The Roraima Pollen Evolutionary Paradox

Rebuttals:---Pro, R3: "Con's ... outline of my logic fails because it's a strawman[.] ... I think anyone ... reading is ... aware ... that I do not assume the 'modern evolutionary synthesis is correct.' "You use evolutionary history to attempt to prove evolution wrong, and are attempting to prove evolution wrong from contradiction. As such, you make this assumption to attempt to disprove it, which is why your conclusion is "From P1-6, A1 is false." No straw man.---Pro, R3: "I specified that flowering plants are claimed to have evolved 135 million years ago, not all plants in general." (Sorry meant "angiosperms", not "plants".)Pro, R2: "[P]lants didn't evolve flowers until around 120 million years ago."Source: "[A]ngiosperms (flowering plants) also became part of the flora at this time, about 135 million years ago."---Pro, R3: "I request Con to correct his apparent typo.""Our current evolutionary history of plants is not necessarily 100% correct."---Pro, R3: "Con ... admits that ... samples were ... under the “utmost care” to avoid contamination. ... Con ... admit[s] ... modern contamination was avoided, but “NOT ... potential contamination in the past.” This is a contradiction. Con blames modern pollen contamination, concedes this isn't plausible, then argues for “potential” past contamination."Contamination during transport and contamination during the near past are not identical. Past contamination is possible even if modern isn't.---Pro, R3: " '[O]rganic-walled microfossils may survive significant metamorphic heating'. "The paper notes this untrue if oxygen is present. Please prove any access to oxygen and that the conditions the pollen underwent fit the experiment's specifications.---Pro, R3: " 'Indeed, some ... rock layers are made entirely of microfossils.' "This source talks about ALL micro-fossils, which are mostly bacteria and protists, not plants. It does not support finding merely pollen.---Pro, R3: " '[S]pores and pollen are normally retrieved from their host sediments ... separate from the original parent plant'."This absence is anomalous within this specific context because the rock sampled is believed to have come from a river, and would thus likely have full plant fossils; it does not.---Pro, R3: " '[C]arriage of ... pollen through [Roraima rock] by percolating water seems highly improbable.' "1. Improbable, NOT impossible. Seeing as the world is a big place, it's rather likely that in at least a few places, pollen would get into the metamorphosing rock. Moreover, an argument from improbability is fallacious. 2. Pollen is rather small, being microfossils and all. It's not hard for it to get through effectively ANY cracks in the Roraima rock. 3. As Glenn Morton, petroleum geophysicist, states, "There is a veritible rain of pollen on everything. It is caught in rain water and transported down into the crevices in the rocks. So regardless of finding modern pollen in surficial rocks, it may not have been there from time immemorial [but] ... a modern contaminant. .... Wind and water disperse the pollen quite effectively. A palynologist friend of mine has written that he finds modern pine pollen in his cretaceous preparations all the time."[1] My opponent must show conclusively that NO pollen could have gotten in.2. Glenn Morton sets three criteria for determining modern against fossilized pollen: 1. The first criteria is color. As organic matter ages, it becomes darker. This is especially true as the rock is buried and the temperature rises. If the pollen is clear or very light yellow then they are modern introduced forms. .... 2. One must demonstrate that the [sample] ... is not so thermally mature (cooked) that nothing organic could have survived. .... 3. The pollen grains should be flattened."[1] My opponent has met only the second criteria, and has not proven that the others are met.3. Glenn Morton points out that: "There is a general absence of evidence for flowering plants below the middle Cretaceous. It is a responsibility and challenge to the creationists to develop a model of earth history which explains the absence." My opponent has failed to do this. [1]---Pro, R3: "[Q]uoting my paper ... is bewildering, since it concludes with: 'we offer no solution to the paradox'."I never claimed that the paper has a solution, but merely problems that you must address.---Pro, R3: " '[Pollen] microfossils of the same type as before were recovered.' "Accepted.---Pro, R3: "[S]ource from 2003 ... for the radiometric dating of the Roraima rock."Accepted.---Pro, R3: "I declined to posit a competing theory to Evolution ... Con's reasoning ... is fallacious ... as if lack of an alternate ... makes the current theory true. I'm also not sure who the word 'we' refers to."1. "We", the scientific community and humanity at large, accept whatever available theory has the most explanatory power. Even if evolution is flawed in one instance, that does not significantly undermine the theory. If my opponent wants to prove evolution (or at least the evolutionary history of plants) incorrect, my opponent needs an alternate theory to explain the pollen in this location, which my opponent entirely fails to do.2. Furthermore, the evolutionary history of plants is not vital to evolution. If the evolutionary history of angiosperms had to change to account for their existence 1,700 Ma, this would not prove that evolution does or did not occur. Evolution has independent support from observation in both the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria [2] and the long-term E. Coli experiment, with the evolution of one colony's ability to "eat" citric acid [3][4].---Pro, R3: "Evolution ... relies on radiometric dating to establish that the earth is 'old enough [for] ... the evolution of complex organisms.' Without ... showing that the earth is old enough ... Evolution would be an exercise in circular logic[.]"1. Radiometric dating is key to determining the exact age of the earth, but other calculations allow plenty of time for evolution.2. Rather few people claim that evolution proves the age of the earth, and neither do I. I am correct in calling it a straw man -- a term you are over-fond of throwing around.---Pro, R3: " 'Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age ... of several hundred million years.' "This is unimportant.---Pro, R3: "[M]illions of years aren't sufficient; Con needs ... billions."You have not proven that billions of years are necessary, but merely "enough" time for evolution to occur, which is unquantified.---Pro, R3: "This is ... [a] strawman because I never argued that the earth is young." 1. If Roraima pollen is actually proven to be a paradox, my opponent must either: (a) accept evolution as the best theory available (and lose), or (b) offer an alternative.2. Because my opponent affirms the resolution, which requires an alternative, and states both that "I think anyone ... reading is ... aware ... that I do not assume the 'modern evolutionary synthesis is correct'," and that "I do subscribe to Biblical Creationism," we can assume that my opponent would support Biblical Creationism as an alternative, which means that my arguments are relevant and disprove my opponent's theory, leaving us, again, with evolution. ---Problems with the Pro position:1. Pro has not disproven the possibility of contamination. Thus, Pro's argument is flawed.2. Pro has not proven that the natural history of plants is necessary to the theory of evolution. Thus, Pro's argument is flawed.3. Pro has not disproven radiometric dating of the Earth. Thus, Pro's argument is flawed.4. Pro has not proven that evolution requires billions of years. Thus, Pro's argument is flawed.5. Pro has not provided an alternate theory. Thus, Con is still the default. --- References:[1] http://www2.asa3.org...[2] http://www.nmsr.org...[3] http://myxo.css.msu.edu...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...