>I have hopped on to asa at Glenn's suggestion. Since I have probably done
>more work on Hakatai palynology than anyone (although I don't brag about
>it), I am interested in the discussion of this issue. But since I have
>just come aboard, I don't know where the discussion has been. If anyone is
>interested in ressurecting the discussion, I will attempt to add what I know.
>Art
>http://chadwicka.swau.edu
Hi Art,
Allen Roy suggested that everyone read a report at
http://www.rae.org/pollen.html
which discusses the pollen. I read it and found it not to be relevant to
the issues that I thought applied to the pollen. Depending upon a freind who
is a palynologist, He suggested the following: [ yes Art I have a few of
friends ;-) ]
>
>
How can one differentiate between modern and ancient pollen? My
palynologist friend sets out 3 criteria for determining the contemporaneity
of the pollen with the rock:
1 The first criteria is color. As organic matter ages, it becomes darker.
This is especially true as the rock is buried and the temperature rises. If
the pollen is clear or very light yellow then they are modern introduced
forms. Remember that the Hakatai shale has been buried by more than 7,000
feet before the erosion began removing the sediment. At such a depth of
burial the temperature would be approximately 190 deg F and the organic
matter would turn brown.
2. One must demonstrate that the Hakatai shale is not so thermally mature
(cooked) that nothing organic could have survived. With all the volcanism,
this rock is cooked. I looked up in the Lexicon of Geologic names of the
United States, and found that the Hakatai contains diabase volcanic sills.
This means that the lava intruded into the Hakatai.
3. The pollen grains should be flattened. My friend says that the pollen
grains are compressed when buried in sedimentary rocks. This is especially
true if the burial is as deep as the Hakatai was buried.
I have not seen anyone discuss these issues in the Creationist literature.
Allen has not chosen to discuss the pollen issue much since. He has
suggested that you destroyed the pollen by using HF and that is why you
didn't find any. I pointed out that one of the pollen grains that Howe et al
found had been treated with HF. Since then allen has been suggesting
contacting the original authors about any questions. You are an original
author in this field. Let me ask you if you saw any of burdick's pollen
examples. What was the color? Were they flattened. should they have been
flattened? Did HF destroy your pollen. BTW I pointed Allen to an admission
by a young earth creationist that your work was the most careful in guarding
against contamination.
Care to comment?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm