Anomalously Occurring Fossils

by | Feb 23, 2022 | Age of the Earth, Evolution, Geology and the Flood

Evaluation of examples reported by: John Woodmorappe

http://creationwiki.org/Anomalously_Occurring_Fossils?fbclid=IwAR1dTuWLIavj6WItSUOC4Xyd_hI3knDjhvpDuzPcvYa_qel8Ed3rdVpCNq8

In this interesting database, John Woodmorappe, MS Geology, BA Biology, and prominent young Earth Creationist (YEC) author, tabulates 231 cases that he considers published instances of “anomalously occurring fossils”.  I did not examine all of the entries but did look at a significant set to try to understand what kind of evidence he provides. It is worth noting, that I am not a paleontologist and do have limitations in this regard, but I have used paleontological data around the world numerous times.  A list of over 200 examples would likely seem more impressive to someone unfamiliar with the uncertainties and realities that accompany real paleontological data. First, it is important to be clear what type of fossil occurrences are significant to evaluating the recognized geologic column and are included here.  The only fossil occurrences of interest are where fossils are found in strata older or younger than one would expect based on the accepted model. Strata themselves can be structurally displaced by several mechanisms. Fossils included in them would still be in the stratigraphic position expected and irrelevant for evaluating the order of fossils. Woodmorappe also recognizes this distinction. He has tried to include only entries that are potentially relevant.

Here are some observations:

  • 202 of the entries have older fossils in younger rock (87%). The possibility must be considered that these are cases where an older sediment was eroded away and the fossils that it contained were incorporated into the younger sediment. This is known as reworking.  The author notes that while some entries can involve forms of contamination, he says “Most other entries are “reworking” of fossils into younger-age beds. A few of the entries in this table are claimed by the cited authors to be possible stratigraphic-range extensions rather than necessarily “reworking”. ”
  • 29 entries report younger fossils in older rock (13%). These are potentially more significant, because reworking cannot be invoked to explain them.
  • Most of the entries are microfossils (95%). That doesn’t make them insignificant, but visions of lots of large obvious fossils misplaced are not supported here.
  • Microfossils are also very easy to erode and preserve in younger sediments. The eroded microfossils can be very well preserved and hard to distinguish from in-place fauna. This is seen in many cases where reworking can be documented today.

 

First 100 entries

I used Google to try to find the articles that are referenced. I did look for all of the first 100 entries.  Here are some comments on this set: 

  • I did not find enough about many to evaluate at all. (61%). Unfortunately, I don’t have the resources now that I did at ExxonMobil.
    • Many were just not found – 34
    • Many unavailable or not in English – 24 Some were available for purchase, but I didn’t go that route.
    • No reference info given – 3
  • 21 are characterized as having younger fossils in older rock
  • 4 are macrofossils

Possible explanations:

  • Those where I found information available for do seem not to significant issues to me based on a quick read of the available material.
    • Reworking documented – 21
    • Anomaly not obvious to me – 7 (Maybe a real paleontologist would be more concerned, but the documents referenced did not show significant misplacement to me.)
    • Problem resolved – 2
    • Cuttings or reworked – 5 (Cuttings are pieces of ground up rock collected from wells while they were drilled. It is usually impossible to be sure precisely where the cuttings originated.)
    • Identification questionable – 2
    • Contamination – 1 (A clear reason to expect this was documented.)
    • Age revised – 1 (The sediment was wrongly dated at first, based on reworked older fossils.)
    • Highly deformed – 1 (Highly deformed sediments adjacent to salt domes can incorporate sediment from other sections and make it difficult to position where the fauna originated.)

 

Younger fossils reported in older rocks

I next went ahead and looked at the remaining examples where the interpretation is that younger fossils are found in older rocks.  Considering all 29 of the instances where this is reported, here are observations:

  • Not enough information to evaluate found – 21 (72%)
    • Reference not found – 10
    • Unavailable or not in English – 10
    • No reference info given – 1
  • Others do not seem to very difficult to explain:
    • Reworking documented – 1 (making age determination based on younger)
    • Anomaly not obvious to me – 2
    • Contamination – 1 (as above)
    • Age revised – 1 (as above)
    • Highly deformed – 1 (as above)
    • Located right on the boundary – 1 (boundary questionable)

 

Macrofossils

I then went ahead and looked at the remaining examples involving macrofossils.  Comments on these 11 are as follows:

  • Not enough information to evaluate found – 5 (45%)
    • Reference not found – 4
    • Unavailable or not in English – 1
  • Explanations for some are not hard to find:
    • Reworking probable – 4
    • Age revised – 1

  – Younger in older – 2; one has the age revised above and the other reference wasn’t found

  • One entry is potentially interesting, though I just have access to abstract and first page.
    • Article is “A problem in Pennsylvanian-Permian Palynology of Yukon Territory” by M.S. Barss in Geoscience and Man, Oct 1, 1972
    • Although Woodmorappe lists this as having brachiopods (macroscopic shells) out of position, the paper portion that I have does not see this problem.
    • It looks like there is a set of strata beneath the clearly Permian rocks and above the clearly Pennsylvanian rock that are uncertain in age.
    • The paper “attempts to resolve this”, but I don’t have that part of the paper.

 

Discussion

Summing up this effort, the references don’t satisfy me that there are anomalous points on this list that would stand up to scrutiny. Most seem to have obvious reasons for the data reported.  For instance, in some cases the source of the reworked fauna is clearly identified. It is quite possible that some of the age ranges determined for a few of the fossils should be extended, but that does not seem to be the case for many. What would that mean? When we say that fossils a particular fossil ranged perhaps from the Eocene Epoch to the Oligocene Epoch, we are saying that this particular fossil has never been found in older or younger strata. If we were to find clear evidence of it in slightly older strata, such as the Paleocene Epoch, then the paleontological community would extend the range so as to include the older era. It would not be case of an out-of-order fossil, but just the recognition that the fossil appeared a bit earlier than previously recognized.

The fossil record just is not what flood geology would predict. The overall success of forms has proven to be a very effective way to determine the relative age of sedimentary rocks the world over. That does not mean that older fossils cannot be reworked into younger beds.  That does not mean that in structurally complex areas, rocks cannot be deformed such that older rocks occur above younger rocks and the fossils reflect that. A major characteristic of the rock record that flood geology must account for is the order of the fossils in the geologic record.  Joachim Scheven (b. 1932), a German biologist and YEC author, describes the fossil record as “the unassailable palaeontological order which a Biblical earth history does not question at all” (Scheven, 1990).

If the flood accounts for most of the stratigraphic record, then all of the fossil species were alive at the same time at the start of the flood. Why would they be stratigraphically laid down in the same order around the world? Why would the fossils found in the stratigraphically youngest rocks be mixed in many locations with those from the rocks laid down first? Think about those known as sessile, those that grow anchored in one place, like coral. Why were these not found in the earliest flood strata as interpreted? One would expect the “anomalously occurring” list to include coral from the start, as well as vertebrate fossils throughout. That is just not what is found. I suspect that Dr. Woodmorappe would have gladly include some of these, if they were reported anywhere.  It is unfortunate that I don’t have access to all of the reports, but what I do have seems pretty telling.  

 

You can find more discussion of the fossil record as a challenge to flood geology here: https://jesusinhistoryandscience.com/?p=2452

 

 

Scheven, J. 1990. “The Geological Record of Biblical Earth History.” Origins, Journal of the Creation Research Society pp. 8–13.