RE: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham, Wollemi pine)

"Rather than going extinct, though, Macphail suggests that the trees
"simply became so rare that they were easily overlooked.""

This statement conflicts with my understanding; am I wrong? The
attitude of this statement seems to imply that the fossil record is
rather complete, and so it is kind of amazing that such things are
"overlooked." My understanding is that the fossil record is far from
comprehensive and complete. Am I wrong? For me, there's no surprise at
all that things are missing in the fossil record... I'd say "what did
you expect, that the fossil record was somehow complete or even near
complete?"

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:59 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham, Wollemi pine)

The article I referenced earlier from Science News also had a section on
the Wollemi pine. Here it is:

"One of the world's rarest trees, the Wollemi pine, inhabits the
Australian version of a secure, undisclosed location. This cone-bearing
evergreen is not a true pine. Only a few clumps of the tree seem to
remain, and they live in an isolated, rugged area inside Wollemi
National Park, about 200 kilometers northwest of Sydney. The few
scientists and park rangers who know the trees' whereabouts don't reveal
their exact locale, says Susan J. Murch, a botanist at the University of
British Columbia in Kelowna.

The first members of Araucariaceae, the plant group to which the Wollemi
pine belongs, evolved about 200 million years ago, says Murch. The most
recent fossil of a close Wollemi pine relative that includes leaves or
stems comes from rocks about 93 million years old, she notes. In
September 1994, however, David Noble, a botanically knowledgeable park
ranger, trekked into a remote, 600-meter-deep gorge and came across
trees that he realized were unusual. The trees, dubbed Wollemi pines,
were later identified as surviving relatives of a species long presumed
extinct-in other words, a Lazarus taxon.

Wollemi pines don't compete well against other tree species and are
difficult to grow under modern climatic conditions, says Murch. She
describes the few Wollemi pines living in the wild as "a persistent
population" that has grown not from seeds but from runners that sprang
from older trees and stumps. The largest known specimen could be around
800 years old. Although the mature trees produce seeds, for some reason
very few of those seeds sprout.

The pollen of modern-day Wollemi pines provides clues to the trees'
ancient distribution, says Macphail. Until about 2 million years ago,
similar pollen was common in sediments throughout Australia, New
Zealand, and some parts of Antarctica, indicating that the trees'
ancient relatives grew widely even though no remains of their leaves or
wood had been preserved more recently than 93 million years ago. Then,
around the time that Earth's climate began to include periodic ice ages,
the species' pollen vanished from the fossil record.

Rather than going extinct, though, Macphail suggests that the trees
"simply became so rare that they were easily overlooked." In recent
times, the few living Wollemi pines have been protected by their
isolation and by the moist conditions in the deep gorge to which they
cling. "There's the scant element of chance that [these trees] were
found at all," says Macphail. "If, for example, they had been destroyed
by wildfires 30 years ago, we'd have never known they were there."

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>

        To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

        Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:55 PM

        Subject: RE: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham, Wollemi pine)

        Bernie Dehler wrote:

> He also said there was some kind of ancient bush that was
found living...

> ancient like dinosaur, and it is like finding a living
dinosaur. I need to

> research that one. I can't find the type of bush online right
now... Maybe I

> can't find it online now because it was discredited? The video
was a few

> years old.

        Dr. David Campbell wrote:

        Might be misrepresenting the Wollemi pine. Fossils were known
from

        the Cretaceous, same age as younger dinosaurs. Living ones
recently

        discovered in a remote spot in Australia. Study of the living
ones

        shows that a distinctive fossil pollen type known from much of
the

        Cenozoic (after dinosaurs to the present) also goes with them,
so the

        gap between the fossil record and the living ones is much
smaller.

        Again, there's nothing about the survival of a species that
poses a

        problem for old earth views.

        Hi David,

        You are right. Here's the article:
        "Sensational Australian tree ... like 'finding a live dinosaur'"
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/tree.asp

        Excerpt:
        Professor Carrick Chambers, Director of the Royal Botanic
Gardens in Sydney, has said of the sensational discovery of a type of
tree in Australia's Blue Mountains (200 kilometres west of Sydney, in
Wollemi National Park) that it was like finding a 'live dinosaur'. This
is because the tree, nicknamed the Wollemi pine, is known from fossils
classed as so-called Jurassic age around 150 million years ago, but not
from fossils in rocks of later periods.

        More info:
        http://www.wollemipine.com/news/Tree_Chic.php

        
        It is an interesting data-point to see what the best evidence
each camp is putting forth to bolster their case.

        ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 30 20:12:44 2007