October 5, 2009
Newly Discovered Amber Droplets Mystify
Scientists
The droplets appear to be "200 million years" too old,
according to the evolution time line.
Newly Discovered Amber Droplets Mystify
Scientists
The droplets appear to be "200 million years" too old,
according to the evolution time line.
SUMMARY: An analysis of newly discovered amber droplets has created a
mystery. This type of amber owes its existence to flowering plants, but the
droplets were discovered in a "320-million-year-old" coal deposit in Illinois.
Scientists believe flowering plants didn't "evolve" until 200 million years later,
hence the puzzle.
The age of the amber droplets put them in the period known as Carboniferous,
when swampy forests of ferns and early conifers are thought to have been
growing, scientists say. Ken Anderson of Southern Illinois U. said their age was
a surprise in itself, but his research team had guessed early conifers were the
source of the amber. Finding amber from conifers in a coal bed is surprising,
but more surprising was the discovery of a chemical signature in the amber that
has been linked only to flowering plants.
The researchers believe the mystery can be solved by assuming some very old
plants "figured out" how to make the type of resin that is credited to more
modern flowering plants. "It is a sobering story for people who study amber,"
says David Grimaldi of the American Museum of Natural History who wrote a
commentary on the research for the October 2 Science magazine.
When scientists looked at compounds in the amber droplets, they expected
them to look like conifer compounds, but instead the molecules resembled
those in amber from flowering plants. This discovery suggests chemical
composition alone isn't enough to definitely pinpoint an amber's origin, and
fossilized plant parts accompanying the amber are the key to definite
identification. Unfortunately, no plant matter could be found near the
Carboniferous droplets, so even though the amber droplets are "definitely not
from a flowering plant," their origin remains unknown.
Picture of amber from Wikimedia Commons (Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5)
To read the entire article click on this link to SCIENCE NEWS
COMMENT: This article provides an excellent example of how the
presuppositions of evolutionary science cloud interpretations of new discoveries
that don't fit standard, accepted views of earth history.
The easiest way to solve the problem of a type of amber appearing way too
early according to the evolutionary time line is to change the evolutionary
timeline. However, such a sacred piece of Darwinian theory is difficult to rewrite,
so secular scientists have to come up with alternate explanations, no matter
whether there is any evidence for the alternate explanations or not.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that there is a major problem with
the accepted long ages upon which the theory of evolution depends. For
instance, the volcanic explosions at Mount St. Helens and Surtsey island which
occurred within the past half-century have both left suggestions of millions of
years (using accepted dating methods and observations) despite their rather
recent occurrences. The radioisotope dating techniques that provide the
millions of years used by evolutionists to date things rely on unproven
assumptions.
To be honest, Bible-based creationists assume things too, such as that the
Word of God is an accurate account of the history of our planet. We don't
dispute the fact that our claims to a large extent rely on faith. Still, according to
the Bible, flowering plants, conifers, and all other types of plant life came into
existence at the same time. Thus, we don't have to search for explanations as
to how amber droplets that owe their origin to flowering plants could exist "200
million years" before flowering plants made an appearance on earth. This
"mystery" is no mystery to us.
**************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
**************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Are fruits and vegetables less nutritious today than they used to be?
**************************************************************************************
mystery. This type of amber owes its existence to flowering plants, but the
droplets were discovered in a "320-million-year-old" coal deposit in Illinois.
Scientists believe flowering plants didn't "evolve" until 200 million years later,
hence the puzzle.
The age of the amber droplets put them in the period known as Carboniferous,
when swampy forests of ferns and early conifers are thought to have been
growing, scientists say. Ken Anderson of Southern Illinois U. said their age was
a surprise in itself, but his research team had guessed early conifers were the
source of the amber. Finding amber from conifers in a coal bed is surprising,
but more surprising was the discovery of a chemical signature in the amber that
has been linked only to flowering plants.
The researchers believe the mystery can be solved by assuming some very old
plants "figured out" how to make the type of resin that is credited to more
modern flowering plants. "It is a sobering story for people who study amber,"
says David Grimaldi of the American Museum of Natural History who wrote a
commentary on the research for the October 2 Science magazine.
When scientists looked at compounds in the amber droplets, they expected
them to look like conifer compounds, but instead the molecules resembled
those in amber from flowering plants. This discovery suggests chemical
composition alone isn't enough to definitely pinpoint an amber's origin, and
fossilized plant parts accompanying the amber are the key to definite
identification. Unfortunately, no plant matter could be found near the
Carboniferous droplets, so even though the amber droplets are "definitely not
from a flowering plant," their origin remains unknown.
Picture of amber from Wikimedia Commons (Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5)
To read the entire article click on this link to SCIENCE NEWS
COMMENT: This article provides an excellent example of how the
presuppositions of evolutionary science cloud interpretations of new discoveries
that don't fit standard, accepted views of earth history.
The easiest way to solve the problem of a type of amber appearing way too
early according to the evolutionary time line is to change the evolutionary
timeline. However, such a sacred piece of Darwinian theory is difficult to rewrite,
so secular scientists have to come up with alternate explanations, no matter
whether there is any evidence for the alternate explanations or not.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that there is a major problem with
the accepted long ages upon which the theory of evolution depends. For
instance, the volcanic explosions at Mount St. Helens and Surtsey island which
occurred within the past half-century have both left suggestions of millions of
years (using accepted dating methods and observations) despite their rather
recent occurrences. The radioisotope dating techniques that provide the
millions of years used by evolutionists to date things rely on unproven
assumptions.
To be honest, Bible-based creationists assume things too, such as that the
Word of God is an accurate account of the history of our planet. We don't
dispute the fact that our claims to a large extent rely on faith. Still, according to
the Bible, flowering plants, conifers, and all other types of plant life came into
existence at the same time. Thus, we don't have to search for explanations as
to how amber droplets that owe their origin to flowering plants could exist "200
million years" before flowering plants made an appearance on earth. This
"mystery" is no mystery to us.
**************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
**************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Are fruits and vegetables less nutritious today than they used to be?
**************************************************************************************
0 Comments
| LSI stands for the Lutheran Science Institute, an organization of WELS and ELS Lutherans interested in science and health issues with a special emphasis on the creation and evolution controversy. This blog's purpose is to search the Internet to find articles of interest to Christians. Views expressed are those of the author (Warren Krug) and are not necessarily those of the Lutheran Science Institute, Inc. |
This is probably true as growers
produce larger crops. Historical data
show a decline in some vitamins,
minerals, and protein. Also, studies
indicate the larger the crop, the lower
the mineral concentration
Source: Marilyn vos Savant in Parade
(September 27,
produce larger crops. Historical data
show a decline in some vitamins,
minerals, and protein. Also, studies
indicate the larger the crop, the lower
the mineral concentration
Source: Marilyn vos Savant in Parade
(September 27,