A Beautiful, Wonderful Solution to the Cambrian Puzzle?

Source
Edit: never mind I know what you’re talking about now.

2 Likes

There are debunked rumors.

https://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/pollen/eng/index.html

@Joel_Duff or @jammycakes, can you help with this one?

@T_aquaticus

That paper you have linked there seems to be about alleged pollen microfossils in the Grand Canyon. I am not even sure if your paper mentions the Roraima formation (which is the geologic formation pertinent to my argument). You will need a lot more than a simple assertion backed up by an irrelevant link for me to reconsider my argument here. Nonetheless, I would definitely be interested in discussing this further with you (and also @Joel_Duff and @jammycakes)!

Peace,

Jonathan

1 Like

I did a simple Google search on the pollen paradox that pulled up papers and discussions that explains it and shows why it isn’t an issue
Edit: https://sites.google.com/site/respondingtocreationism/home/responding-to-flood-geology/roraima

1 Like

So why don’t we find actual leafy plants in the Cambrian? Plant fossils are among the easiest to find in the fossil record, so why is the Cambrian devoid of things like branches, leaves, and flowers?

3 Likes

I’m afraid I haven’t looked into this one in any detail. I briefly skimmed Kevin Henke’s article which @T.j_Runyon linked to. He’s disputing that the fossils are actually Precambrian pollens as YECs claim.

I guess that the YEC argument here would be that it would depend on which “lens” you look at the evidence through. However, any evidence that gives different results when you look at it through different “lenses” is ambiguous and doesn’t tell us anything either way. For something to really count as evidence for a young earth, it is necessary (though not sufficient) to show that all proposed old-earth interpretations are demonstrably false.

1 Like

If the very best evidence of pollen (or other “modern” fossils") in the precambrian is a single sketchy identification from the 1960s, I’d say you need to find yourself something just a tad more convincing.

4 Likes

@T.j_Runyon
In the interests of keeping this dialogue a discussion instead of a battle of the links, would you be as so kind as to share which arguments in the article that you find the most convincing? Thanks!

@T_aquaticus
Perhaps they exist, and we just haven’t found them yet?

@jammycakes
That is an interesting point that merits more discussion. In fact, I will start a discussion about that on Creation v. Evolution Debate!

@evograd
There are almost certainly other notable examples, but this is the argument I’m testing out at the moment.

Thank you all for the responses!

I will agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we are talking about huge groups of species that are missing from Cambrian deposits. We have all of these marine Cambrian deposits but we can’t find a single bony fish. For Cambrian terrestrial deposits there are no land plants. How can that be? There are also no mammals, no reptiles, no amphibians, no birds, and so on. The only signs of complex animal life are arthropods. How does YEC explain this?

3 Likes

@T_aquaticus
Even if we do not (yet) find some things in the Cambrian, there are plenty of things that we do find! For instance, in addition to the fact that an astonishing percentage of animal phyla originate in the Cambrian, we also find numerous surprises such as (if I am not mistaken) soft tissue in at least one exceptionally well preserved Capinatator praetermissus fossil (I believe you can find more information on that here)! So soft tissues are supposed last 508 million years now? I was under the impression that 65 my was a stretch…

1 Like

Where do you think animal phyla should originate if evolution is true? If evolution is true, shouldn’t we see the earliest branches in the tree of life occur in the oldest sediments?

No organic tissues were found in these fossils. The authors describe “evidence of soft tissue” which is not the same as actual soft tissue. The fossil is all rock, and some of that rock appears to have preserved the shape of the soft tissue it replaced.

What would be a non-astonishing percentage? Around half of animal phyla have no fossil record at all.

This appears to be your misunderstanding of something you read, but you link doesn’t work, so I can’t see what it is. Of course, soft tissues are preserved (meaning that we see traces, some of which contains a percentage of original carbon, in many lagerstätten, notably the Burgess Shale and the Chengjiang. Incidentally, Capinatator is a Burgess Shale animal, and the Burgess shale is only about 508 million years old. The beginning of the Cambrian is 542 million years, but only some of the small shelly fauna was around then.

Any chance you could give a link to an open access version of the paper (if one is available) or, failing that, to an abstract?

These paywalls are such a pain in the neck. I really don’t like the way they insist on charging for access to scientific research that in many cases was funded by taxpayers’ money…

2 Likes

https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822(17)30860-6

2 Likes

Thanks for that clarification! I rather meant that to be a general categorization of the supposed ages attached to Cambrian fossils, but I have edited my post accordingly to prevent future misunderstandings.

If @evograd’s link does not work, this ICR article might provide more information on the discovery: http://www.icr.org/article/10195. Some journals might at least let you get the abstract without paying… :confounded:

1 Like

Uh-oh.

I see your problem right there. You rely on ICR web articles. Might as well get your information from Alex Jones.

2 Likes

Yes, we are suppose to cram 4,567,000,000,000 years of Earth history into 6000 years of YEC history, so I guess the Cambrian of 542,000,000 million years ago need to squeeze into a couple of years before or after the global flood of 4350 years ago.

1 Like