that is, that there is an attack on the Bible coming from an altogether different quarter in our culture, and young, innocent children as well as adults are regularly subjected to the evil lies of satan through this avenue, and yet it has gone almost without question or confrontation by the church. What am I refering to? The lies propogated by meteorology.
You see, Genesis 1 and 2 gives a certain very clear history of God’s dealings in creation. If anyone would say that this is “allegorical” or some other such non-literal reading of this passage, we instantly know they are in compromise and not willing to deal honestly with the Truth. God does not lie, and the Bible needs to be taken at face value as we know He would not mislead us with His Words in the very opening chapters of the Bible.
Well, Genesis is not the only passage that godless scientists, liberals, and the education system disregard in reference to the point-blank truth which it states about the Creator. For the same God which inspired Genesis, is the One whose very speech is recorded in Job 38:
22“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? (ESV)
Now, in this we can clearly see that God creates snow and hail, and piles them up in storehouses, somewhere in the sky. When there is trouble, He simply empties out the storehouses and the snow and hail come tumbling down to Earth. But meteorologists do not acknowledge that God stores up snow in some hidden place. Instead, they speak as though snow and hail are some sort of natural phenomenon, and that the snow and hail are formed SPONTANEOUSLY, during a storm – not stored up for the day of trouble, as the Bible clearly says.
Now some might say that storehouses for snow and hail are just some sort of poetic device, or a metaphor or something. But seriously – who wants to go sledding down that slippery slope? If you start considering the snow storehouses to be a metaphor, instead of God’s ordained method (not to mention accurate revelation) about where snowstorms come from, then how do we know if ANYTHING in the Bible should be taken literally? Today, it will be metaphorical snow storehouses, tomorrow it will be a metaphorical six days of Creation, and before you know it, we’ll be talking about a metaphorical Jesus. What justification would we then have to distinguish between what should be read symbolically or culturally, and what should be read as actual history? Anyway, it’s totally sloppy exegesis to even suggest anything is metaphorical in the Bible unless the Bible itself clearly says, “this is a parable” or “spiritually speaking…” or something, because God wouldn’t let anything as important as knowing how to read the Bible be anything but completely self-evident and spelled out like that.
So, beware. The biggest enemy to our children and our society is not evolution; because we all know about that threat and thankfully we now have lots of “Creation Science” books and seminars to explain how science has distorted the truth how God created our world which is clearly spelled out in scripture. No, the true enemy to our thinking is coming from unnoticed corners, not the least of which is the darkened corner of The Weatherman’s Studio. (Let me add – while Ray Comfort might ask people to prove the 65 million year process of evolution in a laboratory by test and repeat, and people might stammer and not know how to answer, meteorology presents a much greater threat. Because snow and hail CAN be made over and over again in a lab, and can even be observed being created in clouds. This makes these godless lies against the Bible’s testimony much, much more dangerous.) Beware – and please, make sure you use your child safety controls on the Weather Channel and all network news stations, to make sure your children are not infected with this worldly way of thinking about snow and hail!
(source: http://allthingsareyours.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/insidious-attack-on-the-word-of-god-by-a-meteorologist/)
Read 1 Cor. 3
I’ll trust what God says.
You’re free to think what you want.
He says that, too.
You will trust what someone has told you is the Word of God, and mistrust the evidence of His Creation He puts before you.
“Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis”
“Augustine, even though his work was entitled The Literal Meaning of Genesis, does not read Genesis 1 in the same “literal” way that modern young-Earth creationists do. Augustine believed that the creation was an instantaneous event rather than being spread out over six literal days, and that the six days of Genesis 1 were a literary structure rather than a statement of the order or timing of events. This is a remarkable insight from a deep thinker, who was in no way influenced by modern understandings of the age of the universe. This also should remind us that modern interpretations that understand Genesis as not requiring a 6000-year old Earth are not just forcing a modern interpretation on the text. Instead, the idea that Genesis doesn’t tell us how old the Earth is could be something that flows out of the text.”
“Augustine believed that non-Christians were perfectly capable of understanding the world, and he was convinced that whatever the Bible teaches, it won’t contradict the world as it really is.”
“Augustine came down hard on Christians who said things that the “scientists” of his day knew were foolish. This applies to us today as well: HOW WILL THE WORLD BELIEVE THE BIBLE WHEN IT SPEAKS ABOUT SALVATION if we also try to convince them that the Bible requires belief in dinosaurs living with humans, all the sedimentary rocks being deposited in Noah’s Flood six thousand years ago, or that all evidence of human prehistory can be compressed into less than a thousand years. These are all things taught as dogma by some Evangelicals, but none of them are explicitly taught in Scripture. And the world laughs, not only at us, but at the Creator.”
“Augustine’s claim is nothing less than that a Christian who attempts to interpret passages of the Bible with cosmological implication s will misinterpret the Bible if that believer does not take account of what can be learned “from reason and experience.” To limit oneself only to the Scriptures in such instances, says Augustine, is to misread the Bible.”
http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/augustine-the-literal-meaning-of-genesis/
Reminds me of a conversation I had with one of the anti-evolutionists here in which I was trying to get them to explain exactly where the "floodgates of heaven" were located or, if not, how we knew they were metaphorical. Never really did get an answer.
We used to go down to the hinges of hell whenever we could to cool off, as our barracks were much hotter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.