Roraima pollen paradox

The Roraima pollen paradox is the supposed contradiction posed by pollen found in rock samples collected from , on the border of Venezuela, Guyana and Brazil. Radiometric dating of said rocks places them in the Pre-Cambrian (ca. 4600 - 540 , specifically 1500 - 1800 Myahttp://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/115/3/331.abstracthttp://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/content/84/5/1677"COBERTURAS SEDIMENTARES DO MESOPROTEROZÓICO DO ESTADO DE RORAIMA - AVALIAÇÃO E DISCUSSÃO DE SEU MODO DE OCORRÊNCIA", NELSON JOAQUIM REIS & ALBERTINO DE SOUZA CARVALHO. Revista Brasileira de Geociências, 26(4):217-226, dezembro de 1996.
"These proterozoic basins seems to be of multiple age, ranging from 1.7 to 1.4 with gaps of "), hundreds of millions of years before polleniferous (pollen-bearing) plants arose (ca. 245 Mya)."Pollen suggests flowers bloomed before dinosaurs walked the earth", Charles Choi, NBC News Thus, the pollen should not be there, unless the rocks were contaminated.
In this context "contamination" is the idea that the pollen entered the formation after polleniferous plants evolved and therefore after the rocks were formed. This may have occurred through two non-mutually-exclusive methods: (a) the pollen rode on rainwater into the rocks through "cracks", and/or (b) the pollen entered a less-impermeable rock nearby that in turn into the formation.
Creationists Emil Silvestru and Carl Wieland argue that contamination of the rocks was impossible and so radiometric dating is incorrect;"The evolutionary paradox of the Roraima pollen of South America is still not solved", Emil Silvestru"Pollen Paradox", Emil Silvestru and Carl Wieland this position is a one single proof fallacy, because even if contamination is absolutely impossible, it does not outweigh the massive evidence for radiometric dating. Interestingly, creationists think that a global, mountain-covering, terrain-restructuring flood depositing a very small amount of pollen in one specific location in a rock but not anywhere else is more likely than mere contamination.
Almost all information comes from a 1966 study"Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana", R. M. Stainforth (full-text republishing) Stainforth, RM (1966) Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana. Nature 210: 292 - 294. and a 1964 discussion by R. M. Stainforth and associated scientists,"DISCUSSION OF THE AGE OF THE RORAIMA FORMATION", R. M. Stainforth though were previously noted in 1964.Bailey, P.B.H., Possible microfossils found in the Roraima Formation in British Guiana, Nature 202:384, 25 April 1964. No more recent analyses in reputable journals have been published.
==Present scientists' views==
Though the scientists present did not come to any consensus, they did have opinions about the pollen.
===On contamination===
Some of the scientists said contamination after the formation of the rocks was feasible:
Their major points were:
#Pollen can't withstand the intensely hot baking process that converts shale to hornfels
#Cleavage breaks may have allowed pollen to travel through the stone via water
#There were no macroscopic plant remains, even though the pollen supposedly came from a river
Some of the scientists said contamination after the formation of the rocks was impossible:
Their major points were:
#Evidence on the degradation of anaerobically baked pollen is scanty
#Pollen couldn't enter, because:
##The stone that was sampled was hundreds of feet within the formation
##Water penetration is unlikely in the quartzitic sandstone and extremely unlikely in the hornfels
#If contamination occurred, many many years of pollen should be recorded
While the evidence against contamination might be strong, it cannot be used to disprove evolution. It is always possible that better evidence and explanation may be found. The assumptions behind the accuracy of radioactive dating, including that no daughter element contaminated the sample however are also well accepted and considered beyond challenge by the majority of scientists. It appears that only creationists challenge such assumptions.
Since the study itself made no conclusion on the matter, and since no more recent publications have looked at the issue, the issue remains technically unsettled in science. This hasn't stopped creationists from seizing on the issue as disproof of evolution, and therefore proof of creationism.
===On the type of pollen===
Four analyzed the pollen: Fournier, Nijssen, Funkhauser, and van der Hammen.
Fournier originally argued that the pollen was comparable to (ca. 145-65 Mya) pollen, but decided instead that (ca. 65-2.5 Mya) pollen was likely. Fournier further argued that the pollen was dissimilar to current pollen (arguing against very recent contamination):
Nijssen argued that the pollen was (ca. 55-35 Mya) or younger:
Funkhauser argued that the pollen was (ca. 25-5 Mya) or younger, given its similarities to other pollen and unflattened nature:
Van der Hammen argued that the pollen was a mixture of (ca. 250-65 Mya) and (ca. 65-0 Mya) pollen. Van der Hammen further argued that the pollen had gotten into the rocks by way of planes, because when he ultrasonically cleaned the samples, most of the pollen disappeared:
Unfortunately, the scientists did not reach any consensus on the age of the pollen, on the type of the pollen, or the source of contamination (or lack thereof).
==Arguments for aqueous contamination==
===Survival of heated pollen===
Perhaps the strongest argument for later contamination is the inability of pollen to survive the heat of the shale-to-hornfel conversion process intact. If the pollen could not have survived, then it necessarily must have been contamination.
Several of the scientists present suggested that the pollen could not possibly survive intact the intense baking that converts shale to hornfels, usually ca. 600 C. Stainforth et al 1964 wrote:
Further, the rocks were highly -- meaning that rocks had been reformed under intense pressure or heat. Stainforth et al 1966 wrote:
Several studies support this fact, in spite of creationist quotemining attempts:
*Schiffbauer et al 2006, who conducted research on the preservation of Acritarchs are basically just a central cavity surrounded by one or more layers of organic material, which approximates pollen. under heat and found that pollen Graphitization is basically the reformation carbon from unordered forms into flat planes; for (a little bit) more information, see here and here (esp. here). to a significant degree at 500°C (± 2.5°C) at 1 after 250 days.
*Schiffbauer et al 2007, who found the same as in 2006, with improved techniques."MICROFOSSILS PRESERVED IN HIGHLY METAMORPHOSED ROCKS: A NEW WINDOW INTO THE EARLY BIOSPHERE?" Schiffbauer, J.D., L. Yin, R.J. Bodnar, A.J. Kaufman, F. Meng, J. Hu, B. Shen, X. Yuan, H. Bao, and S. Xiao. 2007.
*Schiffbauer et al 2012, who found the same as in 2006 and 2007, with improved techniques.J. D. SCHIFFBAUER, A. F. WALLACE, J. L. HUNTER JR, M. KOWALEWSKI, R. J. BODNAR, AND S. XIAO. "Thermally-induced structural and chemical alteration of organic-walled microfossils: an experimental approach to understanding fossil preservation in metasediments". Geobiology (2012), 10, p. 402–423.
All of Schiffbauer et als studies came to similar conclusions: that graphitization likely occurred. From Schiffbauer et al 2007:
And from Schiffbauer et al 2012:
Only more recently (late 2000's on) have graphitized fossils been recognized as such,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. and thus could not have been the fossils in Stainforth et als study. This is especially true given their appearance; Schiffbauer et al 2007 specifically describe the (proposed) fossils they found as "graphite disks", not as normal pollen.
Similarly, all of Schiffbauer et als studies had a few limitations:
*The studies only investigated up to 500°C (± 2.5°C), while the Roraima pollen may have experienced temperatures of up to 800°C (that said, a temperature near 500°C is not unlikely).
*The studies did not study the effect of metamorphism (which was highly present in the Roraima samples) on fossil survival. From Schiffbauer et al 2007:
*The studies only examined samples after 250 days, while real timescales are far longer.
*The studies only examined samples at 1 atm, which is equivalent to atmospheric pressure at the surface; pollen embedded in rock undergoing intense metamorphism undoubtedly underwent higher pressure.
====Schiffbauer et al 2006====
Silvestru et al, "citing" Schiffbauer et al 2006:
However, Silvestru et al misrepresent Schiffbauer et al 2006. From the Schiffbauer et als abstract itself:https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_111790.htm
There are several inconsistencies, noted by Schiffbauer himself:
#While Silvestru states "heating [...] over 500°C", Schiffbauer merely states "heated to 500°C (± 2.5°C)", which is based on fluctuation in the heating equipment.
#While Silvestru states that the rocks were heated for "durations compatible with real cases of thermal metamorphism", Schiffbauer merely states "varying lengths of time"; in actuality, the rocks were heated for only 250 days, which is not compatible with thermal metamorphism in geologic time, which could extend to thousands of years.
#While Silvestru states "no graphitization occurred and [...] the acritarchs have preserved their original morphology", Schiffbauer notes that, although the "morphologies of the heated acritarchs are retained, and no features related to graphitization have been observed", that "Preliminary Raman analysis reported here illustrates a decrease in D:G ratios of heated acritarchs as compared to spectra of unheated acritarchs, suggesting that the heated samples are becoming more graphitized." In other words, no physical distortion, yes discoloration, yes graphitization.
In fact, Schiffbauer et al 2006 supports the non-survival idea, since graphitization would distort the pollen's appearance.
====Bernard et al 2006====
Alternately, creationists will cite Bernard et al 2006, who conducted similar research. Bernard et al noted:"Exceptional preservation of fossil plant spores in high-pressure metamorphic rocks". Sylvain Bernard, Karim Benzerara, Olivier Beyssac, Nicolas Menguy, Francois Guyot, Gordon E. Brown Jr., Bruno Goffé. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 262 (2007) 257–272.
It should be noted, however, that the pollen itself did not survive; instead, the pollen was destroyed but its texture survived (in a sense) on the surrounding rock. In the Roraima, the pollen itself actually survived, and thus is irrelevant to this study.
===Widespread nature of pollen===
Pollen gets on pretty much everything, not least because it's designed evolved to be as likely find another plant of the same species as possible. Allen Roy:"Precambrian Pollen", Glenn Morton
Pollen is everywhere. Because of this, it's likely that, somewhere, some level of contamination should have occurred.
That said, Stainforth wrote:
(For comparison, pollen sizes range from about 15 microns to about 100 microns across."Spores and Pollen", Micropalaeontology Unit, University College London)
However, Stainforth wrote this in the discussion prior to actually examining the rocks. Stainforth did not write (and nobody else has written) about the actual size of the cracks of the rocks, making it difficult to back up this claim.
===Appearance of the pollen===
Talk Origins offers a few criteria to tell whether pollen was contamination or present in the original rock:"Claim CC341", Mark Isaak
#What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent.
#Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen.
#Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed.
In modern times, the coloration of pollen and other microfossils is routinely used to determine paleotemperaturesSee here. and maturation of oil fields.Batten, DJ (1982) Palynofacies, palaeoenvironments and petroleum. Journal of Micropalaeontology 1: 107-114.Ercegovaca, M and Kostić, A (2006) Organic facies and palynofacies: Nomenclature, classification and applicability for petroleum source rock evaluation. International Journal of Coal Geology 68(1-2): 70-78.
On 1: Nobody has written on the subject, making it difficult to verify. However, the 4 scientists that studied the pollen came up with widely varying dates, which may suggest some level of decay of the pollen -- though this is by no means necessarily true.
On 2: See above.
On 3: Funkhauser noted that the pollen was uncompressed, which is especially strange given the highly metamorphised state of the rocks.:
===Presence of limonite on bedding planes===
 is formed when water and/or atmospheric oxygen interact with iron-bearing minerals."Limonite" Stainforth wrote that the contained limonite:
Limonite's 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 extremely frequent rains from the top of Mount Roraima.
Although the scientists attempted to avoid getting contaminated samples, it's likely that they simply failed, for several reasons. First, the extreme metamorphosis of the rocks may have created cracks that allowed pollen to travel further into the rock, away from the bedding panes. Second, from the in figure 2, it's apparent that the bedding planes are present at a sub-millimeter scale and thus ultimately unavoidable.
===Ultrasonic cleaning===
Stainforth described van der Hammen's findings:
Van der Hammen ultrasonically cleanedSee here and here for explanations of ultrasonic cleaning. the rock. Ultrasonic cleaning removes surface contaminants, such as dirt, but not material within solid, nonporous rock. Afterward, almost all of the pollen had been washed away, suggesting almost all of the pollen was concentrated on the surface, rather than inside the rocks, in turn suggesting for light, surface-deep contamination and against a significant amount of pollen being present deep in the rocks. Thus, the pollen is either a surface contaminant or the rock is more porous than suggested. In either case, the pollen is contamination, not bound within or between minerals and part of the original rock.
===Absence of macroscopic fossils===
Stainforth wrote:
If the anti-contamination argument is correct, then the rock must have gotten its pollen during its formative period. If so, then some presence of larger fossils -- such as leaves -- would be expected. No such larger fossils were found.
Sandstone and shale commonly preserve plant fossils, yet we find none. If we have conditions where pollen can easily be preserved we would expect to find the host plants preserved as well. Not even a fragment or root cast was found.
Some creationists, in response, have quotemined two sources, seeking to argue that finding pollen without macrofossils is not reason for contamination. First, the "Spores and Pollen" webpage from the Micropalaeontology Unit of University College London:
Here, the article is pointing out that it's often difficult to class spores, and the fact that they often move far away from and are separate from the parent plant makes this harder -- not that macrofossils are rare.
Second, the "MICROFOSSILS" webpage by Jere Lipps:"MICROFOSSILS", Jere Lipps, University of California Museum of Paleontology
It should be pretty clear that foraminifera are distinct from pollen.
==Arguments against aqueous contamination==
===Thick rock===
The Roraima formation can be quite thick. Silvestru wrote:
However, the mere thickness of the rock is insufficient to prove that contamination did not occur, as both intrusion and bedding planes would allow the pollen to travel through the rock.
===Nonporous, low-permeability rock===
Stainforth wrote that the rocks were impermeable:
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, when van der Hammen ultrasonically cleaned the rock, the pollen almost completely disappeared.
===Many years of pollen===
Stainforth, who opposed contamination, stated:
According to various views of the scientists present, the pollen may have been as old as ca. 250 Mya or as young as 0 Mya, and none of the scientists had a date range for the age of the pollen smaller than 20 million years.
However, no description of the pollen assemblage(s) is available, so we can't evaluate this statement.
===Age of the pollen===
Some creationists selectively quote the report as to the difference between the pollen now and that in the rocks:
In fuller context:
It should be obvious that the contamination may have occurred at any time or times in the past 135 Mya, which does not require that the pollen all be recent.
It's also not surprising that no matches were found, given the diverse and unusual nature of the flora in the area. Mt. Roraima is home to a wide variety of plants, many of which are endemic to the flat mountaintops of the area.Green, R (2009), The Lost World of Venezuela's Mt. Roraima, Los Angeles Times (July 24, 2009)
In fact, the temporal dislinkage between current pollen and pollen in the Roraima is an argument against creationism -- why should pollen in one area of the world be so different from pollen elsewhere, when only (at max) 6000 years separate them? Creationists need to explain how the pollen could possibly have evolved so quickly that it would become unrecognizable.
==Arguments for intrusion==
It's possible that contamination (in the sense of pollen moving through cracks into the rock) was not possible. However, intrusion was very likely. Stanforth writes:
Here, a higher level represents a younger level, and one which would have formed while polleniferous plants dispersed their pollen.
It's possible for both contamination and multiple ages to be true simultaneously. In fact, if the rock is dated to multiple ages, then it simply shows that the formation had more instances of intrusion, which would have allowed pollen more opportunities to permeate the rock.
==Radiometric issues==
Creationists also allege that the rock iself has problematic radiometric dates, citing this passage from Stainforth et al:
However, radiometric dating was an emerging field in the 50's and 60's, and improved techniques and equipment allows more recent radiometric dating (2003) to clear up many of these issues.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.
==Scientific conclusions==
Silvestru et all quote Stainforth et al in their conclusion:
It's hard to accept a scientific "dunno what happened here" as strong evidence for YEC. The original report was published in the Letters section of Nature, and thus isn't a full-fledged scientific report.
Further, the age of the study (nearly half a century old) makes any conclusion even more suspect. At the time the paper was being written, even plate tectonics was new -- literally, at the time this paper was published, most geologists were still figuring out how mountains formed. Figure 3 even mentions that elevation was determined by (To use an aneroid as an altimeter, sea-level air pressure must be known, and appropriate compensation applied. Even then, it cannot measure altitude with the accuracy (centimeters or millimeters) needed for gauging tectonic activity.)
==Censorship and intentional ignorance==
Emil Silvestru of Creation.com wrote:
Silvestru dabbles in conspiracy and persecution. It's entirely possible that nobody's researched the issue because nobody knew about, cared about, or had resources to act on the pollen. Silvestru instead implies that evolutionists have somehow organizedly silenced their opposition (or at least prevented "opposing" publication), without any evidence to support this assertion.
In fact, the lack of scientific publishing on the issue may suggest that the "pollen paradox" is too scientifically weak to support claims that radiometric dating or the evolutionary timetable are incorrect, at least in actual peer-reviewed journals.
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.
==Creationist model==
Arthur Chadwick, creationist, talking about supposed Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon:Arthur V. Chadwick, "Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon - A Reexamination," Origins, 8:1, 1981
If contamination was impossible, creationists are left with an even less tenable position. If it is accepted that contamination is impossible, then another explanation is necessary in which the pollen must have gotten into the formation as it was being formed. The only land-reforming event within the 6,000-year timescale that creationists can point to is the Biblical global flood. But if such an event occurred in the Roraima, we should find pollen worldwide, buried in innumerable locations. "Precambrian" pollen occurs, as a rule, only in isolated incidents.
Thus, even if the evolutonist model is flawed, the creationist model is vastly less probable.
==See also==
*Out-of-place fossils
*Hakatai shale
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Out-of-place fossils
Category:Paradoxes