The Roraima Pollen Paradox

My thanks again to my worthy opponent for this wonderful opportunity to demonstrate that my namesake never existed.My opponent argues as follows: P1: The Theory of Evolution predicts that pollen first evolved in the Early Cretaceous (135 myrs ago). Strictly speaking, the fossil record shows that flowering plants first appeared 135 Ma but I'll concede the broad point that finding pollen from the Precambrian would be a big problem for the Theory of Evolution. P2: Fossil pollen has been found in Precambrian (1,700 myrs ago) rock. I concede this point with the proviso that more recent radiometric dating [1] resolves much of the confusion in the radiometric ages that Stainforth mentions [2]. P3: The Theory of Evolution got a quantitative prediction wrong by more than an order of magnitude (by more than a factor of 10). P3 only follows from P1 and P2 if it can be demonstrated that the pollen in the Roraima Formation rocks was deposited at the same time as the sediments. If the pollen was introduced following the formation of the rock then it doesn't matter what the age of the rock is. The pollen could be any age that is younger than the rock. I will now demonstrate that my worthy opponent cannot demonstrate that the pollen is an original component of the rocks. Context: The paper that is pivotal to this discussion [2] was published by R. M. Stainforth in the Letters section of Nature in 1966. The Letters section is not where full-fledged research papers are published but is instead for brief notices to the scientific community on a variety of matters. In this case, a notification of a peculiar discovery and preliminary data that could lead to a situation where "distorted interpretations develop from inadequate data." What is more important to note is that the paper was published in 1966. It will be half a century old next year and is quite old by the standards of any scientific paper. Ironically, geology is one of our youngest sciences. The paradigm shift that was plate tectonics only gained widespread acceptance and understanding within the geological community between 1950 and 1960 [3]. Put simply, at the time this paper was published most geologists were still learning the reasons why mountains formed. There were no computers, no scanning electron microscopes, no electron microprobes. Figure 3 in Stainforth's paper states that elevation was determined by aneroid barometer. Any conclusions drawn from this paper must be re-evaluated in light of advances to our understanding over the last 50 years. From the Paper: What conclusions did Stainforth and his associates arrive at regarding the discovery of pollen in Proterozoic rocks? None. Stainforth was quite clear on this point. The paper begins by stating that pollen and spores had, surprisingly, been recovered from Proterozoic rocks. It goes on to detail the methods and data. Stainforth then gives a balanced presentation of two separate explanations for this data that has arisen amongst his colleagues. One camp favours a Modern Pollen Hypothesis (MPH) whereby pollen entered the rock in recent times, likely carried by groundwater. A second camp favours an Original Pollen Hypothesis (OPH) whereby pollen is part of the original rock and the radiometric dating of the Roraima Formation is called into question. The paper ends with, "As stated, we offer no solution to the paradox." The author of the paper stated quite clearly that they could not arrive at a conclusion, yet my opponent would claim that the pollen is clearly part of the original rock and clearly Proterozoic. If the scientists of the time with all of the data at hand could not arrive at this conclusion then how can my opponent do so on the basis of a brief paper in Nature? The Rock: The rock in question is described as a quartzitic hornfels. This is a silica-rich rock that has been baked due to proximity of a magmatic intrusion at some point in its past. The description of the rock as a "fairly typical hornfels" constrains the maximum temperature to between 400 C and 600 C [4]. It is described as containing cordierite, muscovite, biotite, quartz. Clay minerals and chlorite are absent. The rock exhibits original fine banding as shown below [from 2]. Fig. 2 from Stainforth, 1966: Paruima hornfels (crossed nicols); large crystals are all cordierite in micaceous ground, with original fine quartz banding still preserved; biotite may be seen to right of centre of field. (x 150) Could the pollen be original? A key question that lead Stainforth and his associates to be unable to resolve this question was whether or not the pollen could have withstood the 400 C - 600 C temperatures under which the hornfels was formed. Today the colour of pollen and other microfossils is routinely used to determine the paleotemperatures and maturation of oil fields [5]. This technique is typically limited to temperatures not significantly greater than 200 C due to darkening of organic components and at the temperatures that the hornfels was produced at pollen is reduced to graphitic remnants which have only recently been identified as pollen microfossils [6]. The Roraima pollen is described as having "an uncompressed preservation highly unusual except in young sediments." This pollen could not have been an original component of a rock that was formed at 400 C to 600 C. It is obviously a later contaminant. Is there evidence for contamination? Stainforth describes the rock collected as "cleaves along finely laminated bedding planes which are coated with limonite." Limonite is not strictly a mineral but rather a mixture of hydrated ferric oxides and hydroxides [7]. It is a nasty orange-brown concretion that will be immediately familiar to anybody who has ever done body work on their vehicle. It forms when water and atmospheric oxygen interact with iron-bearing minerals. Its presence on the bedding planes of the samples is evidence of water flow. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the same water that deposited the limonite also deposited pollen, transferred by groundwater from the top of Mount Roraima. Summary: I have demonstrated that: Stainforth's 1966 paper makes no conclusions about the pollen found in Roraima Formation Proterozoic rocks. The pollen described must be a later addition as the metamorphic temperatures would have reduced it to graphite otherwise. Stainforth's 1966 paper provides evidence for the mechanism of this contamination. This is overwhelming evidence that the pollen found in the Roraima Formation Proterozoic rocks cannot be used to falsify the theory of evolution. Sources: [1] Santos, JOS et al. (2003) Age, source, and regional stratigraphy of the Roraima Supergroup and Roraima-like outliers in northern South America based on U-Pb geochronology. GSA Bulletin 115 (3): 331-348. http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org... [2]Stainforth, RM (1966) Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana. Nature 210: 292 - 294. Original Abstract: http://www.nature.com... Full-Text Reprint: http://rpasmd.org... [3] Kious, WJ and Tilling, RI (1996) This Dynamic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics U.S. Geological Survey. http://pubs.usgs.gov... [4] http://www.tulane.edu... [5] Batten, DJ (1982) Palynofacies, palaeoenvironments and petroleum. Journal of Micropalaeontology 1: 107-114. http://jm.lyellcollection.org... [6] Schiffbauer, JD et al. (2007) Ultrastructural and Geochemical Characterization of Archean–Paleoproterozoic Graphite Particles: Implications for Recognizing Traces of Life in Highly Metamorphosed Rocks. Astrobiology 7(4): 684-704. http://online.liebertpub.com... [7] https://www.princeton.edu...