Joined: June 2008
|Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 09 2011,09:34)|
|Right folks, this claim has been put to me several times by poohboy on Prremier's forum who claims it equates to finding a rabbit in the Cambrian i.e. it disproves millions of years and evolution:|
|Tell me, what do you know of pollen found in the Roraima formation?|
I assume he's repeating the claim from here:
which appears to be quoting/quotemining this (which he's referred me to):
Please, could someone who's got a better knowledge of the geology of this region and what Silvestru and Weiland's claims are not answer the wee shite ? I've googled this and can't find anything at all on the creationist claims on this study.
The third web page that is linked to appears to be a copy of the Nature text, but I haven't tried to find an online copy of Nature from 1964 to check. Perhaps someone with access to a university library system could check that detail faster.
Of the two hypotheses at the end of the article, I'd go with the first, after the shale was formed from Pre-Cambrian mud, it was infiltrated at a later time by pollen and spores. (So this really is fossil pollen, just not Pre-Cambrian.) Then the package was overlaid by the sandstone. Silvestru and Weiland seem to me to not appreciate that the shale could have been near the surface and not under thousands of meters of sandstone at some point in its history. Part of their incredulity is that pollen could have filtered through all that sandstone.
The other possibility is that the palynology was wrong, and these are not pollen grains and spores. I'm not sure I'd want to question the identification without an article in the primary literature which has pics, sizes and an identification of possible origin.
There are other small things that have turned up from the Pre-Cambrian. For example, the phosphatized 'embryos' from Doushantuo:
So the last possibility is that these are in fact animals or plants in the right place in the geologic column that have been mis-identified as pollen and spores.
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima