The Roraima Pollen Paradox

""I'll concede the broad point that finding pollen from the Precambrian would be a big problem for the Theory of Evolution." This concession is worthless. My opponent must either concede that Evolution predicts pollen first evolved 135 myrs ago, or argue that it predicts a different date. If my opponent refuses to do either, then he is effectively rendering the theory unfalsifiable and, by extension, unscientific. A fundamental requirement of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable predictions." I am sorry that my opponent find my concession worthless. I was simply trying to tidy up some loose terminology while conceding the underlying point. Since my opponent feels that it is necessary to elaborate: - The theory of evolution makes many predictions, any and all of which are falsifiable [1]. It does not predict the exact age at which any particular event will occur. This is evolution, not geochronology. - One of these predictions is that organisms evolve from common ancestors. Ancestors must precede descendants. In the case of plants the order of ancestry is, very loosely: green algae → mosses → club mosses → ferns → gymnosperms → flowering plants [2]. - The fossil record, in conjunction with a variety of geochronological methods shows that the first flowering plants evolved approximately 135 Ma. - Consequently, the discovery of flowering plants at 1800 Ma, when no terrestrial plants of any form should exist for another 1300 Ma, would pose a significant problem for either the theory of evolution, the fossil record or the dating methods and most likely all three. ""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" Is my opponent conceding that the pollen has been found in Precambrian rock, or not?" I am. I merely wished to state that much of the confusion about the exact age described by Stainforth in the final paragraph of his paper has been resolved by more modern research. ""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." I appreciate the concession that P3 follows from P1 & P2, but my opponent has neglected to address my conclusion. If he doesn't remark on whether my conclusion follows from my three premises, he is wasting our time by dancing around the most crucial point of this debate." 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. "Geology is older than Evolution itself. Lyell founded Modern Geology in the early 1800s[3], and Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until decades later." We can go into this minor point if you really feel it necessary. 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. ""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?" Because the scientists are working under a false dichotomy. They consider only two options. One, the radiometric age of the rock is correct, and the evolutionary age of the pollen is correct, and pollen simply crept in later. Or two, the radiometric age of the rock is wrong, but the evolutionary age of the pollen is correct, and no need for the ad hoc contamination hypothesis. Both cases refuse to doubt the evolutionary age of the pollen, but there's a third option: Both the radiometric age of the rock, as well as the evolutionary age of the pollen, are wrong. This is my position; however, I only need to prove that the evolutionary age of the pollen is wrong to win this debate." 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? ""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." This is false. A recent experiment confirmed that tiny, organic fossils can survive 500 C.[4]" I'm sorry but you appear to have misunderstood my point. The pollen in Stainforth's paper is described as follows, "G. Fournier, palynologist of the Mene Grande Oil Company, processed the samples and recovered well-preserved pollen and spores." The source that you have cited makes the same statement that mine does, that pollen heated to 500 C is reduced to graphite. The abstract of your source 4 states "We interpret these graphite discs as deflated and compressed microfossils..." These graphite discs, only recognized as microfossils in the last decade, are clearly not the pollen that Stainforth and his associates were so excited about. Graphite discs are not well-preserved pollen. Given our current understanding of palynology, the pollen that Stainforth describes has clearly never undergone the metamorphic conditions observed in the hornfels rocks that host it. The only possible conclusion is that they entered the rock after its formation. ""Stainforth describes the rock collected as "cleaves along finely laminated bedding planes which are coated with limonite."[...] 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." My opponent is guilty of quote-mining. Voters, read the quote in context: "The rock cleaves along finely laminated bedding planes which are coated with limonite. Every effort was made to avoid these planes[...] Nevertheless, microfossils of the same type as before were recovered."" My opponent should take care before making such serious charges. Quote mining implies deceit and dishonesty rather than a desire to simply be brief. 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. 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) The group amongst Stainforth's colleagues that oppose the view that the pollen could have been contamination contends, "The Roraima sandstones are quartzitic, of low permeability, hence carriage of extraneous pollen through them by percolating water seems highly improbable. Even if this process could occur, entry of such pollen and spores into the nonporous hornfels lacks an explanation." This argument works both ways. Impermeable, nonporous rock should not only prevent contamination, it should prevent simple removal of any pollen that was originally present. It should keep pollen in as effectively as it keeps it out. However, the discussion of the palynological assemblage states, "T. van der Hammen (Leiden) recognizes a mixture of Mesozoic and Cenozoic elements, but suspects that they represent foreign material concentrated along cleavage planes as, after cleaning fragments ultrasonically, he found the matrix practically barren." A simple ultrasonic cleaning washed the pollen away so the rock must be more permeable than has been suggested. This presents a simple route for transfer of pollenn from adjacent bedding planes, where limonite shows obvious contamination, to unmineralized bedding planes a few inches away. More significantly, if the pollen is not tightly bound in nonporous and impermeable hornfels then it must be contamination. Summary: My opponent attempts to provide a third explanation for why pollen might be found in the Roraima Formation hornfels but fails to provide any reason or sources that would support it. My opponent has attempted to demonstrate that pollen could survive 400 C - 600 C temperatures, yet his own source clearly states that these conditions reduce microfossils to graphite, not the "well-preserved" pollen described by Stainforth. The pollen that Stainforth describes is clearly not an original component of the rock. My opponent has attempted to demonstrate that pollen could not have contaminated the samples citing efforts made to avoid obviously contaminated material. The photomicrograph shows that the bedding planes are unavoidable. Simple cleaning techniques demonstrate that the pollen is easily removed, consequently it is not tightly bound in the nonporous and impermeable hornfels but instead contamination. Any one of these points is sufficient to defeat his premise that the pollen is original to the Roraima Formation hornfels. Sources [1] Predictions - Is Evolution Science? http://chem.tufts.edu... [2] The Diversity of Plant Life The Major Divisions of Plants http://www.yale.edu...