Polystrate fossils

A polystrate fossil is a fossil that spans multiple layers of the geological column and, at a casual glance, would seem to refute mainstream dating of rocks. The term seems to be an invention of creationists.

It is a great example of cherry-picking data. There are plenty of web sites that shout loudly about how polystrate fossils prove the Flood, and ignore all the evidence that argues the other way, from several different sciences such as geology (eg radiometric dating), physics (eg ancient starlight) and biology (eg the fossil record).

Based on a Quote-Mine

Polystrate fossils seem to have become a thing with Henry Morris' book, Scientific Creationism, published in 1974, though as far as I can tell the term appeared later. The relevant bit can be found here.

Morris quotes a book from 1964:

It is clear that trees in position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956 reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen Coal Measures), and presumably in all such cases there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. This sedimentation occurred, without doubt, in water that could not have been fast-flowing, since the trees were left in a standing position. It is possible that the land surface with its trees was inundated by flood water (possibly on numerous occasions) from adjacent waterways, the flood water bringing with it large amounts of sediment.

Or at least, he quotes the first half of that, the bit that supports his faith position. He omits the bit in blue that explains how it actually happened and suggests this was the result of several successive flood events. Henry Morris is well-known as the grand-father of quote mines!

It is interesting to note that the argument appears in a chapter called "Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism". Morris' entire argument here seems to be founded on the position that either everything happens gradually and uniformly, or the Flood is true. This is, of course, a false dichotomy. Mainstream science recognises and indeed embraces catastrophes as part of the history of the planet - the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs being perhaps the most famous.

Creationists Changing Their Tune

Note that Morris was not claiming they were polystrate. His argument was that they could not be produced by a gradual, uniform process - which is true - and then concluding a Global flood. It looks to me like Morris' argument got trashed, and someone decided to try to rescue the fossilised trees by claiming they were polystrate, which is a very different argument.

Creationists have decided in advance that these fossils are a problem for mainstream science, and then set about trying to decide why that is. I suspect the upside trees are a later development of their desperate argument.

Explained by Mid-nineteenth Century Science

A curious thing about polystrate fossils is that they had been explained back in the mid-nineteenth century. Sir John Dawson published Acadian Geology in 1855, and on page 149 says:

The manner in which the plants were preserved in their present state and position can be easily understood. Imagine a forest of trees and a tall brake of reed-like plants growing together on a swampy flat. The flat is inundated and overspread with sand to the depth of four feet. The plants are thus killed and their dead tops project for some time above the sand. At length they decay, leaving only a hollow cylinder of bark. Sand is now washed into the perpendicular pipes produced by the decay of the trunks and stems, forming casts of them. The whole is now buried up by succeeding deposits and becomes hardened into stone, so so remains until tilted up, elevated above the water level, and exposed by the action of the tides and waves.

He was more interested in explaining why fossils of animals were so often found in the tree trunks (and technically they are lycopsids rather than trees). Here is an illustration from Dawson's book.

Note the layer of coal (number 5)) that the tree sits on. this is the remains of the swamp of that time, compressed by the sediment from the flood. Roots from the trunk extend through this into lower stata. Note also the higher band of coal, from a later flood event.

As this article makes clear (and indeed the article Morris cited), the Joggins formation shows signs of multiple flood events. That is to say, the swamp grew, was flooded and subsequently buried to a significant depth, and then a new swamp, with new trees grew on top of that - and that happened several times. Note that trees from higher layers extended their roots into the lower layers, so we know the trees grew at the exact site they fossilised. That is to say, trees in one layer grew on top of trees from an earlier layer. There is no way they could have been transported by a turbulent flood.

Creationist View

How does Flood geology explain those numerous distinct layers? This web site has an informative image, with the caption "Trees sinking into sediment forming polystrate fossils." But that fails to explain two important features of the fossils: the root system is in tact and there are animal fossils at the bottom of the trunk.

From Answers in Genesis.

These tree trunks actually rise vertically through many different layers and are known as polystrate fossils. These trunks are separated from their roots and filled with different sediments and even fossil amphibians. Uniformitarian geologists claim that these trees grew in swamps and were slowly covered by muddy sediment as the swamps were flooded. New trees would then grow, so a new peat layer would form and the cycle would repeat.
It is highly unlikely that the above story is true. The presence of roots inside the trunks and scattered through the surrounding soil, as well as the absence of roots penetrating lower layers, discredit the idea that the trees grew in place. Well-preserved leaf fossils would not be present in the swampy conditions, and some of the trees are at an angle or upside down. The sandstones are cross bedded and many of the root fragments are oriented in a similar direction, indicating fast moving water.

There is a problem here that we have no good images to check the claims of either side. Exactly where are the roots? Inside the trunk as the creationists claim or extending down through earlier strata as geologists claim? I cannot say for certain either way. However, the next paragraph is telling:

All of these evidences are better explained as the result of a catastrophic Flood. Though all of the details are not fully worked out, the Flood model offers a much more coherent explanation of the evidence found at this location and many others.

They claim the flood explains it... but cannot give that explanation because they do not haver the details! The reality is that they have a faith position and they are still trying to fit the evidence to that. These fossils are not explained by creationism, they just want them to be.

You might also like to look at this web page. The quality of the research is, perhaps, illustrated by the fact that reference 6 in an internet forum post! Slightly off-topic, they say:

"The layers are not ‘soil horizons’, but more likely represent the bands of sediment that we naturally see as a result of mechanical sorting in a flood scenario."

How does that fit with the numerous bands of coal through the Joggins Formation? Geologists have identified 85 distinct coal layers. What sort of "mechanical sorting in a flood scenario" could do that? Mechanical sorting might be expected to layer materials based on density or particle size, but it would necessarily sort all like substances into a single layer. Mechanical sorting in a flood scenario can only ever give a single layer of coal.

Another issue is the lack of flowering plants in these fossils. Why is that? Mainstream science says that is because they had not evolved at that time. The creationist narrative is debris washed from elsewhere, so we would expect to see a mess of everything buried together.

For completeness, here is the ICR version of the story.

Upside Down Trees

Some creationist sites claim there are upside down polystrate trees. This is a big deal. If creationists are right, the trees were carried to this site, and buried in sediment, and we would expect them to be aligned in various orientations. They may well tend to be buried upright, but we would expect to see plenty of examples of them in other orientations. The mainstream view is quite different - that they grew in place. Therefore every tree should be upright - or more specifically perpendicular to the layers, as layers can be subsequently tilted.

An upside down tree in normally orientated strata would be a huge problem for the mainstream view. Where are these upside down trees?

The best resource of this I can find is here, and I have to hold my hand up and say I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on geology to be able to comment, besides saying that if this is right, then I would expect to hear much more about it from both sides of the debate.

Mainstream Geology From The Start

As this article points out, the Joggins Formation was very much the inspiration behind the founders of modern geology.

In many ways, Joggins was to Lyell what the Galapagos Islands were to Darwin (Calder 2003). Lyell's research at Joggins, following the earlier success of "Principles of Geology" (Lyell 1830-1833), was pivotal in establishing the stratigraphic record as an archive of Earth's evolving landscape. Joggins is mentioned several times in Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" (1859).

Polystrate fossils, far from being a problem geology cannot explain, are part of the evidence that kicked off geology. And geologists have been saying the same thing about them for nearly two hundred years, which stands in stark contrast to creationists....

Search This Blog

On Creationism