Seabed worm fossils still soft after 500 million years?
Siboglinid marine worms such as the beard worms shown here live on the sea floor at depths ranging anywhere from 100 metres to 10,000 metres (300–30,000 ft).
Numerous fossil remains ‘dated’ as being many millions of years old are hardly mineralized (i.e. where minerals take the place of the creature’s original tissue), if at all. For example, Tyrannosaurus rex bones containing red blood cells and soft ‘squishy’ tissue boggle the minds of those who claim that dinosaur remains are 65 million years old, at least.1 Such soft tissue finds utterly contradict the widely believed old age of the earth.2
And now, a new find exceeds all previous claims for persistence of the remains of dead creatures to the present day—that is, according to the mind-stretchingly bizarre pre-Cambrian ‘age’ assigned to these fossils. The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3
They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensis were still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization. In the researchers’ own words (from their Journal of Paleontology paper):
“The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.”3
“The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.”3
Accompanying electron microscope photographs showed these ‘perfect in habit’ fibres to be less than half a thousandth of a millimetre wide. Yet these delicate fibres are still soft after supposedly half a billion years!?
The researchers were even able to chemically tease the fibres apart for further examination, and concluded that the structure of the fossil worm tube casing is “consistent with the ß chitin tubes of siboglinid animals”.3 In other words, the same as seabed dwelling worms such as beard worms today (see photo above). Why has there been no evolution in all that (supposed) time?4
One obvious answer is, there hasn’t been ‘all that time’! Creatures were created only about 6,000 years ago to reproduce “according to their kinds”, not to ‘evolve’.
Preservation of the worms … and bacteria upon them!
How could there be such great preservation of these marine worm fossil remains, and also the bacteria that feed on them? Professor Moczydłowska had earlier reported to the Palaeontological Association in Copenhagen that she had identified clumps of nanobacteria on the flanks of S. cambriensis fossils found in Lithuania. They were similarly ‘dated’ at half a billion years old, and believed to be the smallest fossilised lifeforms ever discovered.5
Magnifying the nanobacteria 2,500 times with a scanning electron microscope revealed tiny filaments “flexible and deformed like macaroni”. Chemical analysis showed “they were neither modern contaminants nor mineral deposits.”5 Professor Moczydłowska offered the following scenario as to how these had come to be preserved:
“After the worm died, the nanobacteria started eating into it in oxygen-free water at the bottom of a marine basin. Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm. Nanobacteria activity ceased and they were rapidly fossilised.”5
Perhaps stirred up by a storm? But storms today don’t seem to ‘pack the punch’ required to explain the exquisite preservation seen in the ‘fossil record’. It seems Professor Moczydłowska and her evolutionary colleagues are unaware of (or have deliberately forgotten?—2 Peter 3:3–6) a colossal worldwide storm that would account for the abundance of preserved creatures found in sedimentary rock layers all around the world. It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will experience again (Genesis 9:11–17). And the Bible indicates that this was only around 4,500 years ago.
References and notes
- Catchpoole, D., Double-decade dinosaur disquiet, Creation 36(1):12–14, 2014; creation.com/dino-disquiet. Return to text.
- Many other evidences, too, indicate the supposed billions-of-years ages for the earth and the universe should be rejected: Batten, D., Age of the earth—101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe, creation.com/age, 4 June 2009. Return to text.
- Moczydłowska, M., Westall, F. and Foucher, F., Microstructure and biogeochemistry of the organically preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites, Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224–239, 2014. Return to text.
- Evolutionists must face up to living fossils—evolutionary stasis is not evidence of evolution! Batten, D., Evolutionists cannot dodge ‘living fossils’, Creation 33(4):42–43, 2011; creation.com/dodge. Return to text.
- Bacteria could help find ET, www.timeshighereducation.co.uk, 21 December 2001. Return to text.
(Also available in Russian.)
I was talking (this last Sunday) with a man who has done illustrated creation talks for years. He has not only spoken in our area, but has traveled widely giving presentations. He knows of no creation group in our area. He knows of no church here that places any emphasis on teaching about creation as it is plainly presented in Scripture. It appears that the Christians here don’t dare approach the subject because evolution and billions of years are simply accepted as “fact”. He has been in a Bible study group with a local dentist, and he tried to interact with the dentist about biblical creation. He gave him a book to read as well. The effort was useless. I approached a veterinarian some time back, and biblical creation and the obvious timeline were simply not literal in his mind. Non-scientific, not properly educated people were the only ones who could possibly believe anything other than evolution and an old earth. So, articles like this one at Creation.com are encouraging to me but seem to find traction with only a very few. I am told that the emphasis is to be on NT Christianity and avoidance of Creation, the Fall, and the Flood. Leave science to the scientists, those properly trained to deal with the issues. The few scientists who believe the Bible’s perspective are considered questionable thinkers. I just got Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, but I am frustrated.
I love what you guys are doing in preaching the Word of God and using it is as the foundation for scientific interpretation. It is amazing to see how the "world" shuns anything that points to a Creator no matter the evidence. Almost every article you write helps to strengthen my faith and confidence in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and just as important, taking the Word of God as it is written. Thank you all and may God continue to bless you and encourage you despite your opposition.