The Roraima Pollen Paradox

"One of these predictions is that organisms evolve from common ancestors. Ancestors must precede descendants." This is too vague to qualify as a scientific prediction. Is the prediction that all organisms evolve from common ancestors? If one traces any lineage back far enough, one is certain to find an organism that did not evolve from an ancestor, thus falsifying that prediction."Ancestors must precede descendants" is not a prediction, but a tautology. "[T]he discovery of flowering plants at 1800 Ma[...] would [likely] pose a significant problem for[...] the theory of evolution[...]" "I am sorry that your conclusion is feeling neglected. I felt that it was obvious that it followed from the premises once you restated them properly." I'm glad we could clear that up. So, all that remains for me to win this debate is prove that the pollen fossils are not contamination. My opponent cannot call the dating of the rock into question in order to save his case; the rock was dated in accordance with the principles of modern geology-- the same principles upon which Evolution is founded. Any objection to the dating of the rock is tantamount to an objection to Evolution itself. "My point was simply that the last major paradigm shift in geology, plate tectonics, gained general acceptance between 1950 and 1960, as opposed to the much older paradigm shift that Darwin brought to biology." Lyell's long ages provided the necessary foundation for Darwin's Evolution. These two paradigm shifts are comparable to that of Copernicus; they all played a huge role in destroying faith in the Old Testament.Plate tectonics did no such thing. In fact, creationist scientists are using plate tectonics to provide a physical mechanism for Noah's Flood[5], thereby bolstering faith in the Old Testament. "So, more accurately, the scientists of the time, with all the data at hand could not come to a conclusion. How can my opponent, on the basis of a brief paper in Nature, arrive at a third conclusion that they never considered?" Because I'm not locked into an Evolutionary paradigm. "I'm sorry but you appear to have misunderstood my point. The pollen in Stainforth's paper is described as [well-preserved]" "The abstract of your source 4 states "We interpret these graphite discs as deflated and compressed microfossils" My opponent can't make it past the abstract?The paper does begin by discussing some graphite discs interpreted to be pollen fossils. But on page 3, under the heading "Experimental heating of organic-walled microfossils", an experiment is referenced where tiny, organic fossils were heated to 500 C to determine whether they could survive the hot rock formation process and still be morphologically intact.According to the abstract of the experiment report,[6] "[R]ock samples containing dense populations of [tiny, organic fossils] have been heated to 500°C (± 2.5°C) for varying lengths of time[...] The morphologies of the heated [fossils] are retained, and no features related to graphitization have been observed." My opponent's argument that pollen could not survive the rock formation process is completely and utterly obliterated. "Stainforth's paper does state that "Every effort was made to avoid these planes..." however the photomicrograph from the paper clearly shows that these bedding planes are present at a sub-millimeter scale and thus unavoidable." No. That isn't bedding planes you're looking at, but quartz bands. Don't believe me? Just look at the text you yourself underlined beneath the photo.My opponent's argument that pollen slept in through cracks is soundly defeated. "[I]f the pollen is not tightly bound in nonporous and impermeable hornfels then it must be contamination." Contamination from what? Aliens? There is no living pollen in the vicinity that matches the pollen found in the rock: "G. Fournier[...] was able to compare the recent pollen of the area with the assemblage in the rocks, and has stated that they are not the same." G. Fournier knows what he's talking about. He's a palynogloist, a.k.a. a pollen expert. "A simple ultrasonic cleaning washed the pollen away so the rock must be more permeable than has been suggested[...]" Not true, and to call it a "simple" cleaning is highly misleading. According to Wikipedia[7], ultrasonic cleaning "produces high forces on contaminants[...] to thoroughly remove all traces of contamination tightly adhering or embedded onto solid surfaces."The fact that pollen fossils could be removed via ultrasound is proof that ultrasound is effective, not proof that the rock is porous. To the contrary, it was "dense enough to sound when struck with a hammer."There is another important fact to be noted: "[T]he face which was sampled must have been deep within the formation until quite recent times." Also: "[If contamination] be granted, it would have been operative for a long period, and a mixed suite of spores and pollen should be expected." Furthermore, my opponent has neglected to mention that the cave in which these pollen fossils were found is beneath "an overburden of hundreds of feet". Are we really to believe that pollen survived to slowly seap through hundreds of feet of rock? That would be some incredibly resilient pollen!Considering that only a very narrow range of pollen types were found, none of which could be matched to any living pollen in the area, it would seem my opponent is proposing the following absurd scenario:A very select few pollen-producing plants inhabited the region all by themselves, managed to contaminate rock through and through to a depth of several hundred feet with pollen via slow-seeping rainwater, then abruptly went extinct without a trace and became replaced by the modern variety of plants, and all this within a very short amount of time!That's far too convenient.[5]https://answersingenesis.org...[6]https://gsa.confex.com...[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...