Fossils and Fossil Rocks KILL OFF Evolution - Part 7 - Baraminology and Foraminifers

Linnaeus was a Christian who recognized that God created organisms as kind/kinds = "miyn" or min and "bara" (created/create) in Hebrew.   The original Linnaean taxonomic system was intended by Carl Linnaeus to define the kinds and establish a hierarchy of organisms as they speciated from the original kinds.   Linnaeus did not coin the term, "Bariminology" but he was the first Baraminologist all the same.   His system was intended to show how organisms descended from the kinds and was not in any way related to Darwinism and in fact is designed in the opposite way.   Linnaeus, as other Creationists, represented the organisms as descending from primary ancestors, speciating or devolving as you will but certainly NOT evolving.  Go to the Speciation page to learn more about that process, observed by Darwin but incorrectly analyzed and understood by him.

Here is an excerpt from the Baraminology page at Conservapedia.:


...History

The term baramin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind).
It was resurrected in 1990 by Kurt Wise for use as the unit of creation in his discontinuous biosystematical system. From this came the term baraminology. That same year at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, Walter ReMine introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify baraminological discourse: holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin.[3]

Baraminological Terms

  • Holobaramin: A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that "race" is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology.
  • Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.
  • Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Caucasians and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.
  • Polybaramin: A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.
Three additional terms introduced by Wise:[3]
  • Archaebaramin: An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.
  • Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[4] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[5]).

Baraminic Demarcation

In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts[6]:
  • Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.
  • Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.
  • Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.
  • Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.
Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered)...
References mentioned:
  1. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds
  2. ↑ The impracticality of reconciling the Linnean and the cladistic systems
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms", by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in CRS Quarterly, Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000.
  4. ↑ Wieland, Carl, "Living for 900 years", Creation 20(4):10–13, September 1998.
  5. ↑ "Cain's wife -- who was she?", Answers In Genesis
  6. ↑ "A Refined Baramin Concept", Wood et al., 2003, Baraminology Study Group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Several major Creation Science organizations are working on developing Baraminology.   ICR, AIG, Creation.com are all invested in this and the CRSQ is advancing the science.   This 2006 paper was entitled "The Current Status of Baraminology" and now in 2013 the Creation Biology Society will, as they did in 2012,  seek and receive more presentations and abstracts-with-thorough papers to be reviewed and, if passing muster, published.


The Creation Biology Society is a group of scientists devoted to researching and improving Baraminology, the classification system of organisms for the 21st Century.   Currently meeting once per year to review and present technical papers and publish both papers and presentations for the use of the scientific community.  They go into a bit more depth than Conservapedia.



About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods


We believe that phylogenetic discontinuity is obvious for most groups approximating the family level and higher categories. Therefore, baraminology sees multidimensional biological character space crisscrossed with a network of discontinuities that circumscribe islands of biological diversity. Within these character space islands, the basic morpho-molecular forms are continuous or potentially continuous. Discontinuity in this sense does not refer to either the minor breaks in quantitative ranges that are used to delimit species or the modifications on a basic theme that demarcate genera. It is the unbridged chasms between body plans - forms for which there is no empirical evidence that the character-state transformations ever occurred. The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because cladistic analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence.

The baramin concept, as recently refined (Wood et al, 2003), includes all the organisms in a single bounded region of biological character space. This concept is a theoretical construct intentionally left fluid, as it is unlikely all members (all past ancestors and present descendants) can actually be known. However, four other terms (with baramin as a root) are used to apply the concept to sets of known organisms:
  • A holobaramin is the complete set of known organisms that belong to a single baramin. In other words, it is a group that (1) shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least on other member) and (2) is bounded by discontinuity. This is the empirical approximation of the theoretical baramin.
  • A monobaramin is a group of known species that share continuity without regard to discontinuity with other organisms. That is, it may be either part or all of a holobaramin.
  • An apobaramin is a group of known species that are bounded by discontinuity without regard to internal continuity. That is, it may be one or more complete holobaramins.
  • A polybaramin is an artificial group of known species that share continuity with organisms outside the group and discontinuity occurs within the group. That is, it consists (through faulty analysis) parts of two or more holobaramins and should be avoided, as it is comparable to a polyphyletic taxon in conventional systematics.
These groups are not taxonomic ranks but approximations of the "created kinds" or "created biodiversity units". From the definitions, it is clear that a given conventional taxon may be thought of as a monobaramin, a holobaramin, or an apobaramin, depending on the available data supporting either continuity or discontinuity among its members. For example, if diverse species can hybridize (at least in the laboratory), they exhibit continuity and they are members of the same monobaramin. On the other hand, mammals, which are characterized by a unique yet varied body plan, are probably discontinuous from other vertebrates and comprise an apobaramin. If data exist that support both internal continuity and a boundary of discontinuity, the taxon would be a holobaramin. Thus, as more information becomes available, a monobaramin may become a holobaramin or an apobaramin may become a holobaramin.

Thus, the method of baraminology is successive approximation. Baraminology provides the framework for membership criteria through its emphasis on additive and subtractive evidence (see below). Additive evidence is used to establish that two species are truly related (members of the same monobaramin). Subtractive evidence is used to show that two groups of species are not related (different apobaramins). By building up a monobaramin by additive evidence and dividing out unrelated species from the larger apobaramin, the holobaramin should be converged on when the membership of the growing monobaramin and shrinking apobaramin are the same. See Wood and Murray 2003.

Major Additive Criteria:
  1. Succesful interspecific hybridization. If members of two different species can successfully hybridize, they share genetic and morphogenetic programs and are, thus, holistically continuous. Although Marsh (see historical context) relied on hybridization as the single method of identifying which species were members of the same baramin, the problems with using hybridization as the exclusive baraminic membership criterion are many. Asexually reproducing species and species known only from fossils are impossible to classify using hybridization. Even among sexual species, failure to hybridize may be due to other causes than discontinuity.
  2. Morpho-molecular similarity. Are the natural and artificially hybridized forms linked by overlapping quantitative measures, by character-state transitions in which all the states are observable in known and otherwise similar organisms, or by a homoplastic distribution (recombination) of redundant character states among similar organism? A statistical measure has been developed called Baraminic Distance (BD). A positive correlation of BD is interpreted as evidence of continuity of two organisms.
  3. Stratomorphic Series. Stratigraphic fossil series connected by clear character-state transitions are evidence of continuity. For example, fossil and modern squids qualify as a monobaramin (see Cavanaugh et al. 2003).
Major Subtractive Criteria:
  1. Scripture claims discontinuity. This should be concluded only after completion of a semantic and contextual study of relevant words and passages. Clear examples are that Scripture claims humans to be an apobaramin and that cetaceans are discontinuous from land mammals (i.e., each created on separate days).
  2. Morpho-molecular dissimilarity. Are the natural and hybridized forms within the group separated from organisms outside the group by gaps that are significantly greater than intra-group differences? A negative correlation of BD is evidence of discontinuity.
  3. Unique synapomorphies. Is the group circumscribed by a set of unique morphologies or molecular sequences? These synapomorphies should lack empirically observed transitions to states in other supposedly related but outside groups.
  4. Lack of fossil intermediates. That is, there is no known fossil ancestral group, and fossils with "ancestral states" or "states transitional to other groups" are unknown. Forms identifiable in Flood sediments were probably distinct from the time of creation. A good example is Archaeopteryx, which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds.
I am doing my best to present evidence that will help free people from the grip of the very illogical and scientifically deleterious Darwinist worldview, a worldview that supports censorship and propaganda, threatens careers and drains good resources away from research worth doing by pointing them an nonsensical tasks, such as feverishly searching the skies for SETI when we have intelligent messages sent to us within organisms.  Could we cure cancer if we dumped Darwinism and quit funding the NCSE?   If we quit wasting classroom time and time booked on telescopes and the ridiculous amount of money spent on attempting to find a hominid ancestor of mankind or some kind of transitional fossil, could we extend lives?

Subjective Taxonomic Classification



       Since a single gene pool can produce "drastic" differences in phenotypic forms, how are scientists so sure of their fossil classification models?   Often only slight phenotypic differences are enough to place a fossil creature in a different species, genus or even family group than its modern-day counterpart or than its counterpart found elsewhere in the geologic column.  The problem is that differences, even fairly significant differences, are known to exist between members of the same gene pool.  Because of this fact, taxonomic classification models can be quite subjective and even misleading.
       For example, scientists from Berkeley have noted that, "the planktonic larvae of many marine invertebrates are commonly described as separate species when they are first discovered in the ocean. Only later when they can be reared in the laboratory can the link to their adult form be recognized. Similarly, the different life stages of many fungi are given different names because they have different physical forms and hosts. Only through detailed inoculation studies can mycologists work out which forms are members of the same life cycle. Since some fungi may have more than five discrete life cycle stages, this can be a long process. Similar problems exist for some marine algae and multiple-host parasitic organisms of many kinds. Even among well-studied vertebrates, some tropical birds have been described as separate species until they are observed to mate and rear young together."24
       "Detailed study of large sympatric populations and fossil assemblages of the highly variable species Elphidium excavatum (Terquem) [Benthic foraminifera] collected from 20 widely spaced locations indicates that a variety of morphotypes of Elphidium can be linked to one another in a number of interlocking intergradational series. Ten morphotypes are recognized and grouped as formae (ecophenotypes) of Elphidium excavatum (Terquem); these morphotypes were previously considered as 22 independent taxa by various authors. Although all of these formae belong to the same species, it is suggested [by the authors] that the distinction among them should be retained because of their potential as a valuable interpretive tool in paleo-ecological and biostratigraphic studies of Holocene and Pleistocene sediments."25
       "Because they are based on different stages in the life-cycle, fossil dinoflagellates and living dinoflagellates have largely received two sets of names, the equivalencies of which are becoming increasingly well known. For example, Gonyaulax spinifera and related species are known to produce cysts assignable to the genus Spiniferites. Indeed, it is generally informally acknowledged that Spiniferites and Gonyaulax are taxonomic synonyms. For several reasons this synonymy has not been formally proposed: 1) the fossil generic name Spiniferites is senior to the extant name Gonyaulax and acceptance of the synonymy would bring considerable changes to the nomenclature of this major extant genus (and conservation of Gonyaulax would cause a reciprocal chaos among fossil names); 2) the exact correspondence of Spiniferites species with Gonyaulax species is not clear; and 3) it is impossible to establish whether earlier representatives of the genus Spiniferites were cysts with a thecate stage identical to living Gonyaulax. In other words, to many researchers, it is useful and desirable to retain both Gonyaulax and Spiniferites while acknowledging that they may represent the same biological taxon."26
       The naming of hominid fossils not immune from this subjective problem.   In a March 2002 statement, Tim White, who co-directs the Laboratory for Human Evolutionary studies said, "There's been a recent tendency to give a different name to each of the fossils that comes out of the ground, and that has led to what we think is a very misleading portrayal of the biology of human evolution.  But, when you find a fossil like this one so similar to Asian and European ones, it indicates the same species." "This whole species question is all about what you accept as a sharp enough distinction to tell you that it is a separate species," said Susan Anton, a Rutgers University anthropologist. "This particular skull is not going to solve that problem."27
       Specific hominid fossils, such as the Solo fossils, have presented a bit of a problem as far as classification in concerned. "When they were first discovered, von Koenigswald believed them to be "tropical Neanderthalers." In 1963, Bernard Campbell classified them as Homo sapiens soloensis. Santa Luca, in 1980, classified them as Homo erectus erectus, with Milford Wolpoff declaring that they were not Homo erectus. Still others called them "archaic Homo sapiens." Because of their obvious similarity to the other Japanese and Chinese "classic" Homo erectus material, most investigators today recognize them as Homo erectus. The Solo fossils do, however, have a larger cranial capacity than does the average Homo erectus skull. For this reason, many evolutionists could not resist the temptation to consider the Solo people as "transitional" between Homo erectus and modern humans. Unfortunately, since evolutionists believe that modern humans arrived on the scene by 100,000 YBP, transitional fossils at 27,000 YBP will not fit.  It is now known that there are many late-date Australian fossils almost identical to the Solo (Ngandong) people."28
       The classifications of plants is classically prone to give different names to very similar plants or even parts of the same plant.  Bill DiMichele, a paleobotanist, notes, "The problem of organ association is one of the reasons why paleobotanists insist on so many different names for isolated parts of the same whole plant. Furthermore, there are phenotypic convergences that can cause great confusion, such leaves of virtually identical morphology borne on ferns and seed plants. Separate names for each fossil plant organ can be carried to extremes, however, and not all paleobotanists, myself included, favor the attribution of separate names to organs otherwise known in attachment (yes, this is still done routinely, no kidding)."29
       The Mazon Creek flora is incredibly diverse. Over 400 species from at least 130 genera have been identified from Mazon Creek nodules. However, the number of different kinds of plants represented is very difficult to determine. There are at least two reasons for this difficulty. The first reason is the convention among paleobotanists that separate plant parts receive different names. This procedure tends to inflate the number of plant names. The second reason is that paleobotanists are still trying to determine which taxa are valid.30 
       According to Meyen and Traverse the problems of naming fossils are as follows. "1. Living plants are assignable to a single taxon at any rank whereas fossil plants with dispersed parts and no observable original connections may be referred to several taxa of the same rank and have different names (Stigmaria, Lepidodendron, Lepidostrobus) 2. In living plants, all individuals belonging to a species belong to the same genus, etc. whereas in fossil plants various specimens of a species may or may not belong to the same genus and the genus may belong to different families when the complete plant is considered (Stigmaria may belong to genera assigned to Lepidodendraceae, Sigillariaceae, or Lepidocarpaceae). 3. Living plants are assigned to a complete hierarchy of taxa whereas fossil plants may be assigned only to genera with higher rankings unknown (some leaf genera might belong to pteridosperms, ferns, or cycads). 4. Living plants cannot be assigned to different genera based upon different types of preservation whereas fossil plants may be. 5. Different ontogenetic phases of the living plant do not normally serve as a distinction for a taxon whereas in fossil plants this is possible (seeds, microspores, megaspores, cysts). They concluded that fossil plant nomenclature requires only two special circumstances be reflected in the ICBN: 1) the possibility to keep genera of fossil plants outside the hierarchy of formally named higher taxa; and 2) the possibility to retain names of taxa established for various parts." 31,32
       As it turns out, "Intraspecific variation is ubiquitous in systematic characters, yet systematists often do not deal with polymorphism explicity. For example, morphological systematists typically exclude characters in which any or "too much" polymorphism is observed, and molecular systematists often avoid intraspecific variation by sampling a single individual per species. Recent empirical studies have suggested that polymorphic characters contain significant phylogenetic information but are more homoplastic than fixed characters. Excluding polymorphic characters decreased accuracy under almost all conditions examined, even when only the more variable characters were excluded. Sampling a single individual per species also consistently decreased accuracy. Thus, two common approaches for dealing with intraspecific variation in morphological and molecular systematics can give relatively poor estimates of phylogeny."33 (Back to Top)



     



       Foraminiferans are actually protozoans (single celled animals) of the Order Foraminiferida.  Their fossilized remains have been commonly used to relatively date sedimentary rock.  This practice is especially extensive in the oil industry.  These creatures are usually quite tiny, but have a fairly wide range of size from 0.1 millimeter (mm) to almost 20 centimeters (cm) in length with an average that is less than 1 mm. They also have an extraordinarily fast doubling time of 3.65 days.  The parts of the creatures that are preserved in the fossil record are their shells.  Actually, these shells are not really shells in that they are "intra-ectoplasmic" structures called "tests".  These tests function somewhat like a skeleton and are formed of small interconnected chambers.  The chamber connections are small openings between each chamber.  The openings are called "foramina" from which the name "foraminifers" comes from.  Foraminiferan shells or tests come in many shapes and sizes and have many different designs to include simple tubes, straight series chambers, coils of chamber and even complex labyrinths.  Their walls can be formed by particulate matter picked up from the surrounding environment or they can be formed of pure calcareous material that is secreted by the foraminifer.  Foraminifers interact with their environment through pores and apertures that exist in the test wall.  Their taxonomy is based first on the wall mineralogy and microstructure, then on chamber arrangement, apertural shape and position, and finally ornamentation. 21,22
       Foraminifers are not only abundant in the fossil record but live today as well.  They can be found practically anywhere where there is a body  of water to include deep sea trenches, shallow seas and oceans, and even fresh water lakes.  However, different types of foraminifers occupy different types of environments.  For example, planktonic and pelagic species live in open water at various depths while benthic species live near, on, or in the ocean floor.  In deep ocean environments, calcareous (made of calcium) material is dissolved, so foraminifers in this environment tend to be of the type that agglutinates surrounding material to make their tests instead of forming calcareous tests.  Foraminifers move around via "pseudopodia" or hair-like extensions of protoplasm and have been clocked at several millimeters per hour.  These are also used as "arms" for the gathering of food and building materials and for attachment to other objects.  Sometimes the pseudopodia are even used to aid in floatation, as is the case with planktonic species.  Foraminifers can also tolerate extreme environments to include very low oxygen levels, hyper- and hypo-salinity, as well as extremes of pH and temperature.  What is interesting is that these different environments play a role on the type of framiniferan that occupies a particular area.  For example, areas with low oxygen levels have foraminifers with a more flattened shape to increase absorption surface area.   Their walls also tend to be thinner, more porous, and less ornamented. 22




         So, what do these very interesting creatures have to do with the theory of evolution?   Well, as previous hinted at, different foraminifers are found in different layers within the geologic column.   In fact, some are so closely associated with a given layer that when they are found, they practically define that layer within the geologic column.  This association is so reliable that oil drilling companies rely heavily on the identification of these creatures as they drill their wells to the proper depth.  Obviously then, if the layers in the geologic column represent long periods of historical time, the differences in foraminifers represent evolutionary changes over time.  The layers could not possible have been formed rapidly by a watery catastrophe such as are mentioned in flood legends, for how would these foraminifers, who are similar in size and density, be sorted so neatly into the various layers in which they are found?  There are some, such as the geologist Glenn Morton, who argue that:  

      "Foraminifera are small, single cellular animals which would have existed in the oceans prior to the flood and due to their small size should be found all mixed together in the same or closely related strata...   Given the small size of the average species, they should all sort out at about the same time from the waters of the flood with the largest at the bottom and the smallest at the top.  This is not what we find when we look at the foraminifera fossil record. Genera of forams, all possessing the similar shape and similar size and only differing in the details of the test decoration, are found over vast vertical distances in the geologic column...  It is like throwing similar size and density sand particles, which are colored different colors, into a river and having the colors all sort out. This is impossible. Yet forams are so sorted. The only conclusion can be that their order is not due to a global flood but to a long period of deposition in which the animal life changed." 21    
       
       Morton's argument is especially interesting when one considers that different foraminiferan test decoration are found within the same species depending upon environmental factors of the local habitat.  Tammy Tosk, also a geologist, argues that both habitat preference as well as environmental factors can have a rapid impact on foraminiferan morphology.22  Consider the following illustration and note that the foraminifers of today vary in morphology according to changes in ocean depth.  





       As illustrated above, Tosk argues that morphologic variation or "sorting" within the geologic column can be based on normal ecologic distribution.  Tosk goes on to argue that within a single foraminifer species, certain members may have thickly ornamented tests under normal oxygen concentrations and thin less-ornamented tests in environments where oxygen concentrations are low.  Such variations that are based, not in genetics, but in environmental influences, are called "ecophenotypic" variations.  Based on these ideas, Tosk theorizes about how the geologic foraminiferan data could be explained by a rapid catastrophic burial:

      "Because of the many examples of variation in living and fossil forms, foraminifers are considered to be extraordinarily plastic (Kennett 1976). A foraminifer may contain enough genetic information to express many different forms, depending on the conditions...  A significant problem arises because similar forms are classified differently if they occur at different stratigraphic levels. These cases are explained as iterative evolution, that is, the same form evolved repeatedly through geologic history. Thus classification is subjectively influenced by evolutionary theory. Repeated occurrences could be explained as easily by a catastrophic flood model. If the foraminifers found fossilized at various levels in the geologic column were living at the same time in different ecologic zones, species common to several ecologic zones would be found at several levels. Gaps in the record only indicate that the species was not present in the source area or the ecologic zone being buried at that time, not that it was totally extinct. No coincidence of repeated extinction and identical evolution is required.  
       Ecologic zonation as developed by Clark (1946) would mean that foraminifers living in the lower seas or deeper parts of the ocean would be buried first as the sediments were redeposited by the gradually rising flood waters, while those from higher ecologic zones would be buried later The fossil record seems generally consistent with this model. [The figures above] show the distribution of foraminifers today and of fossils in the geologic column. Simple agglutinated forms that now live in environments ranging from the deep sea to estuaries, are found fossilized in Early Paleozoic and younger strata. Calcareous benthic species now predominate both in bathyal environments and in Mesozoic strata of the past, and presently floating planktonic forms from a higher ecologic zone are abundant in the higher Cenozoic strata of the past.
       In the oceans today, calcareous material is dissolved below the carbonate compensation depth (CCD) usually at a depth of about 4000 m, depending on carbon dioxide concentration. Neither benthic nor planktonic calcareous foraminifers are generally found below that depth on the abyssal plains or in deep sea trenches, because their calcareous shells would be dissolved. Agglutinated forms are dominant
       Agglutinated species are common in the Lower Paleozoic, and the benthic calcareous foraminifers found generally have thicker walls than forms higher in the geologic column. They could have lived near the pre-flood CCD where most calcareous forms, especially thinner-shelled planktonic species, would have been completely dissolved. Lower Paleozoic foraminifers are consistent, therefore, with the distribution expected by a catastrophic flood.
       The fusulinids in the Upper Paleozoic, however, are an anomaly. Some species of fusulinids grew to volumes of more than 100 m3 (Ross 1979). Foraminifers which grew that large today have symbiotic photosynthetic algae living in their tests, and so must live within tens of meters of the ocean surface where sunlight is available. Large foraminifers from other groups live in shallow water tropical environments today; therefore, the fusulinids are interpreted also to have lived in a similar environment (Ross 1979), yet we do not find them at the top of the geologic column. Possibly they grew at the surface of pre-flood bodies of water of low altitude (Figure 1).
       Planktonic foraminifers are not found in Paleozoic or Lower Mesozoic deposits. Even though living planktonic foraminifers float and would not be expected to be found in the early flood deposits, tests of those which had died before the flood should have been on the sea floor and should have been buried with those living there. Either they were not present in those ecologic zones, or they were not preserved as fossils. Because they have thinner, more porous tests than benthic forms, they could easily have been dissolved preferentially on the sea floor before the onset of catastrophic flooding, if their shells sank below the CCD.
       Benthic hyaline calcareous foraminifers become abundant in the Mesozoic. Triassic and Jurassic foraminifers are generally not as well preserved as later forms. In Cretaceous strata, both benthic and planktonic forms are diverse and abundant, making it correlative with the upper bathyal zone of the ocean today.
       Foraminifers older than the Cretaceous are generally widely distributed. A Triassic species may be found in both Australia and Idaho, but nowhere in between (Tosk and Andersson 1988). Cretaceous and younger foraminifers have distribution patterns correlative with modern assemblages (Sliter 1972). Under the prevailing paradigm, this would mean that the pre-Cretaceous seas were more cosmopolitan because modern hydrographic patterns and ecologic distributions had not yet developed. Continental fragmentation and sea-floor spreading during the Cretaceous are used to account for the development of modern oceanic patterns at that time.
       In a flood model, however, this pattern is what would be expected. During the more violent stages of the flood events, foraminifers from a small area would be scattered widely over the earth. As the violence of the flood died down, foraminifers would not be transported as far and might even begin developing their own ecologic distribution patterns. Major deposition during and after the Cretaceous could have become localized in basins and at continental margins. Life for foraminifers may have returned to normal in less affected areas." 22

       So, it seems at least possible to conclude that the apparent "sorting" of foraminifers in the fossil record could have occurred outside of slow process of millions of years involving gradual evolutionary changes.  Morphologic variations seen today are often based on ecologic environment that are fairly distinctly "sorted."  Arguments such as Morton presents need not necessarily or even preferentially support the long age scenario over a catastrophic formation of much of the geologic column. 
       But what about arguments that Morton also raises that foraminiferans show smooth evolution between species?  Consider the series of slowly changing forms presented at the right.  Morton refers to this series as a clear example of plankton evolution in action by saying,


      "One can clearly see the gradual transformation of the earliest into the latest species.  This gradual change is imperceptible...  Gradualistic evolution is documented among these tiny creatures laying bare the false claim that there are no transitional forms. What it shows is that the flood-advocates don't read anything except their own literature."  21

     Well, after reading Morton's "literature" it seems that such variations in morphology might be easily explained by variations in environment.  These forms pictures at the right might in fact be members of the same species of plankton.  After all, foraminifer are quite "plastic" indeed.  The genetic information contained in one common gene pool seems quite capable of producing startling morphologic variations.  Considering this ecophenotypic variation potential, how then is Morton so sure that "gradualistic evolution" is taking place here? (Back to Top)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The website has the references numbered correctly.   I've listed the bulk of them here but beginning with 1 rather than 20.  

  1. Coffin HG. 1987. Sonar and scuba survey of a submerged allochthonous "forest" in Spirit Lake, Washington. Palaois 2:179-180.
  3. Tosk, Tammy. 1988. Origins 15(1):8-18.
  4. Holmes,P.L. (1994): The sorting of spores and pollen by water: experimental and field evidence. - In: Traverse,A. [ed.]: Sedimentation of organic particles, 9-32, 10 figs., 1 tab.; Cambridge: Univ. Press.
  7. Greuter, W. et al., 1996. Taxon 45: 349-372.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gradualistic" is one of those Darwinspeak words that is used when there is no actual evidence to support the claim.   Foraminifers are best explained as variation within kind, with their "tests" tending to change depending upon where they are found by depth and pressure and not presenting a line of evolution.
Email Post