Also Available in:

Pollen problem



Researchers have reported finding several types of pollen from flowering plants in ‘dinosaur rock’ (Middle Triassic).1 On the evolutionary timeline this puts the origin of flowering plants ‘100 million years earlier’ than previously accepted.

Although such extensions in fossil ranges happen quite often,2 this one negates a long-held dogma of the evolutionary storyline. That is because these fossils would mean that flowering plants were present even at the beginning of the supposed dinosaur era.

Consequently the dioramas in museums, and children’s books on dinosaurs, ought to show flowering plants living at the same time as dinosaurs. To date, however, you would be hard-pressed to find any such plants illustrated, reinforcing the false idea that dinosaurs lived in an entirely different ‘other world’.

The Bible tells us that the creation of plants (including flowering plants) on Day 3 of Creation Week actually predated the creation of dinosaurs on Day 6. And the rock strata with fossils do not represent the order of appearance and extinction over billions of years as the evolutionary paradigm would claim, but instead reflect the order of burial during and since the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6–9; cf. Luke 17:26–27), only about 4,500 years ago.

No wonder that one finds pollen all the way down in Precambrian strata (supposedly more than a billion years before dinosaurs!).3 Pollen, and many other fossils dramatically ‘out of place’ in relation to evolution’s supposed ‘timeline’, present a major problem to defenders of Darwin’s ideas.

References and notes

  1. Hochuli, P. and Feist-Burkhardt, S., Angiosperm-like pollen and Afropollis from the Middle Triassic (Anisian) of the Germanic Basin (Northern Switzerland), Frontiers in Plant Science, 1 October 2013 | doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00344. Return to text.
  2. Oard, M.J., Further expansion of evolutionary fossil time ranges, J. Creation 24(3):5–7, 2010; Return to text.
  3. Stainforth, R., Occurrence of pollen and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature 210(5033):292–294, 1966. However, evolutionists have steadfastly refused to allow that chronological extension to the ‘fossil range’. For an analysis of the controversy, see Silvestru, E., and Wieland, C., Pollen paradox: Evolutionists have ‘allergic’ reaction to Precambrian pollen—South American fossils more than a billion evolutionary years ‘out of date’, Creation 33(3):16–17, 2011; Return to text.

Reader’s comments

Mark V.
Pollen produced by flowers is usually contained within the flower. Conifers, which are non-flowering, also produce a great deal of pollen which is carried over great distances by the wind. Various grasses also produce pollen which is also carried by the wind. So the presence of pollen does not necessarily mean the presence of flowers.
Don Batten
You can't have pollen in rocks 'dated' at many millions of years before plants are supposed to have appeared. The plants had to have been there 'then' to produce the pollen.
Andrew M.
I wonder how long the theory of evolution would have survived if the electron microscope had existed when Darwin published.
Jack L.
I've seen this pattern before. Evolutionists are in constant retreat, things are always happening "earlier".

Eventually they will arrive at the truth. It was this way in the beginning because it was created.

Article comments are only available for 14 days from publication.