Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Fossil Cache Shows Plants Haven't Changed
ICR News ^ | October 28, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 10/28/2009 9:18:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

New Fossil Cache Shows Plants Haven't Changed

A coal mine in the Cerrejón Formation of Columbia has yielded a gold mine of fossils. This particular cache preserved a time in earth history when the tropical climate was quite different from today’s. Evidence indicates that it was warmer and wetter. But despite the different climate, the fossilized tropical plants were the same as today’s, albeit less diverse.

The fossils reveal that ancient rainforests “were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests.” Even more remarkable, supposedly ancient fossil leaves—some of them very well preserved—were identifiable “down to the genus level.”1

In addition to the plants, the fossilized animals seemed quite similar to their modern counterparts. For example, it was from this same formation that researchers had earlier uncovered fossil remains of a huge snake that they called “Titanoboa.” In a University of Florida press release, one researcher stated, “like Titanoboa, which is clearly related to living boas and anacondas, the ancient forest of northern Colombia had similar families of plants as we see today in that ecosystem.”1

None of these observations come as a shock those who subscribe to the concept that plants and animals were specially created. However, the claim that these fossils are 58 million years old may be difficult to support. Given all that time, why has no evolutionary change occurred in the plants or animals described?

One common argument used to defend evolution in the face of a lack of fossil evidence is that certain creatures failed to evolve because their environment has stayed the same from then until now. Without changes in the environment, it is claimed, there would not have been a selective pressure to drive their evolution.

But in the Cerrejón Formation, the “legumes, palms, avocado and banana — have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South America’s climate and geological structure.”1

So in this instance, there has been enough time for evolution to have occurred, and there were enough “major changes” in the area to provide selection pressure. This would seem an ideal test case for large-scale evolution. But the existence of the same flora and fauna then as today shows that evolution did not occur at all. The remarkable similarities are also consistent with a much younger date for the fossils.

Rather than an inexplicable example of creatures that remained evolutionarily dormant for “millions of years,” the best fit for the evidence is their recent creation as distinct plant and animal kinds.

Reference

  1. Kanapaux, B. Plant fossils give first real picture of earliest Neotropical rainforests. University of Florida press release, October 15, 2009, reporting research published in Wing, S. L. et al. Late Paleocene fossils from the Cerrejón Formation, Colombia, are the earliest record of Neotropical rainforest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print October 15, 2009.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; atomsdonotexist; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; columbia; creation; electricityisfire; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; gravityisahoax; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; paleobotany; paleontolgy; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; spammer; templeofdarwin

1 posted on 10/28/2009 9:18:21 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So you want us to talk about fossil plants, well....hey everyone, look over there! A pink flying unicorn!!!11!eleventy!!

/typical evo


2 posted on 10/28/2009 9:24:11 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


3 posted on 10/28/2009 9:36:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Yep, that’s about the extent of their “counter-argument”. Sad, but true.


4 posted on 10/28/2009 9:37:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

As Solomon said, “There is no new thing...”


5 posted on 10/28/2009 9:40:58 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Sitting on my desk as I type are several 50 million year old plant fossils I found near my cabin. Each and every one is identifiable on at least a family level. This is not unusual, so why the breathless post?


6 posted on 10/28/2009 9:43:41 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Nice article...that uses sound reasoning to basically destroy their “theories” and “settled science”.


7 posted on 10/28/2009 9:43:46 AM PDT by IDRATHERNOT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Not that it will change your mind at all, but ...

The story you cite is from the Institute for Creation Research, which has a specific belief to plug, even if it means re-interpreting the original data to support to forgone conclusions. If you follow the original findings at the U of FL page, you can see that the original researchers say a few things that ICR has picked up on and then speculated upon:

Original plant groups, broadly categorized, are primarily the same;
Neotropical plant species were much less diverse than they are today;
Some species have survived primarily unchanged.

NONE of these research findings contradict the idea of species development. Animal species also fall into the same broad categories: reptiles, fish, amphibia, mammals. That does not mean that individual species have not changed and evolved. Actually, the fact that there is MORE diversity in plant species today is an argument that they HAVE changed and evolved. As the scientists is the UofFl article attest:
“The study’s authors say the relative lack of diversity indicates either the beginning of rainforest species diversification or the recovery of existing species from the Cretaceous extinction event.”

The fact that there are “primitive” forms still found today that are essentially unchanged after millions of years does not mean that no species evolve. There are species in the animal kingdom - cockroaches, sharks, crocodiles - that are essentially unchanged since the Cretaceous Period. Their continued existence, however, simply means that they succeeded in their biological niche. Certainly, other species have developed and evolved since then.

But of course, if you refuse to believe in biological development, and have a specific religious interpretation of a particular religious book that you feel requires you to reject scientific evidence, then certainly any argument made here will not change your mind. It will only open up the arguer to derision and disdain from you.

But those who may read your diary more out of intellectual curiosity than Confirmation Bias might want to go directly to the original info, which is really quite interesting if not theory-upending:

http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/


8 posted on 10/28/2009 9:53:33 AM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
...Evidence indicates that it was warmer and wetter...

This is what little old me has been saying all along! If the atmosphere is warmer there will be more water content in it. That will probably bring rain to the arid places.

9 posted on 10/28/2009 9:53:38 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

BT BS* forgot to mention these paragraphs from the original press release (at least he linked to it):

“Megafossils found at the Cerrejón site made it possible to use leaf structure to identify specimens down to the genus level. This resolution allowed the identification of plant genera that still exist in Neotropical rainforests. With pollen fossils, specimens can be categorized only to the family level.

Researchers were surprised by the relative lack of diversity found in the Paleocene rainforest, Herrera said. Statistical analyses showed that the plant communities found in the Cerrejón Formation were 60 percent to 80 percent less diverse than those of modern Neotropical rainforests. Evidence of herbivory also showed a low diversity level among insects.

The study’s authors say the relative lack of diversity indicates either the beginning of rainforest species diversification or the recovery of existing species from the Cretaceous extinction event.”


10 posted on 10/28/2009 9:54:06 AM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If these plants were turned into coal within the last 6000 years, you’d think we’d have mountains of the stuff forming all over very quickly to this day.


11 posted on 10/28/2009 9:56:49 AM PDT by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Statistical analyses showed that the plant communities found in the Cerrejón Formation were 60 percent to 80 percent less diverse than those of modern Neotropical rainforests. Evidence of herbivory also showed a low diversity level among insects.

Good thing Mr. Thomas didn't read the whole press release.

I'll bet he really loves crocodilians and sharks.

12 posted on 10/28/2009 10:01:09 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This is why your claim that BT MS* is one of the best science writers around is so ludicrous. His headline, "New Fossil Cache Shows Plants Haven't Changed," is a lie--the fossils show no such thing. The kicker in his opening paragraph, "the fossilized tropical plants were the same as today’s," is also a lie--the original article doesn't say they're "the same." It says "the Cerrejón rainforest shows many of the characteristics of modern equivalents" and that "the forest...was similar in many ways to that of today." (Emphasis mine.) "Was similar in many ways" /= "were the same."

The original article also says, "Megafossils found at the Cerrejón site made it possible to use leaf structure to identify specimens down to the genus level." In other words, they haven't been able to use the fossils to identify species. If they haven't identified the species, how could they say the plants were "the same"? (Hint: they couldn't, which is why they didn't.)

Real science writers are careful about the accuracy of what they write. Brian isn't, because he has an agenda. That's why Brian is a lousy science writer, though he's an excellent propagandist.

13 posted on 10/28/2009 10:15:11 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

Exactly, and thank you.

It’s the incessant crevo grind that drives people away, not the interesting paleo posts.

I’m not far from the Gilboa forest, where the very first “trees” were buried whole by volcanic dust. They are amazing.

“Nine 370 million year-old fossil trees are being moved to a new site one-half miles from the overlook at the Gilboa Dam, according to an announcement by Commissioner Joel A. Miele Sr., P.E., of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and Kristen V. H. Wyckoff of the Gilboa Historical Society. The rare fossil trees will be loaned by DEP to the Gilboa Historical Society for a new exhibit and educational kiosk on land owned by the town of Gilboa.”

(google Gilboa Forest)


14 posted on 10/28/2009 10:32:40 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

If I were a creationist (in the US), one could assume my Christian faith would be pretty strong.

So I am left to constantly wonder where the Christians who have a problem with lying are on every one of these threads. Lyin’ Brian Thomas DELIBERATELY lies and obfuscates in every one of his daily pap propaganda pieces.

And yet, NO ONE of faith EVER has an issue with that. Why is that? I grew up in a bible-believing, church going, very strong Christian family. My parents and sister believe in the bible’s creation account. But I am confident they would ALL have an issue with Lyin Brian and his ilk.


15 posted on 10/28/2009 11:20:12 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I love this stuff. Keep ‘em coming, GGG. thx


16 posted on 10/28/2009 12:56:26 PM PDT by rae4palin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
And yet, NO ONE of faith EVER has an issue with that. Why is that?

It really is astonishing, isn't it? Some, I think, just don't understand how they're being deceived--they agree with the article's conclusion, so they figure the premises and reasoning must be sound as well. Others seem to not care--I almost think it's a version of the Muslim argument about how it's okay to lie to nonbelievers. And some, I think, are just in denial.

17 posted on 10/28/2009 1:44:19 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stormer
several 50 million year old plant fossils...

Are they date stamped?

18 posted on 10/28/2009 2:09:45 PM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead. Bonus tag line: FAIL 246, Obama 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation. - Science and Unreason, Radner and Radner

Photobucket

19 posted on 10/28/2009 3:31:07 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

To cut to the heart of the matter, this is the important question:

“Given all that time, why has no evolutionary change occurred in the plants or animals described?”,


20 posted on 10/28/2009 4:06:15 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Love your graphic!

IMHO, it’s a sad shame that so many people think that it is necessary to believe in Creationism in order to believe in God. Karen Armstrong’s new book, “The Case for God,” shows how both belief in God and belief in science can coexist in the same brain with no cognitive dissonance!

Unfortunately, she provides no video version illustrated with glib, pseudoscientific misconceptions about props like bananas. She’d do far better financially if she did.


21 posted on 10/28/2009 4:29:37 PM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


22 posted on 10/28/2009 8:34:28 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doomonyou

No, but the geological history of the region is well established.


23 posted on 10/28/2009 9:18:31 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
BWAAAAAhahahahaha....lyin' Brian Thomas MS* is a hoot.

“were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests.” Even more remarkable, supposedly ancient fossil leaves—some of them very well preserved—were identifiable “down to the genus level.”

WOW....right down to the "genus level"...and that means something to an uneducated fool like you, Brian? Somehow, in your world, it is surprising that 58 million years ago there were plants in the same genera as today? OMG BIG SHOCKER!!

In addition to the plants, the fossilized animals seemed quite similar to their modern counterparts.

Wow..."quite similar" and "clearly related"....OMG, there was something that was LIKE snakes of today.

However, the claim that these fossils are 58 million years old may be difficult to support.

Actually, I bet they have a great SCIENTIFIC reason to ascribe that age.....with support too.

Given all that time, why has no evolutionary change occurred in the plants or animals described

There HAS been. Denying it is soooo typical of you lyin' Brian Thomas MS.*

But the existence of the same flora and fauna then as today shows that evolution did not occur at all.

That is a lie, Brian....OK, maybe you don't know it's untrue and still say it. This is an untruth, Brian.

The remarkable similarities are also consistent with a much younger date for the fossils.

False statement, Brian.

Rather than an inexplicable example of creatures that remained evolutionarily dormant for “millions of years,” the best fit for the evidence is their recent creation as distinct plant and animal kinds.

False conclusion, Brian Thomas MS*

Some interesting stuff in the primary source, though.

The fossils are from the Paleocene epoch, which occurred in the 5- to 7-million-year period following the massive extinction event responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs.

24 posted on 10/29/2009 11:57:16 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson