The Roraima Pollen Evolutionary Paradox

Con's attempt at constructing an outline of my logic fails because it's a strawman from the very beginning. He tries to attribute “A1: The modern evolutionary synthesis is correct” to me when I never said such a thing, and I think anyone who's reading is well aware by now that I do not assume the “modern evolutionary synthesis is correct.” Con said my “first source actually puts plants at 135 Ma of age, not 120”, but I specified that flowering plants are claimed to have evolved 135 million years ago, not all plants in general. So I didn't make any discrepancy at all. However, he was charitable towards me when he thought I had erred, so I've got to thank him for that. Con says it's “true that we do not currently know of any pollen-producing (angiosperm) plants before 135 Ma, this our current evolutionary history of plants is 100% correct” but I can't make sense of this statement, so I request Con to correct his apparent typo. Con claims that modern pollen may have contaminated the sample, but then admits that multiple samples were independently verified to contain pollen under the “utmost care” to avoid contamination. This prompts Con to admit that modern contamination was avoided, but “NOT that of 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. A colorful analogy to describe Con's strategy would be flinging globs of mud at the wall and hoping some of it sticks. Con quoted my paper saying “One group adopts the attitude that [the pollen was contamination.]” This group supports their belief by arguing: 1. The pollen couldn't have survived the metamorphic heating process that supposedly formed the rock. 2. There aren't any macroscopic plant remains. 3. “[S]ome form of washing in by meteoric waters in the geological past via joints in the overlying sandstone seems the most probable [source of contamination].” The first contention has since been proven wrong in a 2007 paper called Microfossils Preserved In Highly Metamorphosed Rocks, which concluded that “organic-walled microfossils may survive significant metamorphic heating”.(8) The second contention is another example of flinging mud at the wall and hoping something sticks. For finding pollen microfossils in rocks absent of larger plant remains is neither unusual nor reason to assume contamination, as Berkley's Museum of Paleontology can attest: “Indeed, some very thick rock layers are made entirely of microfossils.”(5) In fact, according to London's Global University's Department of Earth Sciences,“spores and pollen are normally retrieved from their host sediments as disjunct entities, separate from the original parent plant”.(6) So finding pollen fossils without fossils of it's host plant is actually common. The third contention is that meteoric water (a.k.a. rainwater) containing pollen was absorbed by the rock. This is yet another example of desperate mud flinging. The pollen fossils are within “dense impermeable rocks compressed by an overburden of hundreds of feet of the overlying Roraima sandstones[, and] are quartzitic, of low permeability, hence carriage of extraneous pollen through them by percolating water seems highly improbable.”(1) My opponent's strategy of quoting my paper to find a solution for his case is bewildering, since it concludes with: “we offer no solution to the paradox”. Con asserts that I must “prove that this "pollen" must actually be pollen. False positives happen.” I alreadyproved it was pollen by referencing my first source, where it explains that “three palynologists made independent investigations[...] Nevertheless, [pollen] microfossils of the same type as before were recovered.”(1) Palynologists are pollen-fossil experts. Apparently, Con questions the credibility of all 3 pollen-fossil experts on matters of pollen-fossils. This is absurd, and reveals the futility of Con's case. Con says that “In 1966, modern radiometric dating was in its infancy.” This is completely irrelevant since I referenced a source from 2003 (source #3) for the radiometric dating of the Roraima rock. When I declined to posit a competing theory to Evolution, Con retorted “then we still accept evolution.” Con's reasoning here is fallacious; he reasons as if lack of an alternate theory makes the current theory true. I'm also not sure who the word “we” refers to. Perhaps Con is making a prediction about the voting results. I guess “we” will have to wait and see if he's right. Con says “radiometric dating is NOT necessary to establish the age of the universe.” This is a strawman, since I never argued otherwise. What I did argue was that Evolutionary Theory relies on radiometric dating to establish that the earth is “old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms.” Without first showing that the earth is old enough to sustain the Theory of Evolution, Evolution would be an exercise in circular logic: Evolution is possible because the earth is old enough; the earth is old enough because Evolution is impossible otherwise. “[I]n the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years.”(7) Con says “we have plenty of other methods of dating that place a minimum age of the Earth in the millions of years”, but this is irrelevant. Merely millions of years aren't sufficient; Con needs to establish billions. Since the billions of years are established via radiometric dating, Con is shooting himself in the foot when he says the following: “I CAN argue that the dating is incorrect. It is entirely possible that these samples underwent factors that would change their dating significantly and give false readings, which would be rejected.” Since the readings have not been rejected, Con's argument fails. Con talks of “blowing holes in the theory of Biblical Creationism”, but this is both a red herring and a strawman, because even though I do subscribe to Biblical Creationism, I have not argued for it in this debate. Con concludes with “it is entirely feasible to believe in an old Earth and universe even if evolution, plant history, and radiometric dating are flawed.” This is yet another strawman because I never argued that the earth is young. For your viewing pleasure, here is a photo of Con's favorite fish: (5) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... (6) http://www.ucl.ac.uk... (7) http://www.csicop.org... (8) http://vsgc.odu.edu...