Re: Stasis in the fossil record.
Bill Payne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:47:30 -0600
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:57:39 -0600 Glenn Morton wrote:
> At 05:53 PM 11/19/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
> >The mid-Cretaceous entrance of abundant angiosperms is an interesting
> >challenge to both the creation/flood and the evolution/long ages scenarios.
> Why is this a problem for the evolution scenario? We just say that the
> angiosperms evolved. You have to explain not only why angiosperms don't
> appear as fossils in the flood deposited sediments but also why none of the
> unique, angiosperm chemicals appear in any rock until the angiosperm fossils
> appear. There is a chemical called Oleanane which is only produced by
> angiosperms. It appears in oils that are sourced from late Cretaceous rocks
> one. Older oils have no oleanane! There is no oleanane in Cambrian-Lower
> Cretaceous oil. If there were angiosperms in the world prior to the flood,
> why did the molecules of angiosperms not end up being buried earlier? Even
> today one can find oleanane in the organic matter flowing into the seas via
> the rivers. Since presumably there were preflood rivers, why no oleanane?
I can envision three possible explanations:
1) The angiosperms evolved slowly over some period of time, as Glenn
says that the evolutionists believe,
2) The angiosperms were created by divine fiat in the late Cretaceous,
as I think Burgy indicated he prefers (Progressive Creation), or
3) The angiosperms were created by God during the third day of
creation (the YEC view, and the one I personally feel most comfortable
I would say view 2) is most concordant with the data as Glenn described
it. If 1) is true, then there should be evidence of transitional forms
between angiosperms and whatever they evolved from. Do we see
transitional fossils leading up to angiosperms? If not, how is this
abrupt appearance explained within the evolution scenario?