Search This Blog

Monday, June 14, 2010

Yet more evidence for a worldwide flood - Amber

Amber needed water (and lots of it)

Amber
Images from stockxpert and stock.xchng
Fossil amber (tree resin) has been found all over the world, containing well-preserved insects (and even identifiable microbes in the insect’s gut1), flowers, moss, snails, lizards, bird feathers and mammal hair.
Among secular scientists, who date amber fossils as mostly being from 15 million years up to 220 million years old (see ‘Dating by decree’), there has been considerable uncertainty (and disagreement) as to how amber’s contents came to be so entombed.
Most researchers had the view that resin exuded by the tree solidified at the tree bark, with organisms then getting stuck at the resin surface and subsequently enclosed by successive resin outflows.
But one problem with that scenario is that it doesn’t account for the abundant aquatic organisms found in amber, such as crustaceans, water beetles, barnacles, oysters, clams, water striders, algae and bacteria. How could aquatic creatures—both freshwater and marine—have become trapped in sticky tree sap?

The results of the researchers’ ingenious field study is great news for creationists, many of whom have long mooted that amber fossils worldwide are a legacy of the Genesis Flood.
Lace bugs by Joachim Scheven,
LEBENDIGE VORWELT Museum
 Lace bugs (Tingidae) alive today in Europe (top) are just the same as those found in Caribbean amber (bottom) dated as being millions of years old.  These and other ‘living fossils’ present a conundrum to evolutionists.  Why no evolution in all that (supposed) time?
Lace bugs (Tingidae) alive today in Europe (top) are just the same as those found in Caribbean amber (bottom) dated as being millions of years old. These and other ‘living fossils’ present a conundrum to evolutionists. Why no evolution in all that (supposed) time?

Alexander Schmidt of the Museum of Natural History in Berlin, Germany, and David Dilcher from the University of Florida, USA, now believe they have the answer.2
After using a handsaw to cut bark from trees in a Florida swamp, they observed that the resulting resin flowing into the water trapped small crustaceans, water beetles, mites, aquatic bacteria and fungi.3 Therefore their research is reported to have shown that ‘aquatic insects can be trapped in resin without leaving their aquatic world. Thus the presence of aquatic organisms in amber is the result of a simple natural process.’4
Actually, cutting bark with a handsaw in a swamp is hardly an everyday ‘simple natural process’. But the results of the researchers’ ingenious field study is great news for creationists, many of whom have long mooted that amber fossils worldwide are a legacy of the Genesis Flood.5
 
Although Schmidt and Dilcher are staunch evolutionists, consider how their own observations and conclusions indicate that for the abundant worldwide amber fossils to have formed, conditions provided by a global catastrophic Flood were needed:
  • Water delays the process of solidification and ‘amberisation’ that is normally driven by oxygen in air. Thus the resin stays stickier for longer under water, and is more likely to trap insects and other organisms. As New Scientist reported,6 resin in water is probably more of a hazard to insects than resin on tree bark.
  • In Schmidt and Dilcher’s field study, the tree resin did not solidify—but they say it might have turned to solid amber if the pond water level fell and, ‘given enough protection by layers of sediment, the amber could survive intact for millions of years.’2
  • But layers of sediment need to be carried in somehow, e.g. by rushing water. And indeed, Schmidt and Dilcher’s suggested scenario for amber fossil formation does invoke a flood. In their own words, once aquatic insects are trapped in the tree resin:
‘The pond then dries out in the summer, and a flood brings sediment to cover the forest floor, so the resin piece becomes well conserved [later turning into amber].’2
And of course the catastrophic global Flood would have vastly multiplied the effect of Schmidt and Dilcher’s handsaw. For example, you would expect that uprooted trees, smashing against each other in the swirling currents and waves, would lose their bark and release copious quantities of tree resin. While still fluid, the resin would have enveloped both aquatic and terrestrial organisms displaced from their usual habitat by the floodwaters.

When you consider the myriad amber fossils found worldwide,7 isn’t it obvious that lots of water was needed, right around the world—a very big flood, in other words. Genesis 6–9 describes that event—an event where it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. No wonder then that many amber fossils even contain ‘whole drops of water’2 and ‘bubbles’7,8 of air!9
 
 Fossil termites (genus Mastotermes) found in amber, allegedly 20 million years old, are so well preserved that researchers could identify that the bacteria in the termites’ digestive system are just the same sorts of bacteria as those found inside Mastotermes termites living today.  Generations aplenty—yet no evolution.
Fossil termites (genus Mastotermes) found in amber, allegedly 20 million years old, are so well preserved that researchers could identify that the bacteria in the termites’ digestive system are just the same sorts of bacteria as those found inside Mastotermes termites living today. Generations aplenty—yet no evolution.

Dating by decree

You could be forgiven for thinking that the dates assigned to amber fossils are a ‘done deal’ given the authoritative-sounding statements in media reports and science journals. Here are some samples from secular references cited in the main text:
  • ‘We are looking back into the amber forest, 40 million years ago … ’.1
  • ‘ … he found a barnacle, water tubeworms, an oyster and a clam in amber dating to 15–20 million years ago … ’.1
  • ‘Schmidt says the oldest amber containing any signs of life dates to 220 million years ago … ’.1
  • ‘The fossils are at least 4 million years old, they [the researchers, including University of New South Wales paleontologist Henk Godthelp] say, possibly much older.’2
However, occasionally the media will let slip a statement from the paleontologists that dating amber washed up on beaches (which is where the vast majority of amber fossils have been found) is not a ‘done deal’ at all:
‘Godthelp says it is difficult to date amber directly and the researchers are searching for the original rock deposits that would have contained the amber to date it.’2
So how would they date the ‘original rock deposits’?
Sedimentary rock is ‘dated’ according to the presence of so-called ‘index fossils’ for which the age is ‘known’. But in fact, the age is not known but assumed—on the basis of an evolutionary timeline as to when those creatures first evolved and when they became extinct.

Volcanic rock (which would not contain amber fossils but which might be in the same strata as amber-bearing sedimentary rock) is supposedly ‘dated’ according to radioactive dating methods. But in fact, the dating methods do not lead, but follow—they are always selected to agree with the ‘lead’ ideas as to the suspected (i.e. desired) age of the rocks/fossils in question.
In other words, dating by decree, not objective measure.3

References and notes

  1. Viegas, J., How amber becomes a death trap, ABC News in Science, , 9 October 2007.
  2. Salleh, A., Amber fossils a first for Australia, ABC Science Online, , 29 November 2006.
  3. Walker, T., How dating methods work, Creation 30(3):28–29, 2008.

Readers’ comments:

Kevin M., Australia, 7 June 2010
I have often wondered why, in the case of amber, do we not get ‘dates’ derived from radio-carbon methods. If amber is a plant product, as seems clearly the case, then we can expect it to contain abundant carbon. Thus I expect radio-carbon dating to be applicable. Where are the results?
Naturally I expect that C14 would be present in measurable quantities in amber, as it has been found to be in coal and diamonds. The conclusion would then be that amber is also thousands of years old, not millions, regardless of the stated ‘age’ of the rock environment in which the amber is found.
Any comments?
Tas Walker responds:
I agree with you.
I Googled carbon-14 and amber and found http://www.icr.org/article/amber-window-recent-past/ by Frank Sherwin who says amber has not been analysed for carbon-14, even though it is carbon based, because it is considered too old.
This secular article says the same thing. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/85/8511sci3.html
I’m surprised that no creationists have done such a test. There must be some results somewhere if we dug deep enough.
God bless

Gavin C., United Kingdom, 8 June 2010
Re the dating of Amber, I had the impression that the RATE II follow up work would investigate Amber for signs of radioactive potassium in insects? One of the objections raised to accelerated nuclear decay (AND) was that if Noah and the animals on the Ark had trace radioactive elements in their tissues (as we do today), then during a pulse of AND during the Flood they would have been ‘fried’, so RATE II needs to report that there is either no trace radioactive elements or very minimal amounts in the world’s amber deposits. I’m not sure if they are looking at C14 in amber as well to add to their fossil, rock and diamond work? Amber does offer an exciting ‘time capsule’ into the world before the Flood, which as Tas rightly says is ‘surprising’ that no creationist has reported on yet. Maybe a word from ICR on this one would be useful! Blessings and thanks for all your fabulous work!

Robert B., Canada, 10 June 2010
Great article on how amber needs water to entomb life. I would add that since this is so then as long as there is enough of a water power then it such a thing can happen any time. So we biblical creationists do not need to see the great amber collections as just coming from the flood but we can see them as coming from post flood events. I say this because I insist the k-P(T) line is the flood line. So fossils etc above that are from post flood events especially within a few centuries after the flood Many YEC creationist don’t see the k-p line as the flood line.
Response by Tas Walker: Yes, amber needs lots of water to form but it also needs lots of trees that are bleeding resin—a catastrophe. And warm water would probably be helpful.
From my analysis, the top of the Cretaceous (the K/T boundary, or the K-P (Paleogene) boundary) generally represents deposits as the floodwaters were reaching their peak. Hardly any sediments were deposited on the continents after the K-P boundary but that does not represent the end of the Flood. That is because, after the floodwaters peaked they then receded and eroded massive quantities of sediments from the continents as they retreated. See articles about quartzite-boulder deposits (Flood transported quartzites—east of the Rocky Mountains) that are classified as Oligocene but were deposited by receding floodwaters.
Also, the location of the Flood boundary is not a simple one-for-one relationship on the geologic column. See: Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks, Evidence for a late Cainozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary and the Forum on the Green River Formation.

References and notes

  1. See: Termite tummy bugs, Creation 24(3):7, 2002. Return to text.
  2. Viegas, J., How amber becomes a death trap, ABC News in Science, , 9 October 2007. Return to text.
  3. Schmidt, A.R. and Dilcher, D.L., Aquatic organisms as amber inclusions and examples from a modern swamp forest, PNAS, USA 104(42):16581–16585, 16 October, 2007. Return to text.
  4. How amber becomes death trap for watery creatures, ScienceDaily, , 20 October 2007. Return to text.
  5. See, e.g., The amber mystery, Creation 25(2): 52–53, 2003; . Return to text.
  6. How pond life falls prey to killer trees, New Scientist 196(2625):21, 2007. Return to text.
  7. Australia had been thought to be an exception (i.e. without amber fossils), but ‘huge chunks of amber’ containing insects and plant parts have now been found along beaches in far north Queensland. Salleh, A., Amber fossils a first for Australia, ABC Science Online, , 29 November 2006. Return to text.
  8. Berner, R.A. and Landis, G.P., Gas bubbles in fossil amber as possible indicators of the major gas composition of ancient air, Science 239(4846):1406–1409, 1988. Return to text.
  9. I.e., likely embedded when fluid amber floating near the surface of the floodwaters was impacted by falling raindrops. As amber’s specific gravity is slightly over one, it floats in saltwater but sinks in freshwater, so insect and other material preserved in amber could have been either flotsam or settlings—or possibly borne by raindrops, in the case of microbes and very small insects. (Specific gravity is the density of a substance relative to pure water, which therefore has SG = 1 by definition.)  

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very funny. I like the comments that almost instantly negate the speculations in the article. They're absolutely right - if the amber were formed during the global flood, carbon-14 dating would consistently confirm it. Creation "scientists" could have a slam dunk here, with all amber pieces being dated at less than 6,000 years old, and all aquatic ones being dated at approx. 4,000 years old.

But the slam dunk just isn't there, which is why they're stuck with such idle speculation as in this article.

Why you find this failure worth reposting is a mystery to me.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Very funny indeed, Creeper. Doubly so when you realize that the article simply replaces one unanswered question with its exact antithesis. In trying to answer the very sensible question of "how did water-dwelling organisms get preserved in amber?" and jumping to the conclusion that it happened in the Flood, they ignore the question of how all the land-dwelling organisms got trapped in amber.

The sensible answer is that the conventional view is still right. It just needed a bit of expansion. While the snarky comment about cutting a tree with a handsaw is right, it misses the point that the handsaw was merely a controlled way to simulate natural damage. Storms, especially tropical cyclones, can shatter whole trees and toss them in the water. Nothing says the sap had to be flowing from a living tree. A storm-killed tree floating in water would also exude sap, and that sap could catch stuff and preserve it just as sap from a live tree on land does.

The other thing from this article that jumped out at me was the ever-present tyro's question "why hasn't organism X evolved since time Y?" The answer is so obvious, yet creationists never seem to get it: evolution is an opportunistic process. If an organism is well-adapted to its environment and occupies a stable niche in its ecosystem, selection will stabilize it in that form rather than change it to something else.

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,
"A storm-killed tree floating in water would also exude sap, and that sap could catch stuff and preserve it just as sap from a live tree on land does"...

You mean like a storm that lasted maybe 40 days and 40 nights?

"evolution is an opportunistic process. If an organism is well-adapted to its environment and occupies a stable niche in its ecosystem, selection will stabilize it in that form rather than change it to something else"...

So why then don't we have say just 5 or 6 really well-adapted organisms on the planet? Your argument is self-defeating. You imply that evolution only "works" until adaptation brings an organism to "perfection", and then it stops.

If you extrapolate using that logic, then you must seriously believe in punctuated equilibrium. For if the world's environment is generally in "equilibrium" for centuries or millenia, as dictated by uniformitarianism, then the whole of creation (pardon the expression) will become well-adapted during such periods and thus static.

Your logic further presumes then, that environmental change is required in order for evolution to occur. Evolution is not "random" at all. It is "event-driven". It requires a period of drought, or a change in cloud cover, or volcanic eruptions spewing excessive amounts of gas into the atmosphere, or dare I say it... a flood. That sounds more like "catastrophism" to me.

Conversely, if there are millions of different plants and creatures on the planet, then it can only be evidence that these various species were forced to "evolve" because their precedents had not yet adapted "perfectly" to their environments.

But if these various species are so many examples of "imperfection", then why didn't they simply disappear in the face of natural selection? Doesn't natural selection presume that "imperfection" results in extinction?

What say you?

highboy said...

Actually, if you guys think that was funny, how about the fact that when I read the title I thought it was about a girl named Amber who really needed water?

"But if these various species are so many examples of "imperfection", then why didn't they simply disappear in the face of natural selection? Doesn't natural selection presume that "imperfection" results in extinction?"

I've discussed this as much as I could in regards to "imperfection" in past posts, and its still a mystery to me. The idea that these "imperfections" are an example of "bad design" was totally unsupported and still rely simply on untested hypothesis, which is not the scientific method at all. The example before was child birth, and how it would supposedly be "better design" to have the birth canal under the pelvis, eliminating difficulty in child birth. But it was never tested, making the whole idea an assumption. For all we know, there could be a damn good reason why it goes through the pelvis and not under it.

There, that's my one coherent comment in regards to science for the year.

Jon Woolf said...

Hawkeye wrote: So why then don't we have say just 5 or 6 really well-adapted organisms on the planet?

Because there are more than just 5 or 6 niches for them to inhabit.

Your argument is self-defeating. You imply that evolution only "works" until adaptation brings an organism to "perfection", and then it stops.

Not even that. Adaptation continues until it produces an organism that is good enough to survive within a specific niche. Then selection changes from adaptive to stabilizing.

Your logic further presumes then, that environmental change is required in order for evolution to occur. Evolution is not "random" at all. It is "event-driven".

By George, I think you've got it!

But if these various species are so many examples of "imperfection", then why didn't they simply disappear in the face of natural selection? Doesn't natural selection presume that "imperfection" results in extinction?

No. Evolution doesn't produce perfect organisms. It can't. Every organism has to perform many functions: find food, avoid becoming food, find mates, resist disease, et cetera. Many of these functions are incompatible with one another to some extent, so every organism is a bundle of trade-offs. For example, the Common Loon eats only fish. To become better fish-catchers, its ancestors evolved legs that are placed far back on the body and heavy bones that increase its weight and density. But those adaptations have a down side: they make it harder for the loon to take off. Loons can't take off from a standing start like most birds can. They need a takeoff run of at least 100 feet or so -- and they need to do it on water, not land. If a loon lands on a pond that's less than 100 feet across, it's stranded. It can't take off again.

Pick any organism, any at all, and you'll find the same sort of thing going on. Every positive has a negative; every improvement in one area exacts a price somewhere else. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,
Who is "George"?

(:D)

Anonymous said...

Come on Hawkeye, you can do better than that, can't you? How about you actually respond to Jon's direct reply to your questions? He answers each one of your queries (rather awesomely, I might add). Am I to assume that you now agree with Jon? Or did you think you "got him" because, by the origins of the phrase "by George" ("By Jove", or by god, to "By George") he referred to "Him" in his reply? Or maybe you were trying to be funny? Either way, it's just lame. Personally, I would like to hear your actual thoughts relative to Jon's reply.

- Canucklehead.