I think YECs may find this puzzling

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

I think YECs may find this puzzling

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:32 am

'Sedimentary DNA from a submerged site reveals wheat in the British Isles 8000 years ago.'
"We analyzed a core obtained from sealed sediments, combining evidence from microgeomorphology and microfossils with sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) analyses to reconstruct floral and faunal changes during the occupation of this site, before it was submerged. In agreement with palynological analyses, the sedaDNA sequences suggest a mixed habitat of oak forest and herbaceous plants. However, they also provide evidence of wheat 2000 years earlier than mainland Britain and 400 years earlier than proximate European sites."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31648990 (news report)

Bouldnor Cliff - more a peat bog than a cliff apparently - is under 11 metres of water ie it would already have been flooded when Noah's Flood is said to have struck the planet and - though YECs would probably insist otherwise - since there has been no 'ice age' glaciation leading to lower sea levels in the last 4,000-5,000 years, it is likely to have remained underwater ever since the remains of wheat and so forth ended up in the strata. The paleosol in question having previously been dated to around 8,000 years old (by radiocarbon dating of pollen I gather). (And the Isle of Wight will have remained isolated from mainland Britain during the whole of the last 4,000-5,000 years as well.)

The wheat would have been grown slightly later than the palaeosol formed of course. But I think it would be difficult for a YEC to make a convincing case that this einkorn wheat cannot be more than 4,500 years old and ended up in this location during a 'post-flood rapid ice age' around 4,000 years ago. The real (last) ice age having ended more than 10,000 years ago - ending a lengthy period during which England was not separated from mainland Europe by the sea.

I'm slightly puzzled too. Are they assuming the wheat is only slightly younger than the paleosol ie less than 100 years younger. Because the headline in 'Science' suggests the wheat was already grown and in the Solent area 8,000 years ago, whereas the Abstract gives 8,000 years old as the date of the paleosol within which the remains were found (though a core was drilled so I suppose the wheat was below the surface of the peat bog; peat bogs can only form when the location is not under the sea incidentally).
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests