‘Remarkable’ mammal hairs in amber?
by Shaun Doyle
Published: 22 June 2010(GMT+10)
Image by R. Vullo, news.bbc.co.uk
Figure 1. The microscopic details of this hair are identical to
modern mammal hair—but this is supposed to be from the Cretaceous, 100 million
years ago, supposedly way back in the ‘age of dinosaurs’.
Amber, which is fossilised tree resin, is a fascinating substance (See
Amber needed water (and lots of it)). It has preserved stunning specimens
of many different types of biological structures and organisms, from bacteria1 to insects,2 and even marine life.3
Many of these organisms are said to have been preserved for over 100 million years.
The latest amber-encased fossil find that has made headlines is that of some strands
of mammalian hair, which have supposedly been preserved in almost pristine condition
for 100 million years (figure 1).4
They were found in the Font-de-Benon quarry at Archingeay-Les Nouillers in Charente-Maritime,
southwest France.5 It has
been making headlines because it apparently shows that mammal hairs have remained
untouched by evolution for the last 100 million years. So what should we make of
this find?
The exceptional 3D preservation of the hair enabled the researchers to compare the
hairs to living mammals to see if there was any difference. The researchers found
that the hairs were ‘remarkably similar’ to modern mammal hair. For
the evolutionist, “This discovery implies that the morphology of hair cuticula
may have remained unchanged throughout most of mammalian evolution.”4
Mammals in the ‘age of the dinosaurs’
However, from a biblical perspective, mammals, even in the so-called ‘age
of the dinosaurs’, would not be radically different to mammals today.
The popular impression among people today is that mammals in the dinosaur era, if
they existed at all, were only small, reptile-like creatures and only diversified
after the dinosaurs died out. However, from a biblical perspective, mammals, even
in the so-called ‘age of the dinosaurs’, would not be radically different
to mammals today. Of course, some mammal kinds may have died out, and modern-day
mammals are the genetically impoverished descendants of the original kind (which
is why we would not expect a domestic cat in ‘dinosaur rock’, for instance).
But a creationist would anticipate that any hair or fur, one of the chief distinguishing
characteristics between mammals and reptiles, would be identical to that of mammals
today, and this is exactly what this find shows. By way of aside, a general rule
of thumb for the fossil record, which is also the case with these mammal hairs,
is that when one finds the same type of creature in a fossil as the living form,
then the more detail that is preserved in the fossil, the more striking will be
the similarity of the fossils to living creatures.
However, it’s more than just the detail of this particular fossil that points
in this direction. The entire fossil record bears witness to this. Mammal fossils
with ever increasing diversity and specialization have been found over the last
15 years even back into the Jurassic.6
And most orders of mammals were present well before the dinosaurs supposedly went
extinct, while there was little change when the dinosaurs supposedly went extinct.7 After commenting on a number
of recent mammal fossil finds, Oard comments:
“Evolutionists would have expected that any mammals found that were this ‘old’
to be generalized and able to evolve in many different directions with time. However,
all these mammals are surprisingly (to the evolutionists) specialized and diverse—clear
back in the Middle Jurassic!”8
Even on evolutionary assumptions, it’s now plain that mammals lived in great
diversity and abundance with dinosaurs. From a biblical perspective, we would expect
mammals and dinosaurs to be buried together, at least in part because they are both
land-dwelling animals. Since the Flood caused a lot of mixing, however, this is
not a hard and fast rule, but a general guide that still allows for a lot of randomization
of fossil placement:
“Dinosaurs and trilobites lived in different environments, and we would expect
a vertical order in the Flood [i.e. land animals (dinosaurs) above marine animals
(trilobites)]. However, I would be more cautious in developing a vertical order
with organisms from the same or similar environments”.9
Mammal hair non-evolution
These mammal hairs also present a problem for evolution: nothing has changed (figure
1). And they are only the tip of the iceberg. The big problem for evolution is that
the general rule of the fossil record is that things stay the same (see
Fossils questions and
answers). Darwin recognized this in his own day, but relied on people
finding the intermediate fossils after him:
“We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with
accuracy.”10
But this problem has not been solved in 150 years of searching since Darwin wrote
those words. The fossil record is certainly incomplete for evolutionists, but if
people have only found a few disputable transitional fossils in 150 years, with
tens of thousands of tons of fossils found, then the problem is not with the fossils,
it’s with the prediction and the idea that gave birth to it: evolution.
But if it can explain everything in the fossil record, that means it is incapable
of predicting anything. And that is why evolution is an utterly meaningless concept
for explaining patterns in the fossil record.
Despite the failure of Darwin’s original prediction, researchers still readily
use evolution to explain patterns in the fossil record. But now evolution, which
by definition means change, can also accommodate non-change in the fossil
record (See Evolutionary stasis).
Evolution has become a rather neat way to explain the fossil record: it can now
account for every sort of change you can think of, and even no change at all! Wow!
But if it can explain everything in the fossil record, that means it is incapable
of predicting anything. And that is why evolution is an utterly meaningless concept
for explaining patterns in the fossil record (See
The slow rise of dinosaurs). As ReMine quipped: “Evolutionary
theory predicts nothing, not even a nested hierarchy. Rather, the theory adapts
to data like a fog adapts to landscape.”11
However, stasis in the fossil record is not a problem for the biblical worldview.
On the contrary, this is what it would expect, i.e. if we observed in the
fossil record what Darwin predicted (countless chains of ‘links’, with
untold thousands of indisputable transitional fossils) then the Bible’s explanation
would be seriously undermined, if not falsified completely.
The Bible is remarkable
The creationist may well ask: how can this find then be ‘remarkable’?
It further confirms what we would expect from the fossil record as a general rule:
fully formed and recognizable structures that don’t change. They are also
one more piece of evidence that we have on hand that confirms that the Bible gives
us the perfect starting place for understanding the fossil record. And that is certainly
worth a remark, i.e. ‘remarkable’.
Related articles
Further reading
References and notes
- Greenblatt, C.L., et al., Diversity of microorganisms
isolated from amber, Microbial Ecology 38:58–68,
1999. Return to text.
- Catchpoole, D.,
Fossil ant found alive! Creation 28(4):56, 2006. Return to text.
- 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.
- Vullo, R., Girard, V., Azar, D. and Néraudeau, D.,
Mammalian hairs in Early Cretaceous amber, Naturwissenschaften DOI: 10.1007/s00114-010-0677-8,
14 May 2010. Return to text.
- Walker, M.,
Prehistoric mammal hair found in Cretaceous amber, BBC News, 14 June
2010. Return to text.
- Oard, M.J.,
Jurassic mammals—more surprisingly diverse, J. Creation 21(2)10 11,
2007. Return to text.
- Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Cardillo, M., Jones, K.E., MacPhee,
R.D.E., Beck, R.M.D., Grenyer, R., Price, S.A., Vos, R.A., Gittleman, J.L. and Purvis,
A., The delayed rise of present-day mammals, Nature 446:507–511,
2007; see also Oard, M.J., Dinosaur
demise did not jump start mammal evolution, J. Creation 22(1):11 12,
2008. Return to text.
- Oard, ref. 6, p. 11. Return to text.
- Oard, M.J. The Geological Column is a general Flood order
with many exceptions; in: Reed, J.K. and Oard, M.J., The Geologic Column: Perspectives
within Diluvial Geology, Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, p.
102, 2006. Return to text.
- Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species, 1st
ed., 1859; Ch. 9:
On the imperfection of the geological record; See also Batten, D.,
Would Darwin be a Darwinist today? Creation 31(4):48–51,
2009. Return to text.
- ReMine, W., The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message
Theory, St Paul Science, St Paul, MN, p.350, 1993. Return
to text.
| You are probably accessing this site because you had questions—just like everyone else. That’s why CMI exists. You can keep the free answers on this site coming.  | | |
|
