Very likely the most interesting aspect of origins as a study is the origins of our own species. Anthropologists have searched tirelessly for the missing link between humans and apes. Even the great American inspiration for Indiana Jones, Roy Chapman Andrews, was drawn to Mongolia to search for mankind's ancestor. And some of the most self-centered, deceitful acts in all of paleontology were over a few measly scraps of bone thought to be human ancestors.
I don't think there is any gray area between humanity and ape. From Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, Homo is distinctly human. And from Australopithecus to Gorilla, apes are distinctly ape. Certainly some apes possess characteristics more characteristic of humans and vice versa but, all together, they are distinct. I don't even think they have a common ancestor, evolutionarily speaking. Most of the scraps currently believed to be intermediate between the two are to fragmentary to say for certain exactly what they are, so, after years of time wasted on paleoanthropology, I don't think they will ever find a fossil link.
And I don't think there is enough time in earth's history for us to share a common ancestor with apes. While conventional scientists presume an Earth of millions of years in age, I presume a much shorter lifespan for Earth. My reasons for this are complex and supported by a lot of subjective evidence. I'll save all that for another post. I do hesitate to put an exact number on the age of the Earth, however.
To answer the question, "Where did we come from?" I think the easy answer is, simply put: God created us. However, that answer certainly doesn't make any connections between what we know about the paleontology and history of early humans. I think most rational people would agree that the Bible is a historical document, to say the least, and among historical documents, it is among the most complete as far as a description of the origins of humanity and it is the certainly the most widely believed among historical descriptions of our origins. Not to mention the Son of God accepted it as history (see Matthew 10:15, 12:40-41, 19:3-6, and 24:38-39; Mark 10:3-9; Luke 4:25-27, 11:50-51, and 17:28-32; John 3:14, 5:45-47, and 6:32-49; etc.). Following Jesus' example, I use the Bible as if it were a historical document.
I find it interesting that little attempt to rationally tie fellows like Homo erectus and H. neanderthalensis with known history were made until 2012. A great article was written for Answers magazine that year (Snelling & Matthews 2012) which explained these extinct species within the framework of a biblical history. It was a very interesting article and I encourage you to read it here. Generally speaking, I agreed with this article. However, there was some disconnect between the nations that stemmed from Noah's sons, ancient people like Homo erectus, and later peoples like those in early Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Before the tower of Babel, people were primarily accumulated in one place. This means that the nations described as stemming from the sons of Noah must be in a general sense, and not in the distinct, immediate segregation that we usually think of. This would also mean that racial distinction did not arise among people until after the tower of Babel. Assuming that people did not spread around the earth before Babel, Homo erectus must have arisen after this time (their fossils are very widespread). So all the people of Babel must have been of an H. erectus, or earlier, form. Only after this, as fossil evidence indicates, did forms like H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens arise (see note about evolution). These differences were probably due to adaptations caused, largely, by the isolation of different populations (founder effect). With the assimilation and disappearance of neanderthals, Homo sapiens pushed on to diversify into ancient history as we know it, from the Egypt to Babylon, to Israel. This theory makes sense in light of all historical, paleontological, and archeological considerations except one.
The lifespans and chronologies found in the Bible indicate that many of the first people off Noah's ark, such as Noah's sons, were still alive when the earliest "civilizations" were taking root. Apparently, people like Shem, who are presumably of a pre-erectus type, could have met with Abraham, an essentially modern H. sapiens. How could so many distinct human forms, requiring many, many generations, diversify so rapidly under the shadow of their still living forefathers? It is possible that the Bible records the ages of exceptional family lines, possibly obtaining extraordinary ages because of their closeness to God. However, it is unlikely that the thousands of generations presumably needed to develop H. erectus into H. sapiens would fit into the lifespan of a few hundred years.
Because this seems to be the only potential problem with the theory, it seems likely that many generations did pass while the patriarchs lived on, enjoying their long lives. Also, the presumed number of generations may not be necessary as isolations of populations can result in very rapid diversification in a matter of just a few generations. A combination of these two possibilities certainly seems to provide a justification of the explanation presented by Snelling and Matthews in their article and until a better explanation presents itself, I hold to this one.
Would you agree? Leave a comment for me below or on my google+ page with your opinion and the reasons for it. Were H. erectus exploring the world before Babel? Are there gaps in the genealogies of the Bible? What do you think?
Note: I have avoided the word "evolution" in this paper because of the nature of many of those who will read this. Many Christians have an aversion to the word because acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution, as it applies to the origin of all life from a common ancestor, conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. However, the principle of evolution as change, adaptation, and diversification among species is an observational aspect of biology that few can deny. Additionally, humans evolve just like any other living thing would, though I have chosen to replace the word with substitutes like "adapt" or "arise." Some people may be offended by the concept of human evolution because of the deep philosophical attachments that bog it down in secular thinking.
References:
Ham, Ken. 2006. "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?" The New Answers Book 1. Ken Ham (general editor). Master Books, Inc.: Green Forest, AR.
Snelling, A. A., and M. Matthews. 2012. "When did Cavemen Life? Finding a Home for Cavemen." Answers 7(2): 50-55.
Origins
A look at natural history, evolution, and philosophy from my Christian perspective.
Saturday, 16 January 2016
Saturday, 18 October 2014
Ice Age
Introduction:
Most secular geologists agree that the Ice Age took place about
2.5 million years ago, as Earth’s temperatures slowly declined and glacial ice
caps began to accumulate at the poles. On the contrary, many Christians believe
that the Bible is very clear; the Earth is only about 6000 years old.
Unfortunately, there is no space within this Biblical timeline for giant
glaciers to accumulate the way many geologists and climatologists say they did.
Accumulating at the rate they appear to today, deep time seems inevitable.
Evidence:
There is ample evidence that an ice
age took place. Giant deposits of rocks, boulders, and other debris are left
piled up where the glacier that had entrapped them melted away. Solid granite
bears the scars of these massive chunks of rock and ice ground overtop of its
surface. Whole communities of giant mammals left their fossils in caves and tar
pits across the continents. Some have even been found entrapped within the
hardened layers of permafrost in the Russian tundra. The evidence for an Ice
Age is so abundant that no one with a degree in the natural sciences denies
that it took place. However, the presumption of long eons of time, a belief
necessary to remain in step with the prevalent Neo-Darwinian thinking of the
day, does not always suit the evidence. For example, no theories with
significant evidence have emerged to suggest what might cause 30% of the
continents to freeze.
Interestingly, there is a viable
mechanism for the Ice Age, but it is not found in popular scientific
literature. Rather, the Bible seems to have the answer. In Genesis chapter 7
describes a catastrophic flood that covered the entire globe with water. It
describes water gushing from the core of the Earth, an indication that there
was severe geologic activity. With so much water vapor and ash from these
super-geysers and volcanoes trapped in the atmosphere, the sun’s rays would not
be able to have the affect on the world’s climate that it once had. As Earth
began to cool, the water began to condense and fall as snow. With a mechanism
like the global flood, the cores of ice found in glaciers could have been at
maximum extent within 500 years after the flood. It would seem that the
evidence is better in favor of a younger Earth than commonly believed.
The Bible does not specifically
mention an Ice Age, but that is understandable since most Biblical events take
place far below the reach of glacial influence. However, the book of Job was
written about 500 years after the flood, when the Ice age was likely reaching
its climax. Snow is remarkably rare in the Middle East today, but God speaks to
Job about snow and ice in chapter 38, verses 29 and 30, as if that righteous
man were very acquainted with such weather. It is not too unlikely that Job was
familiar with snowy days in winter.
Conclusion:
The Bible claims to be the words of the Creator. Jesus
himself, the namesake of the Christian faith, recited from ancient Biblical
passages as if they were reliable facts. If the Ice Age really did take place
millions of years ago, it would undermine the claims that Jesus and the Bible
make about Scripture’s reliability. The Ice Age, however, is no reason to doubt
the Bible. While those who hold to unbiblically long ages sweat over hypotheses
to explain Ice Age mechanisms, those with a Bible-based timeline can rest easy
that the words of God provide an obvious answer. Perhaps the book of Job,
written about 500 years after the Flood, was referring to the Ice Age in
chapter 38, verses 29 and 30.
Reference:
Oard,
M. 2006. “Where does the ice age fit?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book, pp. 207-219. Green Forest, AR: Master Books,
pp. 207-219.
The Global Flood and the Geological Column
The
geological column has long been recognized as a potential problem for
creationism. The seeming progression from superficially more “primitive”
organisms to creatures considered to be “higher” on the evolutionary tree of
life has puzzled creationist scientists into a state of debate and divergence. Theories
abound. Some creationists caution against using the geological column at all
(Woodmorappe 1999 and Reed et Froede 2003), but the various fossil-bearing rock
formations, such as the Scollard Formation in Saskatchewan, clearly represent
differential ecosystems and the successive layers, where they can be seen,
demonstrate at least some form of transition in faunal species. How do these
distinct ecosystems, captured in geological formations around the world, fit in
with a Biblical framework of history?
Creationists use secular names, like
Mesozoic or Devonian, to reference strata that are normally used by secular
scientists to reference ages (in hundreds of millions of years). However, for
ease of use, creationists retain the names as they apply to those particular
layers in the geological column, without regard for secular dates. Most
creationists do not accept a age of more than about six thousand years for the
age of the Earth.
The Pre-Flood Boundary: Upper Mantle
Where the global Flood should begin in
geology is not as hotly debated as where it should end, but it is still an
important question. Geologist Max Hunter hypothesized that the natural cause,
used by God, of the global Flood’s onset was the temporary lowering of the
Earth’s gravitational constant, causing the melting and differentiation of the
mantle (among other things). Additionally, he tied this frame of thought in
with the decreasingly popular Canopy Theory, which states there was a layer of
water suspended above the atmosphere and acknowledges the hypothesis of a
rainless pre-Flood world. With all these assumptions in mind, Hunter believes
that even the uppermost layers of the mantle, above the transition zone, are Flood-formed
(Hunter 2000). However, most creationists now believe that it is primarily
sedimentary layers that should be attributed to the Flood.
The Pre-Flood Boundary: Middle Precambrian
In an extensive study of the geology of
Israel, geologist Andrew Snelling concluded that the onset of the Flood, at
least in that country, correlated with a major unconformity in the center of
supposed Precambrian strata (Snelling 2010). This disrupted layer, separating
two very different kinds of rock, show clear signs of catastrophic, volcanic
activity. He notes that these trends are also analogous to strata of the same
secular age in North America. Even more recently, Snelling and microbiologist
Georgia Purdom indicate that fossil stromatolites, confirmed to be biotic, were
possibly growing by day three of the creation week (Snelling et Purdom 2013). Indeed, in light of Snelling’s
meticulous research on stromatolite growth and Israeli geology, it seems fairly
unlikely that Max Hunter’s excessively catastrophic model played much of a part
in Flood geology at all. Rather, the Flood very likely began during the
Precambrian, the most basal member of the geological column.
The Flood Deposits
Exactly how the floodwaters progressed
in biological effect on the earth in the inundation period of the Flood
remained almost completely unaddressed until the 21st century. Geologist
Kurt Wise noticed the correlation while studying coal formation (Wise 2008). He
recognized that the secular geological column, at least up to the Mesozoic
(dinosaur-bearing strata), correlated well with the shift of habitat from
marine to inland. To Wise, the majority of stromatolites were buried as the
continental edges collapsed during the earliest stages of the Flood. Cambrian,
Silurian, Ordovician, and Devonian sea life died in a similar way, buried as shallower
portions of the continental shelf collapsed. As the floodwaters progressed, they
soon broke down the “floating forest” swamp-life of the Carboniferous, the
coastal dunes of the Permian, and, finally, the inland regions, represented by
the Mesozoic. It is an amazing revelation; so obvious it is a wonder other
creationists did not recognize it before. But why should Wise stop at the
Mesozoic, the last layers dinosaur fossils are found? Why did he exclude the
Cenozoic, a predominantly mammal-fossil series, from his model? It seems Wise
assumed the end of the Mesozoic was the end of the Flood, a stance that is
surprisingly controversial.
The Post-Flood Boundary: Early to Late
Paleozoic
Creationists have, for the most part,
been supportive of the majority of the fossil record as Flood-deposited. Some
of the early attempts to define the post-Flood boundary by creationists are
very presumptive. In particular, the presence of animal tracks in sedimentary
layers was understood to be a serious challenge to a Flood interpretation. Paul
Garner and many other creationists propagated the idea that fossilized tracks and
nests could not have been formed during the global Flood, under the assumption
that floodwaters would obliterate them (Garner 1996 and Garner et al. 2003).
Thus, they concluded that the Flood must have ended at the Paleozoic (beneath
dinosaur-bearing strata) and Mesozoic junctions or even as deep as the Devonian
strata, where animal tracks are reportedly found. The idea that all sedimentary
layers above the Paleozoic has not been accepted well by many creationists
because it seemed to fail to take into account the immense amount of
sedimentary strata overlaying the Paleozoic deposits. In fact, creationists
have confirmed that certain formations, such as the Tapeats Sandstone, have
analogous layers in the United States and Israel (Snelling 2010b). Therefore,
most scientists agree that at least the majority of the geologic column was
formed during the global Flood.
The Post-Flood Boundary: Late Cenozoic
With a Paleozoic post-Flood boundary
doubtful, some authors concluded that all sedimentary layers were deposited
during the Flood, pushing the date to the opposite extreme in the uppermost
Cenozoic (Holt 1996 and Froede et Reed 1999). More contemporary articles have
agreed with this stance, including many published by atmospheric scientist
Michael Oard. By developing a set of criterion, such as sedimentation or
fossilization independent of the geologic column, Oard concluded that most
fossils were formed during the Flood, including many of those considered to be
from the Cenozoic layers (Oard 2007). But should the geological column be taken
so lightly? Oard’s desire to be uninfluenced by secular thinking may have
caused him to make a flawed assumption: no large catastrophes took place after
the Flood.
The Post-Flood Boundary: K/T
Possibly the most widespread theory on
the post-Flood boundary is that the Cretaceous (end of the Mesozoic)/Tertiary
(Cenozoic) boundary correlates roughly to the end of the Flood. This darkened
layer, conventionally believed to mark the place of a giant asteroid impact or
volcanic eruption, is commonly referred to the K/T boundary. One of the most
powerful evidences for a K/T post-Flood boundary is the distribution of the
geological formations. Many of the formations in the Mesozoic, under the K/T,
are distributed across multiple continents, while those in the Cenozoic, tend
to be more localized, a fact acknowledged even by proponents of a later post-Flood
boundary (Oard 2010a). But there are some serious objections to this
interpretation.
Michael Oard continues to be strongly
apposed to the K/T boundary as the end of the Flood. Oard believes that
widespread erosion and volcanic activity evidenced in Cenozoic layers means
they must have been deposited during the Flood (Oard 2011). In particular, Oard
annually discovers examples of uplift in Cenozoic strata (Oard 2012, Oard 2013b,
Oard 2013c). However, the uplift of these regions, demonstrated by the slant of
the sediments exposed on hillsides, could still be explained as a post-Flood
event. In each of Oard’s articles he seems to assume that the world returned to
a tranquil sate relatively rapidly after the Flood. Both late Cenozoic and K/T
proponents agree that the Flood, being a worldwide event, was amazingly
catastrophic. One of the prominent after affects of the Flood would be
continental unrest, involving much volcanism, and perhaps uplift. Catastrophic
erosion would also be expected in the years after the Flood since large inland
lakes, restrained by natural dams, broke free (Snelling et Vail 2010 and Oard
2000).
Another question brought up by Oard is,
if the Cenozoic is post-Flood, why are mammals primarily absent from supposed Flood
deposits (Oard 2010b)? This question is not unanswerable from the K/T
proponent’s perspective, though. For example, the Bible clearly portrays people
in abundance before the global Flood but no human fossils are found in Mesozoic
or Paleozoic layers. Perhaps the ecosystems hosting mammals were concentrated
in only a few locations, like humans, and did not chance to be in favorable
location for fossilization (such as a mountain top). Indeed, creationist
paleontologist Marcus Ross observed clear biological succession of the kinds of
animals present in each layer in North American Cenozoic strata (Ross 2012). He
noticed that each successive formation contained, primarily, the same mammal
genera as the layer below it. However, in each successive layer, there were a
few new genera that had been absent in the underlying strata. This progressed
to the point of nearly completely contemporary genera in the uppermost layers,
indicating a clear succession of environments into the present. This is
powerful evidence that the Cenozoic is not, in fact, attributable to the global
Flood, which describes all life dying off, but, rather, the colonization of the
planet just prior to the Ice Age. Michael Oard published a rebuttal of Ross’
paper (Oard 2013a) but used essentially the same arguments he has since the
early 2000s.
Proponents of a K/T post-Flood boundary
often recognize the clear climatic changes throughout the Cenozoic layers as
the earth reputably became cooler, approaching the Ice Age. However, Oard
points out that evolutionists make such claims of progressive climatic change
for Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata as well. The environmental objection has a
simple explanation, though, since Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata tend to be more
geologically disrupted, the evidence often quoted for climatic change in those
layers is not nearly as substantiated as for the Cenozoic.
The Post Flood Boundary: Mantle
Some creationists carry the idea of
paleobiotic succession even farther, suggesting that the geologic column
represents a succession of ecosystems that developed progressively after the global Flood (Robinson 1996).
However, proponents of that view are faced with similar problems as secular
scientists, such as the worldwide distribution of certain geologic formations. Additionally,
the vast extent and depth of the geological layers in some places means additional
time to the age of the Earth, beyond the exegetical six thousand, needs to be
invoked. Because of that many advocates of the Recolonization Theory do not
take the Biblical genealogies absolutely literally and extend the age of the
Earth to around twenty thousand years.
Conclusion
Creationist
scientists have postulated many theories on how the geological column should be
considered in light of Biblical Flood geology. Exactly how lithology correlates
to the global Flood is a very inexact science, since it was not observable.
Ultimately, every geologic formation should be analyzed independently and
creationists should never presume that the Flood correlates exclusively to any member of the secular
geological column. Creationists should be cautious accepting secular
conclusions, such as the geologic column, paleofaunal succession, or climatic
change.
There are two
primary creationist views on the post-Flood boundary. Atmospheric scientist
Michael Oard has written consistently and extensively, arguing for a late
Cenozoic post-Flood boundary and demonstrating many evidences that do point to
certain Cenozoic formations as Flood deposits. However, paleontologist Marcus
Ross has recently begun to publish convincing arguments for an end to the Flood
closer to the K/T boundary. Therefore, in light of Ross’ paleontological
analysis of genera in the Cenozoic and the habitat distinction between pre and
post K/T boundary, the end of the Mesozoic likely correlates at least partially
to the end of deposition stage of the Flood. Both Oard and Ross have arranged
excellent perspectives on the geological column and either one is a logical and
absolutely possible explanation for the geological column. The location of the
post-Flood boundary is certainly not “set in stone.”
References
Froede, C.R., Jr. and Reed K.J. 1999.
“Assessing creationist stratigraphy with evidence from the Gulf of Mexico”. Creation Research Society Quarterly
36(2):51-60.
Garner, P. 1996. “Where is the
Flood/post-Flood boundary? Implications of dinosaur nests in the Mesozoic”. Technical Journal 10(1):101-106.
Garner, P.A., M. Garton, R.H. Johnston,
S.J. Robinson, and D.J. Tyler. 2003. “Dinosaur footprints, fish traces, and the
Flood”. Technical Journal
17(1):54-59.
Holt, R.D. 1996. “Evidence for a late
Cainozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary”. Technical
Journal 10(1):128-167.
Hunter, M.J. 2000. “The pre-Flood/Flood
boundary at the base of the earth’s transition zone”. Technical Journal 14(1):60-74.
Oard, M.J. 2000. “Only one Lake Missoula
flood”. Technical Journal
14(2):14-17.
Oard, M.J. 2007. “Defining the
Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 21(1):98-110.
Oard, M.J. 2010a. “Is the K/T the post-Flood
boundary?—part 1: introduction and the scale of sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 24(2):95-104.
Oard, M.J. 2010b. “Is the K/T the post-Flood
boundary?—part 2: paleoclimates and fossils”. Journal of Creation 24(3):87-93.
Oard, M.J. 2011. “Is the K/T the post-Flood
boundary?—part 3: volcanism and plate tectonics”. Journal of Creation 25(1):57-62.
Oard, M.J. 2012. “The Uinta Mountains and
the Flood: part I. Geology”. Creation
Research Society Quarterly 49(2):109-121.
Oard, M.J. 2013a. “Geology indicates the
terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic”. Journal of Creation 27(1):119-127.
Oard,
M.J. 2013b. “Surficial continental erosion places the Flood/post-Flood boundary
in the late Cenozoic”. Journal of
Creation 27(2):62-70.
Oard, M.J. 2013c. “The Uinta Mountains
and the Flood: part II. Geomorphology”. Creation
Research Society Quarterly 49(3):180-196
Reed, J.K. and C.R. Froede Jr. 2003. “The
uniformitarian stratigraphic column—shortcut or pitfall for creation geology?”.
Creation Research Society Quarterly
40(2):90-98.
Robinson, S.J. 1996. “Can Flood geology
explain the fossil record?”. Technical
Journal 10(1):32-69.
Ross, M.R. 2012. “Evaluating potential
post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary”. Journal of Creation 26(2):82-87.
Snelling, A.A. 2010a. “The geology of
Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 1. The
pre-flood rocks”. Answers Research
Journal 3:165-190. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_pre-Flood.pdf
(accessed October 10, 2014).
Snelling, A.A. 2010b. “The geology of
Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 2. The flood
rocks”. Answers Research Journal
3:267-309. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_Flood.pdf
(accessed October 10, 2014).
Snelling, A. and G. Purdom. 2013. “Survey
of microbial composition and mechanisms of living stromatolites of the Bahamas
and Australia: developing criteria to determine the biogenicity of fossil
stromatolites”. Answers in Depth 8. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/survey-of-microbial-composition-and-mechanisms-of-living-stromatolites-of-the-bahamas-and-australia-/
(accessed October 9, 2014).
Snelling, A.A. and T. Vail.
2010. “When and how did the Grand Canyon form?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book 3. Green Forest,
AR: Master Books, pp. 173-185.
Wise, K. 2008.
“Sinking a floating forest”. Answers
3(4):40-45.
Woodmorappe, J.
1999. Studies in Flood Geology: A
Compilation of Research Studies Supporting Creation and the Flood. El Cajon,
CA: Institute for Creation Research.
Saturday, 4 October 2014
Midwest Natural History
Various skeletons representative of the Ice Age fauna grace the halls of the Chicago Field Museum. |
I’ve only visited the state of Indiana
once in my life—and that for ten weeks. Due to the length of my stay and the
nature of my travels, I felt sufficiently acquainted with the land to deeply
contemplate it’s past. Usually I reserve such intimate deliberations for
moments when a warm campfire casts reflections on my eyes, and certainly I was
able to experience that in Indiana. But I think it is the broad connection of
the region to other areas like Wisconsin and Minnesota that prompted a feeling
of liberty to delve into the region’s dark past.
My purpose in the Midwest this summer was
not one of lay apathy and leisure; rather, I had come to assist the University
of Notre Dame in their brave attempts to reduce the human impact on the North
American Continent. Everything in nature is interconnected in some way,
including human society. Ecologists like Gary Lamberti, David Lodge, and
Jennifer Tank have long recognized such interrelation among living things and
places and it was my pleasure to work with them as an intern. The changes they
were able to initiate through their efforts are certainly worthy of
recognition.
Between accompanying the virtuous members
of Dr. Tank’s lab on field trips and the outings of the students into the
surrounding countryside, I was soon becoming reacquainted with familiar faces from
my last visit to the Midwest, some four years ago. Between my duties as a
stream ecologist, I went wading through the wetlands, spying on the turtles,
teasing hog-nosed snakes, and bird watching on Lake Michigan’s cobblestone
shore. The call of Cardinalis flooded
my mind with nostalgia; summer days at Grandma’s house in Wisconsin. A slough
near the campground where I was staying rang with the breaking strings of a
multitude of banjos: Rana clamitans.
I spent hours roaming the lakeshore for those amphibians as a child. However, I
really began to contemplate the history of the land, the geological shifts and
ecological transfers over time, when I visited the Field Museum in Chicago.
The museum itself had dedicated nearly an
entire floor to Earth’s history. The halls were adorned with spectacular
examples of Charles R. Knight’s paintings and mounted skeletons and model
dinosaurs brought the exhibits vividly alive in my imagination. However, the
entire exhibit had been constructed with an atheistic mindset. One exhibit
read, “See what 50 million years of evolution can do.” I looked, but couldn’t
see what 50 million years of evolution had done.
Naturally, the Christian naturalist is
skeptical of popular thinking in science. After all, most of the information
researched and portrayed in secular, public institutions is performed from a godless
perspective. Fortunately, Christian’s are of an older sort of naturalist—before
Mr. Darwin—inclined to praise the Creator for his handiwork. It is
unconventional, but it hones the evidence into a manageable form, closer to
truth. But I digress.
Looking up into the massive head and jaws
of Sue the Tyrannosaurus rex at the
Field Museum, I couldn’t help but envisage what sort of ecological succession
had taken place in the state. Of course, on a Biblical timeline, fossils likely
only fall into one of two categories; those formed during the global flood
described in Genesis 6-9 or after it. I was surprised to discover that the only
fossils in Indiana that seem to be from a time before the global flood are
reflective of marine sediments, primarily invertebrates, their shells preserved
in the limestone.
It is hard to say exactly what the
midwestern part of North America, part of a supercontinent at that time, was
like before the flood. After all, there is such a diversity of ecosystems
preserved around the world, and the distributing affect of the floodwaters so
poorly understood by anyone, all one can say with any confidence is that those
fossilized organisms really did live on the biosphere at some point in the
past. Obviously, I need to put a whole lot more thought into the topic of
sedimentology if I want to get an accurate picture of the world before the
flood. As to what happened after the
flood, a more detailed story emerges.
The Midwest really only become the Midwest
after the flood. Before that, North America didn’t exist as a continent, more
than likely. The flood left Indiana and the rest of the planet stripped of
life. It would have been a very alien looking world. Using evidences seen
around the continent today, the change that underwent in the Midwest over the
last 4000 years can be catalogued with some accuracy:
Barren ground stretched as far as the eye
could see. From space, the grey earth looked something like it does today—but
not exactly. The continents were slightly ajar and their cores were littered
with giant lakes. A particularly massive body of water loomed near present day
Arizona. East of the Rocky Mountains, alive with the smoke of volcanic unrest,
the sky would have reflected on the giant lakes dotting the place we would one
day call the Great Plains. About 4,400 years ago, it looked more like the Great
Lakes were a worldwide feature. But those particular lakes didn’t appear to be
on North America’s face at all.
The air of this empty earth was absurdly
humid. The sky was darkened with moisture and ash from spastic volcanoes.
However, the life God created to inhabit this earth is tenacious. Within the first
year, green smears appeared. By around 4,300 years ago, full communities of
plants were flourishing and some of the smaller, more prolific creatures had
been spreading out from the Middle East.
But North America wasn’t devoid of animal
life, even at this early stage. The storms raging around the globe reflected on
the recently violent past, but amid the tossing waives of those early lakes a
flash of silver appeared in the water. Some intrepid creatures survived the
brutality of the global disaster that raked the world of life. Adapted to
aquatic lifestyles, a variety of fish were stranded in dark, muddy pools across
America. These warm, humid environments took on a shape more like the African
Congo than temperate America, as the plant and animal communities adapted.
In a moist swath of land from the Midwest
to the coasts of Washington and British Columbia, the abundance of lakes
produced a lush forest. Some of the first colonizers, like the fish trapped in
the lakes by receding waters, would have been familiar to Americans. Gar,
bowfin, perch, sunfish, and catfish species witnessed the arrival of land
animals, moving in from Europe and Asia via a land bridge across Greenland.
Aquatic invertebrates also survived the global flood, with many species of
worms, clam, and snail beginning to flourish in the lakes. Unfortunately, many
of these pioneers never made it into the present. Skates went extinct in North
America, even after they’d survived the global flood.
Not surprisingly, insects took hold of the
new land quickly. Turning over a log or walking near a streamside in what would
one day become Washington would reveal a micro-community essentially the same
as those today, including spiders, dragonflies, damselflies, grasshoppers,
beetles, mosquitos, butterflies, moths, wasps, bees, ants, and many other
familiar faces. The air was alive with the buzz of countless insects. Frogs,
salamanders, crocodiles, lizards, and snakes moved into their perspective
ecological niches as well, but most of these were species unfamiliar to us.
Turtles, in particular, flourished in the ideal lake-riddled habitat. Birds
weren’t as common as some of the smaller, more adaptable creatures, but
flamingos, owls, hawks, cuckoos, rails, and curlews found the new watery world
to their liking. There were a few stranger birds as well, like the six-foot
tall, mega-beaked bird Gastornis.
While some of these scaly and feathery
creatures lived on in other parts of North America, the mammalian fauna was nearly
completely unique. Brontotheres, massive tusked ungulates with heads ornamented
in horns and growths, soon arrived to rule as the largest animals of their day.
Many other strange hooved creatures, like tapirs, also stepped lightly through
the forests. The most common predators were the creodonts, a diverse group of
mammals that, thanks to their ability to spread and diversify rapidly, filled
the ecological niche of the carnivores we see today. Unfortunately, as time
progressed, these lakes began to drain and dry. The shifting unrest of the
continental shelves made life difficult. Eventually, nearly the entire fauna
died out and their ecological niches were replaced, as the land grew more open.
With the
disappearance of the first colonizers, more familiar faces began to take a hold
in the drying lake belt. True carnivores, like cats and dogs, replaced the
dwindling creodonts. Horses, camels, and rodents replaced the more bizarre
tropical creatures of earlier days. However, the pig-like oreodonts, sometimes
called “ruminating hogs,” proved more tenacious, living alongside their more
modern neighbors before any large grazers moved to replace them.
A little farther south in the lake belt,
little three-toed horses grazed alongside a variety of small rhino and camel
species and burrow-digging land beavers occupied before the days of prairie
dogs. The monstrous entelodonts, like overgrown, steroidal warthogs, terrorized
the smaller animals with their looks, if nothing else. Before long, horses had
diversified into about a half dozen genera and camels and deer were keeping up
as new habitats opened the door for new species. One deer even had saber teeth,
its relatives living on in Asia today. The strange bear-dogs, which looked as
their name suggests, hunted many of the herbivores. Among the birds taking
advantage to the more open landscape were crowned cranes and secretary birds,
both now limited to Africa. At 4,200 years ago, the Serengeti had come to America.
In reality, the Midwest was far overdue
for a shift to more contemporary faunal styles. The eastern coast already had a
good community of baleen and toothed whales. The southeast had alligators,
already developing into forms that looked much like their modern counterparts.
Other reptiles included familiar snake families and turtles so like those
living in the east today that they have been given the same names: painted
turtles, box turtles, snapping turtles, and sliders. Among mammals, shrews,
moles, weasels, badgers, rabbits, and rodents had already made themselves at
home alongside the stranger camels, horses, tapirs, rhinos, peccaries, and
sloths.
Larger new arrivals appeared in the south,
discreetly migrating down from the northern land bridge, apparently.
Saber-toothed cats, shovel-tusked elephants, and short-faced bears were a
foreshadowing of days to come when things would get even larger.
As massive eruptions of the restless earth
continued to influence constant succession of ecological communities, the west
was soon following suit to the east. Raccoons, cats, dogs, and pronghorn
antelope joined the dwindling members of the older inhabitants. Mastodons and
beavers quickly joined the train, outnumbering the old warm-weather creatures,
and no wonder; the climate was cooling. Trees on the growing plains were
switching over to classics of temperate conditions. Oaks, sycamores, maples,
gingkoes, and elms dotted the plains. Many would remain staples of North
America into the future.
Something big was coming. The land had
grown dry. The humidity and warmth were fleeing southward. Lakes shrunk and
dried into desert basins. Water had faded from the land—but the ocean didn’t
rise. The water was building up somewhere else.
The global flood had created an environmental
time bomb. All the humidity and moisture in the air following the flood had
given the world the false impression that things would return to the warm
tropical climate of ancient times. However, all the volcanic activity caused by
shifting continents during and after the flood had filled the atmosphere with
debris and suspended water. The hazy skies were a warning that the sun was not
able to do the warming prescribed to it. The moisture was finally falling, but
not as rain on parched plains. Snow was turning Canada white.
As the world began cooling more quickly,
mastodons increased their range and more modern varieties of horse and camel
replaced the little three-toed species. Voles, beavers, and other modern
rodents became mainstream. Carnivores, like the bone-crushing dogs and dirk
tooth cats, completely replaced creodonts and other ancient carnivores. In the
Midwest specifically the mammals were still strange to modern faunas, including
rhinos, dogs, short-faced bears, and peccaries, the smaller inhabitants of the
modern Midwest, like leopard frogs, had basically been established.
Along the coasts, as far south as Baja
California, walruses and fur seals were hulling up on the beaches. By 4000
years ago, the Ice Age was in full swing. Unfortunately, the impenetrable
glaciation of the north swept down into the Midwest and prohibited Ice Age life
from inhabiting the barren white sheets of ice. However, there were some
pockets, caused by hot springs and geography, were Ice Age creatures found a
foothold. As always, the invertebrates held on through the cold. Clams, snails,
and slugs moved slowly around pools of warm water emanating from the springs.
Some smaller animals like mink, ferrets, prairie dogs, voles, moles, coyotes,
wolves, camels, oxen, and lamas populated the shrubbery, but glaciers weren’t
the only giants of this time. Megafauna ruled as the aptly named colossuses of
the interglacial plains. Giant short-faced bears, over twelve feet tall, took
advantage of weaker animals as two species of mammoths aggregated by
waterholes.
When the earth finally returned to a more
normal climate, the Midwest was restored to open plains. Interestingly, it
wasn’t kept that way by purely natural causes. As trees started to encroach on
the plains, some creatures found their preferred prey becoming more rare,
moving west. One species in particular would not stand by to watch the plains
encroached upon. It was the first time the environment in North America was
impacted by humans. They started fires on purpose.
Over the years, new cultures infiltrated
the Americas. As megafauna died off, early Americans developed new ways of
life. Distinct tribes of people began to become established around 3500 years
ago and 500 years later, people, divvied up into various territories, occupied
the whole continent. Megafauna, with the exception of bison, grizzlies, and a
few others, went extinct from the increased territorial pressure. Around 2000
years ago, most of the tribes that early explorers would encounter had formed.
While farming in the Americas started nearly 3000 years before European
settlers arrived, the Midwest natives’ farming of land probably didn’t start
until only 1500 years before westerners saw corn for the first time. But when
they did, around 500 years ago, the newfound food was irresistible. Within a
mere 350 years or so, the entire Midwest, with the exception of a few pockets,
had been engulfed in western culture’s insatiable appetite.
Naturally, I feel fairly strongly that
mankind’s negative effect on the natural history of the Midwest should be
reversed, but there seems to be little chance of that happening anytime soon.
Extinction and change, even man-made change, have been a part of our changing
planet since the beginning. In essence, anything negative that happens to
nature is directly or indirectly caused by the evil of humanity. After all it
was Adam’s sin that brought a curse on nature, and it was mankind’s wickedness
that brought the global flood. Not surprisingly, sin is again become very
commonplace in our culture. Lets be careful that we don’t execute God’s judgment
for him through abuse of the planet.
Saturday, 12 July 2014
A Reminder About the Perspective of My Posts
For the most part, I merely assume my
audience for this project is composed of fellow creationists. Therefore, I do
not often delve into the good, solid evidence for creationism, a young earth, or a global flood. I just take it for granted most of the time. However, I wouldn’t want to leave anyone hanging if they wanted to know some of
the reasons a growing number of people are adhering to creationism. Here are
the links to some of the leading groups doing research on these areas, calling
the old theory of evolution into question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)