![[img]](/images/sml_cmi_logo.png){kind=logo}
Golden-oldie (R)
Readers’ comments
The article refers to "examples such as the Golden Raintree"—in other words, this is but one of the many 'living fossils' that evolutionary scientists speak of using terms such as 'mystery', 'enigma', 'conundrum', 'puzzle', 'enigmatic', etc. (If you don't believe me, search the scientific literature for those terms yourself, and you'll soon see what I mean.)
The golden raintree: fifty million years and still the same. The coelacanth? Sixty-five million years absent from the 'fossil record', yet here it is living with us today, alive and well. I remember the headlines when the Wollemi pine was found: Over one hundred million years since the last one was fossilised, yet here it is growing happily in a canyon eroded since that time (i.e. ostensibly 60 million years ago). No wonder it was described as 'a scientific mystery'. Why absent from the 'fossil record' for so long?
The problem is that the 'fossil record' is not a historical record of a millions-and-billions-of-years evolutionary and extinction sequence. It's not the 'fossil record' that tells us that Romans grew grapes in northern England; rather, historical eyewitness accounts tell us that. Just as they tell us (in Genesis 6-9) there was a global Flood about 4,500 years ago—little wonder that we have such a legacy of sedimentary rock with embedded fossils today. No mystery.
Incidentally, when the Wollemi pine was found to be alive, in subsequent months there was a frantic re-assessment of the 'dating' of its fossils, with many commentators revising their 'age' to be much more recent. Not the first time that evolutionists revise 'dates' that don't suit them—see The pigs took it all!
Marc K., Australia, 13 September 2012
Re the growing of grapes in England, grapes have never stopped being planted there (e.g. Kent and some ares around London) but the widespread planting has. In the last few years, however, English wine makers are making a large comeback in order to challenge some of the French market (good luck chaps - ha!) and thus are planting "large" areas of southern and middle(?) England.
Romans drank wine so when they conquered England 2000 years ago there were no local bottle shops and so, due to the tyranny of distance, they made their own. In modern times, it's easier for the English to import while growing, according to their traditions, hops and barley for their far superior beer (compared to the French).
Josef L., United States, 13 September 2012
I think Alex misses the point about living fossils. The point is that if a fossil leaf is believed to be 50 million years old and is virtually identical to its modern counterpart, then that suggests that the earth hasn't changed much in 50 million years. And earth is such a dynamic planet, that I find it REALLY hard to believe that the earth wouldn't have changed drastically over 50 million years. 4500 years, no problem, but 50 million? Forget it.
Alex F., United Kingdom, 12 September 2012
What mystery? A plant, once widespread, is now limited to Asia? Even in historical times we have seen fluctuations in the distribution of plants as climate changed. (For example the Romans grew grapes extensively in Northern England; nowadays grapes are only really successful in Central and Southern Europe). I don't see why this fossil presents any problem to conventional geology.