The Roraima Pollen Paradox

"Depending on which of my opponent's sources you read this experiment was either inconclusive [Pro's 4] or suggests graphitization [Pro's 6]." There is no contradiction. The analysis that "suggests" graphitization was "inconclusive." "And 250 days at 1 atmosphere [Pro's 4] is a long way from the thousands of years that pollen would be heated for in natural circumstances." 250 days at 500 C. That's almost 1,000 degrees Farenheit. I guarantee you that no pollen fossil on earth has ever been maintained at 500 C for thousands of years. I will remphasize that even being held at almost 1,000 degrees Farenheit for over 8 months did not completely convert any of the microfossils to graphite: "[D]ense populations of [microfossils] have been heated to 500°C (± 2.5°C) for varying lengths of time. [N]o features related to graphitization have been observed."[6] Just because the Roraima pollen wasn't completely graphitized doesn't mean it's contamination. "Moreover, natural case studies [Cons's R2S7 and Pro's 4] show complete conversion to graphite. Two good natural analogs beat one short-term experiment that may or may not have agreed with them anyway." Your R2S7 (Round 2 Source 7?) is talking about limonite and says nothing about graphitization. I think you referenced the wrong source.My source #4 only says that: "We interpret these graphite discs as deflated and compressed microfossils that were originally[...] prokaryotic or possibly eukaryotic cells." All they see are graphite discs in metamorphosed rock and retroactively interpret them to be organic fossils. That's a long way from proving that rock metamorphism always reduces pollen to graphite in all instances. "All of the technique of palynofacies estimation of paleotemperature says [pollen can't remain well-preserved in metamorphosed rock.] [Con's R2S5 and R4S1 and R4S2]. By 200 C these pollen grains should have been blackened. By 400C they should be graphite. You appear to have neglected that point." "Palynofacies estimation" is trumped by experimental results; specifically, the experiment which heated microfossils to 500 C for over 8 months and observed no graphitization. Your claim that pollen should have been reduced to graphite at 400 C is unfounded. "Bedding, observed in the photomicrograph, demonstrates a path that water could follow into the rock which is adjacent to paths that water did follow into the rock." You've been speaking throughout this debate as if the presence of bedding of any kind indicates contamination via water, which is simply untrue. Bedding demonstrates no such thing as what you suggest. Bedding is an artifact of the rock formation process and has nothing to do with future water flow (or pollen contamination), unless there's a crevice between the beddings, which isn't evidenced in your photo. "Stainforth's paper never mentions the number of pollen types identified. The terms "suite" and "assemblage" are used indicating more than one type but how many more is never stated. The objection that "a mixed suite of spores and pollen should be expected" is peculiar given that the pollen was never identified and thus may well have been a mixed suite." The pollen was not identified, but it is clearly insinuated that only a few types were present in the rock, in contrast to the vast variety living in the area. "Ultrasonic first, crush second. As you say, crushing it first would allow the ultrasonic to remove all pollen regardless of origin but is the type of amateur mistake that I'm fairly certain Dr. T van der Hammen didn't make. Unless you're calling his competence into question." Ultrasonic cleaning is a high-tech and high-pressure process. It's capacity to dislodge miniscule pollen grains is not proof of anything but it's effectiveness. "Joints and fractures can be several inches across and could provide a pathway for water to transport the pollen without even scuffing it." So you want us to believe that a crack hundreds of feet deep allowed pollen to seep down and be recovered by researchers in a well-preserved state? Fine. However, from the original paper: "[S]amples of beds[...] from a seemingly correlative level[...] 25 miles east of the original locality[...] independent investigations were made of this material, and the same [pollen] was recorded." So we're to believe that the same type of fortunate crevice was stumbled upon by researchers 25 miles away? And it just so happened to contain the same restricted suite of pollen? That's too convenient. Are there these profoundly deep crevices present all over the area for miles around, and something special about them only permits a special suite of pollen to seep into them? "And all that says is that we typically find pollen separate from the plants. It does not suggest that we should not expect to find any plants at all." It also says: "Most fossil spore and pollen grains are studied in a dispersed state" It's very clear. Pollen fossils are rarely found with their host plant. "Science thrives on paradox. Questions are what drives it. The LHC. The Hubble. The Human Genome project. All undertaken to explain the paradoxical and answer questions." This is a debate about a specific forensic case, not a philosphical discussion on what science is. "Yet neither Stainforth nor his colleagues nor any other scientist has ever deemed the matter worth enough attention to even publish a single follow-up. No description of the pollen, not even an indication of how many types. This is not the thunder of a paradigm-shifting discovery, it is the quiet sigh of the mundane." It is not the quiet sigh of the mundane. It's the ultimate manifestation of frustration; the case is so damning for the evolutionary age of the pollen, and by extension, Evolution itself, that no scientist dares touch it with a ten-foot pole.If the Roraima pollen is indeed fossilized within the rock, Evolution is falsified. Please vote accordingly. Thank you!